Hey, welcome to Invitehawk..

Hey, welcome to Invitehawk..

The site is currently buggy and many pages do not load correctly. Downloaded .torrents do not work. Website was down yesterday.

A coalition of major Canadian telecoms, film and TV-related companies, cultural organizations, one labour union, and the national broadcaster have joined forces to propose a government-led website blocking regime to stamp out media piracy. The solution proposed by the coalition, called FairPlay Canada, would see companies submit websites to be blocked to an independent government committee, which would then decide which websites meet the criteria of "blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally" facilitating illegal downloading or streaming of media. Canada’s federal telecom regulator, the CRTC, would at that point order internet service providers to block customers in Canada from accessing these sites. FairPlay Canada argues that digital piracy reduces profits and in turn hurts jobs, but digital rights groups like OpenMedia see FairPlay Canada’s proposal as opening the door to more censorship. This has already been seen elsewhere: The UK began blocking piracy websites in 2012, and within a year pornography sites were being blocked too. But experts dispute that Canada really has a piracy problem to match this aggressive solution. “I would contest the claim that Canada has a huge piracy problem, particularly compared to the rest of the world,” said David Fewer, an intellectual property lawyer and director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, in an email. “Unauthorized streaming took a nosedive with the coming of Netflix and similar streaming services,” Fewer added. “Music piracy was a huge millennial issue because of the failure of the industry to launch useful and affordable digital services. iTunes and Spotify changed all that. Even [industry group] Music Canada’s own report claims that Canada is significantly beneath the global piracy average.” Indeed, that group’s 2017 report states that 33 percent of Canadian survey respondents said they pirated music that year, compared to 40 percent globally. A report by anti-piracy company MUSO—submitted by FairPlay Canada as part of its CRTC application—states that Canadians visited piracy websites 1.88 billion times in 2016. That sounds huge, but the MUSO report says Canada is eighth in the world for piracy by site visits. MUSO’s “piracy demand rank” for Canada, which “looks at the bigger picture” and “categorizes each country in terms of its engagement with piracy when ranked against other countries,” puts Canada even lower: 16th in the world. “I think the answer is no—the evidence suggests that Canada does not have a major piracy problem,” Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote me in an email. “If anything, the data suggests that Canada is below global averages and has been steadily declining as more legitimate services enter the market.” According to the CRTC’s annual report for 2017, traditional TV viewership in Canada was “relatively stable” in 2016 compared to previous years. In addition, the CRTC noted that the broadcasting sector’s profits decreased by a mere 0.14 percent between 2012 and 2016, and the television industry’s profits actually increased by 1.7 percent between 2015 and 2016, up to $7.3 billion CAD. The CRTC concludes that Canadians are still watching traditional media (and, it follows, paying for it). What is changing, though, is that more Canadians are also using legal digital services like Netflix or Spotify to consume media. “The data again and again shows marketplace success in Canada for digital services,” Geist wrote in an email. All the available data suggests that Canada doesn’t have an especially bad piracy problem. Yet there are many potential pitfalls for a plan as extreme as government-led website blocking: When the UK began blocking some porn sites, many legitimate health, sex education, and abuse help sites were also wrongfully blocked. Some groups have suggested as many as one in five sites were blocked in the UK in 2014. One thing is certain: The Canadian media industry’s anti-piracy measures have recently reached a peak of aggression. In 2017, telecom companies Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor property Videotron (all three are members of FairPlay Canada), used a civil search warrant to allegedly invade the home of TVAddons founder Adam Lackman for 16 hours, interrogating him for nine and forcing him to hand over passwords. TVAddons is a site that serves as a library to download plugins (many legitimate) for Kodi streaming boxes. A federal court judge later called the search “egregious” in a ruling and concluded it was designed to “destroy the livelihood” of Lackman. The items taken from Lackman were ordered returned, but the telecoms appealed, and nothing can be returned until a ruling on the appeal is made. “Canada is always labeled a ‘piracy haven’ whenever special interests call for more, longer and stronger copyright protection,” the CIPPIC’s Fewer wrote me in an email. “ I wouldn’t expect things to be any different this time around, and they’re not.”

You'd be surprised at how many people do it daily. What's the first thing you do with a new credit card? Peel off the sticky label on the front and activate it? Rush to the store to try it out for the first time? Or, do you post a photo of it (both sides!) to social media for the world to see? One of those answers was a big "no-no." That said, you'd be surprised at how many people do it daily. In the past week, we were alerted to a high-profile file sharing site, which lets anyone search other users' uploaded files. You name it -- it's there -- and credit cards are just the tip of the iceberg of sensitive files. We spent a few hours searching the site with common search terms, and we found a ton of sensitive information -- beyond credit cards -- including completed tax returns (with names, addresses, financial information, and Social Security numbers), scanned passport photos, and password lists, which, if used, could allow an attacker access to online accounts. We even found bitcoin wallet private keys, making it easy to hijack entire wallets full of bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. The results would regularly include explicit images, regardless of search terms. That kind of exposed data puts anyone whose information is out there at risk of theft, credit card and tax return fraud, identity theft or impersonation, and extortion. We're not naming the site, because the sensitive data remains online. The site did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication. File-sharing sites have long been a semi-lawless corner of the internet where almost anything goes. Many previously popular sites no longer exist -- often shutdown for violating piracy laws for taking an unmoderated and lax approach to removing copyrighted movies and music. Others preemptively pulled the plug on their own accord, for fear of also facing criminal charges. Of the few that still exist, nearly all have been at the center of privacy breaches. More often than not, it's been as a result of careless uploading by the user themselves. I know -- hell, even you know -- this shouldn't need to be said, but please stop putting your personals on the internet. With enough exposed data out there already, don't make it any easier for the criminals.

