Tag Archives: court

Hollywood and Netflix Ask Court to Seize Tickbox Streaming Devices

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-and-netflix-ask-court-to-seize-tickbox-streaming-devices-171209/

More and more people are starting to use Kodi-powered set-top boxes to stream video content to their TVs.

While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, sellers who ship devices with unauthorized add-ons give it a bad reputation.

According to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies, Tickbox TV is one of these bad actors.

Earlier this year, ACE filed a lawsuit against the Georgia-based company, which sells set-top boxes that allow users to stream a variety of popular media. The Tickbox devices use the Kodi media player and come with instructions on how to add various add-ons.

According to ACE, these devices are nothing more than pirate tools, allowing buyers to stream copyright infringing content. “TickBox promotes and distributes TickBox TV for infringing use, and that is exactly the result of its use,” they told court this week.

After the complaint was filed in October, Tickbox made some cosmetic changes to the site, removing some allegedly inducing language. The streaming devices are still for sale, however, but not for long if it’s up to the media giants.

This week ACE submitted a request for a preliminary injunction to the court, hoping to stop Tickbox’s sales activities.

“TickBox is intentionally inducing infringement, pure and simple. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a preliminary injunction that requires TickBox to halt its flagrantly illegal conduct immediately,” they write in their application.

The companies explain that that since Tickbox is causing irreparable harm, all existing devices should be impounded.

“[A]ll TickBox TV devices in the possession of TickBox and all of its officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation or in privity with any of them are to be impounded and shall be retained by Defendant until further order of the Court,” the proposed order reads.

In addition, Tickbox should push out a software update which remove all infringing add-ons from the devices that were previously sold.

“TickBox shall, via software update, remove from all distributed TickBox TV devices all Kodi ‘Themes,’ ‘Builds,’ ‘Addons,’ or any other software that facilitates the infringing public performances of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.”

Among others, the list of allegedly infringing add-ons and themes includes Spinz, Lodi Black, Stream on Fire, Wookie, Aqua, CMM, Spanish Quasar, Paradox, Covenant, Elysium, UK Turk, Gurzil, Maverick, and Poseidon.

The filing shows that ACE is serious about its efforts to stop the sale of these type of streaming devices. Tickbox has yet to reply to the original complaint or the injunction request.

While this is the first US lawsuit of its kind, the anti-piracy conglomerate has been rather active in recent weeks. The group has successfully pressured several addon developers to quit and has been involved in enforcement actions around the globe.

A copy of the proposed preliminary injunction is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Movie Company Has No Right to Sue, Accused Pirate Argues

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/movie-company-has-no-right-to-sue-accused-pirate-argues-171208/

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 Defendant’s current motion for summary judgment challenges a different portion of F&D’s 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 that’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 Plaintiff’s 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 don’t have the proper rights, defendants in other cases may argue the same. It’s 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

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/dutch-film-distributor-wins-right-to-chase-pirates-store-data-for-5-years-171208/

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 country’s “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 €1,000, 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 stated…that 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 haven’t 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 person’s 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 aren’t cheap to run, it’s 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, it’s 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

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/resilient-tvaddons-plans-to-ditch-proactive-piracy-screening-171207/

After years of smooth sailing, this year TVAddons became a poster child for the entertainment industry’s 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 wasn’t 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.

“We’re 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 isn’t an easy feat,” a TVAddons representative informs TorrentFreak.

While it’s still far away from the 40 million unique users it had earlier this year, before the trouble began, it’s 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 didn’t go unnoticed. The relatively small selection of add-ons is a major drawback for some, but that’s 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, there’s no reason why we should be held to a higher standard than Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Reddit given the fact that we don’t even host any form of streaming content in the first place.

“Our interim policy isn’t pragmatic, it’s nearly impossible for us to verify the global licensing of all forms of protected content. When you visit a website, there’s no way of verifying licensing beyond trusting them based on reputation.”

The upcoming change doesn’t 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 we’ve received a legitimate complaint we’ve 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 user’s 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 don’t 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

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/movie-tv-companies-tackle-pirate-iptv-in-australia-federal-court-171207/

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 Australia’s 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 isn’t 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 won’t 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 Roadshow’s injunction application. 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 that’s what you want to do, then you’ll have to amend the orders and let the parties know,” Judge John Nicholas said.

“It’s 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

New Police Anti-Piracy Task Force May Get Involved in Site Blocking

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/new-police-anti-piracy-task-force-may-get-involved-in-site-blocking-171206/

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 that’s 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

ISPs and Movie Industry Prepare Canadian Pirate Site Blocking Deal

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/isps-and-movie-industry-prepare-canadian-pirate-site-blocking-deal-171205/

ISP blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industry to target pirate sites on the Internet.

In recent years sites have been blocked throughout Europe, in Asia, and even Down Under.

In most countries, these blockades are ordered by local courts, which compel Internet providers to restrict access to certain websites. In Canada, however, there’s a plan in the works to allow for website blockades without judicial oversight.

A coalition of movie industry companies and ISPs, including Bell, Rogers, and Cineplex are discussing a proposal to implement such measures. The Canadian blocklist would be maintained by a new non-profit organization called “Internet Piracy Review Agency” (IPRA) and enforced through the CTRC, Canadaland reports.

The plan doesn’t come as a total surprise as Bell alluded to a nationwide blocking mechanism during a recent Government hearing. What becomes clear from the new plans, however, is that the telco is not alone.

The new proposal is being discussed by various stakeholders including ISPs and local movie companies. As in other countries, major American movie companies are also in the loop, but they will not be listed as official applicants when the plan is submitted to the CRTC.

Canadian law professor Micheal Geist is very critical of the plans. Although the proposal would only cover sites that “blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally” engage in or facilitate copyright infringement, this can be a blurry line.

“Recent history suggests that the list will quickly grow to cover tougher judgment calls. For example, Bell has targeted TVAddons, a site that contains considerable non-infringing content,” Geist notes.

“It can be expected that many other sites disliked by rights holders or broadcasters would find their way onto the block list,” he adds.

