Google Opposes Mandatory Standard for Australian Takedown Notices


Last December the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released a preliminary report on its Digital Platform Inquiry.

One of the main recommendations it made was to create a mandatory standard for takedown notices to enable timely and effective removal of infringing content.

To make sure that digital platforms indeed implement this standard, the Commission said that these companies could be subjected to a $250,000 fine for each contravention.

“Making this mandatory code would ensure breaches could attract penalties under the Telecommunications Act,” ACCC wrote in its report.

Following the release of the report, various stakeholders were asked for their input. Over the past several weeks, dozens of responses were filed and it’s clear that a mandatory standard is not widely embraced.

Google, which operates a range of services that are subject to takedown notices, including its search engine and YouTube, warns that a new standard would be at odds with the well-established procedures in place around the world today.

“A Mandatory Standard would represent a significant departure from the globally accepted standard for issuing take-down notices that is relied upon by digital platforms, online service providers and content creators around the world,” Google writes.

The takedown procedures which are currently used in the UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea already require digital platforms to respond “expeditiously” to disable access to infringing content, according to Google.

Creating more strict requirements with the added threat of possible ‘fines’ could lead to censorship and may stifle innovation, the company adds.

“A more rigid standard with high fines for errors could incentivize automated censorship on an unacceptable scale and a curtailment of innovation and investment in alternative rights management approaches,” Google notes. 

The company further stresses that the comments from various copyright holder groups about the ineffectiveness of the current process are inaccurate. Google says that it presently takes a wide variety of measures to counter piracy, including automated removal of pirated content.

Many of these points were also highlighted in Google’s most recent overview of how it fights piracy. For example, the company stresses that it prevents certain piracy-associated keywords from appearing as autocomplete suggestions.

This is indeed true. Just last year Google added “Kodi” to its lists of banned words, which was quite a controversial move. However, according to some rightsholders, these autocomplete removals are far from perfect.

Village Roadshow CEO Graham Burke, who’s one of the most vocal Google critics, highlights this in his company’s submission to the ACCC. Roadshow believes that companies such as Google should go much further in their anti-piracy efforts.

“For example, Google’s search results could easily remove links to websites blocked by Australian courts as well as clean up autocomplete which is a fast track, easy way to piracy,” Burke writes. 

Village Roadshow’s submission comes with various screenshots showing how autocomplete suggestions still link to problematic content. For example, while “Pirate Bay” is banned, Google now suggests “Pirate Bays” related searches as an alternative which can be used to bypass ISP blockades.

Village Roadshow’s example

Village Roadshow’s CEO hopes that the ACCC will come up with additional measures to ensure that infringing content is swiftly removed and to ensure that Google and other platforms take responsibility for keeping illegal content off their services.

“The only winners in the current climate are pirates who are criminals because their business model is totally dependent on scamming and robbing people,” Burke writes. 

“They attract people with the promise of free first run movies only then through a multitude of paths to scam and rob them. Whether it by misrepresentation obtaining their contact details or ransomware,” he adds

Google clearly disagrees and it’s not alone in its criticism of the automated takedown standard. Twitter also objects to the proposal and AFR reports that StartupAUS also signals various problems. 

“If adopted, [the mandatory standard] would result in a scheme that implemented a take-down mechanism without the accompanying safe harbour that provides the incentive with which to cooperate – essentially, it is all stick and no carrot,” the startups warn. 

Interestingly, various copyright holder groups are not happy with it either, albeit for other reasons. Music Rights Australia, for example, recommends removing the proposal for a mandatory takedown standard, noting that a DMCA-style system won’t work

“A one size fits all solution like a US style Notice and Takedown regime will not be effective or efficient. For example, a US style notice and takedown regime would be ineffective to stop an illegal stream of a live concert on a social digital platform.”

Similarly, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) believes that the proposal doesn’t go far enough either.

“MEAA believes that much greater effort is required by digital platforms to act promptly in response to copyright owners’ requests to remove unauthorised content from their sites,” the group writes.

Based on the wide variety of responses it’s clear that there isn’t unanimous support for the proposal from either side. A full overview of the responses is available on the ACCC’s website. 

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Russia Holds Talks to Enshrine Landmark Anti-Piracy Agreement into Law


Dealing with the flood of infringing content placed on the Internet for public consumption is a key aim of rightsholders around the world.

In both the United States and Europe, this is largely tackled via a notice-and-takedown regime, whereby copyright holders file complaints and hosts, search engines, and other platforms respond by removing content.