International Inconsistencies In Copyright: Why It's Hard To Know What’s Really Available To The PUBLIC Today, Santa Clara University is hosting a gathering of tech platform companies to discuss how they actually handle content moderation questions. Many of the participants have written short essays about the questions that are being discussed at this event. We've published a bunch of essays this week from the conference, and will continue with more next week. Have you ever wondered why it can be hard to find out what some old paintings look like? Why there seem to be so few pictures of artistic works available from many countries even though they're filled with public sculptures and murals? Or why prices for books and movies can be so wildly different in different countries? The answer is that copyright law is different all over the world, and these differences can make figuring out what to do with these works so difficult or risky that most websites are not willing to have them around at all. This essay talks about a few of these works and why they add a major challenge to content moderation online. To begin, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts it have a mission to host freely available educational content, which means that one of the areas that comes up for us quite often when we receive content moderation requests is whether something is truly free or not. This can come up in a bunch of different ways, and I'd like to talk about a few of them, and why they make it quite difficult to figure out what's really available to the public and what's not. The first one is old pictures and manuscripts. It's generally accepted that if a work was published before 1923, then it's old enough that the author's rights have expired and the ability to freely copy, share, and remix the work shouldn't be limited by the law anymore. But that raises a couple questions. First, how do you know when something was published, especially back then? There's a whole swath of old pictures and writings that were prepared before 1923, but may have never been published at all until later, which then requires figuring out a different timing scheme or figuring out when the work was published: a sometimes very difficult affair due to records lost during the World Wars and various upheaval in the world over the last century. For just one example, a dispute about an old passport photo recently came down to whether it was taken in Egypt or Syria during a time when those national borders were very fluid. If it had been in Egypt, it would have been given U.S. copyright and protected because it was after 1923, but if it had been in Syria at the time, it would not have been protected because that country wasn't extended recognition for copyrights at the time. A second example is works from countries with broad moral rights. All the works on Wikimedia projects that were made recently are dedicated by their authors to the public domain or licensed under free culture licenses like Creative Commons. However, these sorts of promises only work in some countries. There are international copyright treaties that cover a certain agreed-upon set of protections for every country, but many countries add additional rights on top of the treaties such as what are called moral rights. Moral rights in many countries give the creator the power to rescind a license and they cannot give up that power no matter how hard they try. It ends up looking something like this: "I promise that you can use my work forever as long as you give me attribution, and anyone else can reuse it too, and I want this to be irrevocable so that the public can benefit without having to come back to me." And then a couple years later, it's "oh, sorry, I've decided that I changed my mind, just forget my earlier promise." In some places that works, and because of that possibility, people can't always be sure that the creative works being offered to them are reliable. A third problem is pictures of artwork. This one applies, though a bit differently, to both new and old works. With new photos of old works, it's a question of creativity. Copyrights are designed to reward people for their original creativity: you don't get a new "life of the author plus 70 years" of protection for making a photocopy. But in some places, they again go past the international rights agreed upon in the copyright treaties and add extra protections. In this case, many countries offer a couple decades worth of protection for taking a straight on 2-D photograph of an old work of art. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently in a lawsuit about this with the Reiss Engelhorn Museum in Germany, where the museum argues that photographs on its website are copyrighted even though the only thing shown in the photo is a public domain painting such as a portrait of Richard Wagner. The other variation of problems with photos of art is photographs of more recent works out in the public. Did you know that in many places if you're walking in a park and you take a snapshot with a statue in it, you're actually violating someone's copyright? This varies from country to country: some places allow you to photograph artistic buildings but not sculptures or mosaics, other places let you take photographs of anything out in public, and others prohibit photographs of anything artistic even if it's displayed in public. This issue, called freedom of panorama, is one that many Wikimedians are concerned over, and is currently being debated in the European Parliament, but in the meantime can lead to very confused expectations about what sorts of things can be photographed as the answer varies depending on where you are. The difficulty around so many of these types of works is that they put the public at risk. The works on Wikipedia, and works in the public domain or that are freely licensed more generally are supposed to be free for everyone to use. Copyright is built on a balance that rewards authors and artists for their creativity by letting them have a monopoly on who uses their works and how they're used. But the system has become so strong that even when the monopoly has expired and the creator is long dead, or when the creator wants to give their work away for free, it's extremely difficult for the public to understand what is usable and to use it safely and freely as intended. The public always has to be worried that old records might not be quite accurate, or that creators in many places will simply change their minds no matter how many promises and assurances they provide that they want to make something available for the public good. These kinds of difficulties are one of the reasons why the Wikimedia Foundation made the decision to defer to the volunteer editors. The Wikimedia movement consists of volunteers from all over the world, and they get to decide on the rules for each different language of Wikipedia. This often helps to avoid conflicts, such as many languages spoken primarily in Europe choosing not to host images that might be allowed under U.S. fair use law, whereas English language does allow fair use images. It's difficult for a small company to know all the rules in hundreds of different countries, but individual volunteers from different places can often catch issues and resolve them even where the legal requirements are murky. As just one example, this has actually led Wikimedia volunteers who deal with photographs to have one of the most detailed policies for photographs of people of any website (and better than many law textbooks). In turn, volunteers handling so many of the content issues means that the Foundation is able to dedicate time from our lawyers to help clarify situations that do present a conflict such as the Reiss Engelhorn case of freedom or panorama issues already mentioned. That said, even with efforts from many dedicated people around the world, issues like these international conflicts leave some amount of confusion and conflict. These issues often don't receive as much attention because they're not as large as, say, problems with pirated movies, but they present a more pernicious threat. As companies shy away from dealing with works that might be difficult to research or uncertain as to how the law applies to them, the public domain slowly shrinks over time and we are all poorer for it.

