Tag Archives: Opinion

Steal This Show S03E13: The Tao of The DAO

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/steal-show-s03e13-tao-dao/

stslogo180If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!

In this episode, we meet Chris Beams, founder of the decentralized cryptocurrency exchange Bisq. We discuss the concept of DAOs (Decentralised Autonomous Organisations) and whether The Pirate Bay was an early example; how the start of Bitcoin parallels the start of the Internet itself; and why the meretricious Bitcoin Cash fork of Bitcoin is based on a misunderstanding of Open Source development.

Finally, we get into Bisq itself, discussing the potential political importance of decentralized crypto exchanges in the context of any future attempts by the financial establishment to control cryptocurrency.

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing copyright and file-sharing news. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

The guests for our news discussions will vary, and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Chris Beams

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Riley Byrne
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Siraje Amarniss

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

Canadian Pirate Site Blocks Could Spread to VPNs, Professor Warns

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/canadian-pirate-site-blocks-could-spread-to-vpns-professor-warns-180219/

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.

Last month, a coalition of Canadian companies called on the local telecom regulator CRTC to establish a local pirate site blocking program, which would be the first of its kind in North America.

The Canadian deal is backed by both copyright holders and major players in the Telco industry, such as Bell and Rogers, which also have media companies of their own. Instead of court-ordered blockades, they call for a mutually agreed deal where ISPs will block pirate sites.

The plan has triggered a fair amount of opposition. Tens of thousands of people have protested against the proposal and several experts are warning against the negative consequences it may have.

One of the most vocal opponents is University of Ottawa law professor Micheal Geist. In a series of articles, processor Geist highlighted several problems, including potential overblocking.

The Fairplay Canada coalition downplays overblocking, according to Geist. They say the measures will only affect sites that are blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally engaged in piracy, which appears to be a high standard.

However, the same coalition uses a report from MUSO as its primary evidence. This report draws on a list of 23,000 pirate sites, which may not all be blatant enough to meet the blocking standard.

For example, professor Geist notes that it includes a site dedicated to user-generated subtitles as well as sites that offer stream ripping tools which can be used for legal purposes.

“Stream ripping is a concern for the music industry, but these technologies (which are also found in readily available software programs from a local BestBuy) also have considerable non-infringing uses, such as for downloading Creative Commons licensed videos also found on video sites,” Geist writes.

If the coalition tried to have all these sites blocked the scope would be much larger than currently portrayed. Conversely, if only a few of the sites would be blocked, then the evidence that was used to put these blocks in place would have been exaggerated.

“In other words, either the scope of block list coverage is far broader than the coalition admits or its piracy evidence is inflated by including sites that do not meet its piracy standard,” Geist notes.

Perhaps most concerning is the slippery slope that the blocking efforts can turn into. Professor Geist fears that after the standard piracy sites are dealt with, related targets may be next.

This includes VPN services. While this may sound far-fetched to some, several members of the coalition, such as Bell and Rogers, have already criticized VPNs in the past since these allow people to watch geo-blocked content.

“Once the list of piracy sites (whatever the standard) is addressed, it is very likely that the Bell coalition will turn its attention to other sites and services such as virtual private networks (VPNs).

“This is not mere speculation. Rather, it is taking Bell and its allies at their word on how they believe certain services and sites constitute theft,” Geist adds.

The issue may even be more relevant in this case, since the same VPNs can also be used to circumvent pirate sites blockades.

“Further, since the response to site blocking from some Internet users will surely involve increased use of VPNs to evade the blocks, the attempt to characterize VPNs as services engaged in piracy will only increase,” Geist adds.

Potential overblocking is just one of the many issues with the current proposal, according to the law professor. Geist previously highlighted that current copyright law already provides sufficient remedies to deal with piracy and that piracy isn’t that much of a problem in Canada in the first place.

The CRTC has yet to issue its review of the proposal but now that the cat is out of the bag, rightsholders and ISPs are likely to keep pushing for blockades, one way or the other.

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

Game Companies Oppose DMCA Exemption for ‘Abandoned’ Online Games

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/game-companies-oppose-dmca-exemption-for-abandoned-online-games-180217/

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

The U.S. Copyright Office is currently considering whether or not to loosen the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, which prevent the public from ‘tinkering’ with DRM-protected content and devices.

These provisions are renewed every three years after the Office hears various arguments from the public. One of the major topics on the agenda this year is the preservation of abandoned games.

The Copyright Office previously included game preservation exemptions to keep these games accessible. This means that libraries, archives, and museums can use emulators and other circumvention tools to make old classics playable.

Late last year several gaming fans including the Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (the MADE), a nonprofit organization operating in California, argued for an expansion of this exemption to also cover online games. This includes games in the widely popular multiplayer genre, which require a connection to an online server.

“Although the Current Exemption does not cover it, preservation of online video games is now critical,” MADE wrote in its comment to the Copyright Office.

“Online games have become ubiquitous and are only growing in popularity. For example, an estimated fifty-three percent of gamers play multiplayer games at least once a week, and spend, on average, six hours a week playing with others online.”

This week, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which acts on behalf of prominent members including Electonic Arts, Nintendo and Ubisoft, opposed the request.

While they are fine with the current game-preservation exemption, expanding it to online games goes too far, they say. This would allow outsiders to recreate online game environments using server code that was never published in public.

It would also allow a broad category of “affiliates” to help with this which, according to the ESA, could include members of the public

“The proponents characterize these as ‘slight modifications’ to the existing exemption. However they are nothing of the sort. The proponents request permission to engage in forms of circumvention that will enable the complete recreation of a hosted video game-service environment and make the video game available for play by a public audience.”

“Worse yet, proponents seek permission to deputize a legion of ‘affiliates’ to assist in their activities,” ESA adds.

The proposed changes would enable and facilitate infringing use, the game companies warn. They fear that outsiders such as MADE will replicate the game servers and allow the public to play these abandoned games, something games companies would generally charge for. This could be seen as direct competition.

MADE, for example, already charges the public to access its museum so they can play games. This can be seen as commercial use under the DMCA, ESA points out.

“Public performance and display of online games within a museum likewise is a commercial use within the meaning of Section 107. MADE charges an admission fee – ‘$10 to play games all day’.

“Under the authority summarized above, public performance and display of copyrighted works to generate entrance fee revenue is a commercial use, even if undertaken by a nonprofit museum,” the ESA adds.

The ESA also stresses that their members already make efforts to revive older games themselves. There is a vibrant and growing market for “retro” games, which games companies are motivated to serve, they say.

The games companies, therefore, urge the Copyright Office to keep the status quo and reject any exemptions for online games.

“In sum, expansion of the video game preservation exemption as contemplated by Class 8 is not a ‘modest’ proposal. Eliminating the important limitations that the Register provided when adopting the current exemption risks the possibility of wide-scale infringement and substantial market harm,” they write.

The Copyright Office will take all arguments into consideration before it makes a final decision. It’s clear that the wishes of game preservation advocates, such as MADE, are hard to unite with the interests of the game companies, so one side will clearly be disappointed with the outcome.

A copy of ESA’s submissionavailablelble here (pdf).

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

Embedding a Tweet Can be Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-a-tweet-can-be-copyright-infringement-court-rules-180216/

Nowadays it’s fairly common for blogs and news sites to embed content posted by third parties, ranging from YouTube videos to tweets.

Although these publications don’t host the content themselves, they can be held liable for copyright infringement, a New York federal court has ruled.

The case in question was filed by Justin Goldman whose photo of Tom Brady went viral after he posted it on Snapchat. After being reposted on Reddit, it also made its way onto Twitter from where various news organizations picked it up.

Several of these news sites reported on the photo by embedding tweets from others. However, since Goldman never gave permission to display his photo, he went on to sue the likes of Breitbart, Time, Vox and Yahoo, for copyright infringement.

In their defense, the news organizations argued that they did nothing wrong as no content was hosted on their servers. They referred to the so-called “server test” that was applied in several related cases in the past, which determined that liability rests on the party that hosts the infringing content.

In an order that was just issued, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest disagrees. She rejects the “server test” argument and rules that the news organizations are liable.

“[W]hen defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result,” Judge Forrest writes.

Judge Forrest argues that the server test was established in the ‘Perfect 10 v. Amazon’ case, which dealt with the ‘distribution’ of content. This case is about ‘displaying’ an infringing work instead, an area where the jurisprudence is not as clear.

“The Court agrees with plaintiff. The plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have “displayed” a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.”

As a result, summary judgment was granted in favor of Goldman.

Rightsholders, including Getty Images which supported Goldman, are happy with the result. However, not everyone is pleased. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says that if the current verdict stands it will put millions of regular Internet users at risk.

“Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page,” EFF comments.

“Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other courts, this legally and technically misguided decision would threaten millions of ordinary Internet users with infringement liability.”

Given what’s at stake, it’s likely that the news organization will appeal this week’s order.

Interestingly, earlier this week a California district court dismissed Playboy’s copyright infringement complaint against Boing Boing, which embedded a YouTube video that contained infringing content.

A copy of Judge Forrest’s opinion 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

The Early Days of Mass Internet Piracy Were Awesome Yet Awful

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-early-days-of-mass-internet-piracy-were-awesome-yet-awful-180211/

While Napster certainly put the digital cats among the pigeons in 1999, the organized chaos of mass Internet file-sharing couldn’t be truly appreciated until the advent of decentralized P2P networks a year or so later.

