Copyright / Piracy / Commons

"If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence" John Oswald, Understanding the #Art of Sound Organization Tags: #Piracy #Copyright #CreativeCommons…
More
·
1,924 Pins
 2w
Collection by
Movie Company Has No Right to Sue Accused Pirate Argues  In recent years a group of select companies have pressured hundreds of thousands of alleged pirates to pay significant settlement fees or face legal repercussions.  These so-called copyright trolling efforts have also been a common occurrence in the United States for more than half a decade and still are today.  While copyright holders should be able to take legitimate piracy claims to court not all cases are as strong as they first appear. Many defendants have brought up flaws often in relation to the IP-address evidence but an accused pirate in Oregon takes things up a notch.  Lingfu Zhang represented by attorney David Madden has turned the tables on the makers of the film Fathers & Daughters. The man denies having downloaded the movie but also points out that the filmmakers have signed away their online distribution rights.  The issue was brought up in previous months but the relevant findings were only unsealed this week. They show that the movie company (F&D) through a sales agent sold the online distribution rights to a third party.  While this is not uncommon in the movie business it means that they no longer have the right to distribute the movie online a right Zhang was accused of violating. This is also what his attorney pointed out to the court asking for a judgment in favor of his client.  ZHANG denies downloading the movie but Defendants current motion for summary judgment challenges a different portion of F&Ds case: Defendant argues that F&D has alienated all of the relevant rights necessary to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act Madden writes.  The filmmakers opposed the request and pointed out that they still had some rights. However this is irrelevant according to the defense since the distribution rights are not owned by them but by a company thats not part of the lawsuit.  Plaintiff claims for example that it still owns the right to exploit the movie on airlines and oceangoing vessels. That may or may not be true  Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence on the question  but ZHANG is not accused of showing the movie on an airplane or a cruise ship.  He is accused of downloading it over the Internet which is an infringement that affects only an exclusive right owned by non-party DISTRIBUTOR 2 Madden adds.  Interestingly an undated addendum to the licensing agreement allegedly created after the lawsuit was started states that the filmmakers would keep their anti-piracy rights as can be seen below.  Anti-Piracy rights?  This doesnt save the filmmaker according to the defense. The licensor who keeps these anti-piracy and enforcement rights refers to the sales agent not the filmmaker Madden writes. In addition the case is about copyright infringement and despite the addendum the filmmakers dont have the exclusive rights that apply here.  Plaintiff represented to this Court that it was the proprietor of all copyrights and interests need to bring suit [] notwithstanding that it had  years earlier  transferred away all its exclusive rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act the defense lawyer concludes.  Even viewing all Plaintiffs agreements in the light most favorable to it Plaintiff holds nothing more than a bare right to sue which is not a cognizable right that may be exercised in the courts of this Circuit.  While the court has yet to decide on the motion this case could turn into a disaster for the makers of Fathers & Daughters.  If the court agrees that they dont have the proper rights defendants in other cases may argue the same. Its easy to see how their entire trolling scheme would then collapse.    The original memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment is available here (pdf) and a copy of the reply brief can be found here (pdf).  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Piracy, Us Attorney, Internet Protocol Address, Threat, Internet Providers, Law Firm, Anti-piracy, Pirate Bay, Defense
Movie Company Has No Right to Sue, Accused Pirate Argues * TorrentFreak
Movie Company Has No Right to Sue Accused Pirate Argues In recent years a group of select companies have pressured hundreds of thousands of alleged pirates to pay significant settlement fees or face legal repercussions. These so-called copyright trolling efforts have also been a common occurrence in the United States for more than half a decade and still are today. While copyright holders should be able to take legitimate piracy claims to court not all cases are as strong as they first appear. Many defendants have brought up flaws often in relation to the IP-address evidence but an accused pirate in Oregon takes things up a notch. Lingfu Zhang represented by attorney David Madden has turned the tables on the makers of the film Fathers & Daughters. The man denies having downloaded the movie but also points out that the filmmakers have signed away their online distribution rights. The issue was brought up in previous months but the relevant findings were only unsealed this week. They show that the movie company (F&D) through a sales agent sold the online distribution rights to a third party. While this is not uncommon in the movie business it means that they no longer have the right to distribute the movie online a right Zhang was accused of violating. This is also what his attorney pointed out to the court asking for a judgment in favor of his client. ZHANG denies downloading the movie but Defendants current motion for summary judgment challenges a different portion of F&Ds case: Defendant argues that F&D has alienated all of the relevant rights necessary to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act Madden writes. The filmmakers opposed the request and pointed out that they still had some rights. However this is irrelevant according to the defense since the distribution rights are not owned by them but by a company thats not part of the lawsuit. Plaintiff claims for example that it still owns the right to exploit the movie on airlines and oceangoing vessels. That may or may not be true Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence on the question but ZHANG is not accused of showing the movie on an airplane or a cruise ship. He is accused of downloading it over the Internet which is an infringement that affects only an exclusive right owned by non-party DISTRIBUTOR 2 Madden adds. Interestingly an undated addendum to the licensing agreement allegedly created after the lawsuit was started states that the filmmakers would keep their anti-piracy rights as can be seen below. Anti-Piracy rights? This doesnt save the filmmaker according to the defense. The licensor who keeps these anti-piracy and enforcement rights refers to the sales agent not the filmmaker Madden writes. In addition the case is about copyright infringement and despite the addendum the filmmakers dont have the exclusive rights that apply here. Plaintiff represented to this Court that it was the proprietor of all copyrights and interests need to bring suit [] notwithstanding that it had years earlier transferred away all its exclusive rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act the defense lawyer concludes. Even viewing all Plaintiffs agreements in the light most favorable to it Plaintiff holds nothing more than a bare right to sue which is not a cognizable right that may be exercised in the courts of this Circuit. While the court has yet to decide on the motion this case could turn into a disaster for the makers of Fathers & Daughters. If the court agrees that they dont have the proper rights defendants in other cases may argue the same. Its easy to see how their entire trolling scheme would then collapse. The original memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment is available here (pdf) and a copy of the reply brief can be found here (pdf). Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Dutch Film Distributor Wins Right To Chase Pirates Store Data For 5 Years  For many years Dutch Internet users were allowed to download copyrighted content without reprisals provided it was for their own personal use.  In 2014 however the European Court of Justice ruled that the countrys piracy levy to compensate rightsholders was unlawful. Almost immediately the government announced a downloading ban.  In March 2016 anti-piracy outfit BREIN followed up by obtaining permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to track and store the personal data of alleged BitTorrent pirates. This year movie distributor Dutch FilmWorks (DFW) made a similar application.  The company said that it would be pursuing alleged pirates to deter future infringement but many suspected that securing cash settlements was its main aim. That was confirmed in August.  [The letter to alleged pirates] will propose a fee. If someone does not agree [to pay] the organization can start a lawsuit said DFW CEO Willem Pruijsserts  In Germany this costs between 800 and 1000 although we find this a bit excessive. But of course it has to be a deterrent so it will be more than a tenner or two he added.  But despite the grand plans nothing would be possible without first obtaining the necessary permission from the Data Protection Authority. This Wednesday however that arrived.  DFW has given sufficient guarantees for the proper and careful processing of personal data. This means that DFW has been given a green light from the Data Protection Authority to collect personal data such as IP addresses from people downloading from illegal sources the Authority announced.  Noting that it received feedback from four entities during the six-week consultation process following the publication of its draft decision during the summer the Data Protection Authority said that further investigations were duly carried out. All input was considered before handing down the final decision.  The Authority said it was satisfied that personal data would be handled correctly and that the information collected and stored would be encrypted and hashed to ensure integrity. Furthermore data will not be retained for longer than is necessary.  