Crunchyroll :) Television series or movie?

night! peanut butter or jelly

Tara

Choose which of 2 things you prefer: this or that To start: day or night?

Give a rating 1-10 for the avatar of the poster above you

Rice cakes with jam

To start, I had chili today

Zumbrota

Brazil

Ryan

JDownloader

17 on chrome

FunFile

Harry

Lewiston

Houston

Fred

CinemaZ

Fifteen major publishers, together representing an almost global monopoly on scientific papers, have announced a suspension of sales and services in Russia. The knowledge and information void left behind can still be filled by Sci-Hub but thanks to legal action by the publishers, not even that is straightforward. While historical and geopolitical ambitions sit at the heart of the war in Ukraine, cynical disinformation and denial of knowledge allowed it to happen and now fuel its momentum. When used responsibly, the internet should provide mechanisms to counter these evils. In Russia, however, the state has decided that only its narrative is correct and anyone stating otherwise faces website blocking and up to 15 years in prison. Academics and Researchers – A Beacon of Hope Just after the invasion began in February, huge numbers of Russian academics showed real bravery by blaming Russia for the bloodshed. In blatant defiance of the government, they openly described the ‘Special Operation’ as a war. “There is no rational justification for this war. It is clear that Ukraine does not pose a threat to the security of our country. The war against her is unfair and frankly senseless,” they wrote in an open letter warning of the damage that lay ahead. “Having unleashed the war, Russia doomed itself to international isolation, to the position of a pariah country. This means that we, scientists, will no longer be able to do our job normally: after all, conducting scientific research is unthinkable without full cooperation with colleagues from other countries.” More than 8,000 scientists were able to sign the letter before it was disappeared by the government but the predictions it contained are already coming true. The lack of international cooperation will manifest itself in many ways but not even the scientists could have predicted the events of late last week. Major Academic Publishers End Sales in Russia In line with other Western entities choosing to boycott Russia, 15 major companies with a virtual monopoly on scientific publishing decided that enough is enough. Companies including Elsevier, Springer Nature and American Chemical society denounced the war and announced the withdrawal of their services from Russia. “We have taken the unprecedented step of suspending sales and marketing of products and services to research organizations in Russia and Belarus. We join other organizations globally that are acting to bring about an end to this aggression and to restore peace,” they wrote. “We remain committed to the ideals of science and scholarship as a global community. Our actions are not targeted at Russian researchers, but rather at research organizations in Russia and Belarus.” The publishers say they are honoring existing contracts but after that, new access to scientific research will be suspended. Even that is sugar-coating the reality. Subscriptions to foreign scientific journals (97.5% of the Russian market) are bought by a central source, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR). It spends almost $44 million a year for 1,200 scientific and educational organizations to access 30 foreign publisher platforms. The publishers put their ban in place before it could renew its licenses. This raises the prospect that scientists, a rare group of well-informed citizens who can think critically and have the bravery to speak out, will soon become academically isolated. If they haven’t left the country already, of course. Given their thirst for revenue the publishers will have considered the financial implications of their withdrawal. On the other hand they have shown that scientific knowledge can be turned off like a tap when control is so centralized. There is an antidote – but the publishers are always doing their best to destroy it. Sci-Hub Shows Why It Needs to Exist Every day millions of people pirate movies, TV shows and music but research suggests that the overwhelming majority not engaged in the activity tend to find it morally unacceptable. Interestingly, access to research papers by infringing means receives much greater support, with many students, academics and researchers publicly supporting it. Excessive costs and restrictions are regularly cited, especially in countries with adverse economic conditions. All around the world, the infamous Sci-Hub solves all of these problems. Its mission is to provide open access to all available scientific knowledge for free, but that runs counter to the financial goals of the publishers. However, since the publishers have decided to suspend sales in Russia, the use of Sci-Hub by those who are now prevented from paying will have a limited financial effect on the publishers. There are other things to consider, of course. It’s unclear whether the publishers are trying to directly affect Russia’s ability to wage war through lack of information (many research and education facilities are state-owned) or whether they feel that simply selling into the country is morally unacceptable right now. Either way, Sci-Hub has a clear mission to spread knowledge and it is unlikely to deviate from that now. The other issue is that Sci-Hub isn’t readily accessible in Russia anymore and that’s a direct result of action by Springer Nature, one of the companies now boycotting Russia. In a complaint filed at the Moscow City Court, Springer claimed that Sci-Hub offered three studies covering heart and brain health without obtaining an appropriate license. After being labeled a repeat infringer, Sci-Hub is now permanently blocked by local ISPs. So, when Sci-Hub gets a new domain, telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor (which is currently blocking any sites in Russia that don’t publish official propaganda regarding the war) blocks those domains and orders Google to remove them from search results. In practical terms, the censorship arm of Russia’s own government is now directly harming the country’s scientific community, or at least what’s left of it. While blocking measures are easily circumvented using a VPN, it’s extremely clear that restricting access to knowledge is destructive. Russia needs to be pressured like never before (and by any means) but long term, only free access to accurate information and knowledge will bring about change. An entire nation being lied to on a daily basis provided the justification for this war. Only the opposite will bring about meaningful and lasting peace.