In the blink of an eye, everyone with a “shared folder” client became both a consumer and publisher, sucking in files from strangers and sharing them with like-minded individuals all around the planet. While today’s piracy narrative is all about theft and danger, in the early 2000s the sharing community felt more like distant friends who hadn’t met, quietly trading cards together.

Satisfying to millions, those who really engaged found shared folder sharing a real adrenaline buzz, as English comedian Seann Walsh noted on Conan this week.

“Click. 20th Century Fox comes up. No pixels. No shaky cam. No silhouettes of heads at the bottom of the screen, people coming in five minutes late. None of that,” Walsh said, recalling his experience of downloading X-Men 2 (X2) from LimeWire.

“We thought: ‘We’ve done it!!’ This was incredible! We were going to have to go to the cinema. We weren’t going to have to wait for the film to come out on video. We weren’t going to have to WALK to blockbuster!”

But while the nostalgia has an air of magic about it, Walsh’s take on the piracy experience is bittersweet. While obtaining X2 without having to trudge to a video store was a revelation, there were plenty of drawbacks too.

Downloading the pirate copy took a week, which pre-BitTorrent wasn’t a completely bad result but still a considerable commitment. There were also serious problems with quality control.

“20th Century fades, X Men 2 comes up. We’ve done it! We’re not taking it for granted – we’re actually hugging. Yes! Yes! We’ve done it! This is the future! We look at the screen, Wolverine turns round…,” …..and Walsh launches into a broadside of pseudo-German babble, mimicking the unexpectedly-dubbed superhero.

After a week of downloading and getting a quality picture on launch, that is a punch in the gut, to say the least. Arguably no less than a pirate deserves, some will argue, but a fat lip nonetheless, and one many a pirate has suffered over the years. Nevertheless, as Walsh notes, it’s a pain that kids in 2018 simply cannot comprehend.

“Children today are living the childhood I dreamed of. If they want to hear a song – touch – they stream it. They’ve got it now. Bang. Instantly. They don’t know the pain of LimeWire.

“Start downloading a song, go to school, come back. HOPE that it’d finished! That download bar messing with you. Four minutes left…..nine HOURS and 28 minutes left? Thirty seconds left…..52 hours and 38 minutes left? JUST TELL ME THE TRUTH!!!!!” Walsh pleaded.

While this might sound comical now, this was the reality of people downloading from clients such as LimeWire and Kazaa. While X2 in German would’ve been torture for a non-German speaker, the misery of watching an English language copy of 28 Days Later somehow crammed into a 30Mb file is right up there too.

Mislabeled music with microscopic bitrates? That was pretty much standard.

But against the odds, these frankly second-rate experiences still managed to capture the hearts and minds of the digitally minded. People were prepared to put up with nonsense and regular disappointment in order to consume content in a way fit for the 21st century. Yet somehow the combined might of the entertainment industries couldn’t come up with anything substantially better for a number of years.

Of course, broadband availability and penetration played its part but looking back, something could have been done. Not only didn’t the Internet’s popularity come as a surprise, people’s expectations were dramatically lower than they are today too. In any event, beating the pirates should have been child’s play. After all, it was just regular people sharing files in a Windows folder.

Any fool could do it – and millions did. Surprisingly, they have proven unstoppable.

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

Rightscorp Has a Massive Database of ‘Repeat Infringers’ to Pursue

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/rightscorp-has-a-massive-database-of-repeat-infringers-to-pursue-180208/

Last week the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that ISPs are required to terminate ‘repeat infringers’ based on allegations from copyright holders alone, a topic that has been contested for years.

This means that copyright holders now have a bigger incentive to send takedown notices, as ISPs can’t easily ignore them. That’s music to the ears of the various piracy tracking companies, Rightscorp included.

The piracy monetization company always maintained that multiple complaints from copyright holders are enough to classify someone as a repeat infringer, without a court order, and the Fourth Circuit has now reached the same conclusion.

“After years of uncertainty on these issues, it is gratifying for the US Court of Appeals to proclaim the law on ISP liability for subscriber infringements to be essentially what Rightscorp has always said it is,” Rightscorp President Christopher Sabec says.

Rightscorp is pleased to see that the court shares its opinion since the verdict also provides new business opportunities. The company informs TorrentFreak that it’s ready to help copyright holders to hold ISPs responsible.

“Rightscorp has always stood with content holders who wish to protect their rights against ISPs that are not taking action against repeat infringers,” Sabec tells us.

“Now, with the law addressing ISP liability for subscriber infringements finally sharpened and clarified at the appellate level, we are ready to support all efforts by rights holders to compel ISPs to abide by their responsibilities under the DMCA.”

The piracy tracking company has a treasure trove of piracy data at its disposal to issue takedown requests or back lawsuits. Over the past five years, it amassed nearly a billion “records” of copyright infringements.

“Rightscorp’s data records include no less the 969,653,557 infringements over the last five years,” Sabec says.

This number includes a lot of repeat infringers, obviously. It’s made up of IP-addresses downloading the same file on several occasions and/or multiple files over time.

While it’s unlikely that account holders will be disconnected based on infringements that happened years ago, this type of historical data can be used in court cases. Rightscorp’s infringement notices are the basis of the legal action against Cox, and are being used as evidence in a separate RIAA case against ISP Grande communications as well.

Grande previously said that it refused to act on Rightcorp’s notices because it doubts their accuracy, but the tracking company contests this. That case is still ongoing and a final decision has yet to be reached.

For now, however, Rightcorp is marketing its hundreds of thousands of recorded copyright infringements as an opportunity for rightsholders. And for a company that can use some extra cash in hand, that’s good news.

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

Anti-Piracy Video Scares Kids With ‘Fake’ Malware Info

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-video-scares-kids-with-fake-malware-info-180206/

Today is Safer Internet Day, a global awareness campaign to educate the public on all sorts of threats that people face online.

It is a laudable initiative supported by the Industry Trust for IP Awareness which, together with the children’s charity Into Film, has released an informative video and associated course materials.

The organizations have created a British version of an animation previously released as part of the Australian “Price of Piracy” campaign. While the video includes an informative description of the various types of malware, there appears to be a secondary agenda.

Strangely enough, the video itself contains no advice on how to avoid malware at all, other than to avoid pirate sites. In that sense, it looks more like an indirect anti-piracy ad.

While there’s no denying that kids might run into malware if they randomly click on pirate site ads, this problem is certainly not exclusive to these sites. Email and social media are frequently used to link to malware too, and YouTube comments can pose the same risk. The problem is everywhere.

What really caught our eye, however, is the statement that pirate sites are the most used propagation method for malware. “Did you know, the number one way we infect your device is via illegal pirate sites,” an animated piece of malware claims in the video.

Forget about email attachments, spam links, compromised servers, or even network attacks. Pirate sites are the number one spot through which malware spreads. According to the video at least. But where do they get this knowledge?

Meet the malwares

When we asked the Industry Trust for IP Awareness for further details, the organization checked with their Australian colleagues, who pointed us to a working paper (pdf) from 2014. This paper includes the following line: “Illegal streaming websites are now the number one propagation mechanism for malicious software as 97% of them contain malware.”

Unfortunately, there’s a lot wrong with this claim.

Through another citation, the 97% figure points to this unpublished study of which only the highlights were shared. This “malware” research looked at the prevalence of malware and other unwanted software linked to pirate sites. Not just streaming sites as the other paper said, but let’s ignore that last bit.

What the study actually found is that of the 30 researched pirate sites, “90% contained malware or other ‘Potentially Unwanted Programmes’.” Note that this is not the earlier mentioned 97%, and that this broad category not only includes malware but also popup ads, which were most popular. This means that the percentage of actual malware on these sites can be anywhere from 0.1% to 90%.

Importantly, none of the malware found in this research was installed without an action performed by the user, such as clicking on a flashy download button or installing a mysterious .exe file.

Aside from clearly erroneous references, the more worrying issue is that even the original incorrect statement that “97% of all pirate sites contain malware” provides no evidence for the claim in the video that pirate sites are “the number one way” through which malware spreads.

Even if 100% of all pirate sites link to malware, that’s no proof that it’s the most used propagation method.

The malware issue has been a popular talking point for a while, but after searching for answers for days, we couldn’t find a grain of evidence. There are a lot of malware propagation methods, including email, which traditionally is a very popular choice.

Even more confusingly, the same paper that was cited as a source for the pirate site malware claim notes that 80% of all web-based malware is hosted on “innocent” but compromised websites.

As the provided evidence gave no answers, we asked the experts to chime in. Luckily, security company Malwarebytes was willing to share its assessment. As leaders in the anti-malware industry, they should know better than researchers who have their numbers and terminology mixed up.

“These days, most common infections come from malicious spam campaigns and drive-by exploit attacks,” Adam Kujawa, Director of Malware Intelligence at Malwarebytes informs us.

“Torrent sites are still frequently used by criminals to host malware disguised as something the user wants, like an application, movie, etc. However they are really only a threat to people who use torrent sites regularly and those people have likely learned how to avoid malicious torrents,” he adds.

In other words, most people who regularly visit pirate sites know how to avoid these dangers. That doesn’t mean that they are not a threat to unsuspecting kids who visit them for the first time of course.

