According to the music industry, the main threat to artists and labels from a piracy perspective is the availability of stream-ripping platforms and tools. On the other hand, however, a much more traditional threat also remains an issue.

Recording labels have long lamented the fact that insiders and other people with access to new music have made it available to others in advance of commercial release. Whether those are promo copies, so-called ‘dubplates’ in the vinyl scene, or even CDs liberated from the packing department of a manufacturing facility, early leaks can cause headaches – especially when they make it online.

Of course, leaks appearing online has been the standard for two decades already. The availability of music releases on streaming platforms simultaneously across borders has helped dampen the problem but it still hasn’t eradicated it. In fact, some sites specialize in ensuring content gets online as quickly as possible.

Kingdom Leaks – Leaking Music For Seven Years

While there is no shortage of music leaking sites, Kingdom Leaks (in one form or another) has been around for roughly seven years. That’s quite a feat considering the content on offer. And, despite operating in a niche, the site still manages to pull in an estimated two million visits per month, with many users looking to grab music as far in advance of release as possible.

While this particular party was enjoyed by fans while it lasted, it’s clear that Kingdom Leaks will soon be pulling down the shutters for the last time.

“It is with a heavy heart and great sorrow that today I announce the shutdown of Kingdom Leaks. This was not a decision made lightly or abruptly, nor was this choice made because of legal pressure, a data breach, or anything of that nature,” site operator Lord Kingdom says in a final statement.

“The simple but unfortunate reason is this: mR12 and I have decided to move on, and there is no safe way to hand over the website to another party out of concern for the safety of everyone involved since the site’s inception 7 years ago.”

Shutting Down For Personal Reasons, Jan 1, 2021

While many site operators can run on to ripe old ages without a hitch, Lord Kingdom says he has other ‘real-life’ matters on the agenda that require him to move on, with Kingdom Leaks (KL) firmly behind him.

“With a baby on the way and getting married next year, this is something that I need to put in the past, officially,” he writes.

“This reality has left us at the following decision: we will be permanently shutting down our servers on January 1st, 2021. All user and site data, including that which is stored on PassTheLeaks, will be permanently deleted.”

Those familiar with the site will recognize PassTheLeaks as one of the domains offered as an option for people trying to download music from KL, which is presented via related service Filecrypt. The news that all of this content is set to be deleted will come as a disappointment to users but according to Lord Kingdom, the topic won’t be revisited and the decision to close “is final”.

Not Everyone is Disappointed That Kingdown Leaks is Closing

For many years, copyright holders and their anti-piracy partners have been working hard to have content uploaded by Kingdom Leaks delisted from Google. It will come as no surprise that the BPI takes the lead in the sheer volume of content targeted, closely followed by French music group SCPP and international music organization IFPI.

One of the other anti-piracy companies regularly trying to suppress KL is UK-based anti-piracy company AudioLock . If Kingdom Leaks keeps its word and closes down in just over a month’s time, AudioLock will have less work to do. Speaking with TorrentFreak, however, company founder Ben Rush says that he won’t be sad to see the site go.

“Kingdom Leaks has been around a long time and has a strong user base who are kept updated through various social media feeds of every new release. It covers a lot more rock and metal content than other similar sites and protects links from automated tools that take them down,” Rush says.

AudioLock’s owner says that Kingdom Leaks’ utilization of link encryption (Filecrypt) has meant that the site has been able to keep itself alive, driving its popularity but at the expense of artists who are struggling in the current climate.

“Now without the revenue from live events [due to COVID-19], we are seeing labels seeking to boost existing stream and download revenue by protecting it from piracy. This pressure combined with the site’s popularity will have made it a prime target,” he explains.

Kingdom Leaks Admin Asks Users To Consider Spotify

In what could be an important departing post, Kingdom Leaks admin mR12 (who is also a VIP uploader on The Pirate Bay) has penned an ‘essay’ on why people should be considering Spotify in their music consumption habits moving forward.

“As Kingdom Leaks comes to an unfortunate but inevitable close, you may be considering how your music needs will be sustainably met in the future. Many will understandably and reasonably move to other music blogs, other download sites, and with good cause,” he writes.

“I am not writing to condone these moves; however, I would like to argue, through a serious and practical consideration of the actual need that must be filled, that Spotify is the solution many people are looking for but simply don’t know it or haven’t given it enough consideration.