DFW has statedthat data from users with Dutch IP addresses who were involved in the exchange of a title owned by DFW but in respect of which there is no intention to follow up on that within three months after receipt will be destroyed the decision reads.  For any cases that are active and havent been discarded in the initial three-month period DFW will be allowed to hold alleged pirates data for a maximum of five years a period that matches the time a company has to file a claim under the Dutch Civil Code.  When DFW does follow up on a file DFW carries out further research into the identity of the users of the IP addresses. For this it is necessary to contact the Internet service providers of the subscribers who used the IP addresses found in the BitTorrent network the Authority notes.  According to the decision once DFW has a persons details it can take any of several actions starting with a simple warning or moving up to an amicable cash settlement. Failing that it might choose to file a full-on court case in which the distributor seeks an injunction against the alleged pirate plus compensation and costs.  Only time will tell what strategy DFW will deploy against alleged pirates but since these schemes arent cheap to run its likely that simple warning letters will be seriously outnumbered by demands for cash settlement.  While it seems unlikely that the Data Protection Authority will change its mind at this late stage its decision remains open to appeal. Interested parties have just under six weeks to make their voices heard. Failing that copyright trolling will hit the Netherlands in the weeks and months to come.  The full decision can be found here (Dutch pdf) via Tweakers  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Dutch Film Distributor Wins Right To Chase Pirates, Store Data For 5 Years * TorrentFreak
Dutch Film Distributor Wins Right To Chase Pirates Store Data For 5 Years For many years Dutch Internet users were allowed to download copyrighted content without reprisals provided it was for their own personal use. In 2014 however the European Court of Justice ruled that the countrys piracy levy to compensate rightsholders was unlawful. Almost immediately the government announced a downloading ban. In March 2016 anti-piracy outfit BREIN followed up by obtaining permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to track and store the personal data of alleged BitTorrent pirates. This year movie distributor Dutch FilmWorks (DFW) made a similar application. The company said that it would be pursuing alleged pirates to deter future infringement but many suspected that securing cash settlements was its main aim. That was confirmed in August. [The letter to alleged pirates] will propose a fee. If someone does not agree [to pay] the organization can start a lawsuit said DFW CEO Willem Pruijsserts In Germany this costs between 800 and 1000 although we find this a bit excessive. But of course it has to be a deterrent so it will be more than a tenner or two he added. But despite the grand plans nothing would be possible without first obtaining the necessary permission from the Data Protection Authority. This Wednesday however that arrived. DFW has given sufficient guarantees for the proper and careful processing of personal data. This means that DFW has been given a green light from the Data Protection Authority to collect personal data such as IP addresses from people downloading from illegal sources the Authority announced. Noting that it received feedback from four entities during the six-week consultation process following the publication of its draft decision during the summer the Data Protection Authority said that further investigations were duly carried out. All input was considered before handing down the final decision. The Authority said it was satisfied that personal data would be handled correctly and that the information collected and stored would be encrypted and hashed to ensure integrity. Furthermore data will not be retained for longer than is necessary. DFW has statedthat data from users with Dutch IP addresses who were involved in the exchange of a title owned by DFW but in respect of which there is no intention to follow up on that within three months after receipt will be destroyed the decision reads. For any cases that are active and havent been discarded in the initial three-month period DFW will be allowed to hold alleged pirates data for a maximum of five years a period that matches the time a company has to file a claim under the Dutch Civil Code. When DFW does follow up on a file DFW carries out further research into the identity of the users of the IP addresses. For this it is necessary to contact the Internet service providers of the subscribers who used the IP addresses found in the BitTorrent network the Authority notes. According to the decision once DFW has a persons details it can take any of several actions starting with a simple warning or moving up to an amicable cash settlement. Failing that it might choose to file a full-on court case in which the distributor seeks an injunction against the alleged pirate plus compensation and costs. Only time will tell what strategy DFW will deploy against alleged pirates but since these schemes arent cheap to run its likely that simple warning letters will be seriously outnumbered by demands for cash settlement. While it seems unlikely that the Data Protection Authority will change its mind at this late stage its decision remains open to appeal. Interested parties have just under six weeks to make their voices heard. Failing that copyright trolling will hit the Netherlands in the weeks and months to come. The full decision can be found here (Dutch pdf) via Tweakers Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Resilient TVAddons Plans to Ditch Proactive Piracy Screening  After years of smooth sailing this year TVAddons became a poster child for the entertainment industrys war on illicit streaming devices.  The leading repository for unofficial Kodi addons was sued for copyright infringement in the US by satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network. Around the same time a similar case was filed by Bell TVA Videotron and Rogers in Canada.  The latter case has done the most damage thus far as it caused the addon repository to lose its domain names and social media accounts. As a result the site went dead and while many believed it would never return it made a blazing comeback after a few weeks.  Since the original TVAddons.ag domain was seized the site returned on TVaddons.co. And that was not the only difference. A lot of the old add-ons for which it was unclear if they linked to licensed content were no longer listed in the repository either.  TVAddons previously relied on the DMCA to shield it from liability but apparently that wasnt enough. As a result they took the drastic decision to check all submitted add-ons carefully.  Since complying with the law is clearly not enough to prevent frivolous legal action from being taken against you we have been forced to implement a more drastic code vetting process a TVAddons representative told us previously.  Despite the absence of several of the most used add-ons the repository has managed to regain many of its former users. Over the past month TVAddons had over 12 million unique users. These all manually installed the new repository on their devices.  Were not like one of those pirate sites that are shut down and opens on a new domain the next day getting users to actually manually install a new repo isnt an easy feat a TVAddons representative informs TorrentFreak.  While its still far away from the 40 million unique users it had earlier this year before the trouble began its still a force to be reckoned with.  Interestingly the vast majority of all TVAddons traffic comes from the United States. The UK is second at a respectable distance followed by Canada Germany and the Netherlands.  While many former users have returned the submission policy changes didnt go unnoticed. The relatively small selection of add-ons is a major drawback for some but thats about to change as well we are informed.  TVAddons plans to return to the old submission model where developers can upload their code more freely. Instead of proactive screening TVAddons will rely on a standard DMCA takedown policy relying on copyright holders to flag potentially infringing content.  We intend on returning to a standard DMCA compliant add-on submission policy shortly theres no reason why we should be held to a higher standard than Facebook Twitter YouTube or Reddit given the fact that we dont even host any form of streaming content in the first place.  Our interim policy isnt pragmatic its nearly impossible for us to verify the global licensing of all forms of protected content. When you visit a website theres no way of verifying licensing beyond trusting them based on reputation.  The upcoming change doesnt mean that TVAddons will ignore its legal requirements. If they receive a legitimate takedown notice proper action will be taken as always. As such they would operate in the same fashion as other user-generated sites.  Right now our interim addon submission policy is akin to North Korea. We always followed the law and will always continue to do so. Anytime weve received a legitimate complaint weve acted upon it in an expedited manner.  Facebook Twitter Reddit and other online communities would have never existed if they were required to approve the contents of each users submissions prior to public posting.  The change takes place while the two court cases are still pending. TVAddons is determined to keep up this fight. Meanwhile they are also asking the public to support the project financially.  While some copyright holders including those who are fighting the service in court might not like the change TVAddons believes that this is well within their rights. And with support from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation they dont stand alone in this.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Electronic Frontier Foundation, Tv Network, Television Program, Online Community, Users, Networking, Administration, Development
Resilient TVAddons Plans to Ditch Proactive 'Piracy' Screening * TorrentFreak