“Now, if users who were not familiar with torrent and pirate sites started using these services, there is a high probability that they could encounter some kind of malware. However, many of these sites have user review processes to let other users know if a particular torrent or download is likely malicious.

“So, unless a user is completely new to this process and ignores all the warning signs, they could walk away from a pirate site without getting infected,” Kujawa says.

Overall, the experts at Malwarebytes see no evidence for the claim that pirate sites are the number one propagation method for malware.

“So in summary, I don’t think the claim that ‘pirate sites’ are the number one way to infect users is accurate at all,” Kujawa concludes.

While it’s always a good idea to avoid places that can have a high prevalence of malware, including pirate sites, the claims in the video are not backed up by real evidence. There are tens of thousands of non-pirate sites that pose similar or worse risks, so it’s always a good idea to have anti-malware and virus software installed.

The organizations and people involved in the British “Meet the Malwares” video might not have been aware of the doubtful claims, but it’s unfortunate that they didn’t opt for a broader campaign instead of the focused anti-piracy message.

Finally, since it’s still Safer Internet Day, we encourage kids to take a close look at the various guides on how to avoid “fake news” while engaging in critical thinking.

Be safe!

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

Playboy’s Copyright Lawsuit Threatens Online Expression, Boing Boing Argues

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/playboys-copyright-lawsuit-threatens-online-expression-boing-boing-argues-180202/

Early 2016, Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin published an article in which she linked to an archive of every Playboy centerfold image till then.

“Kind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time,” Jardin commented.

While the linked material undoubtedly appealed to many readers, Playboy itself took offense to the fact that infringing copies of their work were being shared in public. While Boing Boing didn’t upload or store the images in question, the publisher filed a complaint.

Playboy accused the blog’s parent company Happy Mutants of various counts of copyright infringement, claiming that it exploited their playmates’ images for commercial purposes.

Last month Boing Boing responded to the allegations with a motion to dismiss. The case should be thrown out, it argued, noting that linking to infringing material for the purpose of reporting and commentary, is not against the law.

This prompted Playboy to fire back, branding Boing Boing a “clickbait” site. Playboy informed the court that the popular blog profits off the work of others and has no fair use defense.

Before the California District Court decides on the matter, Boing Boing took the opportunity to reply to Playboy’s latest response. According to the defense, Playboy’s case is an attack on people’s freedom of expression.

“Playboy claims this is an important case. It is partially correct: if the Court allows this case to go forward, it will send a dangerous message to everyone engaged in ordinary online commentary,” Boing Boing’s reply reads.

Referencing a previous Supreme Court decision, the blog says that the Internet democratizes access to speech, with websites as a form of modern-day pamphlets.

Links to source materials posted by third parties give these “pamphlets” more weight as they allow readers to form their own opinion on the matter, Boing Boing argues. If the court upholds Playboy’s arguments, however, this will become a risky endeavor.

“Playboy, however, would apparently prefer a world in which the ‘pamphleteer’ must ask for permission before linking to primary sources, on pain of expensive litigation,” the defense writes.

“This case merely has to survive a motion to dismiss to launch a thousand more expensive lawsuits, chilling a broad variety of lawful expression and reporting that merely adopts the common practice of linking to the material that is the subject of the report.”

The defense says that there are several problems with Playboy’s arguments. Among other things, Boing Boing argues that did nothing to cause the unauthorized posting of Playboy’s work on Imgur and YouTube.

Another key argument is that linking to copyright-infringing material should be considered fair use, since it was for purposes of criticism, commentary, and news reporting.

“Settled precedent requires dismissal, both because Boing Boing did not induce or materially contribute to any copyright infringement and, in the alternative, because Boing Boing engaged in fair use,” the defense writes.

Instead of going after Boing Boing for contributory infringement, Playboy could actually try to uncover the people who shared the infringing material, they argue. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so.

After hearing the arguments from both sides it is now up to the court to decide how to proceed. Given what’s at stake, the eventual outcome in this case is bound to set a crucial precedent.

A copy of Boing Boing’s reply 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

Appeals Court Throws Out $25 Million Piracy Verdict Against Cox, Doesn’t Reinstate “Safe Harbor”

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/appeals-court-throws-out-25-million-piracy-verdict-against-cox-doesnt-reinstate-safe-harbor-180201/

December 2015, a Virginia federal jury ruled that Internet provider Cox Communications was responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers.

The ISP was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

Cox swiftly filed its appeal arguing that the District Court made several errors in the jury instructions. In addition, it asked for a clarification of the term “repeat infringer” in its favor.

Today the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on the matter in a mixed decision which could have great consequences.

The Court ruled that the District Court indeed made a mistake in its jury instruction. Specifically, it said that the ISP could be found liable for contributory infringement if it “knew or should have known of such infringing activity.” The Court of Appeals agrees that based on the law, the “should have known” standard is too low.

When this is the case the appeals court can call for a new trial, and that is exactly what it did. This means that the $25 million verdict is off the table, and the same is true for the millions in attorney’s fees and costs BMG was previously granted.

It’s not all good news for Cox though. The most crucial matter in the case is whether Cox has safe harbor protection under the DMCA. In order to qualify, the company is required to terminate accounts of repeat infringers, when appropriate.

Cox argued that subscribers can only be seen as repeat infringers if they’ve been previously adjudicated in court, not if they merely received several takedown notices. This was still an open question, as the term repeat infringer is not clearly defined in the DMCA.

Today, however, the appeals court is pretty clear on the matter. According to Judge Motz’s opinion, shared by HWR, the language of the DMCA suggests that the term “infringer” is not limited to adjudicated infringers.

This is supported by legislative history as the House Commerce and Senate Judiciary Committee Reports both explained that “those who repeatedly or flagrantly abuse their access to the Internet through disrespect for the intellectual property rights of others should know that there is a realistic threat of losing that access.”

“The passage does not suggest that they should risk losing Internet access only once they have been sued in court and found liable for multiple instances of infringement,” Judge Motz writes in her opinion.

Losing Internet access would hardly be a “realistic threat” that would stop someone from pirating if he or she has already been punished several times in court, the argument goes.

This leads the Court of Appeals to conclude that the District Court was right: Cox is not entitled to safe harbor protection because it failed to implement a meaningful repeat infringer policy.

“Cox failed to qualify for the DMCA safe harbor because it failed to implement its policy in any consistent or meaningful way — leaving it essentially with no policy,” Judge Motz writes.

This means that, while Cox gets a new trial, it is still at a severe disadvantage. Not only that, the Court of Appeals interpretation of the repeat infringer question is also a clear signal to other Internet service providers to disconnect pirates based on repeated copyright holder complaints.

Judge Motz’s full opinion is available here (pdf).

Despite Protests, ISP Ordered To Hand Over Pirates’ Details to Police

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/despite-protests-isp-ordered-to-hand-over-pirates-details-to-police-180201/

As large ISPs become more closely aligned with the entertainment industries, the days of providers strongly standing up to blocking and disclosure requests appear to be on the decline. For Swedish ISP Bahnhof, however, customer privacy has become a business model.

In recent years the company has been a major opponent of data retention requirement, launched a free VPN to protect its users’ privacy, and put on a determined front against the threat of copyright trolls.

Back in May 2016, Bahnhof reiterated its stance that it doesn’t hand over the personal details of alleged pirates to anyone, not even the police. This, despite the fact that the greatest number of disclosure requests from the authorities relate to copyright infringement.

Bahnhof insisted that European privacy regulations mean that it only has to hand over information to the police if the complaint relates to a serious crime. But that went against a recommendation from the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS).

Now, however, the battle to protect customer privacy has received a significant setback after the Administrative Court in Stockholm found that Swedish provisions on disclosure of subscription data to law enforcement agencies do not contravene EU law.

“PTS asked Bahnhof to provide information on subscribers to law enforcement agencies. Bahnhof appealed against the order, claiming that the Swedish rules on disclosure of subscription information are incompatible with EU law,” the Court said in a statement.

“In support of its view, Bahnhof referred to two rulings of the European Court of Justice. The Administrative Court has held that it is not possible to state that the Swedish rules on law enforcement agencies’ access to subscription data are incompatible with EU law.”

The Court also looked at whether Swedish rules on disclosure of subscriber data meet the requirement of proportionality under EU law. In common with many other copyright-related cases, the Court found that law enforcement’s need to access subscriber data was more important than the individual’s right to privacy.

“In light of this, the Administrative Court has made the assessment that PTS’s decision to impose on Bahnhof a requirement to provide information about subscribers to law enforcement authorities is correct,” the Court adds.

PTS will now be able to instruct Bahnhof to disclose subscriber information in accordance with the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act and the ISP will be required to comply.

But as far as Bahnhof is concerned, the show isn’t over yet.

“We believe the sentence is incorrect, but it is also difficult to take PTS seriously when they can not even interpret the laws behind the decision in a consistent manner. We are of course going to appeal,” the company said in a statement.

To illustrate its point, Bahnhof says that PTS has changed its opinion on the importance of IP addresses in a matter of months. In October 2017, PTS lawyer Staffan Lindmark said he believed that IP addresses are to be regarded as privacy-sensitive data. In January 2018, however, PTS is said to have spoken of the same data in more trivial terms.

“That a supervisory authority pivots so much in its opinions is remarkable,” says Jon Karlung, President of the Bahnhof.