“I want to show that, yes, Spotify is worth $120 per year, and perhaps more importantly for those of you reading this, that Spotify is compatible with partial music piracy, which I believe is the most optimal and hassle-free solution for the vast majority of people.”

Time will tell how many soon-to-be-former users of KL find his arguments persuasive but Ben Rush is hoping that Kingdom Leaks’ passionate music-fan users will move to legal platforms rather than pirate sites.

“The harsh reality is that if these users want to have releases made by the labels and artists they enjoy, then they need to support them now. Without this support, there will be many labels who will no longer exist, and many artists unable to continue to create music,” he says.

“Show your appreciation and support to the labels and artists that mean so much to you. Secure their future by purchasing directly from the label itself or from legitimate platforms.”

It may have taken seven years but at this point (and if only partially), some kind of consensus appears to have been reached.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Nintendo is doing everything in its power to stop the public from playing pirated games on the Switch console.

Their major adversary is the infamous ‘hacking’ group Team-Xecuter , which released ‘jailbreak’ hacks and modchips for the popular game console.

Criminal and Civil Lawsuits

Last month, the US Department of Justice indicted three alleged members of the hacking group. This was a big move, but one that failed to take the group, or even its website, out of business.

The same can be said for several online stores that sell modchips and hacks for the Switch and other consoles. As part of a civil lawsuit , filed by Nintendo earlier this year, a federal court in Seattle granted an injunction that required several foreign stores to shut down. Again, this was easier said than done.

Since the store operators ignored all communication, Nintendo asked their domain registrars to transfer the domain names, as permitted by the court. This is precisely what happened. A few days after granting the injunction, Txswitch.com and other domains were signed over to the videogame company.

‘Hack’ Store Hops to New Domain

However, a day later Txswitch already appeared to have made a comeback, operating from Stxwitch.com. This site looks nearly identical to the old one and even uses the same logo and code.

This type of ‘domain hopping’ is common in pirate circles and Nintendo hoped that the registrar GoDaddy would take the new domain down as well. This would be in line with the injunction, which states that “any variant or successor” was also covered by the order.

Godaddy Demands Detailed Order

In the event, GoDaddy refused to take action without a court order that specifically spells out the new domain name, a new filing by Nintendo explains.

“Nintendo requested that the STXWITCH.COM domain be immediately transferred as a successor or variant of TXSWITCH.COM pursuant to the Judgment. GoDaddy responded to outside counsel for Nintendo stating that they required the domain name to be listed in an order to take action,” Nintendo writes.

The game company requests the court to clarify that, if new copycat sites appear, these are covered by the existing injunction. As such, registrars would be required to take action without a separate order that specifically mentions the new domain.

Putting and End to the Whac-A-Mole

Without such an order, pirate sites will continue to move to new domains, which means that the court has to keep issuing new orders, creating a whack-a-mole situation.

“Nintendo is concerned that absent such further clarifications of the scope of the Judgment, the Doe Defendants will again domain hop, changing a letter of a domain name, and the cycle will continue to repeat with the registrar contending that the new domain is not specifically covered by the injunction and with Nintendo having to return to this Court,” Nintendo adds.

By clarifying that domains of copycat sites and new variants or successors should be transferred to Nintendo, registrars such as GoDaddy will have to take action more swiftly.

This doesn’t mean that registrars have to “police the Internet” and proactively scan for new copycats, the company notes, as Nintendo will track down the new domains and report these accordingly.

Nintendo hopes that with sufficient clarification from the court it can prevent the piracy hack stores from “thumbing their nose at the court” while frustrating Nintendo’s enforcement efforts.

Dynamic Order Isn’t Perfect Either

The requested order is similar to the dynamic pirate site-blocking orders we have seen in other countries. While those deal with ISP blocking, they also allow copyright holders to add new domains names that pop up.

Given the order that’s already in place, it is likely that the court will grant the requested clarification. However, this doesn’t mean that Nintendo’s troubles are over. There are plenty of registrars and registries that don’t fall under US jurisdiction, after all. So the store may move to one of these next.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s request for clarification and to enforce the permanent injunction is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

While the world has been struggling with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, very few notable movies are being released to the public.

Christopher Nolan’s Tenet was a notable exception but with cinema audiences decimated, even that movie failed to reach anything like its full potential.

But as with most rules, there are exceptions.

Just last month, filmmakers released a movie that was not only an instant smash hit but is already one of the most popular Japanese-made movies of all time, despite the pandemic.