Resilient TVAddons Plans to Ditch Proactive Piracy Screening After years of smooth sailing this year TVAddons became a poster child for the entertainment industrys war on illicit streaming devices. The leading repository for unofficial Kodi addons was sued for copyright infringement in the US by satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network. Around the same time a similar case was filed by Bell TVA Videotron and Rogers in Canada. The latter case has done the most damage thus far as it caused the addon repository to lose its domain names and social media accounts. As a result the site went dead and while many believed it would never return it made a blazing comeback after a few weeks. Since the original TVAddons.ag domain was seized the site returned on TVaddons.co. And that was not the only difference. A lot of the old add-ons for which it was unclear if they linked to licensed content were no longer listed in the repository either. TVAddons previously relied on the DMCA to shield it from liability but apparently that wasnt enough. As a result they took the drastic decision to check all submitted add-ons carefully. Since complying with the law is clearly not enough to prevent frivolous legal action from being taken against you we have been forced to implement a more drastic code vetting process a TVAddons representative told us previously. Despite the absence of several of the most used add-ons the repository has managed to regain many of its former users. Over the past month TVAddons had over 12 million unique users. These all manually installed the new repository on their devices. Were not like one of those pirate sites that are shut down and opens on a new domain the next day getting users to actually manually install a new repo isnt an easy feat a TVAddons representative informs TorrentFreak. While its still far away from the 40 million unique users it had earlier this year before the trouble began its still a force to be reckoned with. Interestingly the vast majority of all TVAddons traffic comes from the United States. The UK is second at a respectable distance followed by Canada Germany and the Netherlands. While many former users have returned the submission policy changes didnt go unnoticed. The relatively small selection of add-ons is a major drawback for some but thats about to change as well we are informed. TVAddons plans to return to the old submission model where developers can upload their code more freely. Instead of proactive screening TVAddons will rely on a standard DMCA takedown policy relying on copyright holders to flag potentially infringing content. We intend on returning to a standard DMCA compliant add-on submission policy shortly theres no reason why we should be held to a higher standard than Facebook Twitter YouTube or Reddit given the fact that we dont even host any form of streaming content in the first place. Our interim policy isnt pragmatic its nearly impossible for us to verify the global licensing of all forms of protected content. When you visit a website theres no way of verifying licensing beyond trusting them based on reputation. The upcoming change doesnt mean that TVAddons will ignore its legal requirements. If they receive a legitimate takedown notice proper action will be taken as always. As such they would operate in the same fashion as other user-generated sites. Right now our interim addon submission policy is akin to North Korea. We always followed the law and will always continue to do so. Anytime weve received a legitimate complaint weve acted upon it in an expedited manner. Facebook Twitter Reddit and other online communities would have never existed if they were required to approve the contents of each users submissions prior to public posting. The change takes place while the two court cases are still pending. TVAddons is determined to keep up this fight. Meanwhile they are also asking the public to support the project financially. While some copyright holders including those who are fighting the service in court might not like the change TVAddons believes that this is well within their rights. And with support from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation they dont stand alone in this. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Movie & TV Companies Tackle Pirate IPTV in Australia Federal Court  As movie and TV show piracy has migrated from the desktop towards mobile and living room-based devices copyright holders have found the need to adapt to a new enemy.  Dealing with streaming services is now high on the agenda with third-party Kodi addons and various Android apps posing the biggest challenge. Alongside is the much less prevalent but rapidly growing pay IPTV market in which thousands of premium channels are delivered to homes for a relatively small fee.  In Australia copyright holders are treating these services in much the same way as torrent sites. They feel that if they can force ISPs to block them the problem can be mitigated. Most recently movie and TV show giants Village Roadshow Disney Universal Warner Bros Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount filed an application targeting HDSubs a pirate IPTV operation servicing thousands of Australians.  Filed in October the application for the injunction targets Australias largest ISPs including Telstra Optus TPG and Vocus plus their subsidiaries. The movie and TV show companies want them to quickly block HDSubs to prevent it from reaching its audience.  HDSubs IPTV package  However blocking isnt particularly straightforward. Due to the way IPTV services are setup a number of domains need to be blocked including their sales platforms EPG (electronic program guide) software (such as an Android app) updates and sundry other services. In HDSubs case around ten domains need to be restricted but in court today Village Roadshow revealed that probably wont deal with the problem.  HDSubs appears to be undergoing some kind of transformation possibly to mitigate efforts to block it in Australia. ComputerWorld reports that it is now directing subscribers to update to a new version that works in a more evasive manner.  If they agree HDSubs customers are being migrated over to a service called PressPlayPlus. It works in the same way as the old system but no longer uses the domain names cited in Village Roadshowsinjunctionapplication. This means that DNS blocks the usual weapon of choice for local ISPs will prove futile.  Village Roadshow says that with this in mind it may be forced to seek enhanced IP address blocking unless it is granted a speedy hearing for its application. This in turn may result in the normally cooperative ISPs returning to court to argue their case.  If thats what you want to do then youll have to amend the orders and let the parties know Judge John Nicholas said.  Its only the former [DNS blocking] that carriage service providers have agreed to in the past.  As things stand Village Roadshow will return to court on December 15 for a case management hearing but in the meantime the Federal Court must deal with another IPTV-related blocking request.  In common with its Australian and US-based counterparts Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) has launched a similar case asking local ISPs to block another IPTV service.  Television Broadcasts Limited can confirm that we have commenced legal action in Australia to protect our copyright a TVB spokesperson told Computerworld.  TVB wants ISPs including Telstra Optus Vocus and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1 BlueTV EVPAD FunTV MoonBox Unblock and hTV5.  Court documents list 21 URLs maintaining the services. They will all need to be blocked by DNS or other means if the former proves futile. Online reports suggest that there are similarities among the IPTV products listed above. A demo for the FunTV IPTV service is shown below.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Software, 3d, Search Engine, Search Engine Marketing, Data Security, Search, Site Analysis, Website Maintenance, Lender
Movie & TV Companies Tackle Pirate IPTV in Australia Federal Court * TorrentFreak
Movie & TV Companies Tackle Pirate IPTV in Australia Federal Court As movie and TV show piracy has migrated from the desktop towards mobile and living room-based devices copyright holders have found the need to adapt to a new enemy. Dealing with streaming services is now high on the agenda with third-party Kodi addons and various Android apps posing the biggest challenge. Alongside is the much less prevalent but rapidly growing pay IPTV market in which thousands of premium channels are delivered to homes for a relatively small fee. In Australia copyright holders are treating these services in much the same way as torrent sites. They feel that if they can force ISPs to block them the problem can be mitigated. Most recently movie and TV show giants Village Roadshow Disney Universal Warner Bros Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount filed an application targeting HDSubs a pirate IPTV operation servicing thousands of Australians. Filed in October the application for the injunction targets Australias largest ISPs including Telstra Optus TPG and Vocus plus their subsidiaries. The movie and TV show companies want them to quickly block HDSubs to prevent it from reaching its audience. HDSubs IPTV package However blocking isnt particularly straightforward. Due to the way IPTV services are setup a number of domains need to be blocked including their sales platforms EPG (electronic program guide) software (such as an Android app) updates and sundry other services. In HDSubs case around ten domains need to be restricted but in court today Village Roadshow revealed that probably wont deal with the problem. HDSubs appears to be undergoing some kind of transformation possibly to mitigate efforts to block it in Australia. ComputerWorld reports that it is now directing subscribers to update to a new version that works in a more evasive manner. If they agree HDSubs customers are being migrated over to a service called PressPlayPlus. It works in the same way as the old system but no longer uses the domain names cited in Village Roadshowsinjunctionapplication. This means that DNS blocks the usual weapon of choice for local ISPs will prove futile. Village Roadshow says that with this in mind it may be forced to seek enhanced IP address blocking unless it is granted a speedy hearing for its application. This in turn may result in the normally cooperative ISPs returning to court to argue their case. If thats what you want to do then youll have to amend the orders and let the parties know Judge John Nicholas said. Its only the former [DNS blocking] that carriage service providers have agreed to in the past. As things stand Village Roadshow will return to court on December 15 for a case management hearing but in the meantime the Federal Court must deal with another IPTV-related blocking request. In common with its Australian and US-based counterparts Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) has launched a similar case asking local ISPs to block another IPTV service. Television Broadcasts Limited can confirm that we have commenced legal action in Australia to protect our copyright a TVB spokesperson told Computerworld. TVB wants ISPs including Telstra Optus Vocus and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1 BlueTV EVPAD FunTV MoonBox Unblock and hTV5. Court documents list 21 URLs maintaining the services. They will all need to be blocked by DNS or other means if the former proves futile. Online reports suggest that there are similarities among the IPTV products listed above. A demo for the FunTV IPTV service is shown below. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Ip Address, App Store, App, Tracker, Apple, Cupertino, Copyright, Running Tracker