Under huge pressure from rightsholders, last year a ground-breaking agreement was reached in Moscow, one that would see much tougher measures to deal with the problem in Russia.

The voluntary agreement – signed by major rightsholders, Internet platforms, and search providers – aims to create an ever-growing centralized database of infringing content to enable web companies to take down media and links both quickly and efficiently.

Signatories who host and index content are expected to query the database regularly for designated content and links while deleting the same from their sites within hours.

It isn’t yet clear how complete the database is, or which companies are already interfacing with it, but it’s understood that the participants are now conducting takedowns broadly in line with the agreement.

The memorandum is valid until September 1, 2019 but the plan from the beginning was to make the arrangement a legal obligation by writing its terms into law. Plans for that are now underway.

Russian telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor reports that an “extended meeting” was held on March 6 with rights holders, search engines, and video hosting site operators in attendance. Also present was Roscomnadzor deputy head, Vadim Subbotin.

“The meeting discussed the most optimal version of the concept for the bill. Thus, the basis for the new legislation will be the provisions of the Memorandum of Cooperation in the field of protection of exclusive rights in the era of the development of digital technologies,” Roscomnadzor’s press office confirmed.

The plan is for the terms of the currently voluntary memorandum to be written into law before it expires on September 1, 2019. However, if an agreement cannot be reached before the anniversary of its signing, it’s suggested that the memorandum could be extended beyond its initial one-year term.

Channel One, the National Media Group, Gazprom-Media, the Internet Video Association, the Association of Film and Television Producers, Yandex, Rambler Group, Mail.Ru Group, vKontakte, and RuTube, are all signatories of the current memorandum.

“The memorandum lays the foundations for sectoral self-regulation within the framework of the execution of the ‘anti-piracy’ law. The document introduces a pre-trial procedure for resolving disputes between copyright holders and search engines regarding the illegal placement of links to pirated content,” Roscomnadzor re-emphasized this week.

Google did not sign up last year and there has been no clear indication that it intends to participate moving forward. However, there have been multiple suggestions that other companies and groups may be allowed to join the voluntary agreement, such as publishers, for example.

Should the memorandum be written into law as planned, it’s likely to be the toughest – if not the toughest – anti-piracy regime seen anywhere in the world. Add Russia’s site-blocking regime into the mix, and the country is on course to become a world leader in online infringement mitigation.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Omniverse Counters ACE’s “Reckless” Piracy Lawsuit, Says It’s Fully Licensed


Last month, several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix filed a lawsuit against Omniverse One World Television.

Under the flag of anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Omniverse and its owner Jason DeMeo of supplying of pirate streaming channels to various IPTV services.

Omniverse doesn’t offer any streaming boxes but sells live-streaming services to third-party distributors, such as Dragon Box, HDHomerun, Flixon TV, and SkyStream TV, which in turn offer live TV streaming packages to customers.

According to ACE, Omniverse offered these channels without permission from its members. As such, the company was branded a pirate streaming TV supplier.

Omniverse swiftly refuted this claim in a statement to TorrentFreak. The company said that it supports anti-piracy efforts in general but didn’t go into detail about ACE’s allegations or the licenses it has.

That changed this week. After being repeatedly branded as a pirate service, Omniverse CEO Jason DeMeo provided further details to Lightreading. The company is completely legal, he said, backed by an unprecedented licensing deal that was signed decades ago.

“Everyone is framing me as some sort of pirate… when I’m 100% compliant with what I’m supposed to do,” DeMeo said.

The licensing deal in question was obtained by a company called Hovsat, which is linked to the US-based real-estate company Hovnanian Enterprises. According to DeMeo, the agreement was signed by Hovsat in the early 90s for the duration of 100 years. Such a long term was required to allow home-builders to serve communities for decades to come.

Aside from the long duration, there apparently are no geographical restrictions either. And with IPTV still being a pipe dream in the early 90s, that wasn’t excluded either. The only requirements in the agreement are linked to copyright protection in general.

The existence of such a deal was already hinted at by DeMeo months ago when he was questioned by Cord Cutters News. Although Hovsat was not named then, Omniverse already used it as a tag on Twitter more than a year ago.

While it’s clear that Omniverse believes that it’s doing everything by the book, a coalition of ACE rightsholders clearly disagree, as their lawsuit shows. Also, DirectTV, whose logos appear on some Onmiverse broadcasts, clearly states that its content can’t be licensed in this manner.

So, it appears that the lawsuit between ACE and Omniverse may be different from traditional ‘pirate’ lawsuits. Based on DeMeo’s comments, the validity of the 100-year licensing deal will likely be at the center of it.