Florida federal Judge Darrin Gayles has dismissed Content ID-related antitrust claims against YouTube. The allegations were part of a piracy lawsuit filed against the streaming platform last year by movie tycoon Carlos Vasallo. While the lawsuit has been slimmed down, YouTube still has to defend itself against copyright infringement claims. Last year, Spanish-born movie tycoon Carlos Vasallo sued YouTube over various piracy-related claims. The actor and producer owns the rights to the world’s largest collection of Mexican and Latin American movies, many of which are illegally shared on YouTube. While copyright allegations against Google and YouTube aren’t new, the case came with an interesting twist. According to Vasallo, YouTube would only allow him to join the Content ID copyright protection program if he agreed to a revenue share deal. In addition, he had had to waive all possible piracy claims that took place in the past. The movie tycoon refused to accept these terms. Instead, he opted to send old-fashioned DMCA takedown notices. However, according to the complaint filed at a Florida federal court last year, that did little to stop people from pirating his films. Copyright and Antitrust Claims The lawsuit accused YouTube of breaching antitrust law through ‘illegal tying.’ According to Vasallo, YouTube tied Content ID participation to a required revenue-sharing deal and the condition to waive older copyright claims. The movie tycoon also accused YouTube of several copyright infringement claims by making movies available on the platform without permission. On top of that, YouTube allegedly violated the DMCA, by removing copyright management information from the videos. YouTube disagreed and previously refuted the allegations. The streaming giant asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the statute of limitations on many of the claims had expired. After reviewing the arguments from both sides, U.S. District Court Judge Darrin Gayles ruled on the motion to dismiss last week. While the Judge was not ready to drop the entire case, he dismissed some of the claims. No Illegal Tying Starting with the antitrust allegations, Judge Gayles notes that there is no evidence that YouTube coerced the movie tycoon to join the Content ID program. This is one of the required elements for an ‘illegal tying’ claim. “YouTube argues that Plaintiff fails to meet the second element because Plaintiff was not ‘forced’ to buy Content ID. Indeed, Plaintiff admits that it refused YouTube’s offer and nothing in the allegations suggests that Plaintiff ever purchased anything from YouTube or entered into any agreement,” Judge Gayles writes. In addition, a successful claim involves some type of purchase, which isn’t the case here as the Content ID system is free of charge. “Additionally, Plaintiff does not allege that it had to purchase Content ID. If Content ID is a free service offered by Defendants, Plaintiff’s claim must fail because the acceptance of a free service does not constitute an impermissible tie-in,” the order reads. Based on these and other arguments, the court dismisses the antitrust claim against YouTube. Expired Copyright Infringement Claims Moving on to the copyright claims, the court agrees with Google that the three-year statute of limitations has passed for all alleged infringements that took place before May 3, 2018. Google had requested to simply drop all copyright allegations as the movie tycoon lumped older and newer infringements together. However, Judge Gayles disagrees, which means that YouTube must defend itself against the more recent claims. The same is true for the alleged DMCA claims. The movie tycoon accused YouTube of removing or altering ‘copyright management information’ while uploading videos from users, which would violate the DMCA. YouTube countered that it wasn’t clear what copyright management information it had supposedly removed, or that it did so intentionally. However, Judge Gayles won’t dismiss these claims from the lawsuit at this stage. All in all, this means that the case will continue without the antitrust allegations while limiting the copyright infringement allegations to the more recent uploads.