“Bahnhof is not in any way against law enforcement agencies, but we believe that sensitive data should only be released after judicial review and suspected crime.”

Bahnhof says it will save as little data on its customers as it can and IP addresses will be deleted within 24 hours, a practice that has been in place for some time.

In 2016, 27.5% of all disclosure requests sent to Bahnhof were related to online file-sharing, more than any other crime including grooming minors, harassment, sex crimes, forgery, and fraud.

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

Court Orders Tickbox to Keep Pirate Streaming Addons Out

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-tickbox-to-keep-pirate-streaming-addons-out-180131/

Kodi-powered set-top boxes are a great way to to stream video content to a TV, but sellers who ship these devices with unauthorized add-ons give them a bad reputation.

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

Last year, ACE filed a lawsuit against the Georgia-based company, which sells Kodi-powered set-top boxes that stream a variety of popular media.

According to ACE, these devices are nothing more than pirate tools, allowing buyers to stream copyright-infringing content and being advertised as such. The coalition, therefore, asked the court for an injunction to prevent Tickbox from facilitating copyright infringement by removing all pirate add-ons from previously sold devices.

This week US District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald issued a preliminary injunction, which largely sides with the movie companies. According to the Judge, there is sufficient reason to believe that Tickbox can be held liable for inducing copyright infringement.

One of the claims is that Tickbox promoted its service for piracy purposes, and according to the Judge the movie companies provided enough evidence to make this likely. This includes various advertising messages the box seller used.

“There is ample evidence that, at least prior to Plaintiffs’commencement of this action, TickBox explicitly advertised the Device as a means to accessing unauthorized versions of copyrighted audiovisual content,” Judge Fitzgerald writes.

In its defense, Tickbox argued that it merely offered a computer which users can then configure to their liking. However, the Judge points out that the company went further, as it actively directed its users to install certain themes (builds) to watch movies, TV and sports.

“Thus, the fact that the Device is just a ‘computer’ that can be used for infringing and noninfringing purposes does not insulate TickBox from liability if [..] the Device is actually used for infringing purposes and TickBox encourages such use.”

Taking these and several other factors into account, the Court ruled that a preliminary injunction is warranted at this stage. After the lawsuit was filed, Tickbox already voluntarily removed much of the inducing advertisements and addons, and this will remain so.

The preliminary injunction compels TickBox to the current version of the user interface, without easy access to pirate add-ons. The devices should no longer contain links to any of the themes and addons that the movie companies have flagged as copyright infringing.

Tickbox had argued that a broad injunction could shut down its business, but the court counters this. Customers will still be able to use the box for legitimate purposes. If they are no longer interested it suggests that piracy was the main draw.

“[A]n injunction of this scope will not ‘shut down Defendant’s business’ as TickBox contends. In the event that such an injunction does shut TickBox down, that will be indicative not of an unjustifiably burdensome injunction, but of a nonviable business model,” Judge Fitzgerald writes.

The preliminary injunction is not final yet as there are several questions still unanswered.

It’s unclear, for example, if and how Tickbox should remove addons from previously sold devices. The Court, therefore, instructs both parties to attempt to reach agreement on these outstanding issues, to include them in an updated injunction.

The above findings are preliminary and apply specifically to the injunction request and the case itself will continue. However, the Court’s early opinion suggests that Tickbox has plenty of work ahead to prove its innocence.

A copy of the preliminary injunction is available here (pdf), and Judge Fitzgerald’s findings 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

Arrr: Top Tips to Spot The Differences Between Pirate and Legal Sites

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/arrr-top-tips-to-spot-the-differences-between-pirate-and-legal-sites-180128/

There’s a persistent theory that people exist who are using pirate sites but don’t realize that they’re unauthorized and/or illegal. While that seems likely, it’s hard to believe the volumes are particularly significant.

Nevertheless, numerous campaigns have attempted to enlighten consumers as to what is and isn’t legal and this week the Federation Against Copyright Theft raised the issue once again.

Tagging onto UK anti-fraud awareness campaign Take Five, the anti-piracy outfit asked people to take five minutes to consider the legality of the site or service they’re currently consuming.

FACT’s advice above is basically sound. They ask people to do their research on the sites FindAnyFilm and GetItRight, both of which should give consumers an idea of where content can be obtained legally. Trouble is, neither resource is comprehensive, so five minutes of research could turn into ten or fifteen, by which time people could get bored of trying to do the right thing.

So, with this in mind, here are a few light-hearted tips to help people spot whether the site they’re using is authorized by the movie industry or a product of a swashbuckling mind.

Does the site want your name, address and life history?

If the site you’re accessing looks really polished, has a positive Wikipedia page, but won’t give you anything more than a trailer without handing over your full identity and credit card details, this is probably a legal platform.

Since they have to license movies from Hollywood and other filmmakers, sites like these cost a lot of money to run. As a result, they want your money to pay the bills and they like to make sure you can pay up front.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. No money, no access – capiche?

Does the site look polished but doesn’t ask for a dime?

If the site you’re looking at seems like the one mentioned above but doesn’t seem to care who you are, this is starting to look like a pirate site. If it then offers up thousands of movies and TV shows without accessing your wallet or dental records, you’re definitely on the high seas.

While this position is pleasurable for people with a penchant for piracy, there are plenty of points to ponder.

Is the site already starting to get on your nerves a bit?

You’re browsing a site, looking at all the beautiful movies and TV shows on offer, then one takes your fancy. You click it with both anticipation and excitement but instead of the video appearing, a new tab or popup appears in your browser.

If this unexpected visitor offers a penis extension, a night out with a girl in your area, or a get-rich-quick scheme you feel you need but don’t understand, this is probably a pirate site.

These stupid offers are the price you pay for not paying. This is how it works.

While movies and TV shows cost money to create and require financial support from the consumer, pirate sites use various techniques to obtain that content for free. Then, with a wave of a magic wand, they cover the costs of delivering it to pirates using advertising.

However, due to pressures put on them by the content industries, pirate sites generally have to serve up poor quality ads. Crappy ads everywhere = almost definitely a pirate site.

The movie site i’m using is really confusing, is it legal?

After obtaining your banking details, mother’s maiden name, and blood type, legal sites are generally very straightforward. Pleasurably content and feature-rich, services like Netflix and Spotify are simplicity itself to use. Their interfaces are clean, tidy, and don’t do anything unexpected. These are just some of the key features you get in return for handing over your money to a legal service.

On the other hand, however, if you’re on a site that has six different download buttons and none of them seem to actually download anything, this is probably a pirate site, and a low grade one at that.

Back away quickly, regroup, and never go back – unless you have an ad-blocker turned all the way up to 11, of course.

Wow! This site has all the latest movies! Is it legal?

Some of Hollywood’s greatest assets are its just-released movies. It holds these tightly, like a protective mother, restricting viewing only to those who pay large amounts of money for the privilege.

As a general rule, if you’re watching them for free on the Internet, chances are it’s not only unauthorized but probably illegal too. That being said, most people don’t give a damn due to all the excitement, free content, and tiny chances of being caught.

Note: If a movie came out today, last week, or even last month, and you’ve spent a large sum of money to watch it alongside hundreds of noisy others in a big room while eating over-priced taste-free snacks, CONGRATULATIONS! You’ve found the only way to watch the latest movies legally.

I really love this site, it has everything I want in one place. Is that legal?

STOP. This is definitely an illegal site. While it is the movie and TV industries’ job to entertain the masses, it also has a side mission to ensure that you will never – EVER – find all the content you want in one place.

Remember: to stay legal and have access to the broadest range of video content, you need to subscribe to several official services while handing over handfuls of cash every month.

If you find that after parting with large sums of cash you still can’t find all the content you want, then you can be sure you’re doing this by the book and entirely legally. Only people using pirate services find all the stuff they need in one or two places.

A service is offering me every TV channel for £10/$10/€10 per month. Legal?

If your local TV cable or satellite provider demands a pile of cash an inch thick to access every channel they have for a month, please be informed they have worked very hard to achieve that monopoly position.

There is no way on planet earth that another legal supplier will be able to undercut them by 90%. Yes, that includes fully-loaded Fire TV Sticks bought off Pete down the pub.

As a rule of thumb, if you’re delighted with the ‘special’ TV service you bought off Facebook yet still have enough money to take the family out for a meal at a half decent restaurant, alarm bells should be ringing.

Legal buyers can generally afford to gorge on either TV or food. If you’re full to bursting due to excessive consumption of both, you’re either using a pirate service or have enough money not to need one.

These tips are not exhaustive – feel free to add your own in the comments

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

Playboy Brands Boing Boing a “Clickbait” Site With No Fair Use Defense

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/playboy-brands-boing-boing-a-clickbait-site-with-no-fair-use-defense-180126/

Late 2017, Boing Boing co-editor Xena Jardin posted an article in which he linked to an archive containing every Playboy centerfold image to date.

“Kind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time,” Jardin noted.

While Boing Boing had nothing to do with the compilation, uploading, or storing of the Imgur-based archive, Playboy took exception to the popular blog linking to the album.

Noting that Jardin had referred to the archive uploader as a “wonderful person”, the adult publication responded with a lawsuit (pdf), claiming that Boing Boing had commercially exploited its copyrighted images.

Last week, with assistance from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Boing Boing parent company Happy Mutants filed a motion to dismiss in which it defended its right to comment on and link to copyrighted content without that constituting infringement.