While the full list of applicants is not ready yet, it is expected that the coalition will file its proposal to the CRTC before the end of the month.

Thus far, the Government appears to be reluctant in its response. In comments to Canadaland spokesperson Karl Sasseville stressed that Canada maintains committed to an open Internet.

“Our government supports an open internet where Canadians have the ability to access the content of their choice in accordance to Canadian laws,” Sasseville says. “While other parts of the world are focused on building walls, we’re focused on opening doors‎.”

As we’ve seen in the past, “net neutrality” and website blocking are not mutually exclusive. Courts around the world, also in Canada, have ordered content to be blocked, open Internet or not. However, bypassing the judicial system may prove to be a problem.

Professor Geist is happy with the Government’s comments and notes that legal basis for the proposal is thin.

He stresses that the ISPs involved in these plans should seriously consider if they want to continue down this path, which isn’t necessarily in the best interest of their customers.

“The government rightly seems dismissive of the proposal in the Canadaland report but as leading Internet providers, Bell and Rogers should be ashamed for leading the charge on such a dangerous, anti-speech and anti-consumer proposal,” Geist concludes.

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

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/coalition-against-piracy-wants-singapore-to-block-streaming-piracy-software-171204/

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, National Basketball Association, Viacom International, and others among its members.

In several recent reports, CAP has homed in on the piracy situation in Singapore. Describing the phenomenon as “rampant”, the group says that around 40% of locals engage in the practice, many of them through unlicensed streaming. Now CAP, in line with its anti-streaming stance, wants the government to do more – much more.

Since a large proportion of illicit streaming takes place through set-top devices, CAP’s 21 members want the authorities to block the software inside them that enables piracy, Straits Times reports.

“Within the Asia-Pacific region, Singapore is the worst in terms of availability of illicit streaming devices,” said CAP General Manager Neil Gane.

“They have access to hundreds of illicit broadcasts of channels and video-on-demand content.”

There are no precise details on CAP’s demands but it is far from clear how any government could effectively block software.

Blocking access to the software package itself would prove all but impossible, so that would leave blocking the infrastructure the software uses. While that would be relatively straightforward technically, the job would be large and fast-moving, particularly when dozens of apps and addons would need to be targeted.

However, CAP is also calling on the authorities to block pirate streams from entering Singapore. The country already has legislation in place that can be used for site-blocking, so that is not out of the question. It’s notable that the English Premier League is part of the CAP coalition and following legal action taken in the UK earlier this year, now has plenty of experience in blocking streams, particularly of live broadcasts.

While that is a game of cat-and-mouse, TorrentFreak sources that have been monitoring the Premier League’s actions over the past several months report that the soccer outfit has become more effective over time. Its blocks can still be evaded but it can be hard work for those involved. That kind of expertise could prove invaluable to CAP.

“The Premier League is currently engaged in its most comprehensive global anti-piracy programme,” a spokesperson told ST. “This includes supporting our broadcast partners in South-east Asia with their efforts to prevent the sale of illicit streaming devices.”

In common with other countries around the world, the legality of using ‘pirate’ streaming boxes is somewhat unclear in Singapore. A Bloomberg report cites a local salesman who reports sales of 10 to 20 boxes on a typical weekend, rising to 300 a day during electronic fairs. He believes the devices are legal, since they don’t download full copies of programs.

While that point is yet to be argued in court (previously an Intellectual Property Office of Singapore spokesperson said that copyright owners could potentially go after viewers), it seems unlikely that those selling the devices will be allowed to continue completely unhindered. The big question is how current legislation can be successfully applied.

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

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/digital-rights-groups-warn-against-copyright-parking-tickets-bill-171203/

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, there’s 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,” EFF’s 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 $15,000 per infringement, or $30,000 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 $5,000 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]t’s 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

Epic Games Settles First Copyright Case Against Fortnite Cheater

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/epic-games-settles-first-copyright-case-against-fortnite-cheater-171201/

Frustrated by thousands of cheaters who wreak havoc in Fortnite’s “Battle Royale,” game publisher Epic Games decided to take several of them to court.

One of the defendants is Minnesota resident Charles Vraspir, a.k.a. “Joreallean,”

The game publisher accused him of copyright infringement and breach of contract, by injecting unauthorized computer code in order to cheat.

According to Epic’s allegations, Vraspir was banned at least nine times but registered new accounts to continue his cheating. In addition, he was also suspected of having written code for the cheats.

“Defendant’s cheating, and his inducing and enabling of others to cheat, is ruining the game playing experience of players who do not cheat,” Epic games wrote.

While the complaint included all the elements for an extensive legal battle, both sides chose to resolve the case without much of a fight. Yesterday, they informed the court that a settlement had been reached.

Epic Games’ counsel asked the court to enter the agreement as well as a permanent injunction, which both have agreed on.

The proposed injunction, signed today, forbids Vraspir from carrying out any copyright infringements in the future, to destroy all cheats, and to never cheat again.

Among other things, he is prohibited from “creating, writing, developing, advertising, promoting, and/or distributing anything that infringes Epic’s works now or hereafter protected by any of Epic’s copyrights.”

While there is no mention of a settlement fee or fine, Vraspir will have to pay $5,000 if he breaches the agreement.

From the injunction

Based on the swift settlement, it can be assumed that Epic Games is not aiming to bankrupt the cheaters. Instead, it’s likely that the company wants to set an example and deter others from cheating in the future.

In addition to the settlement, Epic Games also responded to the mother of the 14-year-old cheater who was sued in a separate case. After we first covered the news last week it was quickly picked up by mainstream media, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the game publisher either.

The mother accused Epic of taking a minor to court and making his personal info known to the public.

In a response this week, the company notes that it had no idea of the age of the defendant when it filed the complaint. In addition, Epic notes that by handing over his full name and address in the unredacted letter, she exposed her son.

The rules dictate that filings mentioning an individual known to be a minor should use the minor’s initials only, not the full name as the mother did. While the mother may have waived this protection with her letter, Epic says it will stick to the initials going forward.