“I’m literally doing everything by the book,” DeMeo told Lightreading, describing ACE’s lawsuit as “reckless.” He further noted that his company makes sure that all its licenses are in order and that its distribution partners stick to the rules as well.

Omniverse and its legal counsel believe that the licensing agreement allows it to operate in this manner. This feeling was strengthened when it defeated cease and desist orders from companies such as Discovery Communications and Viacom.

“Fifty percent of the channels that I provide have already sent cease and desists, and we’ve won,” DeMeo commented. “They never went to court. We proved our agreements, and we passed.”

Until now, the joint venture between Hovsat and Omniverse was not made public but DeMeo said that his company pays all the required fees. Whether the licensing deal will indeed hold up will likely become apparent in the upcoming court battle.

While Omniverse has commented in public, it has yet to file a response to ACE’s complaint at the California District Court.

The lawsuit was initially assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer, who recused himself due to a conflict of interest. It was reassigned to Judge Christina A. Schnyder, who also recused herself stating that she has a financial interest in one of the parties, before being handed over to Judge Dolly M. Gee.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Canada’s New Anti-Abuse Copyright Notice Rules Are Being Ignored


When Internet users download or share copyrighted content online, particularly using BitTorrent, they should presume that copyright holders are watching.

Transfers that take place without the protection of a VPN, for example, are easily traced back to ISPs, who have the ability to link that activity to a specific account, when asked to do so.

In many cases this results in an ISP forwarding an infringement notice to a customer on behalf of a rightsholder, to warn that an account may have been used to breach copyright. However, over the years some rightsholders (often referred to as ‘copyright trolls’) have taken things a step further by including demands for cash in their notices.

In Canada, where a so-called ‘notice-and-notice‘ system is in place, this wasn’t well received by the government. So much so that during December 2018, the law was amended to prohibit companies from sending notices containing the following:

(a) an offer to settle the claimed infringement;
(b) a request or demand, made in relation to the claimed infringement, for payment or for personal information;
(c) a reference, including by way of hyperlink, to such an offer, request or demand;

“Such notices are deemed to be invalid under the regime,” government advice reads.

Unfortunately, however, copyright holders are ignoring the new law.

A notice sent by Eastlink, an ISP headquartered in Halifax, Canada, to one of its customers and reviewed by TorrentFreak, reveals a copyright holder breaching every single rule detailed above.

Filed by anti-piracy outfit Digital Millennium Forensics, on behalf of Elevation Pictures, the notice claims infringement of the 2015 movie ‘Into The Forest’. It lists the time and date of the alleged infringement (in January 2019) along with the alleged infringer’s IP address.

What follows is a wall of text, citing various laws and “recent amendments to the Copyright Act, which came into force on November 7, 2012” outlining the rights of Elevation Pictures and warning that the company could seek to unmask the subscriber through the courts, “should this matter remain unresolved.”

Of course, like all such companies, Elevation Pictures doesn’t want to take the matter to court. What it really wants is money.

“In order to help avoid legal action, we have been authorized by Elevation Pictures to offer you a settlement opportunity that we believe is reasonable for everyone,” Digital Millennium Forensics writes.

That offer, of course, clearly breaches rules (a) and (b) detailed above but the notice soon creeps ever closer to a full house by breaching rule (c) too.

“To access the settlement offer for this claim, you have until [a date three weeks after the notice was issued (redacted for privacy reasons)] to visit the provided URL and complete the settlement instructions,” it reads.

TorrentFreak obtained written permission from the Eastlink customer to access the provided URL. Below is a redacted version of the offer to settle, which is clearly in breach of the new government guidelines. (Note: TF has redacted the dollar amount too since it is very specific indeed and may identify the subscriber. However, we can confirm it is between CAD$250 and CAD$300)

A clear demand for cash, contrary the government’s wishes

It’s no surprise that both copyright holders and anti-piracy companies are failing to respect the terms of the new regime. There are no penalties for sending non-compliant notices, so there’s no incentive for copyright holders and their agents to follow the rules.

Furthermore, while there is no obligation on ISPs to forward non-compliant notices, that is clearly happening at Eastlink. The ISP does inform its customers that any notices falling foul of the rules (a), (b), or (c) are invalid, but sends them anyway.

This is problematic. Not only will some people feel pressured to pay up whether they’re the infringer or not, the notice seen by TF contains references to the “Copyright Act, R.SC, 1985″, and “(i) the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, (ii) the Universal Copyright Convention, (iii) bilateral treaties with other countries including Canada, and/or those copyright laws and regulations as cited herein.”