“This lawsuit is frankly mystifying. Playboy’s theory of liability seems to be that it is illegal to link to material posted by others on the web — an act performed daily by hundreds of millions of users of Facebook and Twitter, and by journalists like the ones in Playboy’s crosshairs here,” the company wrote.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer weighed in too, arguing that since Boing Boing’s reporting and commenting is protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine, the “deeply flawed” lawsuit should be dismissed.

Now, just a week later, Playboy has fired back. Opposing Happy Mutants’ request for the Court to dismiss the case, the company cites the now-famous Perfect 10 v. Amazon/Google case from 2007, which tried to prevent Google from facilitating access to infringing images.

Playboy highlights the court’s finding that Google could have been held contributorily liable – if it had knowledge that Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could have taken simple measures to prevent further damage, but failed to do so.

Turning to Boing Boing’s conduct, Playboy says that the company knew it was linking to infringing content, could have taken steps to prevent that, but failed to do so. It then launches an attack on the site itself, offering disparaging comments concerning its activities and business model.

“This is an important case. At issue is whether clickbait sites like Happy Mutants’ Boing Boing weblog — a site designed to attract viewers and encourage them to click on links in order to generate advertising revenue — can knowingly find, promote, and profit from infringing content with impunity,” Playboy writes.

“Clickbait sites like Boing Boing are not known for creating original content. Rather, their business model is based on ‘collecting’ interesting content created by others. As such, they effectively profit off the work of others without actually creating anything original themselves.”

Playboy notes that while sites like Boing Boing are within their rights to leverage works created by others, courts in the US and overseas have ruled that knowingly linking to infringing content is unacceptable.

Even given these conditions, Playboy argues, Happy Mutants and the EFF now want the Court to dismiss the case so that sites are free to “not only encourage, facilitate, and induce infringement, but to profit from those harmful activities.”

Claiming that Boing Boing’s only reason for linking to the infringing album was to “monetize the web traffic that over fifty years of Playboy photographs would generate”, Playboy insists that the site and parent company Happy Mutants was properly charged with copyright infringement.

Playboy also dismisses Boing Boing’s argument that a link to infringing content cannot result in liability due to the link having both infringing and substantial non-infringing uses.

First citing the Betamax case, which found that maker Sony could not be held liable for infringement because its video recorders had substantial non-infringing uses, Playboy counters with the Grokster decision, which held that a distributor of a product could be liable for infringement, if there was an intent to encourage or support infringement.

“In this case, Happy Mutants’ offending link — which does nothing more than support infringing content — is good for nothing but promoting infringement and there is no legitimate public interest in its unlicensed availability,” Playboy notes.

In its motion to dismiss, Happy Mutants also argued that unless Playboy could identify users who “in fact downloaded — rather than simply viewing — the material in question,” the case should be dismissed. However, Playboy rejects the argument, claiming it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law.

Citing the Grokster decision once more, the adult publisher notes that the Supreme Court found that someone infringes contributorily when they intentionally induce or encourage direct infringement.

“The argument that contributory infringement only lies where the defendant’s actions result in further infringement ignores the ‘or’ and collapses ‘inducing’ and ‘encouraging’ into one thing when they are two distinct things,” Playboy writes.

As for Boing Boing’s four classic fair use arguments, the publisher describes these as “extremely weak” and proceeds to hit them one by one.

In respect of the purpose and character of the use, Playboy discounts Boing Boing’s position that the aim of its post was to show “how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time.” The publisher argues that is the exact same purpose of Playboy magazine, while highliting its publication Playboy: The Compete Centerfolds, 1953-2016.

Moving on to the second factor of fair use – the nature of the copyrighted work – Playboy notes that an entire album of artwork is involved, rather than just a single image.

On the third factor, concerning the amount and substantiality of the original work used, Playboy argues that in order to publish an opinion on how “standards of hotness” had developed over time, there was no need to link to all of the pictures in the archive.

“Had only representative images from each decade, or perhaps even each year, been taken, this would be a very different case — but Happy Mutants cannot dispute that it knew it was linking to an illegal library of ‘Every Playboy Playmate Centerfold Ever’ since that is what it titled its blog post,” Playboy notes.

Finally, when considering the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, Playbody says its archive of images continues to be monetized and Boing Boing’s use of infringing images jeopardizes that.

“Given that people are generally not going to pay for what is freely available, it is disingenuous of Happy Mutants to claim that promoting the free availability of infringing archives of Playboy’s work for viewing and downloading is not going to have an adverse effect on the value or market of that work,” the publisher adds.

While it appears the parties agree on very little, there is agreement on one key aspect of the case – its wider importance.

On the one hand, Playboy insists that a finding in its favor will ensure that people can’t commercially exploit infringing content with impunity. On the other, Boing Boing believes that the health of the entire Internet is at stake.

“The world can’t afford a judgment against us in this case — it would end the web as we know it, threatening everyone who publishes online, from us five weirdos in our basements to multimillion-dollar, globe-spanning publishing empires like Playboy,” the company concludes.

Playboy’s opposition to Happy Mutants’ motion to dismiss 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

Pirate Bay Founder’s Domain Service “Mocks” NY Times Legal Threats

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-domain-service-mocks-ny-times-legal-threats-180125/

Back in the day, The Pirate Bay was famous for its amusing responses to legal threats. Instead of complying with takedown notices, it sent witty responses to embarrass the senders.

Today the notorious torrent site gives copyright holders the silent treatment, but the good-old Pirate Bay spirit still lives on elsewhere.

Earlier today the anonymous domain registration service Njalla, which happens to be a venture of TPB co-founder Peter Sunde, posted a series of noteworthy responses it sent to The New York Times’ (NYT) legal department.

The newspaper warned the registration service about one of its customers, paywallnews.com, which offers the news service’s content without permission. Since this is a violation of The Times’ copyrights, according to the paper, Njalla should take action or face legal consequences.

NYT: Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately provide us with contact information — including email addresses — for both the actual owner of the paywallnew.com website, and for the hosting provider on which the paywallnew.com website is located.

If we have not heard from you within three (3) business days of receipt of this letter, we will have no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies.

Njalla is no stranger to threats of this kind but were somewhat offended by the harsh language, it seems. The company, therefore, decided to inform the NYT that there are more friendly ways to reach out.

Njalla: Thanks for that lovely e-mail. It’s always good to communicate with people that in their first e-mail use words as “we demand”, “pursue all available legal remedies” and so forth. I’d like to start out with some free (as in no cost) advice: please update your boiler threat letters to actually try what most people try first: being nice. It’s not expensive (actually the opposite) and actually it works much better than your method (source: a few tens of thousands years of human development that would not have been as efficient with threats as it would have been with cooperation).

In addition, Njalla also included a request of its own. They kindly asked (no demand) the newspaper’s legal department for proof that they are who they say they are. You can never be too cautious, after all.

Njalla: Now, back to the questions you sent us. We’re not sure who you are, so in order to move further we’d like to see a copy of your ID card, as well as a notarised power of attorney showing that you are actually representing the people you’re claiming to do.

This had the desired effect, for Njalla at least. The NYT replied with an apology for the tough language that was used, noting that they usually deal with companies that employ people who are used to reading legal documents.

The newspaper did, however, submit a notarized letter signed by the company’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, and once again asked for details on the Njalla customer.

NYT: Once again, as I mention above, the referenced website is stealing large amounts of New York Times content. If you click on this link: http://www.paywallnews.com/sites/nytimes

As this abuse — aside from being an egregious infringement of The Times’s copyright — breaches your own Terms of Service, I hope you will be able to see your way to helping me to put a stop to this practice by providing me with the name and contact information for the owner of paywallnews.com and for the ISP on which it is hosted.

This is when things started to get really interesting. Founded by someone with an extensive background in “sharing,” Njalla clearly has a different definition of stealing than the NYT’s legal department.

The reply, which is worth reading in full along with the rest of the communication, makes this quite clear.

Njalla: Stealing content seem quite harsh of this website though, didn’t know that they did that! Is there anyway you can get the stolen items back though? You should either go to the police and request them to help you get the stolen items back. Or maybe talk to your insurance company, they might help to compensate you for the loss. But a helpful idea; if they’ve stolen something and then put copies of that on a website that you can freely access, I would suggest just copying it, so that both of you have the same things. That’s a great thing with the digital world, everyone can have copies of things. I am surprised they stole something when they could just have copied it. I’m guessing it’s some older individuals that don’t know the possibilities of modern day technology to make copies.

It’s obvious that the domain registration service makes a clear distinction between copying and stealing.

Piracy vs. Theft

In addition, Njalla contests that the site is problematic at all, noting that this might be a “cultural difference.”

Njalla spotted something even more worrying though. The NYT claims that the site in question violates its terms of service. Specifically, they reference the section that prohibits sites from spreading content that is illegal according to local law.

Is the NYT perhaps spreading illegal content itself, Njalla questions?

Njalla: Deborah, I was quite shocked and appalled that you referred to this part of our ToS. It made me actually not visit the website in question even though you’ve linked it now a few times. You’re admitting to spreading illegal content at your newspaper, for profit, is that correct?

We’re quite big proponents of freedom of speech, let me assure you of that, but we also have limits. If you spread illegal content, and our customers stole that illegal content and are now handing out free copies of that, that’s a huge issue for us. Since it would be illegal for us to get those copies if they’re illegal, I’m asking you what type of content it is?