“Although there is an argument that by submitting the Letter to the Court containing Defendant’s name and address, Defendant’s mother waived this protection […] we plan to include only Defendant’s initials or redact his name entirely in all future filings with the Court, including this letter.”

Given the quick settlement in the Vraspir case, it’s likely that the case against the 14-year-old boy will also be resolved without much additional damage. That is, if both sides can come to an agreement.

A copy of the stipulation and injunction is available here (pdf). The reply to the mother 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

Seven Years of Hadopi: Nine Million Piracy Warnings, 189 Convictions

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/seven-years-of-hadopi-nine-million-piracy-warnings-189-convictions-171201/

More than seven years ago, it was predicted that the next big thing in anti-piracy enforcement would be the graduated response scheme.

Commonly known as “three strikes” or variants thereof, these schemes were promoted as educational in nature, with alleged pirates receiving escalating warnings designed to discourage further infringing behavior.

In the fall of 2010, France became one of the pioneers of the warning system and now almost more than seven years later, a new report from the country’s ‘Hadopi’ anti-piracy agency has revealed the extent of its operations.

Between July 2016 and June 2017, Hadopi sent a total of 889 cases to court, a 30% uplift on the 684 cases handed over during the same period 2015/2016. This boost is notable, not least since the use of peer-to-peer protocols (such as BitTorrent, which Hadopi closely monitors) is declining in favor of streaming methods.

When all the seven years of the scheme are added together ending August 31, 2017, the numbers are even more significant.

“Since the launch of the graduated response scheme, more than 2,000 cases have been sent to prosecutors for possible prosecution,” Hadopi’s report reads.

“The number of cases sent to the prosecutor’s office has increased every year, with a significant increase in the last two years. Three-quarters of all the cases sent to prosecutors have been sent since July 2015.”

In all, the Hadopi agency has sent more than nine million first warning notices to alleged pirates since 2012, with more than 800,000 follow-up warnings on top, 200,000 of them during 2016-2017. But perhaps of most interest is the number of French citizens who, despite all the warnings, carried on with their pirating behavior and ended up prosecuted as a result.

Since the program’s inception, 583 court decisions have been handed down against pirates. While 394 of them resulted in a small fine, a caution, or other community-based punishment, 189 citizens walked away with a criminal conviction.

These can include fines of up to 1,500 euros or in more extreme cases, up to three years in prison and/or a 300,000 euro fine.

While this approach looks set to continue into 2018, Hadopi’s report highlights the need to adapt to a changing piracy landscape, one which requires a multi-faceted approach. In addition to tracking pirates, Hadopi also has a mission to promote legal offerings while educating the public. However, it is fully aware that these strategies alone won’t be enough.

To that end, the agency is calling for broader action, such as faster blocking of sites, expanding to the blocking of mirror sites, tackling unauthorized streaming platforms and, of course, dealing with the “fully-loaded” set-top box phenomenon that’s been sweeping the world for the past two years.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf, French)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Implementing Canary Deployments of AWS Lambda Functions with Alias Traffic Shifting

Post Syndicated from Chris Munns original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/implementing-canary-deployments-of-aws-lambda-functions-with-alias-traffic-shifting/

This post courtesy of Ryan Green, Software Development Engineer, AWS Serverless

The concepts of blue/green and canary deployments have been around for a while now and have been well-established as best-practices for reducing the risk of software deployments.

In a traditional, horizontally scaled application, copies of the application code are deployed to multiple nodes (instances, containers, on-premises servers, etc.), typically behind a load balancer. In these applications, deploying new versions of software to too many nodes at the same time can impact application availability as there may not be enough healthy nodes to service requests during the deployment. This aggressive approach to deployments also drastically increases the blast radius of software bugs introduced in the new version and does not typically give adequate time to safely assess the quality of the new version against production traffic.

In such applications, one commonly accepted solution to these problems is to slowly and incrementally roll out application software across the nodes in the fleet while simultaneously verifying application health (canary deployments). Another solution is to stand up an entirely different fleet and weight (or flip) traffic over to the new fleet after verification, ideally with some production traffic (blue/green). Some teams deploy to a single host (“one box environment”), where the new release can bake for some time before promotion to the rest of the fleet. Techniques like this enable the maintainers of complex systems to safely test in production while minimizing customer impact.

Enter Serverless

There is somewhat of an impedance mismatch when mapping these concepts to a serverless world. You can’t incrementally deploy your software across a fleet of servers when there are no servers!* In fact, even the term “deployment” takes on a different meaning with functions as a service (FaaS). In AWS Lambda, a “deployment” can be roughly modeled as a call to CreateFunction, UpdateFunctionCode, or UpdateAlias (I won’t get into the semantics of whether updating configuration counts as a deployment), all of which may affect the version of code that is invoked by clients.

The abstractions provided by Lambda remove the need for developers to be concerned about servers and Availability Zones, and this provides a powerful opportunity to greatly simplify the process of deploying software.
*Of course there are servers, but they are abstracted away from the developer.

Traffic shifting with Lambda aliases

Before the release of traffic shifting for Lambda aliases, deployments of a Lambda function could only be performed in a single “flip” by updating function code for version $LATEST, or by updating an alias to target a different function version. After the update propagates, typically within a few seconds, 100% of function invocations execute the new version. Implementing canary deployments with this model required the development of an additional routing layer, further adding development time, complexity, and invocation latency.
While rolling back a bad deployment of a Lambda function is a trivial operation and takes effect near instantaneously, deployments of new versions for critical functions can still be a potentially nerve-racking experience.

With the introduction of alias traffic shifting, it is now possible to trivially implement canary deployments of Lambda functions. By updating additional version weights on an alias, invocation traffic is routed to the new function versions based on the weight specified. Detailed CloudWatch metrics for the alias and version can be analyzed during the deployment, or other health checks performed, to ensure that the new version is healthy before proceeding.