Xavier

The North West Regional Organised Crime Unit and Lancashire Police report that three men have been arrested on suspicion of criminal copyright infringement offenses. All from the north of England, the men were arrested in connection with the supply of pirate IPTV services providing unlicensed access to movies, TV shows and live sports. Individuals and business entities involved in the sale of pirate IPTV services in the UK can often turn a significant profit from customers looking for a cheap entertainment fix. The secret to longevity, aside from maintaining a reliable service at a reasonable price, is to avoid the negative attention of rightsholders, broadcasters and anti-piracy groups. While many succeed, all risk being referred to the police for criminal prosecution. That appears to be the case with three men recently targeted in the north of England. Organized Crime Unit Makes Arrests The North West Regional Organised Crime Unit (NWROCU) collaborates with police forces across Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and North Wales. NWROCU reports that in a joint operation with Lancashire Police on March 23, it executed three search warrants as part of the “continuing fight against illegal streaming.” Officers raided three addresses in Blackpool, Kirkham and Oldham and seized a variety of equipment related to the ‘provision’ of an IPTV service offering premium content including TV, movies and live sports. Two 31-year-old men from Blackpool and a 29-year-old man from Oldham were arrested on suspicion of criminal copyright infringement offenses and were later released under investigation. Who Are The Men? In common with many announcements relating to similar arrests in the UK, at this stage police offer no additional information that might identify the name of the service, the roles of the men, whether they were operating a service themselves (or acting as resellers), or were involved in some other way. It is also worth noting that rightsholders and broadcasters are always involved behind the scenes in these investigations, with Sky, BT Sport, and English Premier League the most likely candidates. Again, no information on rightsholder involvement has been released but if the men are eventually prosecuted, one (or more) of these companies will claim to be a victim of fraud. The men were arrested for copyright infringement offenses but convictions for fraud are preferred by rightsholders, largely because fraud cases are tried and tested, carry longer prison sentences, and are more easily understood by juries. Organized Crime Unit Strikes Again The North West Regional Organised Crime Unit’s involvement in UK pirate IPTV enforcement was confirmed in 2019 when the unit teamed up with the Federation Against Copyright Theft to shut down the Supremacy Kodi add-on repository. Late November 2021, the repository owner, Stephen Millington, 42, appeared at Chester Crown Court after pleading guilty to fraud and copyright offenses related to his own piracy-figured Kodi ‘builds’. According to the prosecution, these pieces of software facilitated illegal access to BT Sport, Sky, Netflix, and other subscription television content. Millington was ultimately sentenced to two and a half years in prison. In cooperation with anti-piracy group FACT, NWROCU has also tested a more gentle approach. In 2019, the police unit delivered cease-and-desist notices to suspected IPTV resellers in the hope they would shut down voluntarily, thus avoiding arrest. The success of the strategy hasn’t been revealed but potential prosecution targets are in plentiful supply. An operation in March 2021, for example, saw NWROCU-affiliated cybercrime police execute five warrants for IPTV-related offenses. Two people were arrested and electrical items, cash and counterfeit goods were seized. Affiliated police forces in Lancashire also shut down North West IPTV back in 2020. High-value assets, including a Range Rover Sport SVR V8 and an Audi A5 convertible, were seized along with designer clothing, designer bags, and jewelry. An estimated 7,000 users of that service later received email warnings from the police, which stated that knowingly subscribing to an illegal IPTV service constitutes a criminal offense.