Site on Freeleech Freeleech [Active until 03 Feb 2018]

2018-02-02 - Information There have been several requests to be able to donate in order to get Freeleech. In fact, there are those who do not get better broadband. Leechbonus is still available, but another option is available. It is up to everybody to drive what feels best. With increased users, demand is also increased. We in Staff have come to a decision. A cost of 300kr you have Freeleech for a month. After that you will return to the future class. SINCERELY / Ducks

Octavia Spencer, Priyanka Chopra, Ann Dowd and Amy Landecker also star in Silas Howard's film exploring gender identity. IFC Films said Thursday that it acquired the North American rights to A Kid Like Jake, starring Claire Danes and Jim Parsons. In the family drama, the stars of Homeland and The Big Bang Theory, respectively, are parents of the titular 4-year-old boy (Leo James Davis). They struggle to get on the same page when Jake embraces interests that are traditionally categorized as female, and find themselves exploring facets of gender identity. "We are excited and proud to be working with such an acclaimed group of actors and filmmakers to bring this timely, passion-driven and deft story to audiences beyond Sundance," Jonathan Sehring and Lisa Schwartz, co-presidents of IFC Films, said in a statement. IFC plans a summer 2018 release. Parsons said in his own statement: "It is exactly this type of film — one born from passion and a commitment to telling a story that connects with many by being specific — that IFC has shown time and again they are excited by, understand and want audiences to have the chance to see." Silas Howard (Transparent, This Is Us) directed from a script by Daniel Pearle, who wrote the original play of the same name. Octavia Spencer,Priyanka Chopra, Ann Dowd and Amy Landecker are also in the ensemble cast. The film debuted in the Premieres section of the Sundance Film Festival. Parsons, Todd Spiewak, Eric Norsoph, Paul Bernon and Rachel Song produced. The deal was handled by Arianna Bocco, executive vp acquisitions and production for IFC Films, with CAA acting for the filmmakers. Bankside is handling international sales.

Han Solo’s funeral wasn’t included in Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi because it would’ve affected the film’s pacing – and Star Wars needs to continue pushing forward. Harrison Ford received the most screentime of all the original trilogy’s stars (especially more than Mark Hamill) in J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens, and that’s because the writer-director ultimately chose to kill off the famed character in what is considered one of the sequel trilogy’s biggest and most heartbreaking moments. As Star Wars fans may recall, Ford asked George Lucas to kill off Han Solo in Return of the Jedi because he thought it would be the best utility for the character and the story, but Lucas rejected the idea for reasons that mostly involved toy sales. Ford did get the death he always wanted, though. It took over 30 years, but audiences finally saw the iconic smuggler-turned-Rebellion-general-turned-smuggler meet his untimely demise… at the hands of his son, Ben Solo, no less. It was a decision that affected the sequel trilogy’s characters as well as its overarching narrative. And while everyone, of course, mourned Han’s death, his funeral scene was never shown on-screen. Director Rian Johnson has finally explained why that is. In an interview with Collider following an IMAX screening of Star Wars: The Last Jedi hosted by the outlet, Rian Johnson explained that Han Solo’s funeral would’ve impinged the film’s pacing, so they never even considered adding the scene into the movie. “[There was no debate of showing Han Solo’s funeral], just because pacing-wise it didn’t have a place. It’s tough in Star Wars because I always think about the mourning that Luke gives to Ben’s death, which is all of four-and-a-half seconds before, ‘Come on kid we’re not out of this yet’ and then boom, you’re into ‘Yay, woo-hoo! Don’t get cocky!’ There’s the moment for it, but it’s not long. We don’t have time for our sorrows, commanders. That’s kind of the thing of Star Wars; you don’t really linger on grief because you’re moving forward.” Johnson does make a compelling point about Last Jedi‘s pacing – which was constant – being an important factor in skipping over Han’s funeral. But that doesn’t mean his death was completely glossed over. Leia does take a moment to grieve, but it’s a short-lived moment because, again, the pacing was paramount. “I think we do it a little more in this movie than typically is done. I really held onto that moment of Leia before they come out of hyperspace, just that moment of feeling the weight of the world on her shoulders… It was never something where there was an organic place for it like, ‘Oh it would go here.’ It was always something like, ‘We wanna get this right up on our feet and going from the start’.” Luke also takes a moment to grieve over Han’s death – only after Chewbacca and Rey inform him of his friend’s demise, of course – but Star Wars fans may have felt that more was needed to show respect to such an iconic figure. After all, Padme Amidala received a funeral in Revenge of the Sith, and that arguably didn’t affect the movie’s pacing all too much. To remedy this situation, Lucasfilm is including Han’s funeral in The Last Jedi‘s novelization, which is due out in March.

Roman Polanski, disgraced film director and one-time husband of Manson Family victim Sharon Tate, will be a character in Quentin Tarantino‘s 1969 movie. Tarantino’s planned ninth film is set in the year 1969 and uses the Charles Manson murders as the backdrop for a Los Angeles-set story. Tarantino reportedly seeks Margot Robbie to play Tate, the actress murdered along with four others by followers of cult leader Charles Manson. The film may go before cameras as early as this summer with Sony bankrolling. Recently revealed plot details about Tarantino’s film say it largely revolves around a former TV actor and his stunt man. Tarantino recently nabbed Leonardo DiCaprio to play the TV star, described as an older actor trying to break into movies. Brad Pitt and – surprisingly – Tom Cruise reportedly have been circling other roles. In a tweet, Variety reporter Justin Kroll revealed several more details about Tarantino’s film. The biggest of these reveals says Roman Polanski will be a key character in the film. Tarantino seeks a Polish-speaking actor to tackle the Polanski role (obviously, the real Polanski will not be in the movie). Additionally, Kroll says DiCaprio’s character is a neighbor of Sharon Tate’s. In a third reveal, Pitt and Cruise reportedly are in consideration for the stunt man character. Previous reports indicated Pitt and/or Cruise were vying for the role of a prosecutor. The revelation that Polanski will be a key character adds to our picture of what Tarantino’s film may be about. Clearly, Tarantino’s story will largely revolve around Hollywood figures and the movie scene. Polanski began as a maker of art films in Poland in the ’60s before moving to Hollywood. He became a major movie director with Rosemary’s Baby, a psychological horror film starring Mia Farrow. The director later married rising actress Sharon Tate, who starred for him in the vampire comedy The Fearless Vampire Killers. Tate was pregnant with Polanski’s child when she was slain by Manson’s followers. Polanski would go on to direct more Hollywood classics including Chinatown. In 1977, Polanski was arrested in Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood home on allegations of sexually assaulting Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old model. After accepting a plea deal, Polanski fled the country and took up residence in France. In the decades since his arrest, Polanski has directed many more acclaimed films including the Oscar-winner The Pianist. Despite overseas arrests and extradition attempts, he has never returned to America and his case remains pending. Further accusations have surfaced over the years, including allegations that in the ’70s Polanski assaulted girls as young as 10 years old. We will have to wait and see how Quentin Tarantino tackles the character of Polanski, who is obviously a controversial figure for many reasons. Though his 1969 movie takes place many years before Polanski’s arrest, further assaults alleged to have taken place before 1977 open up the possibility of Tarantino somehow addressing that aspect of Polanski’s life. Movie buff Tarantino likely mostly cares about depicting Polanski’s place in the Hollywood scene of the late ’60s, a distinctive era when things were changing in the movie industry. Or perhaps Tarantino, being Tarantino, means to tackle angles that none of us could possibly anticipate.