Note: Sometimes the term “canary deployments” refers to the release of software to a subset of users. In the case of alias traffic shifting, the new version is released to some percentage of all users. It’s not possible to shard based on identity without adding an additional routing layer.

Examples

The simplest possible use of a canary deployment looks like the following:

# Update $LATEST version of function
aws lambda update-function-code --function-name myfunction ….

# Publish new version of function
aws lambda publish-version --function-name myfunction

# Point alias to new version, weighted at 5% (original version at 95% of traffic)
aws lambda update-alias --function-name myfunction --name myalias --routing-config '{"AdditionalVersionWeights" : {"2" : 0.05} }'

# Verify that the new version is healthy
…
# Set the primary version on the alias to the new version and reset the additional versions (100% weighted)
aws lambda update-alias --function-name myfunction --name myalias --function-version 2 --routing-config '{}'

This is begging to be automated! Here are a few options.

Simple deployment automation

This simple Python script runs as a Lambda function and deploys another function (how meta!) by incrementally increasing the weight of the new function version over a prescribed number of steps, while checking the health of the new version. If the health check fails, the alias is rolled back to its initial version. The health check is implemented as a simple check against the existence of Errors metrics in CloudWatch for the alias and new version.

GitHub aws-lambda-deploy repo

Install:

git clone https://github.com/awslabs/aws-lambda-deploy
cd aws-lambda-deploy
export BUCKET_NAME=[YOUR_S3_BUCKET_NAME_FOR_BUILD_ARTIFACTS]
./install.sh

Run:

# Rollout version 2 incrementally over 10 steps, with 120s between each step
aws lambda invoke --function-name SimpleDeployFunction --log-type Tail --payload \
  '{"function-name": "MyFunction",
  "alias-name": "MyAlias",
  "new-version": "2",
  "steps": 10,
  "interval" : 120,
  "type": "linear"
  }' output

Description of input parameters

  • function-name: The name of the Lambda function to deploy
  • alias-name: The name of the alias used to invoke the Lambda function
  • new-version: The version identifier for the new version to deploy
  • steps: The number of times the new version weight is increased
  • interval: The amount of time (in seconds) to wait between weight updates
  • type: The function to use to generate the weights. Supported values: “linear”

Because this runs as a Lambda function, it is subject to the maximum timeout of 5 minutes. This may be acceptable for many use cases, but to achieve a slower rollout of the new version, a different solution is required.

Step Functions workflow

This state machine performs essentially the same task as the simple deployment function, but it runs as an asynchronous workflow in AWS Step Functions. A nice property of Step Functions is that the maximum deployment timeout has now increased from 5 minutes to 1 year!

The step function incrementally updates the new version weight based on the steps parameter, waiting for some time based on the interval parameter, and performing health checks between updates. If the health check fails, the alias is rolled back to the original version and the workflow fails.

For example, to execute the workflow:

export STATE_MACHINE_ARN=`aws cloudformation describe-stack-resources --stack-name aws-lambda-deploy-stack --logical-resource-id DeployStateMachine --output text | cut  -d$'\t' -f3`

aws stepfunctions start-execution --state-machine-arn $STATE_MACHINE_ARN --input '{
  "function-name": "MyFunction",
  "alias-name": "MyAlias",
  "new-version": "2",
  "steps": 10,
  "interval": 120,
  "type": "linear"}'

Getting feedback on the deployment

Because the state machine runs asynchronously, retrieving feedback on the deployment requires polling for the execution status using DescribeExecution or implementing an asynchronous notification (using SNS or email, for example) from the Rollback or Finalize functions. A CloudWatch alarm could also be created to alarm based on the “ExecutionsFailed” metric for the state machine.

A note on health checks and observability

Weighted rollouts like this are considerably more successful if the code is being exercised and monitored continuously. In this example, it would help to have some automation continuously invoking the alias and reporting metrics on these invocations, such as client-side success rates and latencies.

The absence of Lambda Errors metrics used in these examples can be misleading if the function is not getting invoked. It’s also recommended to instrument your Lambda functions with custom metrics, in addition to Lambda’s built-in metrics, that can be used to monitor health during deployments.

Extensibility

These examples could be easily extended in various ways to support different use cases. For example:

  • Health check implementations: CloudWatch alarms, automatic invocations with payload assertions, querying external systems, etc.
  • Weight increase functions: Exponential, geometric progression, single canary step, etc.
  • Custom success/failure notifications: SNS, email, CI/CD systems, service discovery systems, etc.

Traffic shifting with SAM and CodeDeploy

Using the Lambda UpdateAlias operation with additional version weights provides a powerful primitive for you to implement custom traffic shifting solutions for Lambda functions.

For those not interested in building custom deployment solutions, AWS CodeDeploy provides an intuitive turn-key implementation of this functionality integrated directly into the Serverless Application Model. Traffic-shifted deployments can be declared in a SAM template, and CodeDeploy manages the function rollout as part of the CloudFormation stack update. CloudWatch alarms can also be configured to trigger a stack rollback if something goes wrong.

i.e.

MyFunction:
  Type: AWS::Serverless::Function
  Properties:
    FunctionName: MyFunction
    AutoPublishAlias: MyFunctionInvokeAlias
    DeploymentPreference:
      Type: Linear10PercentEvery1Minute
      Role:
        Fn::GetAtt: [ DeploymentRole, Arn ]
      Alarms:
       - { Ref: MyFunctionErrorsAlarm }
...

For more information about using CodeDeploy with SAM, see Automating Updates to Serverless Apps.

Conclusion

It is often the simple features that provide the most value. As I demonstrated in this post, serverless architectures allow the complex deployment orchestration used in traditional applications to be replaced with a simple Lambda function or Step Functions workflow. By allowing invocation traffic to be easily weighted to multiple function versions, Lambda alias traffic shifting provides a simple but powerful feature that I hope empowers you to easily implement safe deployment workflows for your Lambda functions.

European Commission Steps Up Fight Against Online Piracy

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/european-commission-steps-up-fight-against-online-piracy-171130/

The European Commission has had copyright issues at the top of its agenda for a while, resulting in several controversial proposals.