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Infinity Train

Released in Japan on October 16, 2020, Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Infinity Train has done incredibly well by any standards. The anime movie is already the highest-grossing Japanese film of 2020 and is believed to be one of the highest-grossing movies in the country, period. Needless to say, that also makes it one of the most successful anime films ever too.

Based on the manga series Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba , which in itself is the best-selling manga series of all time, the franchise has huge numbers of fans who enjoy the adventures of lead character Tanjiro Kamado, whose kind and determined nature has elevated him to hero status.

A combination of all of these factors has led to an intellectual property drama in both Japan and China, one that has surprisingly caught the attention of the government too.

Hong Kong Police Use Likeness to Front Anti-Fraud Campaign

Given that millions of people are now familiar with Tanjiro, it will come as no surprise that he’s become a part of popular culture, particularly in East Asia but also further afield too. However, a decision by Hong Kong Police to use his likeness in an anti-crime initiative hasn’t gone down well with fans.

Last week a post appeared on Facebook presenting the new face of Hong Kong police’s anti-fraud campaign. Albeit mainly bright purple, the ‘new’ character was immediately confronted with claims of being a ‘rip-off’ of Kanjiro, something that some considered just a little ironic considering the nature of a fraud prevention campaign.

To the untrained eye, similarities might not be blatantly apparent but when taking a closer look, many things become more obvious. When placed side by side in the image below, it’s much easier to see why hardcore fans are less than impressed.

With similar hair, jacket and pants in exactly the same color schemes and designs as those sported by Tanjiro, it’s not hard to see where the police artist drew his influence.

The sword is another obvious element too along with the eyebrows, but when looking at both characters’ foreheads, ‘purple guy’ (who the police say is called ‘Grape’) also has exactly the same marking as Kanjiro which, according to the series, is not a tattoo but a birthmark.

Kanjiro Copying Prompts Copyright Warning From Japan’s Government

While this type of usage might normally find itself glossed over, this matter has attracted the interest of Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Katō.

Noting that he prefers not to comment on specific cases, during a meeting yesterday the Minister did acknowledge that the image posted by Hong Kong Police does indeed resemble Tanjiro, so he took the opportunity to reiterate Japan’s strong stance towards the infringement of local content including manga and anime.

Stating that protecting the rights of Japanese animation is important, Minister Katō added that he wants to “take proper measures” to protect intellectual property wherever possible. There’s no immediate indication that anything will be done to prevent Hong Kong Police from using the image moving forward but we were interested to know whether such use is actionable in Japan or indeed Hong Kong, given the public outcry.

Japan’s Copyright Act Has No Fair Use Doctine

After speaking with an anime expert yesterday who advised that, in his opinion, ‘Grape’ is “a rather obvious parody” of the movie’s main character Tanjiro, TorrentFreak contacted Masaharu Ina, Director of Overseas Copyright Protection at Japan-based anti-piracy group CODA. He confirmed that there is no fair use doctrine under the Copyright Act but said a parody defense is available.

“Parody defense is permitted under the Japanese Copyright Act and has been successfully engaged as a defense against copyright (or trademark) infringement at Japanese Court,” he explained.

In this case, however, he doubts whether the similarities could be actionable as copyright infringement.

“Yes, ‘Kimetsu no Yaiba’ (aka ‘Demon Slayers’) is a copyrighted work. However, just the fact that the Hong Kong design utilizes certain features of the hero of ‘Demon Slayers’ does not constitute a copyright infringement as a matter of law. To constitute a copyright infringement, the design in question must be identical or confusingly similar to the original design. To my eyes the two designs do not appear to be similar enough,” he said.

All of that being said, CODA’s director seems convinced that Hong Kong Police knew what they were doing when they created the new character. As it turns out, when one can read the text that accompanies the image of ‘Grape’, it’s actually there in black and white.

“Interestingly, the design is accompanied by the name of the character that is similar to the original Japanese character and also the name ‘Kimetsu no Yaiba’ in Chinese characters are inserted at the left-top corner, which makes me believe that the Hong Kong Police tried to trade off of the property.

“Therefore, it seems that the design was made on a rather questionable intention, but I do not believe that it constitutes copyright infringement,” he concludes.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Every year copyright holder groups get the chance to share their list of “notorious” piracy actors to the US Trade Representative .