Time Warner still manages to beat its Q4 estimates despite Justice League underperforming at the global box office. It’s no secret that Zack Snyder’s Justice League – starring the world’s finest heroes: Batman (Ben Affleck), Superman (Henry Cavill), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) – suffered greatly during production. Snyder exited the project during post-production due to understandably deal with a personal tragedy. And so, Joss Whedon stepped in to helm Justice League‘s reshoots. Unfortunately, the reshoots didn’t help the film’s chances at scoring big – critically or commercially. Despite being one of the most anticipated superhero films ever released, Justice League couldn’t translate all that anticipation into box office receipts. The DC team-up movie grossed $228 million at the domestic box office, with an additional $427.9 million coming from overseas markets, thus bringing its worldwide total to $656 million. That makes Justice League the lowest-grossing DCEU film to date. And while it certainly could’ve been better, it did still help Time Warner’s bottom line. Time Warner reported total revenue growth of $8.6 billion for Q4 2017, a 9 percent increase compared to the same quarter the year prior. The company beat Wall Street estimates by $180 million, and part of that growth in the fourth quarter was boosted by the global box office performance of Justice League, which hit screens worldwide in November. Time Warner is a mass media company and an entertainment conglomerate that maintains divisions across various forms of media, not just films. In addition to various revenue streams, an increase in HBO subscriptions significantly helped Time Warner’s bottom line throughout 2017. But, Warner Bros. Pictures’ performance will always be a major factor in the company’s success. And despite Justice League‘s lackluster performance, there’s no denying that Warner Bros. had quite a successful year at both the domestic and worldwide box office. Thanks to the overwhelming critical and commercial success of films such as Andrés Muschietti’s IT (the highest-grossing R-rated horror movie ever) and Patty Jenkins Wonder Woman (the fifth highest-grossing superhero film domestically), Warner Bros. passed the $5 billion globally for the first time. That’s in spite of disappointing box office performances from films such as Snyder’s Justice League and Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. So, while DCEU fans may have wanted Warner Bros. to see the error in their ways – which they have and are currently restructuring DC Films in response – they still turned a profit.

The hearings for Roadshow and two Hong Kong media broadcasters to have ISPs block apps used by smart TV boxes to allegedly facilitate copyright infringement have been pushed to April. The Australian Federal Court has delayed Roadshow Films' application to have an alleged piracy-facilitating streaming app and associated websites blocked by Australia's internet service providers, moving it from March to mid-April to be heard alongside a similar hearing by two Hong Kong-based media broadcasters. According to Justice Nicholas, the separate applications by Roadshow and by TVBO Productions and Television Broadcasts (TVB), the world's largest producers of Chinese media content, deal with different enough technology to previous site-block hearings to warrant additional time and evidence to deal with them. "I will need to be satisfied by evidence so that I have a good understanding of how it works, I know what the precise relationship is between this box, the apps, and the site from which [content is] downloaded," Nicholas J warned counsel for Roadshow and TVBO/TVB. "I don't want the evidence in any respect to be scant on those issues; otherwise, you might find the orders won't be made." Counsel representing Roadshow and TVB/TVBO had previously argued that the case is similar to previous site-block orders in that the box forms the role of the PC, and the apps on the box form the role of the browser -- except that these "browsers" cannot access any other content than alleged piracy websites. Nicholas J further expressed dissatisfaction on any urgency by Roadshow to have its application heard sooner than April, stating that the state of "flux" argued by counsel in regards to the apps should simply be described through supplementary evidence. Counsel for Roadshow and TVBO/TVB had argued that "the changing nature of this system" means it has diverted users to various different apps over the past several months. "[In late December] the HD Subs Plus app updated to send users to a different app ... in early January we noticed that the system reverted back to the HD Subs Plus app," counsel explained, saying this demonstrates the urgency of the application for injunction. The content owners are seeking to have the domain names that are allegedly facilitating copyright infringement associated with the apps blocked. Such apps are proprietary to the smart TV box in question, counsel said. "These domain names we seek to block are not associated with the streaming service," counsel explained, adding that the alleged copyright infringement cannot be done without those boxes, as the alleged piracy sites cannot be reached without the box and apps. No ISPs showed up on Friday, after last year establishing the procedure of not being present during piracy site-blocking hearings. The case-management hearing follows TVBO and TVB beginning proceedings in mid December, taking aim at proprietary smart TV boxes that, when connected to a TV and the internet, have specific apps that allow users to access allegedly copyright-infringing content including television, movie, and sporting streams. Counsel had said the TVBO/TVB application is to block the sites that facilitate the boxes using apps to access alleged infringing content, with two to three sites per box and seven boxes being targeted. The case had largely mirrored one brought by Roadshow Films -- which leads a group of film studios including Disney, Universal, Warner Bros, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount -- a week earlier, which sought to have an alleged piracy-facilitating streaming app and associated website blocked by Australia's ISPs, saying that smart TV boxes facilitate copyright infringement. Counsel for Roadshow pointed towards the HD Subs app that can be used with the device, which facilitates streaming at a subscription cost of between $35 and $240. The app itself isn't doing the streaming; it's an interface that allows the streaming to occur, counsel said. It enables access to live cable TV channels such as the BBC and on-demand content including TV series and movies, he claimed. Previous site-blocking hearings have seen content owners successfully seek blocks against Kickass Torrents, the Pirate Bay, and more than 200 additional alleged piracy sites. Under the initial ruling, rights holders are to pay a AU$50 fee per domain they want to block, with the websites to be blocked within 15 business days. Website blocking was legislated under the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act, which passed both houses of Parliament in mid-2015 and allows rights holders to obtain a court order to block websites hosted overseas that are deemed to exist for the primary purpose of infringing or facilitating infringement of copyright under Section 115A.