This week it presented a series of new measures to ensure that copyright holders are well protected, targeting both online piracy and counterfeit goods.

“Today we boost our collective ability to catch the ‘big fish’ behind fake goods and pirated content which harm our companies and our jobs – as well as our health and safety in areas such as medicines or toys,” Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska announced.

The Commission notes that it’s stepping up the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. However, many of the proposals are not entirely new for those who follow anti-piracy issues around the globe.

One of the main goals is to focus on the people who facilitate copyright infringement, such as pirate site operators, and try to cut their revenue streams.

“The Commission seeks to deprive commercial-scale IP infringers of the revenue flows that make their criminal activity lucrative – this is the so-called ‘follow the money’ approach which focuses on the ‘big fish’ rather than individuals,” they write.

Instead of using legislation to reach this goal, the Commission prefers to continue its support for voluntary agreements between copyright holders and third-party services. This includes deals with advertising and payment services to cut their ties with pirate sites.

“Such agreements can lead to faster action against counterfeiting and piracy than court actions,” the Commission writes.

Another tool to fight piracy appears on the agenda for the first time. The European Commission notes that it will also support the quest for new anti-piracy initiatives, including the use of blockchain technology.

“Supporting industry-led initiatives to combat IP infringements, including work on Memoranda of Understanding and exploring the potential of new technologies such as blockchain to combat IP infringements in supply chains,” the suggestion reads.

No concrete examples were given but earlier this week, European Parliament member Brando Benifei wrote an article on the issue in Euractiv.

Benifei mentions that blockchain technology can help independent artists collect royalty payments without the need for middlemen. In a similar vein, blockchains can also be used to track the unauthorized distribution of works.

In addition to broadening the anti-piracy horizon, the European Commission also released a new guidance on how the current IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED) should be interpreted, taking into account various recent developments, including landmark EU Court of Justice rulings.

The guidance explains how and when it’s appropriate to issue website blocking orders, for example. In general, blocking injunctions are warranted when they are proportional and aimed at preventing concrete infringements.

The comprehensive guidance also covers the issue of filtering. Interestingly, the Commission clarifies that third-party services can’t be required to “install and operate excessively broad, unspecific and expensive filtering systems.”

This appears to run counter to the mandatory piracy filters that were suggested as part of the copyright reform proposal.

However, the Commission notes that in some specific cases, hosting providers (e.g. YouTube) can be ordered to monitor uploads. This is in line with a recent communication which recommended that online services should implement measures to automatically detect and remove suspected illegal content.

While the new plans continue down the path of stronger copyright protections, not all rightsholders are happy. IFPI is glad that the main problems are highlighted, but would have liked to have seen more concrete plans.

“We are disappointed that despite the European Commission recognizing the need to modernize IPRED and years of evidence gathering, today’s result is merely guidance to EU Member State governments. Soft law does not give right holders the tools they need to take effective action against pirate services,” IFPI writes.

On the other side of the divide, opposition to the previously announced EU copyright reform plans continues as well. Earlier today a group of over 80 organizations urged EU member states to speak out against several controversial copyright proposals, including the upload filter.

“The signatories warn the Member states that the discussion around the Copyright Directive are on the verge of causing irreparable damage to our fundamental rights and freedoms, our economy and competitiveness, our education and research, our innovation and competition, our creativity and our culture,” they say.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

EU Court: Cloud-Based TV Recorder Requires Rightsholder Permission

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/eu-court-cloud-based-tv-recorder-requires-rightsholder-permission-171130/

Over the years, many useful devices have come along which enable the public to make copies of copyright works, the VCR (video cassette recorder) being a prime example.

But while many such devices have been consumed by history, their modern equivalents still pose tricky questions for copyright law. One such service is VCAST, which markets itself as a Video Cloud Recorder. It functions in a notionally similar way to its older cousin but substitutes cassette storage for that in the cloud.

VCAST targets the Italian market, allowing users to sign up in order to gain access to more than 50 digital terrestrial TV channels. However, rather than simply watching live, the user can tell VCAST to receive TV shows (via its own antenna system) while recording them to private cloud storage (such as Google Drive) for subsequent viewing over the Internet.

VCAST attracted the negative interests of rightsholders, including Mediaset-owned RTI, who doubted the legality of the service. So, in response, VCAST sued RTI at the Turin Court of First Instance, seeking a judgment confirming the legality of its operations. The company believed that since the recordings are placed in users’ own cloud storage, the Italian private copying exception would apply and rightsholders would be compensated.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the complexity of the case, the Turin Court decided to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. It essentially asked whether the private copying exception is applicable when the copying requires a service like VCAST and whether such a service is allowed to operate without permission from copyright holders.

In September, Advocate General Szpunar published his opinion, concluding that EU law prohibits this kind of service when copyright holders haven’t given their permission. Today, the ECJ handed down its decision, broadly agreeing with Szpunar’s conclusion.

“By today’s judgment, the Court finds that the service provided by VCAST has a dual functionality, consisting in ensuring both the reproduction and the making available of protected works. To the extent that the service offered by VCAST consists in the making available of protected works, it falls within communication to the public,” the ECJ announced.

“In that regard, the Court recalls that, according to the directive, any communication to the public, including the making available of a protected work or subject-matter, requires the rightholder’s consent, given that the right of communication of works to the public should be understood, in a broad sense, as covering any transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcasting.”

The ECJ notes that the original transmission made by RTI was intended for one audience. In turn, the transmission by VCAST was intended for another. In this respect, the subsequent VCAST transmission was made to a “new public”, which means that copyright holder permission is required under EU law.

“Accordingly, such a remote recording service cannot fall within the private copying exception,” the ECJ concludes.

The full text of the judgment can be found here.