Apple CEO is Optimistic VPN Apps Will Return to China App Store * TorrentFreak
New Police Anti-Piracy Task Force May Get Involved in Site Blocking  On a regular basis major media companies and their associates seek assistance from the authorities in order to curb copyright infringement.  In some cases this has resulted in special police units that have piracy among their main objectives such as The City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) in the UK.  Over in Denmark the Government greenlighted a similar initiative last week. Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen approved a new task force that will operate under police wings with an exclusive focus on intellectual property crimes.  This is the culmination of a joint effort among Danish trade organizations calls for public engagement in the enforcement of IP crime in Denmark Maria Fredenslund CEO of the local anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen (Rights Alliance) tells TorrentFreak.  Similar to the PIPCU unit in the UK the task force will be specialized in IP crime and will handle existing cases and develop digital enforcement she adds.  The new unit will consist of five or six investigators who will be assisted by prosecutors. The main goal will be to tackle organized crime on as many levels as possible.  The new police task force will first operate on a trial basis. After the first half year the Government will evaluate its progress and decide if the project will continue. If that happens the unit may also get involved in website blocking efforts.  Pirate site blockades are not new in Denmark but thus far these have been the result of civil procedures initiated by copyright holders. According to new plans which still have to be approved legislation thats currently used to block terrorist content may be used against pirate sites as well.  The Government will look into the possibility to give the police authority to carry out blockades of infringing websites Fredenslund says.  This would be possible under a provision in the Administration of Justice Act which the Danish Parliament recently adopted. While the blocking requests would be submitted by the police unit instead of copyright holders a court still has to approve them.  The decision to block a website is made with a court order by request of the police. The court order shall list the specific circumstances that prove the conditions for the blocking of the website have been met. The court order may be revoked at any time the relevant provision reads.  For the time being the new anti-piracy task force will focus on handling other copyright infringement cases which these are plenty of.  Rights Alliance is happy with the help they are getting. The anti-piracy group has been working on their own piracy disruption machine in recent months and with assistance from law enforcement they hope to achieve some good results soon.  For now however the private blocking requests are continuing as well.  Just yesterday the District Court in Frederiksberg issued an order (pdf) in favor of the Rights Alliance requiring a local ISP to block dozens of Popcorn Time related domain names. As part of a voluntary agreement this block will be implemented by other Internet providers as well.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Police, Police Force, Intellectual Property, Government, Civil Procedure, Social Order, Higher Education
New Police Anti-Piracy Task Force May Get Involved in Site Blocking * TorrentFreak
New Police Anti-Piracy Task Force May Get Involved in Site Blocking On a regular basis major media companies and their associates seek assistance from the authorities in order to curb copyright infringement. In some cases this has resulted in special police units that have piracy among their main objectives such as The City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) in the UK. Over in Denmark the Government greenlighted a similar initiative last week. Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen approved a new task force that will operate under police wings with an exclusive focus on intellectual property crimes. This is the culmination of a joint effort among Danish trade organizations calls for public engagement in the enforcement of IP crime in Denmark Maria Fredenslund CEO of the local anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen (Rights Alliance) tells TorrentFreak. Similar to the PIPCU unit in the UK the task force will be specialized in IP crime and will handle existing cases and develop digital enforcement she adds. The new unit will consist of five or six investigators who will be assisted by prosecutors. The main goal will be to tackle organized crime on as many levels as possible. The new police task force will first operate on a trial basis. After the first half year the Government will evaluate its progress and decide if the project will continue. If that happens the unit may also get involved in website blocking efforts. Pirate site blockades are not new in Denmark but thus far these have been the result of civil procedures initiated by copyright holders. According to new plans which still have to be approved legislation thats currently used to block terrorist content may be used against pirate sites as well. The Government will look into the possibility to give the police authority to carry out blockades of infringing websites Fredenslund says. This would be possible under a provision in the Administration of Justice Act which the Danish Parliament recently adopted. While the blocking requests would be submitted by the police unit instead of copyright holders a court still has to approve them. The decision to block a website is made with a court order by request of the police. The court order shall list the specific circumstances that prove the conditions for the blocking of the website have been met. The court order may be revoked at any time the relevant provision reads. For the time being the new anti-piracy task force will focus on handling other copyright infringement cases which these are plenty of. Rights Alliance is happy with the help they are getting. The anti-piracy group has been working on their own piracy disruption machine in recent months and with assistance from law enforcement they hope to achieve some good results soon. For now however the private blocking requests are continuing as well. Just yesterday the District Court in Frederiksberg issued an order (pdf) in favor of the Rights Alliance requiring a local ISP to block dozens of Popcorn Time related domain names. As part of a voluntary agreement this block will be implemented by other Internet providers as well. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Google & Facebook Excluded From Aussie Safe Harbor Copyright Amendments  Due to a supposed drafting error in Australias implementation of the Australia  US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) copyright safe harbor provisions currently only apply to commercial Internet service providers.  This means that while local ISPs such as Telstra receive protection from copyright infringement complaints services such as Google Facebook and YouTube face legal uncertainty.  Proposed amendments to the Copyright Act earlier this year wouldve seen enhanced safe harbor protections for such platforms but they were withdrawn at the eleventh hour so that the government could consider further feedback from interested parties.  Shortly after the government embarked on a detailed consultation with entertainment industry groups. They accuse platforms like YouTube of exploiting safe harbor provisions in the US and Europe which forces copyright holders into an expensive battle to have infringing content taken down. They do not want that in Australia and at least for now they appear to have achieved their aims.  According to a report from AFR (paywall) the Australian government is set to introduce new legislation Wednesday which will expand safe harbors for some organizations but will exclude companies such as Google Facebook and similar platforms.  Communications Minister Mitch Fifield confirmed the exclusions while noting that additional safeguards will be available to institutions libraries and organizations in the disability archive and culture sectors.  The measures in the bill will ensure these sectors are protected from legal liability where they can demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to deal with copyright infringement by users of their online platforms Senator Fifield told AFR.  Extending the safe harbor scheme in this way will provide greater certainty to institutions in these sectors and enhance their ability to provide more innovative and creative services for all Australians.  According to the Senator the government will continue its work with stakeholders to further reform safe harbor provisions before applying them to other service providers.  The news that Google Facebook and similar platforms are to be denied access to the new safe harbor rules will be seen as a victory for rightsholders. Theyre desperately trying to tighten up legislation in other regions where such safeguards are already in place arguing that platforms utilizing user-generated content for profit should obtain appropriate licensing first.  This so-called Value Gap (123) and associated proactive filtering proposals are among the hottest copyright topics right now generating intense debate across Europe and the United States.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Industrial, Trans Pacific Partnership, Copyright Infringement, Technology Articles, Alternative News, The Fosters, Investigations
