Besides website blocking, which is gradually spreading all over the world, targeting the domain names of pirate sites is considered to be a somewhat effective anti-piracy tool.

For years, copyright holders and local enforcement authorities have reached out to domain registries and registrars, asking these companies to terminate sites for alleged copyright infringements.

In addition, Hollywood’s MPAA also struck voluntary deals with companies in the domain name industry, to suspend the domain names of infringing sites. While these agreements are criticized by some outsiders, the participating parties appear to be happy with it.

Recently we learned of a relatively new voluntary agreement that also targets pirate domains, but not for copyright infringement.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance’s (IIPA) latest submission to the US Government explains that Hollywood’s MPA has a voluntary agreement with the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) and India’s Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP).

Under this agreement, which has been in place for a while, copyright holders can report “pirate” sites with an .IN domain. Not for copyright infringement, but because they used false Whois data to register the domain in question.

“In 2017, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) agreed to a voluntary arrangement with DIPP and NIXI to suspend infringing websites based on false whois information; it focused on domains in breach of statutory and contractual obligations to maintain accurate and complete whois information,” IIPA writes.

As far as we know this deal hasn’t been made public until now. However, it is seen by copyright holders as an effective anti-piracy tool in addition to site blocking.

“This [agreement] has led to disruption of dozens of websites in India and should be considered an additional enforcement tool to traditional enforcement or site blocking,” IIPA notes. 

The ‘false Whois’ suspensions are not the only domain name actions taken in India. The relatively new Maharashtra Cyber Digital Crime Unit (MCDCU) is also taking action against pirate sites, which resulted in suspensions of more than 200 domains.

The Digital Crime Unit has taken a page from the City of London Police, reporting sites that are suspected of crimes to various domain registrars.

“In addition, since 2017, the MCDCU has suspended 203 domains impacting approximately 160 million users accessing these sites per month. In conjunction with fighting to suspend these domains, convicting those involved in content theft is also under the MCDCU’s jurisdiction.”

It’s unclear how many domain registrars rejected the suspension requests from the Digital Crime Unit. A few years ago we revealed that most domain name registrars refused to suspend domains based on a mere accusation from the City of London Police.

In addition to domain suspension, the Indian unit was also involved in other enforcement actions. This includes including the arrests of four people in connection to a leaked episode of Game of Thrones last year, which was covered by news media all around the world.

IIPA notes that there is still plenty of improvement possible when it comes to copyright enforcement and anti-piracy actions in India. It is happy with the help from MCDCU and NIXI though and encourages these outfits to continue their “excellent work” suspending domain names.

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

Last week the European Parliament and European Council agreed on the final text of the EU Copyright Directive.

Supporters of Article 13 say this will lead to a better deal for the entertainment industries at the expense of Google’s YouTube, since it will have to obtain proper licenses for content uploaded to platform, while taking responsibility for infringing uploads.

Opponents, on the other hand, believe that the Article 13 proposals will be bad news for the Internet as a whole, since they have the potential to stifle free speech and expression, at the very least.

It’s important to note that Article 13 opponents come in all shapes and sizes, some more militant than others. However, last Friday the EU Commission took the ‘one size fits all approach’ by labeling every dissenting voice as being part of a “mob”, one groomed, misinformed and misled by Google.

Given that the Commission’s own Code of Conduct mandates that “both Commissioners and Commission staff are bound to act objectively and impartially”, the publication of the piece was a real surprise. That it also appeared to demean and devalue the public protests of millions of its own citizens bordered on the outrageous.

Proponents and opponents of any pending legislation should be free to undermine the position of their opponents by any legal, non-violent means, but this intervention by the EU seemed flat-out wrong. Taking sides in this way – even if the piece had been against Article 13 – is inappropriate at this stage of the game.

Before we published our report on Friday, a short discussion here at TF concluded that a record of the piece should be taken. None of us here believed it would stay up for long and it transpires that gut instinct was right. Visitors to the Medium page where the piece was published now see the following text;

The piece appears to have been removed (archive copy here) following a torrent of complaints on social media, with supporters of Article 13 incensed that they were essentially being told they hadn’t made up their own minds about the proposed legislation, but had become mindless zombies hypnotized by an insidious Google campaign.

Whether there is any truth to claims that Google is behind some kind of ‘bot’ campaign will be for future dissection but organizations like the EU Commission shouldn’t go around implying that voters are stupid. They’re allowed to think it (don’t we all to a degree?), but saying it is incredible.

Quite why this line was crossed is anyone’s guess but someone reasonably important sanctioned this piece and it would be nice to know who – and why.

What is even more bewildering is that the Commission is not sorry for what was written. The article was removed not because it was incorrect, but because the public apparently doesn’t have the capacity to understand it. Evidently, a simple update and clarification wouldn’t have been understood either, hence the deletion of the entire piece.

Mentioning SOPA in the same breath as Article 13 always raises hackles among entertainment industry groups because there are plenty of legitimate reasons why they want it to be forgotten. Now, seven years on, they might finally get their wish because what is happening now is arguably much more ugly. This could be the new benchmark, the new low.

Let’s be absolutely clear and honest here. In common with every political campaign in history, there has been misinformation on both sides of the Article 13 debate. In the middle, however, are genuine people who either want to protect their creative revenues or keep their Internet free and open.

The bias presented in the piece by the EU Commission undermined the credibility of all of them. It doesn’t need to be explained, it speaks for itself.

If the music industries and the EU want to take on the dominance of Google, then they should do so. If Google is found to have done wrong in this campaign, then it should face whatever is coming. That said, why do hundreds of millions of citizens have to be caught in the crossfire?

George Carlin said we should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Or was that the EU Commission, I forget now.

What i’m absolutely certain of is that it was David Brent, the world’s greatest living philosopher, who said that when we treat people greatly, they will show themselves to be great. I guess it’s a bit late for that now.

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

Several weeks ago, former BitTorrent Inc. executive Simon Morris published a series of articles on Medium, discussing his time at the company and thoughts for the future.

By any standard, his articles are absolutely first class and a must-read for anyone interested in the resilience of the BitTorrent protocol, decentralization, and how ‘breaking rules’ can create both winners and losers.

The third piece in the series raises an extremely important issue – that of initial intent when creating disruptive platforms or technologies.

Perhaps most notably and despite his technology facilitating the sharing and downloading of billions of dollars worth of content, BitTorrent protocol inventor Bram Cohen was never sued for his work. Cohen set out to solve the problem of transferring big files in an efficient way, there was never any talk of piracy.

The same can be said of BitTorrent Inc., which despite controlling uTorrent, the world’s most recognizable file-sharing client, has never been taken to court for its activities. Considering the scale of infringement that’s now accidentally associated with the work of Cohen and his now-former company, it’s notable – but not that surprising – that the lawyers have stayed away.

That didn’t happen by chance. Neither Cohen or his former company have ever advocated the use of their technologies for infringing purposes.

This valuable lesson, of not promoting a tool or service for illegal uses, should never be underestimated. Intent, as mentioned earlier, is almost everything. No matter if a product passes the test of having “substantial non-infringing uses”, incriminating statements made by its creator (even before a project even gets off the ground) can come back to haunt – indefinitely.

Regularly, on various online discussion platforms, technically gifted individuals report that they are about to launch a new torrent site, streaming service, app, or similarly functional platform. Invariably they explain their project’s progress thus far (sometimes with links to Github) and then seek opinions on what users might find useful in a finished product.

However, more often than not, they also shoot themselves in the foot by talking about piracy-related matters. While it’s undoubtedly useful to consider how the law might view such a platform in the future, very often the conversations step over the line, with the effect of forever associating the finished product with copyright infringement.

Admittedly, the odds of site/service/app operators getting sued are relatively small, given the large number of sites out there that continue to operate both blatantly and with impunity versus the number of lawsuits filed.