The key ruling reads as follows:

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of a computer system, by actively involving itself in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Warrant Protections against Police Searches of Our Data

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/11/warrant_protect.html

The cell phones we carry with us constantly are the most perfect surveillance device ever invented, and our laws haven’t caught up to that reality. That might change soon.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with profound implications on your security and privacy in the coming years. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unlawful search and seizure is a vital right that protects us all from police overreach, and the way the courts interpret it is increasingly nonsensical in our computerized and networked world. The Supreme Court can either update current law to reflect the world, or it can further solidify an unnecessary and dangerous police power.

The case centers on cell phone location data and whether the police need a warrant to get it, or if they can use a simple subpoena, which is easier to obtain. Current Fourth Amendment doctrine holds that you lose all privacy protections over any data you willingly share with a third party. Your cellular provider, under this interpretation, is a third party with whom you’ve willingly shared your movements, 24 hours a day, going back months — even though you don’t really have any choice about whether to share with them. So police can request records of where you’ve been from cell carriers without any judicial oversight. The case before the court, Carpenter v. United States, could change that.

Traditionally, information that was most precious to us was physically close to us. It was on our bodies, in our homes and offices, in our cars. Because of that, the courts gave that information extra protections. Information that we stored far away from us, or gave to other people, afforded fewer protections. Police searches have been governed by the “third-party doctrine,” which explicitly says that information we share with others is not considered private.

The Internet has turned that thinking upside-down. Our cell phones know who we talk to and, if we’re talking via text or e-mail, what we say. They track our location constantly, so they know where we live and work. Because they’re the first and last thing we check every day, they know when we go to sleep and when we wake up. Because everyone has one, they know whom we sleep with. And because of how those phones work, all that information is naturally shared with third parties.

More generally, all our data is literally stored on computers belonging to other people. It’s our e-mail, text messages, photos, Google docs, and more ­ all in the cloud. We store it there not because it’s unimportant, but precisely because it is important. And as the Internet of Things computerizes the rest our lives, even more data will be collected by other people: data from our health trackers and medical devices, data from our home sensors and appliances, data from Internet-connected “listeners” like Alexa, Siri, and your voice-activated television.

All this data will be collected and saved by third parties, sometimes for years. The result is a detailed dossier of your activities more complete than any private investigator –­ or police officer –­ could possibly collect by following you around.

The issue here is not whether the police should be allowed to use that data to help solve crimes. Of course they should. The issue is whether that information should be protected by the warrant process that requires the police to have probable cause to investigate you and get approval by a court.

Warrants are a security mechanism. They prevent the police from abusing their authority to investigate someone they have no reason to suspect of a crime. They prevent the police from going on “fishing expeditions.” They protect our rights and liberties, even as we willingly give up our privacy to the legitimate needs of law enforcement.

The third-party doctrine never made a lot of sense. Just because I share an intimate secret with my spouse, friend, or doctor doesn’t mean that I no longer consider it private. It makes even less sense in today’s hyper-connected world. It’s long past time the Supreme Court recognized that a months’-long history of my movements is private, and my e-mails and other personal data deserve the same protections, whether they’re on my laptop or on Google’s servers.

This essay previously appeared in the Washington Post.

Details on the case. Two opinion pieces.

I signed on to two amicus briefs on the case.

EDITED TO ADD (12/1): Good commentary on the Supreme Court oral arguments.

Sky’s Pirate Site-Blocking Move is Something For North Korea, ISPs Say

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/skys-pirate-site-blocking-move-is-something-for-north-korea-isps-say-171129/

Entertainment companies have been taking legal action to have pirate sites blocked for more than a decade so it was only a matter of time before New Zealand had a taste of the action.

It’s now been revealed that Sky Network Television, the country’s biggest pay-TV service, filed a complaint with the High Court in September, demanding that four local Internet service providers block subscriber access to several ‘pirate’ sites.

At this point, the sites haven’t been named, but it seems almost inevitable that the likes of The Pirate Bay will be present. The ISPs are known, however. Spark, Vodafone, Vocus and Two Degrees control around 90% of the Kiwi market so any injunction handed down will affect almost the entire country.

In its application, Sky states that pirate sites make available unauthorized copies of its entertainment works, something which not only infringes its copyrights but also undermines its business model. But while this is standard fare in such complaints, the Internet industry backlash today is something out of the ordinary.

ISPs in other jurisdictions have fought back against blocking efforts but few have deployed the kind of language being heard in New Zealand this morning.

Vocus Group – which runs the Orcon, Slingshot and Flip brands – is labeling Sky’s efforts as “gross censorship and a breach of net neutrality”, adding that they’re in direct opposition to the idea of a free and open Internet.

“SKY’s call that sites be blacklisted on their say so is dinosaur behavior, something you would expect in North Korea, not in New Zealand. It isn’t our job to police the Internet and it sure as hell isn’t SKY’s either, all sites should be equal and open,” says Vocus Consumer General Manager Taryn Hamilton.

But in response, Sky said Vocus “has got it wrong”, highlighting that site-blocking is now common practice in places such as Australia and the UK.

“Pirate sites like Pirate Bay make no contribution to the development of content, but rather just steal it. Over 40 countries around the world have put in place laws to block such sites, and we’re just looking to do the same,” the company said.

The broadcaster says it will only go to court to have dedicated pirate sites blocked, ones that “pay nothing to the creators” while stealing content for their own gain.

“We’re doing this because illegal streaming and content piracy is a major threat to the entertainment, creative and sporting industries in New Zealand and abroad. With piracy, not only is the sport and entertainment content that we love at risk, but so are the livelihoods of the thousands of people employed by these industries,” the company said.

“Illegally sharing or viewing content impacts a vast number of people and jobs including athletes, actors, artists, production crew, customer service representatives, event planners, caterers and many, many more.”

ISP Spark, which is also being targeted by Sky, was less visibly outraged than some of its competitors. However, the company still feels that controlling what people can see on the Internet is a slippery slope.

“We have some sympathy for this given we invest tens of millions of dollars into content ourselves through Lightbox. However, we don’t think it should be the role of ISPs to become the ‘police of the internet’ on behalf of other parties,” a Spark spokesperson said.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sky’s blocking efforts haven’t been well received by InternetNZ, the non-profit organization which protects and promotes Internet use in New Zealand.

