Enlarge / The iPhone 11 Pro Max. (credit: Samuel Axon)

Italy has again hit Apple with a fine for what the country's regulators deem to be misleading marketing claims, though the fine is only €10 million ($12 million)—a pittance from a company like Apple.

This time around, Italy's Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) claims that Apple told consumers that many iPhone models are water resistant but that the iPhones are not as resistant as Apple says. In one example, Apple claimed the iPhone 8 was rated IP67 for water and dust resistance, meaning the phone could survive for up to 30 minutes under three feet of water. But the Italian regulator says that's only true under special lab conditions with static and pure water conditions.

An announcement by the AGCM specifically names the iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max. Presumably, the claims would also apply to the iPhone 12 line, but that line was only just introduced to the market.

Read 3 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton talks to media during a press conference in June. (credit: Thierry Monasse | Getty Images)

The chief executive of Google’s parent company Alphabet has apologized to Thierry Breton after an internal document laid out a plan to attack the EU commissioner and promised that such tactics were “not the way we operate.”

In a virtual meeting on Thursday, Sundar Pichai told Mr. Breton, the internal market commissioner, that Google was a very large company and that the document “was never shown to me.” He added that he had not “sanctioned” the plan, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The document set out Google’s response to landmark new legislation from the EU as the bloc reshapes how it regulates Internet companies.

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

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.

Anonymity is a great good on the Internet but increasingly there are calls for stricter identity checks.

Such requirements are not new. In daily life many people have encountered situations where they had to prove their identity. When opening a bank account, for example. But online it is rare.

If it’s up to a large group of organizations with ties to copyright industries, this should change. They call for stricter policies so that hosting companies, domain registrars, and advertisers must properly check who their customers are.

This message was sent in a letter to the European Commission this week. The signatories include anti-piracy outfits such as MPA, BREIN, BPI, IFPI, and RettighedsAlliancen, as well as the international brands Heineken, Nike, and Philips. Together, they call for thorough “know your customer” requirements.

Europe’s Digital Services Act

The letter was sent in response to a public inquiry on Europe’s proposed Digital Service Act, which will determine how online services and platforms are regulated. The senders zoom in on one element, namely, the “Know Your Business Customer” requirements for online platforms.

In the impact assessment published by the European Commission, such a requirement is highlighted. However, that ‘online’ applies to online marketplaces only. This is a missed opportunity and should be broadened, the letter notes.

Online Intermediaries Should Properly Identify Business Customers

According to European law, online businesses are already required to identify themselves based on Article 5 of the e-Commerce Directive. However, this is often ignored by bad actors. This is where the new requirements could prove helpful.

“The DSA represents a real opportunity to rectify the situation that allows bad actors to ignore Article 5 of the ECD with impunity,” the letter explains.

“A business cannot go online without a domain name, without being hosted, or without advertisement or payment services. These intermediary services, having a direct relationship with the business, are therefore best placed to make sure that only businesses that are willing to comply with the law have access to their services.”

The copyright holders and anti-piracy groups state that these checks won’t involve any active monitoring. Some simple due diligence checks based on information that’s publicly verifiable is already sufficient.

Identification Helps to Tackle Online Piracy

At the moment, scammers, counterfeiters, plus pirate sites and services can operate relatively easily in the dark. They often provide false information, when registering a domain name for example. More detailed checks could make this harder.

Knowing who’s behind a pirate site or service obviously makes enforcement efforts much easier. And when the provided information turns out to be false, the customers should be disconnected.

“Should the information provided prove to be manifestly wrong, or the intermediary be notified that the business customer isn’t who it claims to be, the intermediary should stop providing services until the business customer remedies the situation.”

Bad actors have been flaunting the law for years and the Digital Service Act provides an opportunity to fix this, the letter notes. Implementing stricter checks facilitates a “safe and trustworthy online environment” and will make it harder to “distribute illegal content,” the senders add.

Intermediaries Should (be forced) to Take Responsibility

TorrentFreak spoke to Tim Kuik, director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, which is one of the letter’s signatories. He says that it’s no surprise that criminals use fake identities online. However, that intermediaries are not properly verifying the identities of customers is surprising.

“On the one hand, we see upstream providers that are reluctant to disclose customer identity to injured parties who then can not hold the perpetrators liable. On the other hand, we see that when customer identity is disclosed – ultimately providers have to in case of illegal activity – it is fake, either completely made up or of unsuspecting people and their addresses.”