Legal jargon such as that highlighted above is not easily understood by the layman and can be difficult to comprehend without professional legal advice. It’s not unexpected, therefore, to find recipients who are overwhelmed by notice that simply shouldn’t have been sent.

TorrentFreak wrote to Eastlink asking why clearly abusive notices are being forwarded to its customers. Jill Laing, Head of Public Relations & Media, informed us that the volume of notices being received presents a problem for Internet service providers.

“The federally regulated Notice and Notice regime has resulted in ISPs receiving millions of such notices a year, which presents significant challenges for operators to filter,” Laing said.

“While we are compliant with the federal government’s legislation, we have and continue to provide clear communication to our customers that these specific types of notices are not valid. We fully support and encourage government and industry initiatives that would prevent copyright holders from sending invalid notices such as these.”

While it can indeed be reasonably argued that the government’s recent amendments go some way to dealing with the issue, the loopholes are clear to see and, as predicted, are now being abused by rightsholders.

Late last year, a coalition including Canada’s major ISPs called on the Government to create a standard for copyright infringement notices. This would make it easier to handle the massive volume of notices. In addition, the companies asked for a meaningful deterrent to stop those who breach the rules.

TF asked Eastlink if it had ever told complainants that sending abusive notices is unacceptable. We also asked whether the company would consider not sending abusive notices to customers in the future. We received no response to either question.

With the loopholes in the new rules clearly being exploited, notice recipients should be aware that the government offers the following advice:

“The Notice and Notice regime does not impose any obligations on a subscriber who receives a notice, and it does not require the subscriber to contact the copyright owner or the intermediary.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Pirate “Aquaman” Release Suggests iTunes 4K May Be Breached


Pirated copies of movies appear online every day in a variety of formats, such as CAM, DVDRip, WEBRip, and Web-DL.

The latter, which usually come from streaming and download services such as Netflix, Amazon, or iTunes, have proven to be a reliable source for pirates over the years.

While most releases are nothing unusual, a 4K Aquaman release that came out this week was received with cheers and surprise among pirate film fanatics. 

The title, “Aquaman.2018.2160p.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.HDR.HEVC-MOMA,” suggests that this is a 4K release that was decrypted directly from iTunes. This is something that has never happened before with a 4K WEB-DL. 

The pirate release appeared online shortly after it was listed for sale on iTunes, so the timing would fit. Also, there are no 4K releases of the film on either Netflix or Amazon at the moment, meaning that it didn’t come from those services. 

The release immediately sparked rumors that iTunes’ 4K protection may have somehow been cracked or breached. If that’s the case, then many more high-quality releases could follow in the future. 

“Looks like MOMA managed to somehow decrypt 2160p iTunes,” one commenter noted on a popular torrent site, with another adding that it’s “amazing news because there’s a lot of 4k iTunes-only content out there.”

TorrentFreak reached out to Apple for a comment and more background information but at the time of publication, we have yet to hear back. 

From the release…

While this would be the first ever 4K WEB-DL from iTunes, it’s too soon to jump to conclusions. Some have suggested that the release could somehow be mislabeled.

We can’t rule anything out but since the 4K digital version is not widely available, there are few other possible sources. In addition, the release has been posted by reputable sources who are certainly not known for making stuff up.

There is currently a 4K release available on Vudu but the pirate version was uploaded before it went on sale there. A source who has experience with the matter believes that it most likely comes from iTunes, as advertised. How, exactly, remains a mystery, but there may be a vulnerability in Apple’s tvOS. 

“Apple has 4k only on Apple TV running tvOS. I assume they skipped checks, if the device is jailbroken, and someone just dumped the encrypted stream and decrypted it via what’s in memory as keys,” says our source, who prefers to remain anonymous.

If iTunes is indeed breached then Apple will likely do everything in its power to patch the hole as quickly as possible.

“I’m pretty sure Apple will react fast and block it via updates because they don’t have to keep compatibility with any devices like the iTunes desktop version,” our source adds.

Whether that’s the case or not, the release has already created plenty of buzz, and pirates are dreaming of many more 4K iTunes releases like this one.

“Maybe we will be able to get the 007 catalogue off iTunes? In any way, exciting times!” a commenter on Reddit notes. 

While we were writing this article two other 4K Web-DL releases appeared online; “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”

These are internal releases from the group DEFLATE and could trace back to iTunes as well.  The bitrate and channel layout for the Spider-Man release certainly seems to suggest so, our source says.