Describing the company’s application for an injunction as an “extreme step”, InternetNZ Chief Executive Jordan Carter said that site-blocking works against the “very nature” of the Internet and is a measure that’s unlikely to achieve its goals.

“Site blocking is very easily evaded by people with the right skills or tools. Those who are deliberate pirates will be able to get around site blocking without difficulty,” Carter said.

“If blocking is ordered, it risks driving content piracy further underground, with the help of easily-deployed and common Internet tools. This could well end up making the issues that Sky are facing even harder to police in the future.”

What most of the ISPs and InternetNZ are also agreed on is the need to fight piracy with competitive, attractive legal offerings. Vocus says that local interest in The Pirate Bay has halved since Netflix launched in New Zealand, with traffic to the torrent site sitting at just 23% of its peak 2013 levels.

“The success of Netflix, iTunes and Spotify proves that people are willing to pay to access good-quality content. It’s pretty clear that SKY doesn’t understand the internet, and is trying a Hail Mary to turnaround its sunset business,” Vocus Consumer General Manager Taryn Hamilton said.

The big question now is whether the High Court has the ability to order these kinds of blocks. InternetNZ has its doubts, noting that it should only happen following a parliamentary mandate.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Torrent Site Blocking Endangers Freedom of Expression, ISP Warns

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/torrent-site-blocking-endangers-freedom-expression-isp-warns-171128/

LinkoManija.net is the most visited BitTorrent site in Lithuania. The private tracker has been around for more than a decade and has made quite a name for itself.

While it’s a ‘closed’ community, that name hardly applies anymore considering that it’s the 32nd most-visited site in Lithuania, beating the likes of Twitter, eBay, and even Pornhub.

Over the past several years, Linkomanija has endured its fair share of copyright-related troubles. This includes a multi-million dollar lawsuit launched by Microsoft, which failed to put the site out of business.

Last week the Lithuanian Copyright Protection Association (LATGA) had more success. The anti-piracy group went to court demanding that local ISPs block access to the site. It won.

The Vilnius Regional Court subsequently issued an order which requires Internet providers including Telia, Bitė, LRTC, Cgates, Init, Balticum TV, to start blocking access to the popular torrent tracker.

“We are glad that our courts follow the precedents set in European Courts and are following their practices,” Jonas Liniauskas, head of LATGA told 15min.

“We really hope that internet providers will not fight the decision and that they have finally decided whether they are ready to fight against pirates who take away their customers, or want to continue to contribute to the illegal exploitation of works on the Internet by providing high-speed Internet access to pirated websites.”

LATGA’s lawyer, Andrius Iškauskas, pointed out that the torrent site was operating as a commercial venture. Between 2013 and 2016 it collected hundreds of thousands of euros through donations from its users.

Internet provider Telia is not happy with the verdict and says it endangers people’s freedom of expression and speech. While the company doesn’t condone piracy, sites such as Linkomanija are also used legitimately by copyright holders to share their work.

Telia pointed out in court that the anti-piracy group represented only 28 copyright holders and listed less than 100 works for which links were posted on Linkomanija.net. Despite these relatively small numbers, ISPs must block access to the entire site.

In response, LATGA’s lawyer pointed out that any rightsholders who legally distribute their content through Linkomania can easily find other suitable alternatives, such as YouTube, Spotify, and many more.

While the verdict is a blow to millions of users, the fight may not be over yet. The ISPs have 30 days to appeal the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court. According to Telia, this is likely to happen.

“We are currently analyzing the solution. It is very likely that it will be submitted to the higher court because the dispute is complex. This case can become case-law and determine when content is blocked on the Internet. This includes the possible restriction of freedom of expression and speech” the ISP notes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

ACE and CAP Shut Down Aussie Pirate IPTV Operation

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/ace-and-cap-shut-down-aussie-pirate-iptv-operation-171128/

Instead of companies like the MPAA, Amazon, Netflix, CBS, HBO, BBC, Sky, CBS, Foxtel, and Village Roadshow tackling piracy completely solo, this year they teamed up to form the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE).

This massive collaboration of 30 companies represents a new front in the fight against piracy, with global players publicly cooperating to tackle the phenomenon in all its forms.

The same is true of CASBAA‘s Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), a separate anti-piracy collective which to some extent shares the same members as ACE but with a sharp of focus on Asia.

This morning the groups announced the results of a joint investigation in Australia which targeted a large supplier of illicit IPTV devices. These small set-top boxes, which come in several forms, are often configured to receive programming from unauthorized sources. In this particular case, they came pre-loaded to play pirated movies, television shows, sports programming, plus other content.

The Melbourne-based company targeted by ACE and CAP allegedly sold these devices in Asia for many years. The company demanded AUS$400 (US$305) per IPTV unit and bundled each with a year’s subscription to pirated TV channels and on-demand movies from the US, EU, India and South East Asia markets.

In the past, companies operating in these areas have often been met with overwhelming force including criminal action, but ACE and CAP appear to have reached an agreement with the company and its owner, even going as far as keeping their names out of the press.

In return, the company has agreed to measures which will prevent people who have already invested in these boxes being able to access ACE and CAP content going forward. That is likely to result in a whole bunch of irritated customers.

“The film and television industry has made significant investments to provide audiences with access to creative content how, where, and when they want it,” says ACE spokesperson Zoe Thorogood.

“ACE and CAP members initiated this investigation as part of a comprehensive global approach to protect the legal marketplace for creative content, reduce online piracy, and bolster a creative economy that supports millions of workers. This latest action was part of a series of global actions to address the growth of illegal and unsafe piracy devices and apps.”

Neil Gane, General Manager of the CASBAA Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), also weighed in with what are now becoming industry-standard warnings of losses to content makers and supposed risks to consumers.

“These little black boxes are now beginning to dominate the piracy ecosystem, causing significant damage to all sectors of the content industry, from producers to telecommunication platforms,” Gane said.