Village Roadshow and TVB are seeking to block illicit streaming of their content using Android set-top boxes A Federal Court judge has warned copyright holders that they shouldn’t assume that he will automatically grant site-blocking injunctions if they fail to produce convincing evidence in their attempt to stifle illicit set-top-box streaming services. Case management hearings were today held in Sydney for two applications for injunction brought under 2015 changes to the Copyright Act. Those changes allow copyright holders to seek Federal Court orders directing ISPs to block their customers from accessing a particular online service (or services) whose primary purpose is copyright infringement or facilitating copyright infringement. Currently before the court are separate applications brought by Village Roadshow and Hong Kong broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB). Although rights holders including Roadshow have obtained a number of successful site-block orders, previous injunctions have targeted online services that link to BitTorrent files, sites that act as search engines for infringing online content and sites that allow web-based streaming of copyright material. The current applications from Roadshow TVB seek to hamstring Android-based set-top boxes that the two companies claim are used for unauthorised streaming of their copyright material. Justice Nicholas told the applicants that he will “need to be satisfied by evidence to the point where I’ve got a good understanding of how it all works - I know precisely what the relationship is between the box the programs that are accessible at these URLs and the sites at which they are downloaded.” “I don’t want the evidence in any respect to be scant on those issues in particular because if it is you may find there is no order made,” he warned. Roadshow is seeking to block access to an Android app/service for set-top boxes called HDSubs+. Its application lists 10 domains that it says provide authentication for HDSubs+, updates for the app, information on the location of illicit streaming services, an electronic program guide, and/or a means of paying for an HDSubs+ subscription. TVB wants to block 21 individual URLs that it says are used by set-top boxes — dubbed “illicit streaming devices” or ISDs in its application — to stream its copyright material. The application cites seven Android-based ISDs that use the URLs: A1, BlueTV, EVPAD, FunTV, MoonBox, Unblock, and hTV5. To convince the court to grant a site-blocking application, the two companies will have to overcome a number of hurdles; not only do they have to convince the court that “the online location infringes, or facilitates an infringement of” material they are the copyright holder or licensee of, they must also produce evidence that “the primary purpose of the online location is to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright”. If a set-top box requires access to a particular URL to function and has functions not linked to copyright infringement, that could potentially weigh against the granting of an injunction. Under the legislation, the court can also consider a number of other factors when deciding whether to grant an injunction. For example, whether disabling access to the online location is a proportionate response to the copyright infringement and whether there is a public interest in granting the injunction. Another potential complication was raised by Roadshow during a case management hearing late last year. Roadshow told the court that following its attempt to contact the owner of the HDSubs+ service, it had noticed a change in the app’s behaviour — an update was replacing HDSubs+ with a different app dubbed PressPlayPlus that relied on different online locations to function. Roadshow indicated there was a chance it may need to seek IP-based blocking; however, it indicated today that the forced upgrade process seemed to have ceased. Counsel for Roadshow today said that it appeared the HDSubs+ operators were responding to its legal action – including removing films referred to in Roadshow’s concise statement and even a particular season of a TV show that the company had listed in its application for injunction. For that reason the company was seeking a swift hearing of its application. Hearings for both the Roadshow and the TVB matter will take place on 13 April. The initial court actions taking advantage of the site-blocking legislation were brought by pay TV company Foxtel and Roadshow in 2016, followed closely by another application for injunction brought by music industry organisations. Although ISPs did not oppose the move to block the piracy-linked websites targeted by rights holders, the parties clashed over the proposed court orders and who should pay for implementing the site blocks. Subsequent site-blocking applications have followed the precedent set in those cases — and both Roadshow and Foxtel have successfully sought additional injunctions. The ISPs have not entered an appearance in response to the current applications.