As an attachment to the reply, Njalla also sent back a “notarized” letter of their own, by simply copying the NYT letter and sticking their own logo on it, to show how easily these can be fabricated.

TorrentFreak reached out to Sunde who informed us that they never heard from The New York Times after the last reply. As a domain registrant, Njalla is not obliged to comply with takedown requests, he explains.

“If they need help from us on copyright issues, they’re totally missing what we’re doing, and that they should look somewhere else anyhow. But I think most domain services gets tons of these threat emails, and a lot of them think they’re responsible because they don’t have access to legal help and just shut customers down.

“That’s what a lot of our customers say at least, since they migrated from a shitty service which doesn’t know their own business,” Sunde adds.

The NYT is not completely without options though. If they take the case to court in Sweden and win an injunction against paywallnews.com, Njalla will comply. The same is true if a customer really violates the terms of service.

Meanwhile, paywallnews.com remains online.

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

timeShift(GrafanaBuzz, 1w) Issue 30

Post Syndicated from Blogs on Grafana Labs Blog original https://grafana.com/blog/2018/01/19/timeshiftgrafanabuzz-1w-issue-30/

Welcome to TimeShift

We’re only 6 weeks away from the next GrafanaCon and here at Grafana Labs we’re buzzing with excitement. We have some great talks lined up that you won’t want to miss.

This week’s TimeShift covers Grafana’s annotation functionality, monitoring with Prometheus, integrating Grafana with NetFlow and a peek inside Stream’s monitoring stack. Enjoy!


Latest Stable Release

Grafana 4.6.3 is now available. Latest bugfixes include:

  • Gzip: Fixes bug Gravatar images when gzip was enabled #5952
  • Alert list: Now shows alert state changes even after adding manual annotations on dashboard #99513
  • Alerting: Fixes bug where rules evaluated as firing when all conditions was false and using OR operator. #93183
  • Cloudwatch: CloudWatch no longer display metrics’ default alias #101514, thx @mtanda

Download Grafana 4.6.3 Now


From the Blogosphere

Walkthrough: Watch your Ansible deployments in Grafana!: Your graphs start spiking and your platform begins behaving abnormally. Did the config change in a deployment, causing the problem? This article covers Grafana’s new annotation functionality, and specifically, how to create deployment annotations via Ansible playbooks.

Application Monitoring in OpenShift with Prometheus and Grafana: There are many article describing how to monitor OpenShift with Prometheus running in the same cluster, but what if you don’t have admin permissions to the cluster you need to monitor?

Spring Boot Metrics Monitoring Using Prometheus & Grafana: As the title suggests, this post walks you through how to configure Prometheus and Grafana to monitor you Spring Boot application metrics.

How to Integrate Grafana with NetFlow: Learn how to monitor NetFlow from Scrutinizer using Grafana’s SimpleJSON data source.

Stream & Go: News Feeds for Over 300 Million End Users: Stream lets you build scalable newsfeeds and activity streams via their API, which is used by more than 300 million end users. In this article, they discuss their monitoring stack and why they chose particular components and technologies.


GrafanaCon EU Tickets are Going Fast!

We’re six weeks from kicking off GrafanaCon EU! Join us for talks from Google, Bloomberg, Tinder, eBay and more! You won’t want to miss two great days of open source monitoring talks and fun in Amsterdam. Get your tickets before they sell out!

Get Your Ticket Now


Grafana Plugins

We have a couple of plugin updates to share this week that add some new features and improvements. Updating your plugins is easy. For on-prem Grafana, use the Grafana-cli tool, or update with 1 click on your Hosted Grafana.

UPDATED PLUGIN

Druid Data Source – This new update is packed with new features. Notable enhancement include:

  • Post Aggregation feature
  • Support for thetaSketch
  • Improvements to the Query editor

Update Now

UPDATED PLUGIN

Breadcrumb Panel – The Breadcrumb Panel is a small panel you can include in your dashboard that tracks other dashboards you have visited – making it easy to navigate back to a previously visited dashboard. The latest release adds support for dashboards loaded from a file.

Update Now


Upcoming Events

In between code pushes we like to speak at, sponsor and attend all kinds of conferences and meetups. We also like to make sure we mention other Grafana-related events happening all over the world. If you’re putting on just such an event, let us know and we’ll list it here.

SnowCamp 2018: Yves Brissaud – Application metrics with Prometheus and Grafana | Grenoble, France – Jan 24, 2018:
We’ll take a look at how Prometheus, Grafana and a bit of code make it possible to obtain temporal data to visualize the state of our applications as well as to help with development and debugging.

Register Now

Women Who Go Berlin: Go Workshop – Monitoring and Troubleshooting using Prometheus and Grafana | Berlin, Germany – Jan 31, 2018: In this workshop we will learn about one of the most important topics in making apps production ready: Monitoring. We will learn how to use tools you’ve probably heard a lot about – Prometheus and Grafana, and using what we learn we will troubleshoot a particularly buggy Go app.

Register Now

FOSDEM | Brussels, Belgium – Feb 3-4, 2018: FOSDEM is a free developer conference where thousands of developers of free and open source software gather to share ideas and technology. There is no need to register; all are welcome.

Jfokus | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 5-7, 2018:
Carl Bergquist – Quickie: Monitoring? Not OPS Problem

Why should we monitor our system? Why can’t we just rely on the operations team anymore? They use to be able to do that. What’s currently changing? Presentation content: – Why do we monitor our system – How did it use to work? – Whats changing – Why do we need to shift focus – Everyone should be on call. – Resilience is the goal (Best way of having someone care about quality is to make them responsible).

Register Now

Jfokus | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 5-7, 2018:
Leonard Gram – Presentation: DevOps Deconstructed

What’s a Site Reliability Engineer and how’s that role different from the DevOps engineer my boss wants to hire? I really don’t want to be on call, should I? Is Docker the right place for my code or am I better of just going straight to Serverless? And why should I care about any of it? I’ll try to answer some of these questions while looking at what DevOps really is about and how commodisation of servers through “the cloud” ties into it all. This session will be an opinionated piece from a developer who’s been on-call for the past 6 years and would like to convince you to do the same, at least once.

Register Now

Stockholm Metrics and Monitoring | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 7, 2018:
Observability 3 ways – Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing

Let’s talk about often confused telemetry tools: Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing. We’ll show how you capture latency using each of the tools and how they work differently. Through examples and discussion, we’ll note edge cases where certain tools have advantages over others. By the end of this talk, we’ll better understand how each of Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing aids us in different ways to understand our applications.

Register Now

OpenNMS – Introduction to “Grafana” | Webinar – Feb 21, 2018:
IT monitoring helps detect emerging hardware damage and performance bottlenecks in the enterprise network before any consequential damage or disruption to business processes occurs. The powerful open-source OpenNMS software monitors a network, including all connected devices, and provides logging of a variety of data that can be used for analysis and planning purposes. In our next OpenNMS webinar on February 21, 2018, we introduce “Grafana” – a web-based tool for creating and displaying dashboards from various data sources, which can be perfectly combined with OpenNMS.

Register Now


Tweet of the Week

We scour Twitter each week to find an interesting/beautiful dashboard and show it off! #monitoringLove

As we say with pie charts, use emojis wisely 😉


Grafana Labs is Hiring!

We are passionate about open source software and thrive on tackling complex challenges to build the future. We ship code from every corner of the globe and love working with the community. If this sounds exciting, you’re in luck – WE’RE HIRING!

Check out our Open Positions


How are we doing?

That wraps up our 30th issue of TimeShift. What do you think? Are there other types of content you’d like to see here? Submit a comment on this issue below, or post something at our community forum.

Follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, and join the Grafana Labs community.

Privacy expectations and the connected home

Post Syndicated from Matthew Garrett original https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/50229.html

Traditionally, devices that were tied to logins tended to indicate that in some way – turn on someone’s xbox and it’ll show you their account name, run Netflix and it’ll ask which profile you want to use. The increasing prevalence of smart devices in the home changes that, in ways that may not be immediately obvious to the majority of people. You can configure a Philips Hue with wall-mounted dimmers, meaning that someone unfamiliar with the system may not recognise that it’s a smart lighting system at all. Without any actively malicious intent, you end up with a situation where the account holder is able to infer whether someone is home without that person necessarily having any idea that that’s possible. A visitor who uses an Amazon Echo is not necessarily going to know that it’s tied to somebody’s Amazon account, and even if they do they may not know that the log (and recorded audio!) of all interactions is available to the account holder. And someone grabbing an egg out of your fridge is almost certainly not going to think that your smart egg tray will trigger an immediate notification on the account owner’s phone that they need to buy new eggs.

Things get even more complicated when there’s multiple account support. Google Home supports multiple users on a single device, using voice recognition to determine which queries should be associated with which account. But the account that was used to initially configure the device remains as the fallback, with unrecognised voices ended up being logged to it. If a voice is misidentified, the query may end up being logged to an unexpected account.