Google & Facebook Excluded From Aussie Safe Harbor Copyright Amendments * TorrentFreak
Google & Facebook Excluded From Aussie Safe Harbor Copyright Amendments Due to a supposed drafting error in Australias implementation of the Australia US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) copyright safe harbor provisions currently only apply to commercial Internet service providers. This means that while local ISPs such as Telstra receive protection from copyright infringement complaints services such as Google Facebook and YouTube face legal uncertainty. Proposed amendments to the Copyright Act earlier this year wouldve seen enhanced safe harbor protections for such platforms but they were withdrawn at the eleventh hour so that the government could consider further feedback from interested parties. Shortly after the government embarked on a detailed consultation with entertainment industry groups. They accuse platforms like YouTube of exploiting safe harbor provisions in the US and Europe which forces copyright holders into an expensive battle to have infringing content taken down. They do not want that in Australia and at least for now they appear to have achieved their aims. According to a report from AFR (paywall) the Australian government is set to introduce new legislation Wednesday which will expand safe harbors for some organizations but will exclude companies such as Google Facebook and similar platforms. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield confirmed the exclusions while noting that additional safeguards will be available to institutions libraries and organizations in the disability archive and culture sectors. The measures in the bill will ensure these sectors are protected from legal liability where they can demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to deal with copyright infringement by users of their online platforms Senator Fifield told AFR. Extending the safe harbor scheme in this way will provide greater certainty to institutions in these sectors and enhance their ability to provide more innovative and creative services for all Australians. According to the Senator the government will continue its work with stakeholders to further reform safe harbor provisions before applying them to other service providers. The news that Google Facebook and similar platforms are to be denied access to the new safe harbor rules will be seen as a victory for rightsholders. Theyre desperately trying to tighten up legislation in other regions where such safeguards are already in place arguing that platforms utilizing user-generated content for profit should obtain appropriate licensing first. This so-called Value Gap (123) and associated proactive filtering proposals are among the hottest copyright topics right now generating intense debate across Europe and the United States. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Streaming, Internet, Streaming Sites, Isp, Top Search Engines, Code Of Conduct
ISPs and Movie Industry Prepare Canadian Pirate Site Blocking Deal * TorrentFreak
GoMovies/123Movies Launches Anime Streaming Site  Pirate video streaming sites are booming. Their relative ease of use through on-demand viewing makes them a viable alternative to P2P file-sharing which traditionally dominated the piracy arena.  The popular movie streaming site GoMovies formerly known as 123movies is one of the most-used streaming sites. Despite the rebranding and several domain changes it has built a steady base of millions of users over the past year and a half.  And its not done yet we learn today.  The site currently operating from the Gostream.is domain name recently launched a new spinoff targeting anime fans. Animehub.to is currently promoted on GoMovies and the sites operators aim to turn it into the leading streaming site for anime content.  Animehub.to  Someone connected to GoMovies told us that theyve received a lot of requests from users to add anime content. Anime has traditionally been a large niche on file-sharing sites and the same is true on streaming platforms.  Technically speaking GoMovies could have easily filled up the original site with anime content but the owners prefer a different outlet.  With a separate anime site they hope to draw in more visitors TorrentFreak was told by an insider. For one this makes it possible to rank better in search engines. It also allows the operators to cater specifically to the anime audience with anime specific categories and release schedules.  Anime copyright holders will not be pleased with the new initiative thats for sure but GoMovies is not new to legal pressure.  Earlier this year the US Ambassador to Vietnam called on the local Government to criminally prosecute people behind 123movies the previous iteration of the site. In addition the MPAA reported the site to the US Government in its recent overview of notorious pirate sites.  Pressure or not it appears that GoMovies has no intention of slowing down or changing its course although weve heard that yet another rebranding is on the horizon.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Anime Streaming Sites, Anime Sites, Streaming Movies, Video Streaming, Pirate Sites, Turn Ons
GoMovies/123Movies Launches Anime Streaming Site * TorrentFreak
GoMovies/123Movies Launches Anime Streaming Site Pirate video streaming sites are booming. Their relative ease of use through on-demand viewing makes them a viable alternative to P2P file-sharing which traditionally dominated the piracy arena. The popular movie streaming site GoMovies formerly known as 123movies is one of the most-used streaming sites. Despite the rebranding and several domain changes it has built a steady base of millions of users over the past year and a half. And its not done yet we learn today. The site currently operating from the Gostream.is domain name recently launched a new spinoff targeting anime fans. Animehub.to is currently promoted on GoMovies and the sites operators aim to turn it into the leading streaming site for anime content. Animehub.to Someone connected to GoMovies told us that theyve received a lot of requests from users to add anime content. Anime has traditionally been a large niche on file-sharing sites and the same is true on streaming platforms. Technically speaking GoMovies could have easily filled up the original site with anime content but the owners prefer a different outlet. With a separate anime site they hope to draw in more visitors TorrentFreak was told by an insider. For one this makes it possible to rank better in search engines. It also allows the operators to cater specifically to the anime audience with anime specific categories and release schedules. Anime copyright holders will not be pleased with the new initiative thats for sure but GoMovies is not new to legal pressure. Earlier this year the US Ambassador to Vietnam called on the local Government to criminally prosecute people behind 123movies the previous iteration of the site. In addition the MPAA reported the site to the US Government in its recent overview of notorious pirate sites. Pressure or not it appears that GoMovies has no intention of slowing down or changing its course although weve heard that yet another rebranding is on the horizon. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Coalition Against Piracy Wants Singapore to Block Streaming Piracy Software  Earlier this year major industry players including Disney HBO Netflix Amazon and NBCUniversal formed the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) a huge coalition set to tackle piracy on a global scale.  Shortly after the Coalition Against Piracy (CAP) was announced. With a focus on Asia and backed by CASBAA CAP counts Disney Fox HBO Asia NBCUniversal Premier League Turner Asia-Pacific A&E Networks BBC Worldwide Call Center, Search Site, Ssl Certificate, Data Quality, Tax Write Offs, Option Trading, Legal Advice, Expertise
Coalition Against Piracy Wants Singapore to Block Streaming Piracy Software * TorrentFreak
Coalition Against Piracy Wants Singapore to Block Streaming Piracy Software Earlier this year major industry players including Disney HBO Netflix Amazon and NBCUniversal formed the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) a huge coalition set to tackle piracy on a global scale. Shortly after the Coalition Against Piracy (CAP) was announced. With a focus on Asia and backed by CASBAA CAP counts Disney Fox HBO Asia NBCUniversal Premier League Turner Asia-Pacific A&E Networks BBC Worldwide
Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent  12/03/17  This week we have three newcomers in our chart.  Kingsman: The Golden Circle is the most downloaded movie again.  The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.  RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.  This weeks most downloaded movies are:  Movie Rank  Rank last week  Movie name  IMDb Rating / Trailer  Most downloaded movies via torrents  1  (1)  Kingsman: The Golden Circle  7.2 / trailer  2  ()  The Foreigner  7.2 / trailer  3  (2)  American Assassin  6.3 / trailer  4  ()  Detroit  7.5 / trailer  5  (3)  Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets  6.7 / trailer  6  (4)  Geostorm (Subbed HDRip)  5.5 / trailer  7  ()  Justice League (HDTS)  7.2 / trailer  8  (5)  Logan Lucky  7.2 / trailer  9  (9)  Thor Ragnarok (HDTS/Cam)  8.2 / trailer  10  (6)  Wind River  7.8 / trailer  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Films, Kingsman, Kingsman Movie, Kingsman The Golden Circle, Kingsman Series, Watch Kingsman, Movie Of The Week, Taron Egerton Kingsman, James Bond
Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent - 12/03/17 * TorrentFreak
Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent 12/03/17 This week we have three newcomers in our chart. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is the most downloaded movie again. The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise. RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart. This weeks most downloaded movies are: Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer Most downloaded movies via torrents 1 (1) Kingsman: The Golden Circle 7.2 / trailer 2 () The Foreigner 7.2 / trailer 3 (2) American Assassin 6.3 / trailer 4 () Detroit 7.5 / trailer 5 (3) Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets 6.7 / trailer 6 (4) Geostorm (Subbed HDRip) 5.5 / trailer 7 () Justice League (HDTS) 7.2 / trailer 8 (5) Logan Lucky 7.2 / trailer 9 (9) Thor Ragnarok (HDTS/Cam) 8.2 / trailer 10 (6) Wind River 7.8 / trailer Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Digital Rights Groups Warn Against Copyright Parking Tickets Bill  Nearly five years ago US lawmakers agreed to carry out a comprehensive review of United States copyright law.  In the following years the House Judiciary Committee held dozens of hearings on various topics from DMCA reform and fair use exemptions to the possibility of a small claims court for copyright offenses.  While many of the topics never got far beyond the discussion stage theres now a new bill on the table that introduces a small claims process for copyright offenses.  The CASE Act short for Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement proposes to establish a small claims court to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts. This means that legal costs will be significantly reduced.  The idea behind the bill is to lower the barrier for smaller copyright holders with limited resources who usually refrain from going to court. Starting a federal case with proper representation is quite costly while the outcome is rather uncertain.  While this may sound noble digital rights groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge warn that the bill could do more harm than good.  One of the problems they signal is that the proposed Copyright Claims Board would be connected to the US Copyright Office. Given this connection the groups fear that the three judges might be somewhat biased towards copyright holders.  Unfortunately the Copyright Office has a history of putting copyright holders interests ahead of other important legal rights and policy concerns. We fear that any small claims process the Copyright Office conducts will tend to follow that pattern EFFs Mitch Stoltz warns.  The copyright claims board will have three judges who can hear cases from all over the country. They can award damages awards of up to $15000 per infringement or $30000 per case.  Participation is voluntary and potential defendants can opt-out. However if they fail to do so any order against them can still be binding and enforceable through a federal court.  An opt-in system would be much better according to EFF as that would prevent abuse by copyright holders who are looking for cheap default judgments.  [A]n opt-in approach would help ensure that both participants affirmatively choose to litigate their dispute in this new court and help prevent copyright holders from abusing the system to obtain inexpensive default judgments that will be hard to appeal.  While smart defendants would opt-out in certain situations those who are less familiar with the law might become the target of what are essentially copyright parking tickets.  Knowledgeable defendants will opt out of such proceedings while legally unsophisticated targets including ordinary Internet users could find themselves committed to an unfair accelerated process handing out largely unappealable $5000 copyright parking tickets EFF adds.  In its current form the small claims court may prove to be an ideal tool for copyright trolls including those who made a business out of filing federal cases against alleged BitTorrent pirates.  This copyright troll issue angle highlighted by both EFF and Public Knowlege who urge lawmakers to revise the bill.  [I]ts not hard to see how trolls and default judgments could come to dominate the system Public Knowledge says.  Instead of creating a reliable fair mechanism for independent artists to pursue scaled infringement claims online it would establish an opaque unaccountable legislation mill that will likely get bogged down by copyright trolls and questionable claimants looking for a payout they conclude.  Various copyright holder groups are more positive about the bill. The Copyright Alliance for example says that it will empower creators with smaller budgets to protect their rights.  The next generation of creators deserves copyright protection that is as pioneering and forward-thinking as they are. They deserve practical solutions to the real-life problems they face as creators. This bill is the first step.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Judicial, Civil Lawsuit, Civil Rights Lawyer, Financial Aid For College, Financial Aid, Family Law, Injury Lawyer, Law
Digital Rights Groups Warn Against Copyright "Parking Tickets” Bill * TorrentFreak
Digital Rights Groups Warn Against Copyright Parking Tickets Bill Nearly five years ago US lawmakers agreed to carry out a comprehensive review of United States copyright law. In the following years the House Judiciary Committee held dozens of hearings on various topics from DMCA reform and fair use exemptions to the possibility of a small claims court for copyright offenses. While many of the topics never got far beyond the discussion stage theres now a new bill on the table that introduces a small claims process for copyright offenses. The CASE Act short for Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement proposes to establish a small claims court to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts. This means that legal costs will be significantly reduced. The idea behind the bill is to lower the barrier for smaller copyright holders with limited resources who usually refrain from going to court. Starting a federal case with proper representation is quite costly while the outcome is rather uncertain. While this may sound noble digital rights groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge warn that the bill could do more harm than good. One of the problems they signal is that the proposed Copyright Claims Board would be connected to the US Copyright Office. Given this connection the groups fear that the three judges might be somewhat biased towards copyright holders. Unfortunately the Copyright Office has a history of putting copyright holders interests ahead of other important legal rights and policy concerns. We fear that any small claims process the Copyright Office conducts will tend to follow that pattern EFFs Mitch Stoltz warns. The copyright claims board will have three judges who can hear cases from all over the country. They can award damages awards of up to $15000 per infringement or $30000 per case. Participation is voluntary and potential defendants can opt-out. However if they fail to do so any order against them can still be binding and enforceable through a federal court. An opt-in system would be much better according to EFF as that would prevent abuse by copyright holders who are looking for cheap default judgments. [A]n opt-in approach would help ensure that both participants affirmatively choose to litigate their dispute in this new court and help prevent copyright holders from abusing the system to obtain inexpensive default judgments that will be hard to appeal. While smart defendants would opt-out in certain situations those who are less familiar with the law might become the target of what are essentially copyright parking tickets. Knowledgeable defendants will opt out of such proceedings while legally unsophisticated targets including ordinary Internet users could find themselves committed to an unfair accelerated process handing out largely unappealable $5000 copyright parking tickets EFF adds. In its current form the small claims court may prove to be an ideal tool for copyright trolls including those who made a business out of filing federal cases against alleged BitTorrent pirates. This copyright troll issue angle highlighted by both EFF and Public Knowlege who urge lawmakers to revise the bill. [I]ts not hard to see how trolls and default judgments could come to dominate the system Public Knowledge says. Instead of creating a reliable fair mechanism for independent artists to pursue scaled infringement claims online it would establish an opaque unaccountable legislation mill that will likely get bogged down by copyright trolls and questionable claimants looking for a payout they conclude. Various copyright holder groups are more positive about the bill. The Copyright Alliance for example says that it will empower creators with smaller budgets to protect their rights. The next generation of creators deserves copyright protection that is as pioneering and forward-thinking as they are. They deserve practical solutions to the real-life problems they face as creators. This bill is the first step. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Could a Single Copyright Complaint Kill Your Domain?  It goes without saying that domain names are a crucial part of any sites infrastructure. Without domains sites arent easily findable and when things go wrong the majority of web users could be forgiven for thinking that they no longer exist.  That was the case last week when Canada-based mashup site Sowndhaus suddenly found that its domain had been rendered completely useless. As previously reported the sites domain was suspended by UK-based registrar DomainBox after it received a copyright complaint from the IFPI.  There are a number of elements to this story not least that the sites operators believe that their project is entirely legal.  We are a few like-minded folks from the mashup community that were tired of doing the host dance  new sites welcome us with open arms until record industry pressure becomes too much and they mass delete and ban us a member of the Sowndhaus team informs TF.  After every mass deletion there are a wave of producers that just retire and their music is lost forever. We decided to make a more permanent home for ourselves and Canadas Copyright Modernization Act gave us the opportunity to do it legally. We just want a small quiet corner of the internet where we can make music without being criminalized. It seems insane that I even have to say that.  