Six years ago, then Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was challenged over his plans to introduce online surveillance legislation that experts feared would have significant harmful effects on privacy and the internet. Mr. Toews infamously responded that critics "could either stand with us or with the child pornographers." The bill and Mr. Toews' comments sparked an immediate backlash, prompting the government to shelve the legislation less than two weeks after it was first introduced. This week, telecom giant Bell led a coalition of companies and associations, called FairPlay Canada, in seeking support for a wide-ranging website blocking plan that could have similarly harmful effects on the internet, representing a set-back for privacy, freedom of expression, and net neutrality. The coalition's position echoes Mr. Toews, amounting to a challenge to the government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the regulator that will consider the plan) that they can either stand with them or with the pirates. While that need not be the choice – Canada's Copyright Act already features some of the world's toughest anti-piracy laws – the government and the CRTC should not hesitate to firmly reject the website blocking plan as a disproportionate, unconstitutional proposal sorely lacking in due process that is inconsistent with the current communications law framework. The coalition, which also includes, Rogers, Quebecor and the CBC, has tried to paint the Canadian market as one rife with piracy, yet the data do not support its claims. For example, Music Canada recently reported that Canada is well below global averages in downloading music from unauthorized sites (33 per cent in Canada vs. 40 per cent globally) or "stream ripping" from sites such as YouTube (27 per cent in Canada vs. 35 per cent globally). Further, a 2017 report from the Canada Media Fund channelled the success of Netflix in noting that "some industry watchers have gone so far as to suggest that piracy has been 'made pointless' given the possibility of unlimited viewing in exchange for a single monthly price." Even if there was an urgent issue to address, the coalition's proposal raises serious legal concerns. It envisions the creation of a new, not-for-profit organization that would be responsible for identifying sites to block. The block list would be submitted to the CRTC for approval, which would then order all internet providers to use blocking technologies to stop access to the sites. The courts would, remarkably, be left out of the process with the potential for judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal only coming after the block list was established and approved by the regulator. The limitations of blocking technologies, which can often lead to over-blocking of lawful content, raises immediate red flags about whether site blocking would be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, when Telus restricted access to a pro-union website in 2005, it simultaneously blocked access to an additional 766 websites hosted by the same computer server. Given the implications for freedom of expression, an immediate legal challenge would be a certainty. The absence of full judicial oversight and the likely Charter challenge are fatal flaws in the proposal, but they are by no means the only ones. The CRTC stated in 2016 in a case involving Quebec's plan to block unlicensed online gambling sites that the law only permits blocking in "exceptional circumstances," which places the onus on the coalition to demonstrate that the plan would further Canada's telecommunications policy objectives. It does a poor job in this regard, relying on easily countered bromides that piracy "threatens the social and economic fabric of Canada," that the telecommunications system should "encourage compliance with Canadian laws" and that website blocking "will significantly contribute toward the protection of the privacy of Canadian internet users." The CRTC should be particularly wary of establishing a mandated blocking system given the likelihood that it will quickly expand beyond sites that "blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally" engage in infringing or enabling or facilitating the infringing of copyright. For example, Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor last year targeted TVAddons, a site that contains considerable non-infringing content, that would presumably represent the type of site destined for the block list. In fact, legitimate online video services could become another target. In 2015, Bell Media executives claimed that Canadians who used virtual private networks to access U.S. Netflix were stealing. The prospect of targeting VPN use, which has many legitimate uses, has long raised concerns for the privacy community, but the website blocking plan could emerge as an alternative with demands to block unlicensed foreign online video services. The U.S. was so concerned about the possibility of Canadian blocking that it demanded a provision prohibiting the practice be included in the Trans Pacific Partnership. Much of the proposal ultimately rests on claims that website blocking has been implemented in other countries with positive market effects. Yet countries with site blocking such as the U.K., the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, and Australia include more robust judicial review missing from this proposal. Moreover, the Canadian market is already outperforming many site blocking countries. For example, more Canadians per capita subscribe to Netflix than consumers in site blocking countries such as Italy or the U.K. and Canada recently surpassed Australia as the sixth-largest music market in the world. The U.S., which typically is viewed as the world's most aggressive copyright enforcer, is notably missing from the list of site blocking countries. It considered the measure several years ago in controversial legislation known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which generated massive online protests and was killed before the voting stage. The U.S. Congress has been wary of introducing similar legislation ever since, a useful lesson for the CRTC and the federal government, who would be well advised to swiftly dismiss the ill-advised and dangerous Canadian site blocking proposal.

These days, the manga industry is almost too familiar with piracy. There are countless readers out there willing to illegally scan chapters for others to read free online, but it seems two thieves didn’t get that whole Internet memo. After all, a pair of criminals were nabbed in Japan after allegedly snagging 100 manga volumes. According to Anime News Network, police in the Hyogo prefecture apprehended a grown man and a middle school student on Tuesday. The pair were arrested after stealing 38 manga volumes from a local shop. Reports say the duo were caught after leaving the store with all the stolen volumes which was worth nearly $200 USD. After being approached by police, both parties admitted to the charges, but there may be more to the case. Japanese reports have said the two criminals nabbed resemble a thieving duo who stole 100 manga volumes from that very same store not long ago. The previous haul was lifted in a paper bag late last week, and security footage caught the whole ordeal. The store manager recognized the duo when they returned to the store and called police not knowing they were stealing even more manga. As for the manga stolen, the reports refuse to name any title specifically. Kobe Shimbun NEXT describes the most recent manga stolen as one that takes place in China during the Sengoku period. Of course, that vague blurb sounds a lot like Yasuhisa Hara’s Kingdom, and that manga is very popular in Japan. If the duo really swiped 100 volumes of that manga, they made off with more than $600. No motive for the thefts has been given by police at this time. The force did say the two criminals were acquaintances despite their large age gap, but no further comments on were given about the pair. If you are not sure why the thieves were eager to get their hands on Kingdom, well - it is because it's a good series. The manga is set in China during the Warring States period and follows two orphans named Ri Shin and Hyou. When the latter dies, Shin finds himself involved in a conspiracy which allows him to join the army. Shin dreams of becoming the world’s greatest general, and the hero tries to do so by helping Ei Sei of Quin unify China before its internal conflicts split it apart.

The Newsweek Media Group admitted Thursday that it purchased web traffic to several of its sites, a move that critics say was intended to trick a government agency into buying ads. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency responsible for certain regulation in the financial sector, last year awarded Newsweek‘s sister publication, the International Business Times (IBT), a large bulk of its video and display advertising campaign, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday. But a new report from the consulting firm and social media watchdog group Social Puncher says much of IBT‘s online traffic was actually "junk traffic with a share of bots" redirected from piracy websites. The result of the Social Puncher analysis aligned with previous reporting from BuzzFeed and analyses by other social media watchdogs that found that IBT‘s U.S., U.K., and India websites were all purchasing fraudulent or invalid traffic. In a statement to BuzzFeed, Newsweek Media Group admitted to purchasing audiences from ad networks that sell pop-up traffic, but insisted it represented a "small percentage of traffic on our sites." "We use third-party platforms to verify and filter this traffic to ensure it is of the highest quality," the company said. "This verification process prevents poor-quality traffic being redirected to our sites and we consistently score highly on various third-party ad verification platforms." The publisher declined to name the third-party platforms that it uses. Republican lawmakers scrutinized the CFPB's use of ad funds after the Daily Caller reported last year that a large bulk of the funds ended up going to GMMB, a Democratic consulting firm. The Republican Governors Association complained that then-CFPB Director and eventual Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray was "funneling tens of millions in federal contracts to Democrat ad makers." In a statement, the CFBP declined to respond beyond saying that "many of the assertions in the [Social Puncher] report—including all of the numbers reported for the ad buy—are inaccurate." BuzzFeed‘s story was published the same day that Newsweek Media Group's chairman and finance director stepped down amid an ongoing—and apparently unrelated—grand jury investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's office into possible financial fraud.