There’s some interesting questions about consent and expectations of privacy here. If someone sets up a smart device in their home then at some point they’ll agree to the manufacturer’s privacy policy. But if someone else makes use of the system (by pressing a lightswitch, making a spoken query or, uh, picking up an egg), have they consented? Who has the social obligation to explain to them that the information they’re producing may be stored elsewhere and visible to someone else? If I use an Echo in a hotel room, who has access to the Amazon account it’s associated with? How do you explain to a teenager that there’s a chance that when they asked their Home for contact details for an abortion clinic, it ended up in their parent’s activity log? Who’s going to be the first person divorced for claiming that they were vegan but having been the only person home when an egg was taken out of the fridge?

To be clear, I’m not arguing against the design choices involved in the implementation of these devices. In many cases it’s hard to see how the desired functionality could be implemented without this sort of issue arising. But we’re gradually shifting to a place where the data we generate is not only available to corporations who probably don’t care about us as individuals, it’s also becoming available to people who own the more private spaces we inhabit. We have social norms against bugging our houseguests, but we have no social norms that require us to explain to them that there’ll be a record of every light that they turn on or off. This feels like it’s going to end badly.

(Thanks to Nikki Everett for conversations that inspired this post)

(Disclaimer: while I work for Google, I am not involved in any of the products or teams described in this post and my opinions are my own rather than those of my employer’s)

comment count unavailable comments

Pirate Streaming on Facebook is a Seriously Risky Business

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-streaming-on-facebook-is-a-seriously-risky-business-180114/

For more than a year the British public has been warned about the supposed dangers of Kodi piracy.

Dozens of headlines have claimed consequences ranging from system-destroying malware to prison sentences. Fortunately, most of them can be filed under “tabloid nonsense.”

That being said, there is an extremely important issue that deserves much closer attention, particularly given a shift in the UK legal climate during 2017. We’re talking about live streaming copyrighted content on Facebook, which is both incredibly easy and frighteningly risky.

This week it was revealed that 34-year-old Craig Foster from the UK had been given an ultimatum from Sky to pay a £5,000 settlement fee. The media giant discovered that he’d live-streamed the Anthony Joshua v Wladimir Klitschko fight on Facebook and wanted compensation to make a potential court case disappear.

While it may seem initially odd to use the word, Foster was lucky.

Under last year’s Digital Economy Act, he could’ve been jailed for up to ten years for distributing copyright-infringing content to the public, if he had “reason to believe that communicating the work to the public [would] cause loss to the owner of the copyright, or [would] expose the owner of the copyright to a risk of loss.”

Clearly, as a purchaser of the £19.95 pay-per-view himself, he would’ve appreciated that the event costs money. With that in mind, a court would likely find that he would have been aware that Sky would have been exposed to a “risk of loss”. Sky claim that 4,250 people watched the stream but the way the law is written, no specific level of loss is required for a breach of the law.

But it’s not just the threat of a jail sentence that’s the problem. People streaming live sports on Facebook are sitting ducks.

In Foster’s case, the fight he streamed was watermarked, which means that Sky put a tracking code into it which identified him personally as the buyer of the event. When he (or his friend, as Foster claims) streamed it on Facebook, it was trivial for Sky to capture the watermark and track it back to his Sky account.

Equally, it would be simplicity itself to see that the name on the Sky account had exactly the same name and details as Foster’s Facebook account. So, to most observers, it would appear that not only had Foster purchased the event, but he was also streaming it to Facebook illegally.

It’s important to keep something else in mind. No cooperation between Sky and Facebook would’ve been necessary to obtain Foster’s details. Take the amount of information most people share on Facebook, combine that with the information Sky already had, and the company’s anti-piracy team would have had a very easy job.

Now compare this situation with an upload of the same stream to a torrent site.

While the video capture would still contain Foster’s watermark, which would indicate the source, to prove he also distributed the video Sky would’ve needed to get inside a torrent swarm. From there they would need to capture the IP address of the initial seeder and take the case to court, to force an ISP to hand over that person’s details.

Presuming they were the same person, Sky would have a case, with a broadly similar level of evidence to that presented in the current matter. However, it would’ve taken them months to get their man and cost large sums of money to get there. It’s very unlikely that £5,000 would cover the costs, meaning a much, much bigger bill for the culprit.

Or, confident that Foster was behind the leak based on the watermark alone, Sky could’ve gone straight to the police. That never ends well.

The bottom line is that while live-streaming on Facebook is simplicity itself, people who do it casually from their own account (especially with watermarked content) are asking for trouble.

Nailing Foster was the piracy equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel but the worrying part is that he probably never gave his (or his friend’s…) alleged infringement a second thought. With a click or two, the fight was live and he was staring down the barrel of a potential jail sentence, had Sky not gone the civil route.

It’s scary stuff and not enough is being done to warn people of the consequences. Forget the scare stories attempting to deter people from watching fights or movies on Kodi, thoughtlessly streaming them to the public on social media is the real danger.

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

Are Torrent Sites Using DMCA Notices to Quash Their Competition?

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/are-torrent-sites-using-dmca-notices-to-quash-their-competition-180114/

Every day, copyright holders send out millions of takedown notices to various services, hoping to protect their works.

While most of these requests are legitimate, the process is also being abused. Google prominently features examples of such dubious DMCA requests in its transparency report.

This week we were contacted by the owner of YTS.me after he noticed some unusual activity. In recent weeks his domain name has been targeted with a series of takedown notices from rather unusual people.

Senders with names such as Niklas Glockner, Michelle Williams, Maria Baader, Stefan Kuefer, Anja Herzog, and Markus Ostermann asked Google to remove thousands of YTS.me URLs.

Every notice lists just one movie title, but hundreds of links, most of which have nothing to do with the movie in question.

A few URLs from a single notice

These submitters are all relatively new and there is no sign that they are authorized by the applicable copyright holder. This, and the long list of irrelevant URLs suggest that these DMCA notices are abusive.

The owner of YTS.me believes that the senders have a clear motive. The purpose of the notices is to remove well-ranked pages and push the targeted sites down in Google’s search results.

“These all are fake people names submitting fake DMCA complaints and are not authorized to submit complaints,” the YTS.me operator notes.

“Even if they are real people they would have submitted, or are authorized to submit, complaints for only a few titles. Instead, they submit fake complaints and submit all the URLs possible on our website to degrade its ranking.”

The question that remains is, who is responsible for these notices? Looking at the list of sites that are targeted by these abusive senders we see a pattern emerge. They all target copycats of defunct sites such as YTS and ExtraTorrent.

Markus Osterman’s activity

This leads the YTS.me operator to the conclusion that one of its main competitors is sending these notices. While there is no hard evidence, it seems plausible that another YTS copycat is attempting to take the competition out of Google’s search results to gain more exposure itself.

YTS.me has a good idea of who the perpetrator(s) are – a person or group that also operates several other copycat sites. Thus far there’s no bulletproof evidence though, but it’s a likely explanation.

In any case, the DMCA takedown requests are definitely out of order and warrant further investigation by Google.

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

timeShift(GrafanaBuzz, 1w) Issue 29

Post Syndicated from Blogs on Grafana Labs Blog original https://grafana.com/blog/2018/01/12/timeshiftgrafanabuzz-1w-issue-29/

Welcome to TimeShift

intro paragraph


Latest Stable Release

Grafana 4.6.3 is now available. Latest bugfixes include:

  • Gzip: Fixes bug Gravatar images when gzip was enabled #5952
  • Alert list: Now shows alert state changes even after adding manual annotations on dashboard #99513
  • Alerting: Fixes bug where rules evaluated as firing when all conditions was false and using OR operator. #93183
  • Cloudwatch: CloudWatch no longer display metrics’ default alias #101514, thx @mtanda

Download Grafana 4.6.3 Now


From the Blogosphere

Graphite 1.1: Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Grafana Labs’ own Dan Cech is a contributor to the Graphite project, and has been instrumental in the addition of some of the newest features. This article discusses five of the biggest additions, how they work, and what you can expect for the future of the project.

Instrument an Application Using Prometheus and Grafana: Chris walks us through how easy it is to get useful metrics from an application to understand bottlenecks and performace. In this article, he shares an application he built that indexes your Gmail account into Elasticsearch, and sends the metrics to Prometheus. Then, he shows you how to set up Grafana to get meaningful graphs and dashboards.

Visualising Serverless Metrics With Grafana Dashboards: Part 3 in this series of blog posts on “Monitoring Serverless Applications Metrics” starts with an overview of Grafana and the UI, covers queries and templating, then dives into creating some great looking dashboards. The series plans to conclude with a post about setting up alerting.

Huawei FAT WLAN Access Points in Grafana: Huawei’s FAT firmware for their WLAN Access points lacks central management overview. To get a sense of the performance of your AP’s, why not quickly create a templated dashboard in Grafana? This article quickly steps your through the process, and includes a sample dashboard.


Grafana Plugins

Lots of updated plugins this week. Plugin authors add new features and fix bugs often, to make your plugin perform better – so it’s important to keep your plugins up to date. We’ve made updating easy; for on-prem Grafana, use the Grafana-cli tool, or update with 1 click if you’re using Hosted Grafana.

UPDATED PLUGIN

Clickhouse Data Source – The Clickhouse Data Source plugin has been updated a few times with small fixes during the last few weeks.

  • Fix for quantile functions
  • Allow rounding with round option for both time filters: $from and $to

Update

UPDATED PLUGIN

Zabbix App – The Zabbix App had a release with a redesign of the Triggers panel as well as support for Multiple data sources for the triggers panel

Update

UPDATED PLUGIN

OpenHistorian Data Source – this data source plugin received some new query builder screens and improved documentation.