“This frustrates enforcement against all kinds of illegal activity while intermediaries – unknowingly or not – indirectly earn income from it,” Kuik adds.

BREIN has repeatedly emphasized the importance of proper customer identification. Earlier this year it sued several hosting providers that worked with the pirate streaming CDN Moonwalk, to require these companies to verify the identity of customers and require resellers to do the same.

“The latter is necessary because we see a tendency of upstream providers using foreign parties either offshore or to sell in their respective countries, who then do not have true identity information and refuse to provide other identifying information,” Kuik tells us.

The idea to use stricter ‘know your customer’ regulations as a tool to thwart piracy is a hot topic. Just a few weeks ago, a group of prominent anti-piracy groups discussed the same matter in a webinar , which also involved Europol and the Italian Financial Police

—

A copy of the letter sent to Brussels earlier this week is available here (pdf)

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

Last year there were fierce protests against the new EU Copyright Directive which, according to opponents, would result in broad upload filters on the web.

Despite this pushback, the directive passed , and individual EU member states began work to implement the text into local law.

This includes Article 17 (formerly known as Article 13), which requires many online services to license content from copyright holders. If that is not possible, these companies should ensure that infringing content is taken down and not re-uploaded to their services.

After last year’s media storm the upload filter news died down. However, behind the scenes, there is still a lot of work being done. In recent months there have been several stakeholder meetings discussing how the EU Directive can be best implemented by individual states.

Article 17 Guidance Consultation

To help things move forward, the European Commission launched a public consultation at the end of July. The Commission is working on an official guidance document for member states to help them implement Article 17 and has asked stakeholders for input.

The proposed guidance still keeps the door wide open for upload filtering but is also mindful of all the caveats that come with it. For example, it mentions that, when automated filters are used, online services should ensure that content isn’t removed without a good reason.

Specifically, it suggests that simply restoring inaccurately removed content after the fact isn’t good enough. Instead, “legitimate uses should also be considered at the upload of content.”

The public consultation officially ended last week. It has attracted dozens of submissions from key stakeholders many of which go into great detail. While it is impossible to summarize them all, it’s clear that the upload filter battle is far from over.

Copyright Groups are Very Concerned

Late last week a group of major copyright holder groups including IFPI , the MPA , ACT , and Eurocinema , sent a letter to EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, criticizing the drafted guidance document. They fear that the carefully constructed text of the directive will be watered down.

“We are very concerned that, in its Consultation Paper, the Commission is going against its original objective of providing a high level of protection for rightsholders and creators and to create a level playing field in the online Digital Single Market,” the groups write.

“It interprets essential aspects of Article 17 of the Directive in a manner that is incompatible with the wording and the objective of the Article, thus jeopardizing the balance of interests achieved by the EU legislature in Article 17,” their letter adds.

‘Likely Legitimate’ Content Should be Removed Until Further Order

The copyright holder groups identify several specific concerns. One refers to the suggestion that online services should keep content online when it’s “likely legitimate.”

This goes against the text of the agreed Copyright Directive which is highly problematic and creates legal uncertainty, they note. The copyright holders would prefer everything to be removed immediately and put back when content turns out to be legitimate.

“In particular, the possibility for ‘likely legitimate’ content to ‘stay up’ – while the possible application of exceptions and limitation is assessed – is inconsistent with this provision, as interpreted in light of its context and purpose.”

Upload Filter Opponents are Deeply Concerned

A few days after the copyright holder groups shared their concerns, Commissioner Breton also received a letter from several civil society and user rights organizations. These have been very critical of Article 17 and still protest automated upload filters.

“We remain deeply concerned that the guidance endorses the use of automated content blocking by online services even though it is clear that this will lead to the violation of fundamental rights,” the civil rights groups warn.

The organizations, including EFF , Communia , Creative Commons , and EDRi also note some positive changes. This includes the aforementioned suggestion that legal uses should be considered at the upload stage, which is the issue copyright holders are not happy with.

Human Review is Often Required

However, according to the user rights advocates, the public requires even broader protection. They want all content that’s not “manifestly infringing” to be reviewed by human eyes.

“Article 17 requires that all legal uses remain online, not only those that are ‘likely legitimate’ according to a superficial screening that is unlikely to reflect the complexity of copyright law. At minimum, the standard for the deletion of content should be ‘manifestly infringing’.