These recommendations serve as the basis for USTR’s annual report, which is a diplomatic tool to pressure companies and countries to take action.

In recent years this list has slowly expanded to include not only pirate sites and counterfeit markets, but also third-party intermediaries.

Focus on Intermediaries

The USTR follows this trend and has made online intermediaries a ‘focus issue’ this year. This was illustrated earlier this week when the RIAA and MPA ‘nominated’ several hosting services, domain registries, and advertisers.

These two groups are not alone as many other rightsholders have chimed in as well. This includes Spain’s top football league ‘ La Liga ‘ which submitted several recommendations that, for the public at large, are not typically associated with piracy.

“Our biggest concern consists of the illegal streaming of live sports competitions by people or companies that are not authorized to do so,” La Liga writes.

IPTV and Streaming Threats

The organization starts by highlighting several illegal IPTV services such as Megaplay, Seko IPTV, VolkaIPTV, ATN and King 365 TV, as well as IPTV playlist forums including IPTV URLs and IPTV SAT. These are the usual suspects one would expect.

The second category includes illegal streaming sites like Pirlo TV, BeIN Match and Yalla Shoot, as well as streaming link sites, such as Cable Gratis TV, Hulk Sport and Hulk Sport. Most of these are clearly infringing as well.

La Liga then moves into the intermediary area by highlighting hosting providers. According to the sports organization, these companies can help to prevent infringements but, in most cases, they don’t.

Uncooperative Hosting Companies

Rightsholders often complain about abuse by pirate sites and services but these complaints don’t have any effect.

“It should be noted that most of the Hosting Providers Companies ignore e-mails and letters referred to IPR infringements,” La Liga writes, after which it sums up the most relevant companies.

This list includes Namecheap, which is located in the US, as well as the Canadian e-commerce platform Shopify. US-based CDN provider Cloudflare gets a mention as well, together with the Russia-based Offshore-Servers and BlueAngelHost from Pakistan.

“Preventive actions are needed to avoid that IPR infringers can host illegal content so easily on the Hosting Provider Companies’ servers,” La Liga notes, while demanding “quick responses and effective solutions” from these intermediaries.

The sports league provides no details on what infringing content these companies host or what action they fail to take. However, it clearly demands a more active and aggressive anti-piracy stance.

eBay and Alibaba

The latter also applies to eBay and Alibaba. These companies are listed in the e-commerce category and reportedly offer illegal set-top boxes and IPTV deals.

While these are “somewhat cooperative” in terms of enforcement, according to La Liga, they can do more.

The list of notorious piracy markets continues with ‘cyberlockers’ such as Mega, MediaFire, and Uptobox. These can be used legally, the recommendation notes, but are often used to share pirated content as well.

Telegram

The latter also applies to social media and communication apps. La Liga calls out Telegram specifically in this regard, noting that it’s “extremely complicated and slow” to remove illegal content from the platform.

“We have detected that Telegram is increasingly being used to illegally share copyright-protected contents through certain channels. Those channels have significantly increased their users, La Liga writes.

These and other recommendations will be taken into account by the USTR which will issue its final list of “notorious markets” in a few months. Whether Namecheap, eBay, Telegram, and Shopify will be called out, has yet to be seen.

Over the past several years, copyright holders have repeatedly called on third-party intermediaries to increase their anti-piracy efforts. The USTR now follows this lead by making it a focus issue and these recommendations are part of the strategy.

However, it’s still an odd sight to see eBay and Namecheap being mentioned alongside The Pirate Bays of this world.

—

A copy of La Liga’s submission to the US Trade Representative is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN aims to tackle all kinds of piracy, wherever and however it takes place online.

From popular P2P technologies such as BitTorrent through to streaming portals and the well-established protocols of Usenet, BREIN can be found working in the background to prevent people from distributing and obtaining content without permission.

This week, however, the company revealed it has been targeting one of the oldest and most basic file-sharing methods still in existence today.

BREIN Targets Open Directories

In an announcement Thursday, BREIN said it had been successful in shutting down several dozen ‘open directories’ which offered tens of thousands of eBooks to the public without permission from rights holders. As is often the case, BREIN contacted hosting providers with copyright takedown notices, taking the directories offline.

In some instances, where BREIN was able to identify those responsible, directory operators were given the opportunity to settle the complaint by taking their offering down, paying BREIN’s costs, and agreeing not to infringe copyright in the future.

So what are ‘open directories’ and how do they work?