Update

UPDATED PLUGIN

BT Status Dot Panel – This panel received a small bug fix.

Update

UPDATED PLUGIN

Carpet Plot Panel – A recent update for this panel fixes a D3 import bug.

Update


Upcoming Events

In between code pushes we like to speak at, sponsor and attend all kinds of conferences and meetups. We also like to make sure we mention other Grafana-related events happening all over the world. If you’re putting on just such an event, let us know and we’ll list it here.

Women Who Go Berlin: Go Workshop – Monitoring and Troubleshooting using Prometheus and Grafana | Berlin, Germany – Jan 31, 2018: In this workshop we will learn about one of the most important topics in making apps production ready: Monitoring. We will learn how to use tools you’ve probably heard a lot about – Prometheus and Grafana, and using what we learn we will troubleshoot a particularly buggy Go app.

Register Now

FOSDEM | Brussels, Belgium – Feb 3-4, 2018: FOSDEM is a free developer conference where thousands of developers of free and open source software gather to share ideas and technology. There is no need to register; all are welcome.

Jfokus | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 5-7, 2018:
Carl Bergquist – Quickie: Monitoring? Not OPS Problem

Why should we monitor our system? Why can’t we just rely on the operations team anymore? They use to be able to do that. What’s currently changing? Presentation content: – Why do we monitor our system – How did it use to work? – Whats changing – Why do we need to shift focus – Everyone should be on call. – Resilience is the goal (Best way of having someone care about quality is to make them responsible).

Register Now

Jfokus | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 5-7, 2018:
Leonard Gram – Presentation: DevOps Deconstructed

What’s a Site Reliability Engineer and how’s that role different from the DevOps engineer my boss wants to hire? I really don’t want to be on call, should I? Is Docker the right place for my code or am I better of just going straight to Serverless? And why should I care about any of it? I’ll try to answer some of these questions while looking at what DevOps really is about and how commodisation of servers through “the cloud” ties into it all. This session will be an opinionated piece from a developer who’s been on-call for the past 6 years and would like to convince you to do the same, at least once.

Register Now

Stockholm Metrics and Monitoring | Stockholm, Sweden – Feb 7, 2018:
Observability 3 ways – Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing

Let’s talk about often confused telemetry tools: Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing. We’ll show how you capture latency using each of the tools and how they work differently. Through examples and discussion, we’ll note edge cases where certain tools have advantages over others. By the end of this talk, we’ll better understand how each of Logging, Metrics and Distributed Tracing aids us in different ways to understand our applications.

Register Now

OpenNMS – Introduction to “Grafana” | Webinar – Feb 21, 2018:
IT monitoring helps detect emerging hardware damage and performance bottlenecks in the enterprise network before any consequential damage or disruption to business processes occurs. The powerful open-source OpenNMS software monitors a network, including all connected devices, and provides logging of a variety of data that can be used for analysis and planning purposes. In our next OpenNMS webinar on February 21, 2018, we introduce “Grafana” – a web-based tool for creating and displaying dashboards from various data sources, which can be perfectly combined with OpenNMS.

Register Now

GrafanaCon EU | Amsterdam, Netherlands – March 1-2, 2018:
Lock in your seat for GrafanaCon EU while there are still tickets avaialable! Join us March 1-2, 2018 in Amsterdam for 2 days of talks centered around Grafana and the surrounding monitoring ecosystem including Graphite, Prometheus, InfluxData, Elasticsearch, Kubernetes, and more.

We have some exciting talks lined up from Google, CERN, Bloomberg, eBay, Red Hat, Tinder, Automattic, Prometheus, InfluxData, Percona and more! Be sure to get your ticket before they’re sold out.

Learn More


Tweet of the Week

We scour Twitter each week to find an interesting/beautiful dashboard and show it off! #monitoringLove

Nice hack! I know I like to keep one eye on server requests when I’m dropping beats. 😉


Grafana Labs is Hiring!

We are passionate about open source software and thrive on tackling complex challenges to build the future. We ship code from every corner of the globe and love working with the community. If this sounds exciting, you’re in luck – WE’RE HIRING!

Check out our Open Positions


How are we doing?

Thanks for reading another issue of timeShift. Let us know what you think! Submit a comment on this article below, or post something at our community forum.

Follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, and join the Grafana Labs community.

Judge Issues Devastating Order Against BitTorrent Copyright Troll

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/judge-issues-devastating-order-bittorrent-copyright-troll-180110/

In recent years, file-sharers around the world have been pressured to pay significant settlement fees, or face legal repercussions.

These so-called “copyright trolling” efforts have been a common occurrence in the United States since the turn of the last decade.

Increasingly, however, courts are growing weary of these cases. Many districts have turned into no-go zones for copyright trolls and the people behind Prenda law were arrested and are being prosecuted in a criminal case.

In the Western District of Washington, the tide also appears to have turned. After Venice PI, a copyright holder of the film “Once Upon a Time in Venice”, sued a man who later passed away, concerns were raised over the validity of the evidence.

Venice PI responded to the concerns with a declaration explaining its data gathering technique and assuring the Court that false positives are out of the question.

That testimony didn’t help much though, as a recently filed minute order shows this week. The order applies to a dozen cases and prohibits the company from reaching out to any defendants until further notice, as there are several alarming issues that have to be resolved first.

One of the problems is that Venice PI declared that it’s owned by a company named Lost Dog Productions, which in turn is owned by Voltage Productions. Interestingly, these companies don’t appear in the usual records.

“A search of the California Secretary of State’s online database, however, reveals no registered entity with the name ‘Lost Dog’ or ‘Lost Dog Productions’,” the Court notes.

“Moreover, although ‘Voltage Pictures, LLC’ is registered with the California Secretary of State, and has the same address as Venice PI, LLC, the parent company named in plaintiff’s corporate disclosure form, ‘Voltage Productions, LLC,’ cannot be found in the California Secretary of State’s online database and does not appear to exist.”

In other words, the company that filed the lawsuit, as well as its parent company, are extremely questionable.

While the above is a reason for concern, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Court not only points out administrative errors, but it also has serious doubts about the evidence collection process. This was carried out by the German company MaverickEye, which used the tracking technology of another German company, GuardaLey.

GuardaLey CEO Benjamin Perino, who claims that he coded the tracking software, wrote a declaration explaining that the infringement detection system at issue “cannot yield a false positive.” However, the Court doubts this statement and Perino’s qualifications in general.

“Perino has been proffered as an expert, but his qualifications consist of a technical high school education and work experience unrelated to the peer-to-peer file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent,” the Court writes.

“Perino does not have the qualifications necessary to be considered an expert in the field in question, and his opinion that the surveillance program is incapable of error is both contrary to common sense and inconsistent with plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in other matters in this district. Plaintiff has not submitted an adequate offer of proof”

It seems like the Court would prefer to see an assessment from a qualified independent expert instead of the person who wrote the software. For now, this means that the IP-address evidence, in these cases, is not good enough. That’s quite a blow for the copyright holder.

If that wasn’t enough the Court also highlights another issue that’s possibly even more problematic. When Venice PI requested the subpoenas to identify alleged pirates, they relied on declarations from Daniel Arheidt, a consultant for MaverickEye.

These declarations fail to mention, however, that MaverickEye has the proper paperwork to collect IP addresses.

“Nowhere in Arheidt’s declarations does he indicate that either he or MaverickEye is licensed in Washington to conduct private investigation work,” the order reads.

This is important, as doing private investigator work without a license is a gross misdemeanor in Washington. The copyright holder was aware of this requirement because it was brought up in related cases in the past.

“Plaintiff’s counsel has apparently been aware since October 2016, when he received a letter concerning LHF Productions, Inc. v. Collins, C16-1017 RSM, that Arheidt might be committing a crime by engaging in unlicensed surveillance of Washington citizens, but he did not disclose this fact to the Court.”

The order is very bad news for Venice PI. The company had hoped to score a few dozen easy settlements but the tables have now been turned. The Court instead asks the company to explain the deficiencies and provide additional details. In the meantime, the copyright holder is urged not to spend or transfer any of the settlement money that has been collected thus far.

The latter indicates that Venice PI might have to hand defendants their money back, which would be pretty unique.

The order suggests that the Judge is very suspicious of these trolling activities. In a footnote there’s a link to a Fight Copyright Trolls article which revealed that the same counsel dismissed several cases, allegedly to avoid having IP-address evidence scrutinized.

Even more bizarrely, in another footnote the Court also doubts if MaverickEye’s aforementioned consultant, Daniel Arheidt, actually exists.

“The Court has recently become aware that Arheidt is the latest in a series of German declarants (Darren M. Griffin, Daniel Macek, Daniel Susac, Tobias Fieser, Michael Patzer) who might be aliases or even fictitious.

“Plaintiff will not be permitted to rely on Arheidt’s declarations or underlying data without explaining to the Court’s satisfaction Arheidt’s relationship to the above-listed declarants and producing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Arheidt’s existence,” the court adds.

These are serious allegations, to say the least.

If a copyright holder uses non-existent companies and questionable testimony from unqualified experts after obtaining evidence illegally to get a subpoena backed by a fictitious person….something’s not quite right.

A copy of the minute order, which affects a series of cases, 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