But while these are all valid concerns for the Sowndhaus community there is a bigger picture here. There is absolutely no question that sites like YouTube and Soundcloud host huge libraries of mashups yet somehow they hang on to their domains. Why would DomainBox take such drastic action? Is the site a real menace?  The IFPI have sent a few standard DMCA takedown notices [to Sowndhaus indirectly] each about a specific track or tracks on our server asking us to remove them and any infringing activity. Every track complained about has been transformative either a mashup or a remix and in a couple of cases cover versions the team explains.  But in all cases it appears that IFPI and its agents didnt take the time to complain to the site first. They instead went for the sites infrastructure.  [IFPI] have never contacted us directly even though we have a report copyright abuse feature on our site and a dedicated copyright email address. Weve only received forwarded emails from our host and domain registrar the site says.  Sowndhaus believes that the event that led to the domain suspension was caused by a support ticket raised by the RiskIQ Incident Response Team who appear to have been working on behalf of IFPI.  We were told by DomainBoxPlease remove the unlawful content from your website or the domain will be suspended. Please reply within the next 5 working days to ensure the request was actioned Sowndhaus says.  But they werent given five days or even one. DomainBox chose to suspend the Sowndhaus.com domain name immediately rendering the site inaccessible and without even giving the site a chance to respond.  They didnt give us an option to appeal the decision. They just took the IFPIs word that the files were unlawful and must be removed the site informs us.  Intrigued at why DomainBox took the nuclear option TorrentFreak sent several emails to the company but each time they went unanswered. We also sent emails to Mesh Digital Ltd DomainBoxs operator but they were given the same treatment.  We wanted to know on what grounds the registrar suspended the domain but perhaps more importantly we wanted to know if the company is as aggressive as this with its other customers.  To that end we posed a question: If DomainBox had been entrusted with the domains of YouTube or Soundcloud would they have acted in the same manner? We cant put words in their mouth but it seems likely that someone in the company would step in to avoid a PR disaster on that scale.  Of course both YouTube and Soundcloud comply with the law by taking down content when it infringes someones rights. Its a position held by Sowndhaus too even though they do not operate in the United States.  We comply fully with the Copyright Act (Canada) and have our own policy of removing any genuinely infringing content the site says adding that users who infringe are banned from the platform.  While there has never been any suggestion that IFPI or its agents asked for Sowndhaus domain to be suspended its clear that DomainBox made a decision to do just that. In some cases that might have been warranted but registrars should definitely aim for a clear transparent and fair process so that the facts can be reviewed and appropriate action taken.  Its something for people to keep in mind when they register a domain in future.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Art, Website Designs, Zombie Apocalypse, Action, Copyright Law, Copyright Act, Internet Access, Website Security, Protest
Could a Single Copyright Complaint Kill Your Domain? * TorrentFreak
Could a Single Copyright Complaint Kill Your Domain? It goes without saying that domain names are a crucial part of any sites infrastructure. Without domains sites arent easily findable and when things go wrong the majority of web users could be forgiven for thinking that they no longer exist. That was the case last week when Canada-based mashup site Sowndhaus suddenly found that its domain had been rendered completely useless. As previously reported the sites domain was suspended by UK-based registrar DomainBox after it received a copyright complaint from the IFPI. There are a number of elements to this story not least that the sites operators believe that their project is entirely legal. We are a few like-minded folks from the mashup community that were tired of doing the host dance new sites welcome us with open arms until record industry pressure becomes too much and they mass delete and ban us a member of the Sowndhaus team informs TF. After every mass deletion there are a wave of producers that just retire and their music is lost forever. We decided to make a more permanent home for ourselves and Canadas Copyright Modernization Act gave us the opportunity to do it legally. We just want a small quiet corner of the internet where we can make music without being criminalized. It seems insane that I even have to say that. But while these are all valid concerns for the Sowndhaus community there is a bigger picture here. There is absolutely no question that sites like YouTube and Soundcloud host huge libraries of mashups yet somehow they hang on to their domains. Why would DomainBox take such drastic action? Is the site a real menace? The IFPI have sent a few standard DMCA takedown notices [to Sowndhaus indirectly] each about a specific track or tracks on our server asking us to remove them and any infringing activity. Every track complained about has been transformative either a mashup or a remix and in a couple of cases cover versions the team explains. But in all cases it appears that IFPI and its agents didnt take the time to complain to the site first. They instead went for the sites infrastructure. [IFPI] have never contacted us directly even though we have a report copyright abuse feature on our site and a dedicated copyright email address. Weve only received forwarded emails from our host and domain registrar the site says. Sowndhaus believes that the event that led to the domain suspension was caused by a support ticket raised by the RiskIQ Incident Response Team who appear to have been working on behalf of IFPI. We were told by DomainBoxPlease remove the unlawful content from your website or the domain will be suspended. Please reply within the next 5 working days to ensure the request was actioned Sowndhaus says. But they werent given five days or even one. DomainBox chose to suspend the Sowndhaus.com domain name immediately rendering the site inaccessible and without even giving the site a chance to respond. They didnt give us an option to appeal the decision. They just took the IFPIs word that the files were unlawful and must be removed the site informs us. Intrigued at why DomainBox took the nuclear option TorrentFreak sent several emails to the company but each time they went unanswered. We also sent emails to Mesh Digital Ltd DomainBoxs operator but they were given the same treatment. We wanted to know on what grounds the registrar suspended the domain but perhaps more importantly we wanted to know if the company is as aggressive as this with its other customers. To that end we posed a question: If DomainBox had been entrusted with the domains of YouTube or Soundcloud would they have acted in the same manner? We cant put words in their mouth but it seems likely that someone in the company would step in to avoid a PR disaster on that scale. Of course both YouTube and Soundcloud comply with the law by taking down content when it infringes someones rights. Its a position held by Sowndhaus too even though they do not operate in the United States. We comply fully with the Copyright Act (Canada) and have our own policy of removing any genuinely infringing content the site says adding that users who infringe are banned from the platform. While there has never been any suggestion that IFPI or its agents asked for Sowndhaus domain to be suspended its clear that DomainBox made a decision to do just that. In some cases that might have been warranted but registrars should definitely aim for a clear transparent and fair process so that the facts can be reviewed and appropriate action taken. Its something for people to keep in mind when they register a domain in future. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
Google Says It Cant Filter Pirated Content Proactively  Over the past few years the entertainment industries have repeatedly asked Google to step up its game when it comes to its anti-piracy efforts.  These calls havent fallen on deaf ears and Google has steadily implemented various anti-piracy measures in response.  Still that is not enough. At least according to several prominent music industry groups who are advocating a Take Down Stay Down approach.  Currently Google mostly responds to takedown requests that are sent in by copyright holders. The search engine deletes the infringing results and demotes the domains of frequent infringers. However the same content often reappears on other sites or in another location on the same site.  Earlier this year a group of prominent music groups stated that the present situation forces rightsholders to participate in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole which doesnt fix the underlying problem. Instead it results in a frustrating burdensome and ultimately ineffective takedown process.  While Google understands the rationale behind the complaints the company doesnt believe in a more proactive solution. This was reiterated by Matt Brittin President of EMEA Business & Operations at Google during the Royal Television Society Event in London this week.  The music industry has been quite tough with us on this. Theyd like us proactively to know this stuff. Its just not possible in this industry Brittin said.  That doesnt mean that Google is sitting still. Brittin stresses that the company has invested millions in anti-piracy tools. That said there can always be room for improvement.  What weve tried to do is build tools that allow them to do that at scale easily and that work all together  Im sure there are places where we could do better. There are teams and millions of dollars invested in this.  Combatting bad acts and piracy is obviously very important to us Brittin added.  While Google sees no room for proactive filtering in search results music industry insiders believe its possible.  Ideally they want some type of automated algorithm or technology that removes infringing results without a targeted DMCA notice. This could be similar to YouTubes Content-ID system or the hash filtering mechanisms Google Drive employs for example.  For now however theres no sign that Google will go beyond the current takedown notice approach at least for search. A Take Down Stay Down mechanism wouldnt understand when content is authorized or not the company previously noted.  And so the status quo is likely to remain at least for now.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons New Technology, Technology, Technology News, News, Google Drive, Entertainment Industry, Google