An Ancient, Basic, Yet Intriguing Way to Offer Files

In a nutshell, ‘open directories’ are just that – directories (or folders, to use Windows terminology) filled with content that is easily accessible to users via the web.

Most of these directories are put in place by someone in charge of a website and/or server. With some free hard drive space available, the individual might choose to upload a bunch of family photographs, documents (or indeed an entire media collection) so that they can be accessed from anywhere or used to serve content to a website.

Neglecting to protect directories with a username and password, for example, renders them ‘open’ but, in many cases, these folders are left unsecured on purpose, placed on a regular server for sharing with others, or in some instances, on an unsecured third-party’s server which then acts as an unauthorized file ‘dump’.

None of this is particularly glamorous or technologically advanced but what open directories offer is a huge quantity of media accessible to anyone for downloading directly to their machines, using only a web browser.

Since by their very nature they don’t require a login, password, or special tools, the only obstacle is how to find these directories in the first instance. However, since they are a part of the web itself, the majority are discoverable using Google or a similar search engine.

Finding Open Directories is Easy

One of the most basic ways to find open directories is to Google the search term index / (or intitle:\”index.of\” ) followed by the type of content sought. The image below reveals Google’s results following the most basic of searches for directories referencing the image format JPG.

The very top result is indicative of the kind of unusual content one is likely to find with such an unsophisticated search. Found at ‘ e-hand.com/jpg/ ‘, the directory appears to consist of an image library showing deformed, injured, or otherwise non-regular hands.

Of course, images of wonky hands is a fairly niche topic so it’s likely that people will want to stretch their legs a little, using more sophisticated techniques to find content of interest. Again, Google is a great starting point and for those with the right skillset, elaborate search parameters can be combined to produce the required results.

For those who don’t have the necessary ‘Google-fu’ or simply can’t be bothered, there are tools that do all of the heavy lifting, such as the Google Open Directory Search , the Open Directory Search Tool , or more flashy examples such as File Pursuit . There are even communities dedicated to revealing what other searchers have found.

Warning: Open Directories Can Contain Anything

Finally, it’s worth pointing out while some open directories are goldmines of popular movies, music, TV shows plus rare and sometimes unusual personal content, they are also home to mountains of ‘junk’ that are only of interest to the person who put them there. In some cases, they can also contain material that some may find offensive due to its adult nature but there are other risks too.

Unlike some other indexes, these directories are totally unmoderated, meaning that the ‘game’ or ‘app’ you’re about to download could be infested with malware, have been maliciously mislabeled, or may take days to download only to yield nothing of interest. Importantly, open directories are not inherently ‘pirate’ either, they’re just shared folders that can and do contain just about anything.

The same can be said about open Google Drives, which can be found by pasting the search phrase site:drive.google.com +”drive/folders” into Google. These are not open directories in the pure sense of the term but still yield similar results, with the exception that all files are actually hosted (rather than just indexed) by Google.

In any event, the content on offer in many of these directories is often interesting to users despite it being potentially risky to offer, especially when entities like BREIN are on the prowl.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Lawsuits against alleged movie pirates are nothing new. We have reported on many dozens over the years.

More recently, Hawaii-based attorney Kerry Culpepper added a new element to these cases when he singled out YTS users .

The lawyer was able to do this because YTS handed over database information as part of a private settlement. A rather concerning development, which caused quite a stir among torrent users and site owners.

This tactic is interesting from a few perspectives. For one, the database information is additional evidence and provides valuable information such as email addresses. In addition, calling a torrent site by name may deter some people from using it in the future. It’s a win-win.

Lawsuit Against Alleged RARBG Users

That last argument may be why a new lawsuit, filed on behalf of the makers of the films Rambo V: Last Blood and Ava, singles out the torrent site RARBG.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in Hawaii, the movie companies accuse 16 “John Doe” defendants who are only known by their IP-addresses. These people were tracked by the company Maverickeye, which provides evidence for many related cases.

In this case, the IP-addresses are linked to torrents for the movies ‘Ava’ and ‘Rambo V,’ which are shared on many pirate sites. However, the movie companies specifically call out RARBG.

“Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants registered for an account on the movie piracy website ‘RARBG’ using an email address or installed a BitTorrent Client application on their device that retrieved torrent files from the movie piracy website ‘RARBG’,” they write.

What Evidence is There?