“They also pose a risk to consumers who face a well-documented increase in exposure to malware. The surge in availability of these illicit streaming devices is an international issue that requires a coordinated effort between industry and government. This will be the first of many disruption and enforcement initiatives on which CAP, ACE, and other industry associations will be collaborating together.”

In September, TF revealed the secret agreement behind the ACE initiative, noting how the group’s founding members are required to commit $5m each annually to the project. The remaining 21 companies on the coalition’s Executive Committee put in $200,000 each.

While today’s IPTV announcement was very public, ACE has already been flexing its muscles behind the scenes. Earlier this month we reported on several cases where UK-based Kodi addon developers were approached by the anti-piracy group and warned to shut down – or else.

While all complied, each was warned not to reveal the terms of their agreement with ACE. This means that the legal basis for its threats remains shrouded in mystery. That being said, it’s likely that several European Court of Justice decisions earlier in the year played a key role.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Court: Accused Pirate Doesn’t Have to ‘Spy’ on Family Members

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/court-accused-pirate-doesnt-have-to-spy-on-family-members-171127/

Over the past decade, copyright holders have gone after hundreds of thousands of alleged pirates in Germany, demanding settlements ranging from a few hundred to thousands of euros.

The targeted account holder is sometimes the perpetrator, but it could just as easily be another member of the household or even a complete stranger, especially if the Wi-Fi network is unsecured.

This was brought up recently in a case before a District Court Charlottenburg, where a man was accused by the makers of the movie The Call. Law firm Waldorf Frommer demanded 1,000 euros in damages for the alleged infringement, but the defendant denied that he downloaded the film.

Several other people were in the house at the time of the alleged offense, including the man’s adult son, his adult daughter and his sister-in-law. These people all have good computer skills and could, in theory, have downloaded the movie.

The filmmakers argued that the man should be held liable for the alleged infringement on his connection, even when he denies direct involvement, but the court disagreed and denied a request for a thorough investigation.

Attorney Christian Solmecke, who represented the defendant, informs TorrentFreak that subscribers indeed have an obligation to ask household members if they have anything to do with the claimed infringement, but it pretty much ends there.

“Internet subscribers have a general duty to inquire with family members, who have also used the internet connection, about the specific accusation and submit the information to court. In other words: if a family member admits to having committed the offense, the information must be submitted to court.”

“However, if they deny any wrongdoing, the subscriber is not obliged to continue ‘investigating’ the matter. For instance, they are under no circumstances expected to search computers, tablets etc,” Solmecke adds.

The District Court of Charlottenburg agreed and decided that the father cannot be held liable for damages. The fact that he questioned the other members of the household, which yielded no results, was sufficient in this case.

In a news release, Solmecke’s law firm notes that the man’s respect for private and family life is protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. As such, he cannot be required to spy on the downloading habits of household members.

“He was not required to document the use of the Internet connection or to investigate the computers for file-sharing software. Such investigation obligations would not be reasonable for him,” the law firm stresses.

“Once again, it has been established that undisturbed marital and family life is protected from harm by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has a massive impact on the investigation obligations of the subscribers.”

The ruling is in line with recent orders from the German Federal Court of Justice. Last year, the highest German civil court ruled that subscribers are not required to spy on the downloading habits of family members, which was confirmed in a separate order a few months ago.

Solmecke notes that while some courts have previously judged otherwise, it seems likely they will now follow the higher court’s legal view on this. This is precisely District Court of Charlottenburg has done, which is good news for accused file-sharers.

“Families, in particular, should not be intimidated by law firms. These often make demands for investigations, which the Federal Court of Justice has recently rejected,” his law firm adds.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Mom Defends 14-Year Old ‘Fortnite’ Cheater in Court

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/mom-defends-14-year-old-fortnite-cheater-in-court-171125/

A few weeks ago, Epic Games released Fortnite’s free-to-play “Battle Royale” game mode for the PC and other platforms, which proved to be quite popular.

It also attracted attention from thousands of cheaters, many of whom were subsequently banned. In addition, Epic Games went a step further by taking several cheaters to court over copyright infringement.

One of the accused is Caleb Rogers, who was banned at least 14 times since he started playing. Every time Epic took action, he simply created new accounts under false names and continued to play and cheat at Fortnite.

What Epic Games probably didn’t know is that the cheater in question is a minor. The company likely obtained his name via YouTube or elsewhere, without knowing his real age.

Instead of responding to the complaint through an attorney, it’s the kid’s mother who’s come out in his defense.

“This company is in the process of attempting to sue a 14-year-old child,” Caleb’s mother informs the court.

In addition, she points out that Epic has no proof that her son modified the game and violated copyright law in the process. Perhaps more importantly, she highlights that the EULA, which the game publisher relies heavily upon in the complaint, isn’t legally binding.

The EULA states that minors require permission from a parent or legal guardian, which is not the case here.

“Please note parental consent was not issued to Caleb Rogers to play this free game produced by Epic Games, INC,” the mother writes in her letter.

Epic claims that cheaters cause the company to lose money, but the mother doesn’t buy this since it’s a free game. Instead, she believes that the company is trying to blame her son for its failure to curb cheaters.

“It is my belief that due to their lack of ability to curve cheat codes and others from modifying their game, they are using a 14-year-old child as a scape goat to make an example of him.”

Letter

The cheaters shouldn’t be the ones that are targeted, the mother additionally informs the court. Instead, Epic should go after the websites that offer the cheats themselves.

“The company is in the process of suing a multitude of players for this game Fortnite. Instead of Epic Games INC suing the websites providing the cheat codes, they are going after the individuals using these codes,” she notes.

The boy is accused of using cheat software that injects unauthorized code into the active memory of the game as it runs, not just codes. While he didn’t write the cheat himself, through his YouTube channel he showed others where to download it and asked for donations.

The mother is convinced that the case should be thrown out.

Epic Games has yet to reply to the mother’s letter. The fact that they sued a 14-year-old boy is a problem though, as minors can’t be sued directly. It’s possible that the game publisher will drop the case for this reason, unless they want to take it up with his mom.

The mother’s full letter is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons