Three new and highly anticipated TV Boxes are in promo sale over at GeekBuying! The X96 MAX, A95X Plus and Mecool KM9 are three new devices powered by an Amlogic CPU and running on Android 8.1 Oreo. They all are KODI 18 Leia -ready and will deliver stunning 4K UHD with no flaws.

Starting with the most budget friendly, the X96 MAX is starting at $39.99 when used with the coupon S905Y2 for the 2GB Ram and 16GB version. By using the same coupon you can get the 4GB RAM with 32GB local storage version for just $57.59. There is also a 64GB also available and always with a 10% off when using the same coupon. Powered by Android 8.1, an Amlogic S905X2 64bit CPU, an ARM MP2 GPU capable of VP9 decoding, Dual Band WiFi b/g/n/ac, Bluetooth 4.0, optical out, 1 X USB 2.0, 1 X USB 3.0, an SD Card slot and a Gigabit 1000M Ethernet port is offering all of the best you can actually need for a complete streaming and gaming Android experience.


Also powered by an Amlogic but the S905Y2 64bit CPU and Android 8.1 the A95X Plus comes with one model of 4GB of DDR4 RAM and 32GB of internal storage. You can get it for $49.99 with the coupon OETJQXXU which is really a great price, considering also the fact that it has just been released. It offers great features like Dual Band WiFi 2.4G and 5G 2T2R.11 AC. Very similar to the X96 MAX but it lacks of Ethernet Port even though you can always use a USB 3.0 to RJ45 adapter. Fully supports KODI 18 Leia and all the best of Android streaming and gaming.


Lastly, the Mecool KM9 always with the coupon code S905Y2 can be yours for just $62.99. Comes with 4GB of DDR4 RAM, 32GB of internal storage and is powered by Android TV 8.1. The SoC is composed by the Amlogic S905X2 and the Mail-G31 MP2 GPU, a perfect combo for 4K UHD HDR and HEVC 10 bit, voice remote, a smart breathing LED light that also changes colors depending on the function it operates and an excellent 2.4G/5G Dual Band WiFi. On the back of the device we find the DC in, the HDMI 2.0a, the 100M Ethernet port and an AV out. On the side a micro SD Card slot, 1 x USB 3.0 and 1 X USB 2.0.

Mecool KM9 Android TV

Three great devices and whichever you are gonna select they will offer a great Android experience! For more New Arrivals TV Boxes on sale visit the link:

In 2016, an article appeared in New Zealand media featuring a declaration from company boss Krish Reddy that his ‘My Box’ Kodi-powered Android devices were shaking up the content market.

His US$182 product enabled customers to access movies, TV shows and live channels for free, something that Reddy said was completely legal.

“Why pay NZ$80 minimum per month for Sky when for one payment you can have it free for good?” the company’s promotional material read.

Given this blatant taunt, SKY TV was prompted to respond. During 2017, the company took legal action against My Box and Reddy, claiming that his devices broke local law. The company sought a ruling from the Court under the Fair Trading Act that Reddy was making “misleading and deceptive” claims about his devices.

Early 2018, the Auckland High Court heard the case against My Box with Judge Warwick Smith reserving his judgment and Reddy still maintaining that his business was completely legal. The businessman claimed that sales were booming, with 20,000 devices sold to customers in 12 countries.

Now, however, Reddy’s claims have fallen apart. A ruling from the Auckland High Court states that his My Box devices cannot be represented as legal and that his device and others like it that receive unlicensed content are illegal.

“This decision, along with the recent ruling against Fibre TV boxes in Christchurch, sends a very clear message to New Zealanders that these services are not all they are cracked up to be,” says SKY General Counsel, Sophie Moloney.

“Essentially these boxes have been marketed and sold as legal options for accessing sports and entertainment for a one-off fee, when all they do is find and broadcast pirate streams.”

SKY says they were concerned that New Zealanders were being duped into buying the devices on the basis they were legally able to receive SKY content. Online forums were littered with complaints about the My Box devices, the broadcaster added.

“We took action against My Box and Mr Reddy under the Fair Trading Act, as we knew they were making claims to New Zealanders that were misleading and incorrect,” Moloney adds

According to SKY, around 5% of New Zealanders use piracy-configured devices like the My Box to stream pirated content for free. SKY says the decision of the High Court clears up any ambiguity and clarifies that receiving content in this manner is illegal.

“Fair-minded New Zealanders can now know the truth about these types of services and instead look to all of the legal services available online in New Zealand from the free apps of TVNZ On Demand and ThreeNow through to the subscription services of Netflix, NEON, LightBox and FAN PASS,” SKY notes.

While the ruling is welcome, this isn’t the end of the road for the case. A full trial is expected to take place early next year to determine damages but that process may not be entirely straightforward.

SKY says it doesn’t know precisely how many My Box devices Reddy sold, so it previously had to rely on public statements made by the businessman in the run-up to the case. The discovery process should yield more information that will allow SKY to formulate a more accurate claim, however.

While the case was brought under the Fair Trading Act, the High Court also determined that My Box and Reddy “communicated” copyrighted works to the public in breach of the Copyright Act, meaning that SKY is entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendants from making any further claims that My Box devices are legal.

That being said, SKY’s application for an injunction to prevent the promotion and supply of My Box devices failed, after the Court decided that such an application should have been sought under the Copyright Act. SKY said that its action under the Fair Trading Act was considered to be a quicker route to achieving its aims.

“In order to take action under the current Copyright Act, we (and other affected copyright holders) would first have to ‘establish copyright’ in each individual piece of content infringed by My Box. Doing so would have added layers of complication, cost and delay,” the company said in a statement.

“The Associate Judge upheld SKY’s approach by finding that the sale of My Box units, and using them to view copyright content, amounted to a breach of the Copyright Act, regardless of who owned the copyright. Accordingly, he made orders that include a final injunction preventing My Box and Mr Reddy from continuing to market the units as legal. This fulfilled SKY’s primary objective in bringing the legal action.”

In order to streamline similar cases in the future, SKY says local legislation should be amended to reflect the protections available under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

“A provision like this in New Zealand law would be helpful in cases (like My Box) where the infringing conduct affects a wide group of rights-holders and consumers. The Government is undertaking a review of the Copyright Act and we encourage them to include this matter in the scope of the review,” SKY concludes.

During April 2018, Reddy claimed he’d sold his company to a mystery Chinese buyer for an eye-watering US$8.8m. As a result, he said he’d close down his company and make his staff redundant.

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

This week, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office announced that it would be tightening the screws on Internet pirates, including site operators and end consumers.

In addition to examining tactics to disrupt pirate supply chains (by targeting app developers who provide tools to access infringing content, for example), the IPO underlined its support for site-blocking currently in place in the UK. However, to make things easier for copyright holders, the IPO is considering an administrative process that would enable blocking without need for a court injunction.

“Consider the evidence for and potential impact of administrative site blocking (as opposed to requiring a High Court injunction in every case), as well as identifying the mechanisms through which administrative site blocking could be introduced,” the IPO’s statement reads.

While there are plenty of people opposed to site-blocking in any form, the UK is already at the point of no return. So, with the support of the EU’s highest court, site-blocking isn’t going into reverse but caution should certainly prevail over where it goes next.

One of the biggest problems is a serious lack of transparency. While initial court orders have been made available over the years, new sites are added to the UK’s national blacklist without fanfare or announcements from rightsholders. This means that UK citizens are often left wondering why some sites are accessible and why others are not.

Currently, some ISPs in the UK display a splash page indicating that a site has been banned following an order from the High Court. However, for reasons that aren’t always clear, some sites just refuse to load, displaying SSL errors instead and leaving Internet users to try and connect the dots. It doesn’t always go well.

Sometime last Saturday afternoon, around the time that the Premier League begins its usual site-blocking action in the UK, TorrentFreak received messages that sites dedicated to providing proxy access to streaming and torrent platforms were being rendered inaccessible in the UK.

A site operator asked us whether his domain may have been targeted in the sweep. So, in the absence of any transparency, we answered truthfully – we have no idea. He noted that no matter what IP address he switched to, his site was almost immediately blocked. Even when Cloudflare IP addresses were deployed, those were banned too.

“I tried to switch Cloudflare accounts to get a new IP address but Cloudflare gives an error ‘this zone is banned’ when trying to add it. So it looks like they have restricted my domains to one Cloudflare account,” he explained.

“I then moved to the CDN DDoS-Guard and that IP got banned instantly. For a last effort I installed a VPN on the server so I could switch IPs instantly from a pool of thousands. But they just block them within minutes.”

While this seems to fit some of the techniques used by the Premier League, the problems didn’t go away when the matches finished, which is a requirement of the High Court injunction.

On Monday, long after the games were over, users were still reporting that several unblocking sites (including,,,,,,, and were inaccessible, with ISPs TalkTalk and BT highlighted more than most.

At least one of the sites lsted above attempted to change to a new IP address on Monday yet within minutes, it became blocked again. Another proxy,, also reported seeing UK ISPs blocking the site on the same day. That site was previously ordered blocked by the court (albeit under a different domain name) but this time around the platform’s Cloudflare IP addresses were reportedly targeted too.

One of the sites speaking to TF indicated that when using a TalkTalk connection, every site using the same Cloudflare IP address as his site – more than 160 – was being blocked by the ISP Tuesday. TF looked over the domains and only a handful appeared to be connected to piracy, which sowed further confusion.

Then, later that morning, a report in ISPReview indicated that TalkTalk might have been suffering from “DNS issues”.

“In the past [DNS] systems were fairly simple, although today ISPs are required to do all sorts of complicated filtering (blocking / censorship) of website content and sometimes things do go wrong,” the publication reported.

While a DNS ‘bug’ might go some way to explaining at least some of the issues experienced by TalkTalk users, our multiple contacts remained skeptical that this could explain all the strange blocking events over the previous few days. Something didn’t add up.

The mainstream will probably lack sympathy with those trying and failing to access or run unblocking sites and those in a similar niche, but there can be little doubt the events of the past few days show that, more than ever, there needs to be transparency when ISPs begin meddling with customers’ Internet connections.

Currently, there is almost zero transparency. Trying to get information on which sites have been added to court orders is almost impossible and the Premier League blocks, which are the most recent and aggressive, are shrouded in complete secrecy. Worst still, the ISPs – many of whom are happily cooperating with the football league – have a vested interest in keeping everyone in the dark.

That brings us to the issue of administrative blocks, that can supposedly order ISPs to render sites inaccessible without rightsholders ever having to go near a courtroom. What could possibly go wrong?

As mentioned earlier, it’s too late to put the site-blocking genie back in the bottle. However, what should be demanded is a transparent process. If sites are to be blocked, that will probably have to be accepted, but commercial interests shouldn’t be in a position to censor the Internet in the UK without being held to account when things go wrong.

One of our sources, who has been battling blocks since the weekend, sincerely believes that his recent issues are the result of an error, an over-blocking mistake that was only put right when users complained about ‘legitimate’ sites like Imgur being blocked too.

Of course, we’ll probably never know for sure, but a more transparent system should be a must if the government is to seriously consider allowing rightsholders and ISPs (and companies that are now both – Sky, Virgin, and BT, for example) to get together to censor the Internet.

After all, if blocking is as effective as entertainment companies claim, publishing what they’re doing shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever.

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

Earlier this year there was a massive uproar, bordering on full-blown panic, about Europe’s new privacy regulations.

The GDPR introduced thorough data protections for Europeans, which applies to all sites and services that serve European users.

Suddenly, tens of thousands of websites around the globe had to make sure that they weren’t crossing any lines with their data collection policies. As a result, people received a flurry of emails asking them to ‘update’ their email subscriptions, or agree to new terms.

While the mass hysteria has faded now, the fallout is still noticeable. The good news is that Europeans have regained some of their privacy online, but in some cases, this comes at an unexpected cost.

Several non-EU based websites and publications responded to the GDPR by simply blocking all EU visitors. And, after several months have passed, these blockades are still in place.

Europeans who try to access newspapers such as the NY Daily News or the Dallas Morning News are not getting in, and USA Today redirect them to a separate portal that offers a “European Experience.”

Even, which offers people a handy tool to unsubscribe from mailing lists, is off limits.

No entry for EU visitors

When stumbling upon one of these GDPR blocks this week, it raised a question. What will happen if the EU decides to implement Article 13 of the proposed new copyright law next year?

Article 13, also known as the ‘upload filter’ proposal, will require many large Internet platforms to make licensing deals with rightsholders, or implement measures to block pirated content on their servers.

These requirements are not limited to European companies. They will affect all larger websites and services worldwide that deal with user-uploaded content and are available in the EU.

“Copyright law, including the current version of Article 13, if passed, applies to all websites visible in the EU, so foreign ones may decide to geoblock because of this, yes,” the office of Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda informs us.

While it will be easier to hold European companies responsible in court, its scope is similar to the GDPR, which means that it will likely cause some uncertainty among foreign sites as well.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcick, for one, appears to be pretty concerned as we highlighted earlier this week.

“The proposal could force platforms, like YouTube, to allow only content from a small number of large companies. It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content,” she explained.

While it seems unlikely that YouTube would block the entire service for Europeans, especially because it already has some pretty advanced upload filters, Article 13 might spook other services enough to start geo-blocking. Especially if Europeans are a minority on the platform.

This may sound like unrealistic fearmongering to some, but is it really, if you look at all those sites and publications that still have their GDPR blocks up after months?

This type of self-censorship is not new either. Previously we have seen that several YouTube-ripping sites voluntarily blocked US and UK visitors, fearing legal repercussions from local rightsholders.

If Article 13 does indeed result in geoblocking efforts, it will ironically restrict access to content, much like the GDPR is restricting access to some information and services.

One significant difference compared to the GDRP is that, under the latest text, Article 13 will not apply to “small” sites and services. This means that services with less than 50 employees and a balance sheet not exceeding 10 million in annual turnover are excluded.

At the moment various EU bodies are negotiating the final draft of the proposal, which will make clear what’s at stake here.

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

Over the years we have covered dozens of piracy-related lawsuits, mostly from US courts. In many of these cases, defendants are foreign sites or services which don’t put up much of a fight.

That doesn’t appear to be true for the copyright infringement lawsuit a group of major record labels recently brought against Tofig Kurbanov.

Right off the bat, the Russian operator of the YouTube rippers and hit back with a motion to dismiss. Helped by a team of several prominent lawyers, he argued that the Virginia federal court lacked jurisdiction.

The record labels, including Universal, Warner Bros, and Sony, countered the motion last week, but this was quickly followed by a response brief from the defense team.

At this stage of the case, both sides are arguing whether the Russian site operator can stand trial in the US, Virginia in particular. The record labels said yes, noting (among other things) that the sites use domain names that are administered by the VeriSign and Neustar registries, which are both headquartered in Virginia.

In its reply this week, the defense team notes that this argument is not just silly, but the height of absurdity.

“Because the Court will be tempted to believe that Plaintiffs are simply making a silly argument – as opposed to a patently absurd one – Plaintiffs’ actual argument needs to be articulated,” Mr. Kurbanov’s lawyers write.

They explain that the record labels don’t argue that their client registered the domain names with Verisign or Neustar, which they would see as a silly argument to warrant jurisdiction. No, these registries ‘merely’ oversee the top level domains, .com and .biz respectively.

“Plaintiffs here instead argue that – even though Defendant’s Websites were registered through Arizona registrar – jurisdiction is proper in Virginia because Verisign, Inc. oversees the entire top-level .com domain and Neustar, Inc. oversees the entire top-level .biz domain.

“Currently, there are 137.9 million registered .com domains and an additional 2.25 million .biz domains. Under Plaintiffs’ theory, every owner of each of those 140+ million domains are subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia,” they add.


The defense argues that the site operator shouldn’t stand trial at all, but if the court decides otherwise, a transfer to a California federal court is requested. The labels objected to this as well last week, noting that it would be “less convenient” for all parties.

However, the defense has an interesting comeback to these arguments, noting that the labels themselves chose California for their case against YouTube-MP3, another stream ripper.

“Plaintiffs seem to have a touch of amnesia, forgetting that they brought a near-identical lawsuit two years ago in the Central District of California where they argued that jurisdiction was proper in part because, they alleged, that was ‘where several Plaintiffs are located and/or maintain substantial business operations’,” the defense writes.

In addition, they point out that several labels are located in California, as well as YouTube, several advertising brokers, as well as more visitors of the websites in question.

According to the defense, the only reason why the record labels would prefer Virginia is the so-called “rocket docket,” referring to the speedy resolution of the cases in that jurisdiction.

“Plaintiffs’ only (apparent) motivation for being in the Eastern District of Virginia is to take advantage of the Court’s rocket docket. The Visigoths are indeed at the gate,” the defense writes, ending with an ominous reference.

Both the site operator and the labels have listed a wide variety of arguments and counter-arguments to convince the court that they are right. At this point, it’s impossible to tell in which direction things will go, but the recent filings show that the Russian site operator is putting up a thorough defense.

The defense’s reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer to the central district of California, 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

For those unfamiliar with the service, JustWatch is a search engine that aims to direct consumers to legal options for TV shows and movies.

“We show you where you can legally watch movies and TV shows that you love. You are kept up to date with what is new on Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes and many other streaming platforms,” the company explains.

“Our simple filter system allows you to see only what is important to you. We also tell you where and when to watch movies on the big screen so you never miss when a movie is running in cinema again.”

TF covered JustWatch back in 2015 after the company acknowledged the negative effect Google’s “Pirate Update” had on torrent sites but somehow left streaming sites relatively unscathed.

Speaking with JustWatch this week, we asked the company if anything had changed over the past three years. Noting that a dedicated report will be out in the coming months, JustWatch says that it’s still unhappy with the situation at Google.

“We can already tell you that the situation (obviously) hasn’t changed much,” JustWatch Head of Growth Lise Le Petit told us.

“Google takes those illegal sites down regularly, but new ones pop up really fast and climb up in rankings pretty quick. In the end, there are as many pirate sites as 4 years ago swarming the Google search – they are just different ones.”

The big question, then, is what can be done? JustWatch says that instead of tackling problems once they’ve appeared in search results, Google should prevent sites from being indexed in the first place. And this where the controversy begins.

“Google could build up a Domain-Blacklist, which is owned/maintained by the MPAA in the US and Google, and would filter websites infringing on copyright,” Le Petit says.

“A company files against a whole domain and within a certain timeframe (2-3 weeks) all results of this website get deleted. We guess illegal sites won’t officially reply. The idea would be that instead of cleaning out single URLs, spammy domains would get flagged instantly as a whole.”

JustWatch doesn’t really believe such a thing will be implemented since Google “will never give away power over what they decide to show or not in their search result pages.” That being said, Google isn’t the only problem here.

A couple of weeks ago we reported how another search engine for legal content had experienced problems with wrongful DMCA notices targeting its domain. So, we wondered, might JustWatch be suffering the same issues?

A swift look at Google’s Transparency Report reveals that JustWatch, despite being entirely legal, is regularly targeted by anti-piracy companies. They write to Google claiming JustWatch is a pirate site and demanding that links are taken down from its indexes.

JustWatch – regularly and wrongfully targeted

The great irony here is that these companies end up taking down links to their own legal content, if Google lets their erroneous claims slip through. Worse still, even though Hollywood is being touted as a possible “blacklist” maintainer, plenty of movie companies and their business partners are wrongfully taking down links to a perfectly legal platform.

In a notice from March 2018, Disney demands that a JustWatch link to Zootopia should be removed. In fact, JustWatch was simply promoting legal platforms where people can buy the movie.

In another, Sony Pictures Worldwide attempted to take down a JustWatch link to the movie No Way Jose, which was advising people to buy the movie from Apple, Google Play, and Amazon, among others.

Amazon itself can’t escape criticism either. In a notice sent by its anti-piracy company to ‘protect’ the TV show Inside Edge on Prime Video, the company tried to take down a JustWatch page which was actually trying to drive sales to Amazon.

Is driving Amazon sales a crime? Apparently…

While JustWatch would like to see some kind of blacklist, the company understands the pitfalls. It believes that transparency could be part of the solution, in much the same way that Google’s Transparency report shines light on the often-messy DMCA takedown process.

“The major drawback we see is the risk of censorship for websites that do not suit the MPAA – which is why this is a pretty controversial topic – and it should be,” Le Petit says.

“Although, if there is the will to change, one could make such a list accessible and transparent (including its criteria) to the public – plus the option for everyone to file against entries, for example.

“In the end, the real question is whether leaving full control to the black hole that is Google is better than creating a blacklist that might be seen as censorship,” she concludes.

Just like rightsholders, JustWatch has a vested interest in seeing ‘pirate’ links disappear from search results since that elevates its own links towards Google’s front page.

That said, Google doesn’t seem keen to censor sites voluntarily but the world could get a glimpse of what that looks like fairly soon regardless, with Australia edging closer to approving legislation to remove blocked pirate sites from search results.

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

There are a lot of things people are not allowed to do under US copyright law, but perhaps just as importantly there are exemptions.

The U.S. Copyright Office regularly reviews these exemptions to Section 1201 of the DMCA, which prevent the public from ‘tinkering’ with DRM-protected content and devices.

These provisions are renewed every three years after the Office hears various arguments from stakeholders and the general public. This year, this process has resulted in some noteworthy changes

There was a major victory for the “right to repair” movement, as Vice points out, which gives the public more leeway to fix their own devices even if the means that they have to break DRM in the process.

In addition, there’s also an important update related to the preservation of abandoned games.

To preserve these games for future generations and nostalgic gamers, the Copyright Office previously included game preservation exemptions. This meant that libraries, archives, and museums can use emulators and other circumvention tools to make old classics playable.

However, these exemptions are limited and do not apply to games that require a connection to an online server, which includes the most recent games. When the online servers are taken down, the game simply disappears forever.

To address this, several game fans including San Francisco’s Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (The MADE) urged the Copyright Office to expand the DMCA exemptions to online games. And with the release of the new exemptions, game archivists gained some new freedoms.

The new exemptions will allow preservation institutions who legally possess a copy of a video game’s server code and the game’s local code, to break DRM and other technological restrictions to make these playable.

This type of “tinkering” is seen as fair use by the Government, which rejects critique from the major game companies who fear that this may hurt sales of the games they sell.

Part of the new exemptions (full decision here)

The MADE founder Alex Handy informs TorrentFreak he is happy with the decision but notes that there still is a long way to go before all games can be legally archived.

“While this exemption does not necessarily fix all the problems that are out there in the difficult realm of digital preservation, it is another step forward toward reforming our extremely restrictive digital copyright laws,” Handy tells us.

“We’ve gained a small victory that will help us save dead MMOs, provided, of course, we have been given the original server code by the owning entity. The exemption allows us to circumvent any DRM or other restrictions included in the game, or around it.”

The exemption process generally moves slowly but for game preservationists, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Handy notes that the Copyright Office put a lot of work into their review, but that it may not fully understand what’s at stake here.

Without proper exemptions to legally archive works, many games are at risk of being lost forever.

“When George Martin was asked why he hadn’t saved more Beatles outtakes and recordings, he responded that he didn’t know anyone would care about those things in the future,” Handy says.

“The same thing is going on in the games industry, and it is only very recently that most companies in the industry have begun to properly preserve their histories, source code and all.”

This was also illustrated by James Clarendon, software development manager at Amazon, during a hearing on the exemptions earlier this year. He worked for 2K Games in 2012 and was confronted with this problem when the company wanted to reissue their megahit BioShock after five years.

“The problem was, was that no archive of that game existed and nobody had actually put in the time to build an archive for that. We had to scour people’s machines, artists, engineers, everybody’s machines to find the missing pieces and put it back together,” Clarendon said, adding that they didn’t manage to reissue the full original.

The MADE says that it will continue work to widen the exemptions until all games can be properly archived. That will likely take a few more hearings, at a minimum, but they believe it’s worth the effort.

“The MADE is thankful for everyone who helped out in this project, including our friends in the industry, the folks at Reddit’s PCMasterRace and our lawyers from UC Berkeley,” Handy says.

A full overview of the Copyright Office’s final rules is available here (pdf). This also includes a new DMCA circumvention exemption for filmmakers to rip a DVD or Blu-Ray disc, beyond the documentary genre, although that remains limited.

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 year, American satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network targeted two well-known players in the third-party Kodi add-on ecosystem.

In a complaint filed in a federal court in Texas, the persons behind the ZemTV addon and the TVAddons library were accused of copyright infringement.

Following a confidential settlement, last month Dish Network dismissed its lawsuit against TVAddons founder Adam Lackman. However, ZemTV developer Shahjahan Durrani, Shani for short, remained at risk.

The UK-based Kodi-addon programmer initially planned to defend himself but had to give up this fight due to the high costs. As a result, Dish moved for a default judgment which has now been granted.

Without a proper defense, US District Court Judge Vanessa Gilmore agreed that Shani is indeed liable for the copyright infringements that were carried out through his addon.

“Defendant developed ZemTV and then distributed and supported it through [..TVAddons..], resulting in his unauthorized retransmission of the Protected Channels and causing injury to Plaintiff throughout the United States. Therefore, Defendant is liable for direct copyright infringement,” Judge Gilmore writes.

“Defendant engaged in these illegal activities for more than 16 months, despite having received Plaintiff‘s notices of infringement from his service providers and Tvaddons.”

Dish previously argued that ZemTV’s infringing activities were willful and asked for the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work. This would serve as a clear deterrent to Shani and other infringing Kodi-addon developers, the company said.

The Judge doesn’t want to go that far though. Instead, the developer is ordered to pay a third of the requested amount, which adds up to $650,000.

“The amount consisting of $50,000.00 for each of its thirteen registered, copyrighted works that Defendant willfully infringed by retransmitting these copyrighted works without authorization on ZemTV,” Judge Gilmore writes.

A negative outcome was nearly unavoidable as the developer didn’t defend himself. In addition to the damages, Shani is also barred from distributing ZemTV or any similar addons in the future.

TorrentFreak reached out to Shani who is not convinced that Dish is ‘winning’ anything with this verdict, as the external sources that were used by his addon remain online.

“Dish are still at the same place they started. They didn’t lose any money due to the addon and the sources which the addon scanned still are online. The Zem addon is not maintained so obviously it won’t work, but the apps and servers it scanned are still working.

“Based on their complaint, we should see a 10-fold increase in their subscriptions. Well, I won’t hold my breath, Shani tells us.

Whether Dish will actually recoup any of the damages has yet to be seen. The addon developer gave up the legal fight due to a lack of funds, so it seems unlikely that he can pay $650,000, if he intends to pay at all.

The default judgment wraps up the Dish lawsuit, which was one of the first enforcement efforts related to Kodi piracy. While Kodi itself is perfectly legal software, the entertainment industry is determined to root out the piracy links.

This and other efforts appear to have had some effect, as Comparitech highlights that Kodi-related search traffic has dropped significantly over the past year. Google’s autocomplete ban likely plays a role here, but it seems plausible that the various anti-piracy efforts are paying off too.

A copy of the default judgment issued yesterday by Texas US District Court Judge Vanessa Gilmore 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

The problem

For many years our developers have been working getting the Kodi code in component specific parts. In that effort some components have been split off in such a way they are actually separate from Kodi itself, and can be installed at any point in time. We have already been using such components for years and we call these add-ons and the ones using Python programming language have been inside a repositoryy for quite some time. Also the skins you can install to give Kodi a different looks and feel are add-ons. Now the big difference is that the Python and Skin add-ons usually don’t really care what operating system they run and install on as they are platform agnostic. With the binary add-ons however one of the biggest problems is we have to pre compile these for a specific operating system and some cases also the OS version. They usually consist of C++ code and you cannot simply compile it for one platform and use it on another platform. Added to the fact is that they are tied to a specific Kodi version because of certain functions used as well which make it quite the logistical nightmare how to distribute them for each Kodi version per platform.

The work

For the past years you of course have already been using them as most screensavers and visualizations and all PVR clients are in fact binary add-ons. To not halt the work on splitting them off from our code because we simply compiled them and then put them in the same installer package as Kodi itself. The logistic part something we put on hold  would worry about in the future however was always considered to when work progressed. For the past years this was not an issue cause the ones we included were quite small in size and there was no real pressure to get the logistic part working. However with Kodi v18 a completely new feature was finally merged after years of work that made the binary repository a high priority. For RetroPlayer which is a feature that lets you play old gameroms using emulators the size of the installer package would grow considerably and double in size.

To play a gamerom you need emulators and each game console has one if not multiple emulators. Counting them up there would be more than 80 emulators to compile each time we created an installer package and that takes quite some compile time for something that might not always change. Now again add the fact that say these 80 emulators (plus the 70 or so we already had) need to be compiled for all the platforms we support and then for each Kodi version you can imagine this needs some clever thinking to prevent clashes and prevent the add-on to be installed on the wrong platform. We always had a certain idea how we should solve this but it never really was time to get that done until now. Not only the compiling had to be sorted however there’s also the part of putting them on our server(s) and letting each Kodi client know there’s a new version available for that specific platform it is installed on.

It works

We can now finally say all this has been finalised and are happy to say we can finally split off the binary add-ons from our main Kodi installer which reduces it to half the normal size. For users this means that as already mentioned the installer is much smaller and the Kodi version they get is just enough to get started. Once they decide to get extra functionality like a using PVR they simply go to the repository and  only install what they need unlike now where we preinstall them all. Next is the fact that for example a PVR add-on received some fixes you don’t have to wait till we release a new Kodi version. Just like Python and Skin add-ons you will just received the updated PVR add-on and can enjoy the improvement straight away.

Binary repositort is currently available for Android, OSX and Windows. For Linux you still have to use the PPA and iOS and UWP will continue to include the binary add-ons in the installer because of platform limitations and for now nothing changes.


Should you wish to give it a try a new version is readily available each day as well as nightly version. We can certainly recommend trying it out however take in mind that it’s not fully production and living room ready yet (take a backup). So far a guestimate of several tens of thousands users already use it so it can’t be that bad can it. You can get it from the download page clicking on the platform of choice and hitting the “pre release” tab. For Android and Windows we have an easy to use download add-on which you can find in our repository.

Go to the Official download page and choose the platform of choice and you will find these builds under the pre release tab.

If you do appreciate our work feel free to give a small donation so we can continue our effort. Just find the big “Donate” button at the top of the website.

Source link

While the majority of visitors to torrent and streaming platforms will be searching for the latest Hollywood blockbusters, millions of people are seeking out the marvels of Bollywood instead.

India’s famous film industry turns out a staggering number of movies each year and many thousands can be found on local and international pirate sites. These often come in the form of so-called ‘cams’, copies of movies recorded in cinemas using anything from camera-enabled smartphones to high-end video cameras.

With leaking of content escalating to crisis levels, theater operators have found themselves under pressure, with some accused of assisting or enabling pirates to make their copies. According to local reports, the Tamil and Telugu film industries – which contribute more than a third of all film revenues in India – are particularly affected.

In order to stem the tide, the Tamil Film Producers Council (TFPC) has been placing cinema operators under pressure, recently urging digital distribution company Qube Cinema Technologies not to supply equipment to nine suspected of being involved in piracy.

“The theatres that are found to be enabling piracy should not be able to play movies anymore. We are meeting the theater owners association on Tuesday to demand some concrete steps,” a TFPC spokesperson reported Monday.

That meeting with the Tamil Nadu Theatre Owners Association took place yesterday as planned and the result was an agreement on a strict set of rules designed to prevent pirates from recording the latest movies and uploading them to the Internet.

First up, all cinemas in the southern state of Tamil Nadu must saturate their entire sites with CCTV cameras. That means all inside locations (including projection rooms and customer seating areas) plus outside to cover all parking and entrance areas. These cameras must be installed by November 6, 2018.

Having CCTV cameras is mandatory but it’s no good if they’re not in working order. This means that all cameras must be recording 24 hours a day, seven days a week to “record every single second’s happening.”

Cinemas that don’t take these CCTV warnings seriously will have to face the consequences. There’s a second installation deadline of November 15, after which sites that are not blanket covered by CCTV will be banned from screening any new films.

Those that meet the criteria will get to screen the latest releases but will still have to comply in other areas.

Local reports say that security guards will be put in place to search customers for recording devices on the way in. Those who get through will then have to sit through “an awareness documentary” about piracy, which will highlight the consequences of getting caught ‘camming’.

Meanwhile, two members of cinema staff will be tasked with monitoring audiences, to ensure that no one is able to record any part of a movie, if they somehow manage to get a camera past security.

In parallel, additional measures face those who somehow manage to capture their own copies of the latest movies and upload them to the Internet. A report in The Hindu cites the founder and CEO of anti-piracy outfit Copyright Media on their efforts to disrupt illicit copies.

“As soon as the pirated torrents make their way to the internet search engines, we bump up fake torrents and keep removing actual, good quality torrents using a software to parse through the Google search — and remove the links one by one by flagging Google. Such links are taken down immediately and only the fake torrents remain,” he said.

While fake ‘anti-piracy’ torrents are a tactic with roots deep in the last decade, India’s film producers are also embracing site-blocking and domain suspensions. According to the official Twitter account of the Tamil Film Producers Council, several domains have recently been suspended for piracy.

Those breaching India’s Copyright Act 1957 can be jailed for up to three years with fines of US$2,700 but convictions for cam-related movie piracy are rare, despite thousands of copies being available online.

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