To be continued.

More…

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Former Pirate Party Leader “Trolls” Authors to Push Traffic to eBook Site


Activists associated and allied with the many variants of the Pirate Party worldwide are regularly painted as hardcore Internet pirates.

It’s not hard to see why given the Party’s history, but that’s certainly not the full picture.

Today’s Pirates, of which there are many flavors around the world, are just as likely to lobby in favor of transparency, privacy, free speech and anti-corruption, as they copyright reform and free sharing of information.

But while the former topics are now the focus for many, others are still very much interested in the latter. Take Travis McCrea, the former leader of the Pirate Party of Canada, for example.

Back in 2011, when McCrea was just 21-years-old, he launched Tormovies, a now-defunct torrent site designed for the sharing of movies. Speaking with TorrentFreak at the time, McCrea said he had zero intentions of backing down in the face of opposition. It now transpires that eight years later, he has similar things on his mind.

One of McCrea’s latest ventures (he describes himself as an entrepreneur) is the eBook site, Ebook.bike. Unlike most official eBook platforms offering premium content, everything is without cost to the user. Simply by navigating to the site, choosing a title, and selecting a convenient format, books are downloaded for free with zero DRM.

However, it seems pretty clear that McCrea doesn’t have licenses for the content being offered. Perhaps that’s why the site, according to SimilarWeb stats, is currently receiving more than a million visits per month. While this is great news for McCrea (who previously told us he has both American and Canadian passports), authors and publishers everywhere are extremely unhappy.

Opposition to the site (and its predecessor TUEBL) has been sizzling away for some time now but during the past few days, more and more authors have been attacking McCrea on Twitter over what they see as blatant copyright infringement.

Their position is that the site has no authority to publish their work. McCrea’s position is that his site is an upload platform – much like YouTube – which is protected under the terms of the DMCA. If they want content taken down, they should file a DMCA takedown notice, he says.

At the same time, however, McCrea – in his own inimitable style – admits he has been deliberately provocative on Twitter in response to complaints, something that hasn’t gone down well with authors who’ve found their work uploaded to his site.

McCrea isn’t shy to admit why he’s been behaving the way he has on social media. In what appears to be an honest post, he says that it’s been all about driving traffic to his site.

“Lot’s [sic] of anger, and I’ll admit I am responsible for fanning the flames. The honest truth is trolling you gets you to post links of my website to your fans and we have hit 10K additional unique visitors this week… however, I am realizing I should be more compassionate,” he wrote.

If attention is what McCrea wanted, he’s been successful. An article published on The Bookseller has Joanne Harris (MBE), the author of the award-winning novel Chocolat, calling for publishers to relegate McCrea’s site to history.

“We need to get the site taken down and publishers need to do something about it. It’s certainly possible to do,” Harris said.

“The music industry has done this successfully for many years. But big publishers are sometimes not very quick to pick up on new developments. They need to learn from the film industry and the music industry and be very muscular.

“People say pirate sites are like mushrooms, you take one down then one pops up somewhere else. I can’t help thinking there actually needs to be a court case and a precedent set.”

The author’s stance is receiving plenty of support. The piece indicates that the Society of Authors has filed a copyright infringement complaint with McCrea’s webhost, with publisher Hachette UK refusing to comment on “specific legal actions” but promising to continue its fight against book piracy.

But despite McCrea’s previous connections with the Pirate Party of Canada, he claims his site is in place to help – not hinder – authors.

“Imagine a world where authors can make money by giving digital versions of their books away to their readers, and readers could explore all sorts of books that they may have never even considered reading before. In a nutshell, this is Ebook Bike, the Ultimate Ebook Library,” the site’s promo page reads.

McCrea says his platform is based on the idea that when people are favorably exposed to authors’ work, they go on to become good customers, buying physical copies of books while promoting the same content to friends and family. He also says that his platform has more to offer.

“We want to give authors even more though, so we provide analytics to authors who want them so they can learn where their users are coming from and other useful information which they can then use to target book sales, advertise, and market themselves more effectively. We also have user feedback, so authors can learn what people like and don’t like in their writing,” he adds.

McCrea claims that his site has “1,500+ confirmed partner authors” who are “excited about bringing change to the way people consume their books.”

While that may very well be the case, those authors are not currently making themselves known on social media, or perhaps they’re simply being drowned out by the opposition. McCrea did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

“Legal Product Everywhere” is Best Defense Against Football Piracy


Dedicated fans of top-tier soccer (or football, as it’s more widely known in Europe) who don’t attend matches generally have to pay for the privilege to watch on TV.