Google Says It Can't Filter Pirated Content Proactively * TorrentFreak
Google Says It Cant Filter Pirated Content Proactively Over the past few years the entertainment industries have repeatedly asked Google to step up its game when it comes to its anti-piracy efforts. These calls havent fallen on deaf ears and Google has steadily implemented various anti-piracy measures in response. Still that is not enough. At least according to several prominent music industry groups who are advocating a Take Down Stay Down approach. Currently Google mostly responds to takedown requests that are sent in by copyright holders. The search engine deletes the infringing results and demotes the domains of frequent infringers. However the same content often reappears on other sites or in another location on the same site. Earlier this year a group of prominent music groups stated that the present situation forces rightsholders to participate in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole which doesnt fix the underlying problem. Instead it results in a frustrating burdensome and ultimately ineffective takedown process. While Google understands the rationale behind the complaints the company doesnt believe in a more proactive solution. This was reiterated by Matt Brittin President of EMEA Business & Operations at Google during the Royal Television Society Event in London this week. The music industry has been quite tough with us on this. Theyd like us proactively to know this stuff. Its just not possible in this industry Brittin said. That doesnt mean that Google is sitting still. Brittin stresses that the company has invested millions in anti-piracy tools. That said there can always be room for improvement. What weve tried to do is build tools that allow them to do that at scale easily and that work all together Im sure there are places where we could do better. There are teams and millions of dollars invested in this. Combatting bad acts and piracy is obviously very important to us Brittin added. While Google sees no room for proactive filtering in search results music industry insiders believe its possible. Ideally they want some type of automated algorithm or technology that removes infringing results without a targeted DMCA notice. This could be similar to YouTubes Content-ID system or the hash filtering mechanisms Google Drive employs for example. For now however theres no sign that Google will go beyond the current takedown notice approach at least for search. A Take Down Stay Down mechanism wouldnt understand when content is authorized or not the company previously noted. And so the status quo is likely to remain at least for now. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons
New Piracy Scaremongering Video Depicts Dangerous Raspberry Pi  Unless youve been living under a rock for the past few years youll be aware that online streaming of video is a massive deal right now.  In addition to the successes of Netflix and Amazon Prime for example unauthorized sources are also getting a piece of the digital action.  Of course entertainment industry groups hate this and are quite understandably trying to do something about it. Few people have a really good argument as to why they shouldnt but recent tactics by some video-affiliated groups are really starting to wear thin.  From the mouth of Hollywood itself the trending worldwide anti-piracy message is that piracy is dangerous. Torrent sites carry viruses that will kill your computer streaming sites carry malware that will steal your identity and ISDs (thats Illegal Streaming Devices apparently) can burn down your home kill you and corrupt your children.  If anyone is still taking notice of these overblown doomsday messages heres another one. Brought to you by the Hollywood-funded Digital Citizens Alliance the new video rams home the message  the exact same message in fact  that set-top boxes providing the latest content for free are a threat to well just about everything.  While the message is probably getting a little old now its worth noting the big reveal at ten seconds into the video where the evil pirate box is introduced to the viewer.  As reproduced in the left-hand image below it is a blatantly obvious recreation of the totally content-neutral Raspberry Pi the affordable small computer from the UK. Granted people sometimes use it for Kodi (the image on the right shows a Kodi-themed Raspberry Pi case created by official Kodi team partner FLIRC) but its overwhelming uses have nothing to do with the media center or indeed piracy.  Disreputable and dangerous device? Of course not  So alongside all the scary messages the video succeeds in demonizing a perfectly innocent and safe device of which more than 15 million have been sold many of them directly to schools. Since the device is so globally recognizable its a not inconsiderable error.  Its a topic that the Kodi team itself vented over earlier this week noting how the British tabloid media presented the recent wave of Kodi Boxes Can Kill You click-bait articles alongside pictures of the Raspberry Pi.  Instead of showing one of the many thousands of generic black boxes sold without the legally required CE/UL marks the media mainly chose to depict a legitimate Rasbperry Pi clothed in a very familiar Kodi case. The Pis originate from Cambridge UK and have been rigorously certified the team complain.  Were also super-huge fans of the Raspberry Pi Foundation and the proceeds of Pi board sales fund the awesome work they do to promote STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) education in schools. The Kodi FLIRC case has also been a hit with our Raspberry Pi users and sales contribute towards the cost of events like Kodi DevCon.  Its insulting and potentially harmful to see two successful (and safe) products being wrongly presented for the sake of a headline they conclude.  Indeed it seems that both press and the entertainment industry groups that feed them have been playing fast and loose recently with the Raspberry Pi getting a particularly raw deal.  Still if it scares away some pirates thats the main thing.  Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons Ibex, Safe Harbor, Accounting, How To Apply, Over The Years
New Piracy Scaremongering Video Depicts 'Dangerous' Raspberry Pi * TorrentFreak
New Piracy Scaremongering Video Depicts Dangerous Raspberry Pi Unless youve been living under a rock for the past few years youll be aware that online streaming of video is a massive deal right now. In addition to the successes of Netflix and Amazon Prime for example unauthorized sources are also getting a piece of the digital action. Of course entertainment industry groups hate this and are quite understandably trying to do something about it. Few people have a really good argument as to why they shouldnt but recent tactics by some video-affiliated groups are really starting to wear thin. From the mouth of Hollywood itself the trending worldwide anti-piracy message is that piracy is dangerous. Torrent sites carry viruses that will kill your computer streaming sites carry malware that will steal your identity and ISDs (thats Illegal Streaming Devices apparently) can burn down your home kill you and corrupt your children. If anyone is still taking notice of these overblown doomsday messages heres another one. Brought to you by the Hollywood-funded Digital Citizens Alliance the new video rams home the message the exact same message in fact that set-top boxes providing the latest content for free are a threat to well just about everything. While the message is probably getting a little old now its worth noting the big reveal at ten seconds into the video where the evil pirate box is introduced to the viewer. As reproduced in the left-hand image below it is a blatantly obvious recreation of the totally content-neutral Raspberry Pi the affordable small computer from the UK. Granted people sometimes use it for Kodi (the image on the right shows a Kodi-themed Raspberry Pi case created by official Kodi team partner FLIRC) but its overwhelming uses have nothing to do with the media center or indeed piracy. Disreputable and dangerous device? Of course not So alongside all the scary messages the video succeeds in demonizing a perfectly innocent and safe device of which more than 15 million have been sold many of them directly to schools. Since the device is so globally recognizable its a not inconsiderable error. Its a topic that the Kodi team itself vented over earlier this week noting how the British tabloid media presented the recent wave of Kodi Boxes Can Kill You click-bait articles alongside pictures of the Raspberry Pi. Instead of showing one of the many thousands of generic black boxes sold without the legally required CE/UL marks the media mainly chose to depict a legitimate Rasbperry Pi clothed in a very familiar Kodi case. The Pis originate from Cambridge UK and have been rigorously certified the team complain. Were also super-huge fans of the Raspberry Pi Foundation and the proceeds of Pi board sales fund the awesome work they do to promote STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) education in schools. The Kodi FLIRC case has also been a hit with our Raspberry Pi users and sales contribute towards the cost of events like Kodi DevCon. Its insulting and potentially harmful to see two successful (and safe) products being wrongly presented for the sake of a headline they conclude. Indeed it seems that both press and the entertainment industry groups that feed them have been playing fast and loose recently with the Raspberry Pi getting a particularly raw deal. Still if it scares away some pirates thats the main thing. Source: TF for the latest info on copyright file-sharing torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts offers and coupons