The RARBG mention is unusual because there’s no evidence to back up the claim that the defendants actually used this site. RARBG didn’t share any user data, as opposed to YTS.

The only link to RARBG we can spot is that the torrents “Ava.2020.WEBDL.x264-FGT” and “Rambo.Last.Blood.2019.1080p.KORSUB.HDRip.x264.AAC2.0-STUTTERSHIT” are shared on the popular torrent site. That said, the same files, linking to the same swarms, are available elsewhere too.

Nonetheless, RARBG is prominently mentioned throughout the complaint. The “notorious” pirate site “promotes and distributes” pirated content, the companies say.

“As shown in the screenshot below, the movie piracy website ‘RARBG’ promotes and distributes the infringing torrent file ‘Ava.2020.WEBDL.x264-FGT’ which Defendants downloaded and used to display, reproduce and distribute the Work Ava.”

Whether the defendants used RARBG or another site doesn’t change the copyright infringement allegations. These are totally independent of the site from which the torrents were downloaded.

TorrentFreak reached out to the plaintiffs’ attorney who refused to comment on the issue. One possibility we could think of is that the site is mentioned to signal to users that they are vulnerable. But that would equally apply to other sites.

Copyright Infringements and DMCA Violation

Looking at the actual allegations, a familiar theme appears. All 16 ‘Does’ are accused of direct and contributory copyright infringement for allegedly sharing copies of the movie Ava, and one defendant also shared the Rambo film.

In addition, the defendants are further accused of violating the DMCA by altering copyright management information (CMI). In this case, that means distributing the movies with an edited title, which references pirate groups such as “FGT” and “STUTTERSHIT”.

“Defendants knew that neither ‘FGT’ nor ‘STUTTERSH*T’ were the authors of Plaintiffs’ Works,” the complaint reads.

As is common in these types of cases, the movie companies requested a subpoena to compel the ISP, Verizon Wireless, to hand over the personal details of the associated subscribers. If granted, the accused will likely be offered a settlement of a few hundred dollars or more.

Update: RARBG issued the following statement to us: “We do not log ip addresses on downloads or any registered user IP addresses. It is our strong belief that these ip addresses were collected by p2p monitoring on torrent swarms.”

—

A copy of the complaint filed on behalf of Eve Nevada, LLC and Rambo V Productions, Inc, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Prominent tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google, all respond to takedown notices, as they are legally required to do.

Major copyright holder groups believe this is not enough. They have repeatedly called on these platforms to do more to curb online piracy.

This is a controversial issue, as the EU Copyright Directive negotiations highlighted last year. The public at large fears that proactive measures such as automated upload filters will result in overblocking and restrictions of free speech.

The leading Internet companies have been critical of upload filters as well but they are not against further action. Earlier this year industry group EDiMA , which represents Twitter, Facebook, Google, TikTok, Mozilla, and others, proposed a landmark Online Responsibility framework.

Tackling Piracy With Proactive Algorithms

With this framework, the tech giants propose to use algorithms to tackle illegal content including piracy, beyond what’s currently required by law. The word ‘filter’ isn’t mentioned specifically, but that’s pretty much what you get when using algorithms proactively.

The proposed framework refers to ‘illegal’ content and avoids the term copyright, but we have confirmed that anti-piracy measures are certainly covered.

“The Online Responsibility Framework would facilitate proactive action by service providers against any and all illegal content, including copyrighted content,” Siada El Ramly, Director General of EDiMA tells TorrentFreak.

This week, EDiMA released a new paper as part of the plan. The group highlights that its members want to do more to tackle illegal content but stress that this is tricky under current EU law.

“Online service providers want to do more to voluntarily and proactively remove illegal content from their services, and society wants the same. However, there are important barriers under the current regime which prevent them from doing so.”

Existing EU law requires online service providers to remove illegal content if they have actual knowledge of its presence. They are, however, not obliged to find and police all illegal content uploaded by users, which helps to prevent overblocking that can harm free speech.

While the tech companies generally value free speech, this ‘protection’ of user rights now finds itself in the way. It makes it harder for online services to proactively remove pirated content, which they are eager to do.

Safeguard Paves Way For Proactive Measures

EDiMA, therefore, calls for a new legal safeguard that allows tech companies to use proactive measures, such as upload filters, without the risk of being held liable for having ‘actual knowledge’ of illegal content.

“The association is calling for the introduction of a legal safeguard which would allow companies to take proactive actions to remove illegal content and activity from their services, without the risk of additional liability for those attempts to tackle illegal content,” the group says.

“Current EU rules lack this crucial provision, which has a chilling effect on service providers who want to do more to tackle illegal activity online.”

Actual Knowledge

The term ‘actual knowledge’ is key here. The tech companies want to use algorithms to detect and remove illegal material, but they don’t want this to constitute having ‘actual knowledge,’ which means that they can be held liable afterward.

In the US this is not an issue because of the “good samaritan” principle and EDiMA now calls for a liability safeguard in the EU as well.

“The Framework and the legal safeguards would complement the existing copyright directive by facilitating service providers making ‘best efforts’ to ensure that copyrighted material, for which no license was agreed, would not be available on their service,” El Ramly tells us.

“It would remove the disincentive that exists for service providers to find and remove this material, and instead encourage it.”

Automated Filters Are (not) a Problem

EDiMA positions its framework as a great solution for all involved, including users, but the tone of their message is completely different from what we’ve seen in the past.

Just a few months ago, many of the same companies that are part of EDiMA warned against the EU Copyright Directive as algorithms and upload filters may harm free speech .

The EU proposal, however, makes clear that companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok see proactive algorithmic actions – which can be translated to automated filters – as a good solution.

Keeping User Rights in Mind

EDiMA’s proposal does keep the rights of users in mind as well. It stresses that its proposed framework still prohibits the requirement for a general monitoring obligation. In addition, people should have the right to appeal removals of their content.

This appeals process should be transparent. Users have the right to know why something was removed and additional human reviews may be required. Also, while an appeal is pending, it should be possible to reinstate flagged material.

“These specific safeguards will ensure that users have a meaningful way to get an explanation as to why their content was removed and to contest removals should they wish to do so,” the proposal reads.

“They will also ensure that service providers have clear and proactive policies in place when it comes to which content is allowed on their services, while fostering transparent dialogue with their users.”

Easing into The Copyright Directive?

All in all, it is safe to say that the major tech companies do see a future for automated filters. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, as companies already widely use these today, including YouTube’s Content-ID system.

It appears that with EDiMA’s Online Responsibility Framework and the extra “safeguards” the tech companies try to pave the way for a smooth implementation of the EU Copyright Directive, on their terms.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In recent months we have reported in detail how users of the popular torrent site YTS were sued in US courts .

In several of these cases, information shared by the site’s operator was brought in as evidence. The user info was obtained by anti-piracy lawyer Kerry Culpepper, as part of an undisclosed settlement agreement.

This week the same attorney is back in court representing ‘Eve Nevada LLC,’ the company behind the film Ava , which is shared widely on various pirate sites. Again, YTS is prominently mentioned, but this time things are different.

The complaint, filed at a Hawaii federal court, lists 19 ‘John Doe’ defendants who are only known by their IP-addresses. These addresses were caught sharing the film via public torrent trackers. Specifically, the complaint mentions a file titled “ Ava (2020) [1080p] [WEBRip] [5.1] [YTS.MX] .”

This title leads the filmmakers to the conclusion that the defendant must have been users of the YTS site. Or as the complaint puts it:

“Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants registered for an account on the YTS website using an email address or installed a BitTorrent Client application on their device that retrieved torrent files from the YTS website.”

This same conclusion, in addition to the fact that defendants downloaded the same file, is also used as an argument to join the 19 defendants in one case. However, based on the information presented, it’s far from clear that at all of these people were indeed YTS users.

Unlike in the other cases, the copyright holder didn’t present any information from the YTS user base, likely because it doesn’t have any. The data-sharing was a one-time arrangement several months ago, long before YTS released the movie Ava.

While it’s possible that the defendants indeed used YTS, they could have easily downloaded the .torrent file from other sites where the same file was made available. Although several torrent sites banned YTS torrents , many haven’t, including the illustrious Pirate Bay.

Whether the defendants are actually YTS users or not may not make much of a difference. At least not for the copyright infringement allegations.

In addition to direct and contributory copyright infringement, the complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the DMCA by altering copyright management information (CMI). In this case, that means distributing the movie Ava with an edited title, which references YTS.

“Particularly, the Defendants distributed the file names that included CMI that had been altered to include the wording ‘YTS’. Defendants knew that the wording “YTS” originated from the notorious movie piracy website for which each had registered accounts and/or actively used,” the complaint reads.

It’s doubtful that any of these cases will be fought on the merits. When the defendant’s personal information is exposed it’s likely that they will receive a settlement request, which is usually around $1,000. Those who refuse to settle can argue their case in court, but that’s going to cost as well. They can eventually win the case, but not without investing in a legal defense first.

As far as we know this is the first time people have been sued for downloading the film Ava. The company Eve Nevada is a new name as well, but one with familiar connections. It’s connected to the broader Voltage Pictures family, which has sued tens of thousands of people over the years.

—

A copy of the complaint filed at the US District Court of Hawaii is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

While most pirates in 2020 use torrent, streaming and download portals for their general piracy needs, many are still obtaining the latest content from Usenet, one of the oldest file-sharing systems around.

With masses of storage space and blisteringly quick download speeds available (not to mention archives dating back years), Usenet is still a significant source of pirated movies, music, games and just about every other type of content available. But finding that content isn’t always so easy.

Finding Content on Usenet

Since Usenet isn’t web-based, methods have been created over the years to enable people to download more easily from the newsgroups. The NZB file, for example, can be described as a kind of .torrent file for Usenet, one that is quickly downloaded and contains ‘directions’ so that clients can access content.

Sites for downloading NZB files still exist but aren’t as prevalent as they once were, so finding the whereabouts of content on Usenet is still something pirates have to achieve. In 2001, almost two decades ago, Netherlands-based Usenet community FTD launched with a goal of helping people do just that.

After Legal Action, FTD Shuts Down

After around eight years in operation, the FTD community had grown to 500,000 members and with the assistance of its own software, was enabling users to find (‘spot’) the location of material they found on Usenet and share that information with others. This community effort enabled huge numbers of people to find and download all the content they wanted but with much of it infringing, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN became involved.

Ultimately, a court found that FTD acted outside the law and in 2011 it was ordered to remove all ‘spots’ of copyrighted files within a month. At the time BREIN said that people weren’t allowed to structurally make use of illegal files, and that applied to Usenet as well as the wider Internet.

“BREIN will also hold liable any other websites and services that do the same regardless of the technical protocol they use for their illegal business model,” BREIN chief Tim Kuik said at the time.

As it turns out, nine years after the takedown of FTD, BREIN says it is still doing just that.

Spotweb – A Web Client/Interface for the Spotnet Protocol

Following the demise of FTD, a protocol known as Spotnet gained an unexpected boost. Operating on top of Usenet, Spotnet provides an alternative to Usenet indexing sites, making ‘spots’ less vulnerable to the anti-piracy actions of groups like BREIN. In order to see content ‘spots’ a Spotnet client is required. However, people can also make use of Spotweb, a piece of software that as its name suggests, brings ‘spots’ directly to the web.

“Spotweb is open source software that allows you to locate illegal copies of entertainment content in newsgroups on usenet. You can set up Spotweb so that it is visible to everyone. It then acts as a website,” Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN said in an announcement this week.

While BREIN is interested in all types of piracy related to Usenet, Spotweb’s ability to make content extremely easy to find via the web is clearly an issue, as the screenshot of a Spotweb instance below shows.

Spotweb is available on Github and can be installed on Unix-based systems and even NAS devices from companies such as Synology and QNAP. As such the barrier to running a public repository of infringing content links is quite low, something that BREIN is keen to discourage.

BREIN Says it is Taking Action Against Those Running Spotweb

“People who do this offer illegal spots (nzb links or references) to unauthorized content. BREIN writes to such providers and urges them to stop doing so, to sign a declaration of abstention with a penalty of 500 euros and to pay 150 euros in costs,” BREIN said this week.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, BREIN chief Tim Kuik said that Spotnet/Spotweb has become one of the main means to search for and download pirated content from Usenet and those running it for infringing purposes face a situation as precarious as that faced by FTD all those years ago.

“The legal position is the same as for FTD and other link sites. Linking to illegal content is illegal and has been standing case law [in the Netherlands] for well over a decade. It started out being a tort and in the meantime, under EU case law, it is now a communication to the public,” he explained.

As is common with ongoing actions for shutdown and settlement, Kuik didn’t provide specifics on who had been approached to shut down, who had shut down, or how many people had agreed to pay settlements. However, he confirmed that during the past few weeks, “a handful” of people operating Spotweb sites had been approached by the anti-piracy group with orders to close.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.