In many countries, the only options are expensive ones, which can be reason enough for some to bypass the system altogether and turn to piracy. But even those who can pay the prices aren’t always offered what they need.

In the UK, for example, the 3pm Saturday ‘blackout’ means that some of the most important Premier League games ever played simply aren’t available to the public on TV as they happen. As a result, Saturday afternoons now feature a secondary game of finding a pirate stream online in order to watch something that isn’t legally available on home turf, at any price.

The Premier League tries to combat this activity in collaboration with local ISPs via ‘dynamic blocking‘ but while this has had some effect in the past, anecdotal evidence on dedicated piracy forums suggests that pirates have begun to adapt, so this is having only a limited effect.

While several big leagues in Europe would also like to have these kinds of blocking tools at their disposal, it’s blatantly obvious that they can’t compete with piracy if they aren’t offering customers what they want legally. It’s a sentiment shared by Arne Rees, executive vice president of strategy for Germany’s powerful Bundesliga.

“One of the best defenses against [piracy] is certainly having legal product everywhere,” Rees said, as cited by SportsVideo.org.

“If a fan simply can’t get you, their mind-set is, I want to watch it, and, if only a pirated stream is available, they will justify that.

“At the very least. we have to create an environment where legal product competes with the illegal product. The legal product will always be the better product,” Rees added.

This isn’t to say that legal football content isn’t available to fans already.

Bundesliga matches are broadcast to more than 200 countries around the world, as are matches from the Premier League. However, licensing deals mean that fans are almost always restricted in some way, either through prevention of watching key matches live, or even having access to them at all.

For example, TV 2 – Norway’s largest commercial television broadcaster – has had the rights to show Premier League matches since 2010 and last year struck a new deal which extends to 2022.

The company doesn’t want to reveal how much it paid this time around but for the preceding three years paid around NOK 1.9 billion (around $220m). Nevertheless, it still has a piracy problem and it’s mostly about availability.

In 2019, TV 2 has the rights to show 205 matches, which is around half of those actually played. This means that when crunch matches appear in the other half, hooked fans must either miss out on the action, or turn to piracy.

A report by Aftenposten last month detailed how fans were shut out of the key match between Everton and Manchester City so turned to pirate streams instead. Sarah Willand, Communications Director at TV 2, said the company understands the dilemma faced by fans.

“We would be happy to broadcast all the matches so that people see everything from the Premier League,” Willand said.

“I therefore understand people’s frustration, it’s annoying not to be able to watch their favorite team on TV when you have a subscription.”

Of course, companies like TV 2 are countering by warning consumers that unlicensed services offering matches are illegal, which is correct. However, claims that subscription IPTV services – the main competitor to legal offerings – are dangerous (viruses etc), are at best speculative and at worst, completely untrue.

Apart from being available at a very cheap price (easy when you don’t have to pay for content, of course), what these subscription services do (very effectively) is cut through all the red tape. Prohibitive licensing deals are completely ignored, so fans in Norway get all the matches. Fans in the UK get ‘banned’ Premier League matches on Saturday afternoons.

This is achieved by cherry-picking football content from all over the world. Premier League content that isn’t shown on a Saturday afternoon can be available in Canada, for example. Matches that aren’t available in Norway might be available in several other regions, on several different channels. So, the IPTV providers scoop them all up, to ensure that fans can watch all the matches, wherever they are.

This, of course, is completely illegal and to some extent probably hurts the earning potential of the various leagues around Europe and their broadcasting partners. However, it’s clear that the companies involved have the power – if they so choose – to solve this problem by offering all content, to all people, wherever they are, at a fair price.

Given the tangle of licensing agreements across dozens of regions, this is much – much – more easily said than done, few people will argue with that. But the cold, hard truth is that most fans don’t care. If they can’t get matches legally (and particularly if they already have an underperforming subscription service), many will feel justified turning to the high seas.

And it doesn’t matter how ‘clever’ blocking gets either.

A little over a month ago, a person in charge of a licensed premises quickly showed TF an IPTV service offering HD streams of Premier League matches (on a Saturday and all week, for that matter) for £2 per month – along with more than 6,000 other channels too.

The only motivation for this person to buy this package was access to 3pm Saturday football, on top of an already expensive Sky subscription that only offers just over 120 matches per season, which is 85 matches less than Norwegian viewers get on TV 2. Why should that draw any understanding from UK subscribers?