PHILADELPHIA – A motion picture owner alleges a BitTorrent user in Pennsylvania is unlawfully distributing its films online. Malibu Media LLC filed a complaint on Jan. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 108.36.229.58 alleging copyright infringement. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant downloaded, copied and distributed some of its films without authorization on BitTorrent. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the defendant, order the defendant to permanently delete all digital media files relating to the plaintiff's works, statutory damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. It is represented by Alfred Jordan of Rushie Law PLLC in Philadelphia.

SAN FRANCISCO — The publisher of Newsweek and the International Business Times has been buying fake audience traffic in order to meet the requirements of a lucrative government advertising campaign, a consulting firm alleged. Also, two top execs at the company resigned. Analysis of potentially fraudulent users, first reported by Buzzfeed News, came as the the Newsweek Media Group chairman and the company's finance director, his wife, stepped down after a regulatory investigation into fraud. IBTimes.com, or International Business Times, the U.S. business news site of Newsweek Media Group, last year won a significant portion of a large video and display advertising campaign for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency that educates consumers about college tuitions and home loans, according to the report. But many of those ads may not have been viewed by legitimate consumers, according to a report by Social Puncher, a consulting firm that investigates online ad fraud. It says the CFPB ads were displayed to an audience of IBTimes readers in the U.S., England, India and Singapore that includes a significant amount of “cheap junk traffic with a share of bots.” Newsweek Media Group did not respond to a request for comment. The fake users were bought because IBTimes.com was losing traffic from real readers, the report alleges. Instead, the traffic was generated via pop-up or pop-under browser windows on file sharing and pirated video streaming websites. Often users don't see these automatic pop-ups, which can place on a new browser window. A spokesperson for Newsweek Media Group told BuzzFeed News that the company does buy traffic but that it uses third-party platforms to verify its quality and denied any fraudulent practices. A CFPB representative told the outlet that it takes fraud accusations seriously and was investigating details raised by Social Puncher's report. The charge comes at a tumultuous time for Newsweek's publisher, which rebranded itself Newsweek Media Group after the International Business Times' parent bought the newsmagazine from IAC and took the magazine's name. On Monday, BuzzFeed News reported that Newsweek Media Group's chief content officer, Dayan Candappa, was hired after leaving Reuters following allegations of sexual harassment. The company subsequently placed Candappa on leave pending an investigation, according to an article in Newsweek. Two weeks ago, investigators from the Manhattan District Attorney's office raided Newsweek’s New York offices and hauled off computer servers as part of an ongoing investigation, according to The New York Post. Following that investigation, co-owner Etienne Uzac and Marion Kim, the company’s finance director, resigned Newsweek reported Thursday. Charges of padding online numbers with paid viewership echoes a growing concern about the veracity of online content and how rogue actors threaten to destabilize its legitimacy. Facebook has come under fire for its role in allowing Russian hackers to fill unsuspecting users' news feeds with posts on hot-button social issues ahead of the U.S. presidential 2016 election. Facebook recently retooled its practices with an aim of prioritizing status updates from friends and family and has vowed to stop operators from using the platform to meddle in elections. Last week, the state of New York's attorney general said it was opening an investigation into Devumi, a company that sells Twitter followers, likes and retweets to those looking to bolster their social media popularity. After Twitter announced it would take action against Devumi's practice of helping users pad their accounts with fake fans, the New York Timesreported that celebrities ranging from singer Clay Aiken to TV host Lisa Rinna quickly lost thousands of Twitter followers.

Appeals Court: ISPs Don't Get Copyright Shield Without Enforcement of Meaningful Repeat Infringer Policy The 4th Circuit issues a huge piracy ruling and wipes out a $25 million verdict against Cox Communications because of an erroneous jury instruction. In a key decision in a landmark piracy case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a mixed ruling when examining a $25 million verdict in favor of BMG Rights Management against Cox Communications over piracy by the ISP's users. The entertainment industry got a huge victory when this appeals court upheld a federal judge's conclusion that the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires meaningful implementation of a policy that terminates the service of repeat copyright infringers. On the other hand, the appeals court reversed the $25 million verdict and ordered up a new trial because of an error in instructions to the jury. The dispute emanates from a lawsuit brought by BMG, which administers the rights to works by David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Frank Ocean and many other artists. BMG had hired Rightscorp to flag piracy and send Cox notices. Rightscorp detected 1.847 million instances of infringement, but Cox had what a judge characterized as essentially a thirteen-strike policy that Cox found insufficient. It was alleged that Cox really maintained an "under the table policy purporting to terminate repeat infringers while actually retaining them as high-speed Internet customers." The case went to trial in 2015, where the music publisher scored a $25 million win, later upheld by U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in a decision that would gather the intense interest of those in copyright circles. Today, 4th Circuit judge Diana Motz writes the opinion that will be closely examined by those looking to figure out an ISP's responsibilities for the copyright infringing actions of its users. The DMCA provides some armor for tech companies that respond expeditiously to takedown requests. One of the requirements, though, is that the ISP has to have "adopted and reasonably implemented... a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers... who are repeat infringers." Cox urged a reading that would be generous to ISPs. Specifically, the company argued that "repeat infringers" means adjudicated repeat infringers, or people who have been held liable in court for multiple instances of direct copyright infringement. Motz notes that the statute doesn't define "repeat infringers," but nods to the use of "alleged infringer" elsewhere in the law plus legislative history to come to the conclusion that Cox's interpretation is wrong. "Indeed, the risk of losing one’s Internet access would hardly constitute a 'realistic threat' capable of deterring infringement if that punishment applied only to those already subject to civil penalties and legal fees as adjudicated infringers," she writes. Then, turning to Cox's conduct, Motz determines that the federal judge was right to flag this ISP's repeat infringer policy as lacking. At a minimum, writes Motz, an "ISP has not 'reasonably implemented' a repeat infringer policy if the ISP fails to enforce the terms of its policy in any meaningful fashion. Here, Cox formally adopted a repeat infringer 'policy,' but, both before and after September 2012, made every effort to avoid reasonably implementing that policy. Indeed, in carrying out its thirteen- strike process, Cox very clearly determined not to terminate subscribers who in fact repeatedly violated the policy." Motz adds that failure to implement a consistent and meaningful repeat infringer policy essentially means it has no policy and can't be entitled to a safe harbor defense. Nevertheless, Cox does score a consequential decision in its own right when it comes to jury instructions, although not on the issue of whether its technology was capable of a "substantial noninfringing use," something the ISP believed relevant thanks to the famous Supreme Court case over the Sony Betamax. Instead, Motz accepts Cox's challenge to the specific instruction that liability could be imposed upon a finding that "Cox knew or should have known of such infringing activity." The words "should have known" amounts to a standard of negligence, and Motz writes it does not suffice. "We are persuaded that the Global-Tech rule developed in the patent law context, which held that contributory liability can be based on willful blindness but not on recklessness or negligence, is a sensible one in the copyright context. It appropriately targets culpable conduct without unduly burdening technological development," states the decision. In other words, when it comes to piracy, ISPs can't ignore red flags that make piracy obvious. But it's got to be more than a should-have-known situation. Surely, the lines are grey and will be fought over in years to come. That includes at a new trial between BMG and Cox, a coming event that the appeals court believes is appropriate given the erroneous jury instruction. There's more in the decision. It can be read in full here.