“In this context, it is essential that uploads that are not manifestly infringing remain available until the human review has been concluded,” the groups add.

It is now up to the European Commission to review all the submissions and come up with a final guidance document, which is expected to be published later this year. In addition to all the public commentary, there will likely be various lobbying efforts behind the scenes as well.

—

A copy of the letter sent by the copyright holder groups is available here (pdf) . The letter sent by the civil society and user rights organizations can be found here (pdf) .

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

Most pirate sites and apps won’t survive without advertising revenue. This is why the advertising industry is seen as an important partner to combat piracy.

Over the years several ad-focused anti-piracy initiatives have emerged. In the UK, hundreds of advertising agencies began banning pirate sites and elsewhere similar measures have followed.

Anti-Piracy ‘Advertising’ Agreement

One of the more prominent plans was orchestrated by the European Commission. In 2016 , this resulted in a set of guiding principles and two years later several leading EU advertising organizations, including Google, officially promised to reduce ad placements on pirate sites.

The memorandum of understanding (MoU) also promised to keep a close eye on the effectiveness of the measures. And indeed, this week the EU Commission released a report documenting the progress made thus far. The same report also gives an indication of how the partnership will move forward.

“This initiative will help deprive these websites and mobile applications of the revenue flows that make their activities profitable,” the EU Commission notes, summing up the ultimate goal.

Drop in Ad Placements

While there is no data on how the revenue of pirate operators has evolved in the first year after the deal was signed, the EU Commission reports that the effect on ad placements is clearly visible in Europe. Specifically, the number of ads served per visit dropped by 12%.

“There has been a 12% decrease in the average number of ads collected per visit to IPR infringing websites following the introduction of the MoU, down from 2.02 in the pre-MoU comparison dataset to 1.77 in the post-MoU comparison dataset,” the EU Commission reports.

This is a positive outcome but at the same time, data show that the number of branded advertising campaigns increased significantly. These refer to ads that can be attributed directly to a specific brand, including well-known companies.

“Although fewer ads were found per visit, the percentage of branded advertising post-MoU has increased from 38% to 52%. The largest increases came from the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy,” the report reads.

The term ‘brand,’ as used in the report, is very broad. It includes both smaller and larger EU brands that operate in a wide variety of industries. While these branded ads increased overall, ads from gaming brands and EU brands decreased.

Fewer Ads From EU Intermediaries

In addition, the number of ads that appear on pirate sites through EU intermediaries, such as advertising outfits, also decreased from 28% to 22% in the year following the signing of the deal.

The reported data comes from a study that was conducted by White Bullet Solutions, which are part of the deal as well. The company monitored ad placements on 7,627 websites from 19 EU countries, using the US as a control group.

The pirate sites offer a wide variety of content but nearly three quarter (72%) was dedicated, at least in part, to film piracy. Most of these sites were so-called linking portals, followed by direct-download and torrent sites respectively.

Overall the data suggest that there are fewer ads on pirate sites. However, what that means for their revenue is not clear. This will be the topic of a follow-up study, the EU Commission writes.

Follow-Up Study Will Look at Ad Revenue

“The second study will provide an estimation of the ad revenues collected by IPR-infringing website owners, in addition to quantifying the evolution of online advertising on IPR-infringing websites over time.”

Despite the well-intentioned efforts, these anti-piracy measures may also have an undesired side-effect. When legitimate advertising companies and brands avoid ‘pirate’ sites, the percentage of ads sourced from dubious partners may increase. Those may be more prone to misleading or harmful practices.

The EU Commission is positive about the future, however, and hopes that more and more companies will join the deal. This applies to advertise companies but also social media firms, payment providers, and others. The more companies that are on board, the more effective the measures will be.

—

A copy of the EU Commission’s report is available here (pdf)

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

My blog post about the proposed EU Copyright Directive where I make a comparison between #Article13 and #DRM and search for a possible solution how to get out of this mess.

#Copyright #Directive #EU

IMHO, the best way to follow the actual status of #Article13 and the whole European Copyright Reform is by checking the Twitter account of Julia Reda regularly. She is MEP for the European Pirate Party (PPEU) and Vice-Chair of GreensEP group and deeply involved into this matter. #EU.

https://twitter.com/Senficon

Guess who I’m gonna vote for in the upcoming European Parlement election in May.

https://european-pirateparty.eu/category/european-elections/