Now, via this cheap IPTV service, the person we spoke with finds he can watch all matches and has no need for the Sky package either – talk about counter-productive. Something really needs to be done because blocking is not going to solve this problem.

Make it available legally, at a fair price, everywhere. Or get eaten by pirates.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Court Sanctions Anti-Piracy Lawyer for “Willful Disobedience”


Two years ago, Strike 3 Holdings had never filed a single lawsuit, but today the company has thousands of cases on its record. 

These lawsuits were filed across the United States, targeting people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright infringing content via BitTorrent. 

In the case of Strike 3, this refers to adult videos which are made available via the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen websites. The company’s legal campaign has kept the courts busy and contributed to the record-breaking breaking number of piracy lawsuits that were filed last year. 

Many of these cases were handled by veteran lawyer Lincoln Bandlow, who’s a partner at the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP.  While the attorney, who’s also a visiting professor at USC, has plenty of experience it turns out that handling dozens of cases at once can be quite a challenge.

Last November, Bandlow was slapped on the wrist for failing to meet the court’s deadlines. The attorney explained that this was due to calendaring issues or incorrectly reading the court’s orders. He apologized and promised to take steps to prevent similar issues going forward. 

However, it didn’t take long before more deadlines were missed in two dozen cases at the Eastern District of California. This time the attorney forgot to submit status reports. Again, the court requested clarification, asking Bandlow why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for failing to follow its orders.

In this reply, Bandlow attributed the failures to a variety of reasons including technical issues such as an overactive email spam filter, as well as a lack of personnel over the holidays. The attorney also highlighted his track record by noting that he was never sanctioned in 25 years.

This reply didn’t convince the court. In an order issued last week, US Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney wrote that Bandlow’s excuses and explanations are unavailing, especially since he was already reprimanded just weeks earlier. 

The technological ‘issues’ are no excuse, the Judge writes, noting that people were already practicing law long before there were computers. 

“The practice of law predates the computer. Computer and technological problems do not justify failing to comply with court-ordered deadlines, especially under the specific circumstances of these cases. 

“Once Mr. Bandlow became aware of his technological problems, he could have—and indeed should have—manually calendared and tracked all deadlines,” Judge Delaney adds.

In addition, Strike 3’s attorney’s explanation that 19 out of the 24 cases with missed deadlines were the result of inadequate staffing, is both “unacceptable and inexcusable”. Especially since Bandlow explained that his law firm Fox Rothschild LLP employs 900 lawyers.

Taken together, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the attorney’s actions are not mere mistakes, but willful disobedience of the court.

“After he was reprimanded for failing to meet deadlines in related matters, Mr. Bandlow was on notice of problems with his calendaring procedure and he was explicitly warned to make sure that he properly calendared all future deadlines.

“Instead of doing so, Mr. Bandlow failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines twenty-four additional times. Mr. Bandlow’s conduct constitutes willful disobedience of court orders, which is tantamount to bad faith,” Judge Delaney notes. 

So, after 25 years of practicing law Bandlow now has his first sanction.  

Sanctions

The good news for the attorney is that the “bad faith” is not the worst of its kind. Also, the court believes that his apology is sincere. Nonetheless, this type of conduct is unacceptable, especially for an attorney with over twenty-five years of experience. As such, a $750 sanction is warranted.

While this amount can easily be recouped via a single settlement against an alleged pirate, it’s not good for one’s reputation. In any case, Law.com quotes the attorney saying that the $750 will be paid “immediately.”

Whether the massive volume of cases has anything to do with it is unclear. It wouldn’t be a surprise. However, Bandlow is not slowing down much in the new year and has already filed more than 100 new cases on behalf of Strike 3 in 2019.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney’s order is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Notorious ‘Copyright Troll’ Outfit Hands Over its US Operations to New ‘Joint Venture’


Every year, many thousands of BitTorrent users find themselves targeted for alleged copyright infringement.

Many will get a strongly-worded letter from their ISP asking them to stop downloading and sharing copyrighted content. Others, targeted by so-called “copyright trolls”, aren’t so lucky, since the letters they receive contain a demand for cash, if they are to avoid a costly legal process.

While the names of content owners are clearly listed in court documents as plaintiffs, there is an industrial-scale system run by a company called GuardaLey operating behind the scenes in many such cases in both the US and Europe.

Perhaps most famously, GuardaLey was behind the record-breaking The Hurt Locker and The Expendables lawsuits in the US but make no mistake, the company is the engine behind cases targeting many thousands of individuals all around the world.

GuardaLey (and close partners) provide the tracking data, business structure, and experience to enable these lawsuits to go ahead, actively monitoring file-sharing networks then approaching content companies with an offer to help generate revenue from alleged pirates.

Despite its scale, GuardaLey operates somewhat silently, rarely making the headlines itself. It was a surprise, therefore, to see a new announcement from the company that it had entered into a “joint venture” early February with American Films, Inc.

“This is a significant opportunity for American Films, Inc. given our team’s knowledge in the data and film industry, we bring great synergies previously unavailable to this territory and industry,” said American Films CEO John Carty.

The “joint venture” just announced is somewhat intriguing.

Firstly, American Films, Inc, “will own 100% of this joint venture company” which will “take over the USA” operations of GuardaLey. Secondly, given the name, American Films doesn’t appear to have any films, at least as far as its GoDaddy website-builder page shows.

“American Films Inc. is an emergent entertainment industry company focused on opportunities for equity investors,” its promo material reads.

“In an industry environment that is historically unfavorable to equity participation, American Films seeks to create alternative investment participation vehicles that provide necessary funding to appropriate projects while offering reasonable return on investment and mitigation of the significant business risks traditionally encountered.”

That said, according to Bloomberg data, “American Films, Inc. does not have significant operations” and was previously involved in a research project being “conducted at NYU relating to DNA Nanotechnology.”

Despite not appearing to have any experience in the file-sharing market, American Films (Pink Sheets: AMFL) will join GuardaLey in a joint venture that will work with an all-new “strong setup of prestigious law firms across the nation” to “provide education” to copyright infringers.

“The partnership with American Films will combine the resources of GuardaLey and American Films, to monitor peer-to-peer file sharing networks, search for illegally downloaded digital media files and provide the resources to enforce against repeat offenders,” said Joint Venture manager Tom Murphy.

It’s open to speculation why GuardaLey needs a partnership with American Films and why it would hand over 100% ownership of the joint venture to the company. Until recently, MarketScreener.com listed American Films Inc. as “a shell company whose sole purpose is to locate and consummate a merger or acquisition with a private entity.”

In 2017, American Films acquired social media platform Paloozoo in what was touted as a “tremendous opportunity to scale and to realize compelling synergies between our two company’s offerings.” Paloozoo.com is currently parked with GoDaddy and appears inactive.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Anti-Piracy Company Offers Advertising Deal to ‘Pirate’ Sites


In recent years copyright holders, with help from advertisers and other key players, have worked hard to cut off revenue streams to pirate sites.

The Trustworthy Accountability Group, an anti-piracy certification program operated by giants including Google, Facebook, Disney, and Warner, has been very active on this front, for example.

The basic idea behind this “follow the money” approach is that once the revenue sources of pirate sites dry up, their operators will eventually throw in the towel. While that may work on paper, DMCAForce appears to take the direct opposite approach.

The anti-piracy outfit, which works with a wide variety of clients including Dreamroom Productions, Liberty Media, and Udemy, is actively seeking cooperation with pirate sites.

Over the past several years, the company has regularly asked torrent sites, hosting platforms, and streaming services to remove content, and still does. But, in an email to the prominent torrent site LimeTorrents, DMCAForce also included a “revenue sharing” opportunity.

“DMCAForce recently launched a new way for File Sharing sites to work with content creators. Where you as the file sharing site can distribute their content for free, but in exchange provide the advertising space around the product,” the email reads.

“In the case of direct products, we can provide you affiliate tracking links, where instead of REMOVING the content, you can KEEP the content up, and we direct that user together back to the product on a commission basis,” the company adds.

The anti-piracy outfit explains that it has already made deals in the adult space. This worked well, with one of the producers currently generating $15,000 in advertising revenue per month from a single site.

“This has encouraged content creators to keep their content up and build a better relationship,” DMCAForce notes.

The operator of LimeTorrents, who’s not interested in the deal, was asked to reply within three days to find out how it can monetize the content. If not, the anti-piracy outfit said it would proceed with a regular DMCA takedown notice.

The revenue sharing program is fairly new. In addition to reaching out to file-sharing sites, DMCAForce also invites its clients to join the program.

“If you have a product you are selling, and want to ask these pirate sites to put advertising around your stolen content or replace the stolen content with linkbacks, we offer that as well,” DMCAForce informed its clients recently.

It’s quite unique for an anti-piracy company to offer a monetization option to what it sees as pirate sites. We, therefore, would love to find out more about the details of the program. Unfortunately, however, DMCAForce did not immediately reply to our request for comment.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by