However, given the importance of intent, especially that which is made public in discussions when a project is getting off the ground, the chances of any subsequent prosecution being successful increases exponentially.

Given that people launching such sites and services must be pretty familiar with the hostile legal environment surrounding these platforms, it seems entirely counter-intuitive to state from the outset that the intent is to infringe, or at least assist others in their infringing activity. But herein lies the problem.

As Morris suggests, those who set out to break rules (disrupting big business or even governments with cryptocurrency, to take his example) essentially have two choices.

They can either do so without displaying ‘evil’ intent while throwing plenty of positive reinforcement into the mix (promotion of legal activity). Or they can do so anonymously, so a potentially incriminating past doesn’t catch up with them later.

While anonymity is an option for those intending to create piracy-focused platforms, it isn’t a simple position to maintain long-term, especially for those whose aim is to generate and ultimately enjoy revenue.

Also, not promoting a ‘pirate’ service for piracy purposes means that the intended audience won’t easily flock aboard to make the site or service a success, since there are so many competitors obviously doing so already.

So, while the headline of this piece states that ‘intent’ is almost everything, in today’s environment it could be argued that for prospective ‘pirate’ site operators, anonymity is even more important.

A third option, which is generally underrated, is obscurity – but that’s way too boring for those seeking notoriety on the high seas.

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

Streaming set-top boxes and IPTV services have been selling like hot cakes over the past several years.

While some of these offer access legally, that’s certainly not always the case. The unauthorized services are a thorn in the side of mainstream entertainment industry companies, which are trying hard to address the problem. 

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) has been particularly active on this front. The anti-piracy partnership between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies, has filed lawsuits against several services already, and this week they add a big one to the list. 

In a complaint filed at a Federal Court in California, ACE accuses the US-based company ‘Omniverse One World Television’ and its owner Jason DeMeo of copyright infringement.

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. 

“Defendants operate at a higher level in the supply chain of infringing content—recruiting numerous downstream services like Dragon Box into the illicit market and providing them with access to unauthorized streams of copyrighted content.

“Defendants function as a ‘hub’ of sorts, with the enlisted downstream
services as the ‘spokes.’ Omniverse’s offering is illegal, it is growing, and it
undermines the legitimate market for licensed services,” the complaint adds.

According to the official website, Omniverse includes more than 70 top US TV channels and 8 premium channels. However, ACE and its members allege that some of the channels are offered without proper licenses. As such, they are illegal.

“Omniverse’s illegal services, and the downstream ‘Powered by Omniverse’ entities, undermine the legitimate market for legal and licensed services, a harm that has grown as Omniverse has expanded,” ACE spokesperson   Richard VanOrnum informs TorrentFreak.

Omniverse’s owner Jason DeMeo previously insisted that his company had acquired the rights to stream some channels in the US. However, in an interview with Cord Cutters News, he was not willing to share any details on the underlying contract.

The complaint clearly disputes this, stressing that Omniverse and all “Powered by Omniverse” services are operating illegally.

“Plaintiffs have not granted licenses that permit Defendant DeMeo or
Omniverse to stream the Copyrighted Works or sublicense streams to whatever counterparty they wish,” ACE writes.

According to ACE, the public has plenty of options to watch movies and TV-shows through official channels, with 140 legal online services for film and TV content is the US alone. 

The movie, TV show, and distribution alliance is now asking the California court for an injunction to shut down the infringing service and impound all hardware. In addition, they’re requesting statutory damages which can go up to several million dollars.

MPAA CEO Charles Rivkin comments that lawsuits like this one are needed to protect the livelihoods of millions of people who depend upon a healthy film and television industry.

“I’ve seen firsthand how creators are economically harmed by piracy enterprises, which is why today’s ACE litigation – and the MPAA’s work helping make it happen – is another strong step forward protecting the rights of artists,” Rivkin says.

We also reached out to Omniverse for a comment on the allegations but at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back. The Omniverse website, meanwhile, remains online.

—

A copy of the ACE complaint against Omniverse 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