Adult entertainment company Malibu Media was once feared as a prolific copyright litigant that targeted thousands of alleged pirates. After a defendant pushed back, the tables have now turned. The court has ordered Malibu to pay over $100,000 to a former defendant but, according to the company's boss, the defense is guilty of "extortion" and "unjust enrichment." Adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media has often been described as a copyright-trolling operation. The Los Angeles company, known for its popular “X-Art” brand, has gone after thousands of alleged file-sharers in U.S. courts, collecting millions of dollars in settlements. Not too long ago Malibu was one of the most active anti-piracy litigantsin the U.S., but in recent years this activity ground to a halt. However, there is at least one case that hasn’t been completely resolved, and Malibu is on the losing end of it. The case in question started in 2018, when Malibu Media accused Mr. Mullins of downloading 11 pirated videos. The defendant fought back and contested the evidence up to the point where Malibu Media agreed to dismiss its claims. However, that wasn’t enough. The defense wanted to see the company’s piracy evidence, but this never came in despite a court order. That frustrated the court, the accused subscriber, and even Malibu’s own attorney, who withdrew from the case because her client failed to comply. $108,271 in Costs and Fees In the months that followed little progress was made and last year U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin handed a win to Mr. Mullins. The court ordered Malibu to pay $48,656.73 in costs and attorneys’ fees. After Malibu initially failed to pay, the total amount owed more than doubled to $108,271. This is one of the largest judgments we’ve seen in favor of a wrongfully accused file-sharer. To make sure that the outstanding money is paid, Mullins’ legal team obtained an asset restraining order. This requires Malibu Media and its payment processor Epoch.com to set apart subscription revenue from “X-Art.com” members until everything is paid off. Adding to the pressure, Malibu Media’s boss Collette Pelissier was also held personally liable for the outstanding payments, and the same is true for ZO Digital, a company operated by Pelissier’s husband Mr. Brigham Field. ‘Unjust Enrichment’ In recent months a substantial amount has been paid, but not everything. A few weeks ago, collection attorney Joseph Stewart urged the Malibu couple to pay the remaining $17,635.04. Paying that off would put an end to the matter but instead, Pelissier and Field went on the offensive. In an email added to the court docket this week, Pelissier accuses the defense of extortion and unjust enrichment. The letter includes some grammatical and styling errors, which we’ve left intact, but it’s clear that Malibu’s boss is upset with the restraining order. “A federal Judge should not ever be the cause of unjust enrichment. The most recent (I don’t know what to call it)…the scam to have $58,000 paid to The Peacock firm, when we offered to pay the attorney’s fees (which were never due to begin with). “This case is a perfect example of abuse of process, denial of due process, violation of civil and constitutional rights,” Pelissier adds. Malibu Media’s boss notes that she has collected court dockets and transcripts that are reportedly being examined by several attorneys who specialize in this kind of “fraud and extortion”. Refund? Instead of paying the outstanding amount, she now demands a refund and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. “This is your last chance to refund the stolen aprox $110,000 and the emotional damages that we have suffered (conservatively $50,000/month since August 2021 for 7 months. This would be $360,000 (less than Epoch has remitted in the same period of time in most years). In addition, intentional infliction of emotional distress and substantial defamation.” In addition to abuse of process, unjust enrichment and extortion, Mr. Mullins’ legal team is also accused of defamation. Pelissier writes that she plans to have the responsible attorney disbarred and intends to go after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin as well. “We will pursue to have you disbarred and Judge Durkin examined by oversight, based on his body of work and how we were denied counsel or breach a draconian TRO (which violated our constitutional rights, even right to counsel). Hopefully this will be the last time I have to interact with you personally,” she writes. Problematic Behavior While we don’t know whether any of the threats in this letter will be followed up, it is clear that Mrs. Pelissier has been affected by the unfolding events. That the case is taking an emotional toll was also apparent from a court hearing late last year, where she had a complete breakdown. During that hearing, Malibu’s boss repeatedly interrupted the hearing, much to the frustration of the court, including Judge Durkin. “I deal with prisoners who are more appropriate, I have people who are mentally ill who can conduct themselves with more decency,” Judge Durkin said at the time, before cutting off the call. Without making judgments or drawing any conclusions, it is ironic to see “extortion” and “unjust enrichment” accusations from people who were previously labeled as ‘copyright trolls’. Also, it would probably be wise for Malibu’s representatives to hire an attorney to represent them and handle communications going forward.

artistic

Tyler