THE Pirate Bay users could face tough punishment as a major ISP is ordered to hand over details of those infringing copyright to police. Those who stream illegally could be dealt a new blow after a landmark ruling which looks set to force a major ISP to reveal subscribers details. Bahnhof is a popular service provider in Sweden which has long been proud of its ability to keep customer details private. The firm has often fought to stop data being disclosed and recently confirmed that it never hands over personal details of any of its customers. However, this could be about to change with a new ruling that means Bahnhof will soon be forced to reveal details of people thought to be pirating content. The Administrative Court in Stockholm has just ordered the company to hand over details of copyright infringers to the authorities. In a statement on its website the court said: “The administrative court in Stockholm has found that today the Swedish provisions on disclosure of subscription data to law enforcement agencies do not contravene EU law. “The court therefore considers that the Post and Telecom Agency (PTS) has been prepared to instruct the operator Bahnhof to disclose subscription information in accordance with the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act.” Although this is clearly concerning for users of sites such as The Pirate Bay, Bahnoff says it’s committed to keeping data private. In as statement on its website the ISP said: “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. We refuse to disclose our customers' integrity to an authority that says to themselves.” If the ruling is upheld it could open the floodgates to more ISPs being ordered to reveal full customer details. The news of this latest attack on illegal streaming comes as similar measures have been put in place in the UK. The latest scheme sees UK Internet Service Providers send-out warning letters to subscribers whose accounts have been used to download copyrighted material from torrent sites. The message reads, "This is a government-backed scheme which aims to support Britain’s creative industry by informing people about legal sources of content, with the aim of reducing the illegal sharing of copyrighted material. "By sharing illegally rather than enjoying it from legitimate sources, you aren’t supporting the growth and success of the content you love." Get It Right also has its own website that aims to provide answers to some of the most asked questions about torrents, peer-to-peer sharing, and copyright material. In an effort to lower piracy rates across the UK, leading Internet service providers will send out emails from the Get It Right campaign to those who have download copyrighted material online. The email cautions subscribers they have 20 days to stop downloading copyrighted material using peer-to-peer websites. Should your Internet service provider detect more illegal activity from your IP address during the 20 day grace period – another educational email from the Get It Right campaign will be sent. A similar campaign in the United States only offers torrent site users seven-days to comply. According to the campaign website, "The Get it Right Educational Email programme is designed to educate consumers about what’s happening on their Internet Service Provider (ISP) account. "The programme is to help to make sure they, or people that use their connection, are not infringing copyright and to direct them to sources where they get the content they want from genuine sites and services." BT, NowTV, PlusNet, Talk-Talk and Virgin Media have also joined Sky and signed-up to the Get It Right campaign.

KODI Box users have been dealt a major blow with one distributor of set-top boxes ordered to keep pirate add-ons out of the devices. Kodi add-on fans could have seen a huge piracy precedent set, with a judge recently siding with major Hollywood players Netflix and Amazon in court. The Kodi surge continues without any sign of stopping, as users continue to ditch paid TV services for the online player. Research has suggested Kodi - which offers access to thousands of channels - is being used in more than five million UK homes. Kodi software is not illegal, but developers can produce third-party add-ons that provide free access to pirated and illegal content. These apps allow users to stream premium content, like paid-for sports and movie channels for free. The illegal add-ons are being targeted by ISPs, government agencies, broadcasters and rights holders. And now one Kodi Box distributor has been dealt a heavy blow in a court case set in motion by major Hollywood players. TickBox TV is a popular streaming set-top box, powered by the Kodi media player. According to Hollywood studios, the Georgia-based company includes instructions for a number of Kodi add-ons that enable users to stream paid-for content for free. Much of this paid-for content is generated by the likes of Disney, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros, Amazon, Netflix – which are all part of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment. The ACE last year filed a lawsuit against TickBox, claiming these set-top boxes are nothing more than piracy tools, allowing buyers to stream copyright-infringing content. And now a US judge has ordered TickBox to keep add-ons out of their set top boxes in a huge victory for Netflix Amazon and co. In their preliminary injunction this week, US District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald largely sided with movie companies, TorrentFreak reported. The ACE had claimed TickBox promoted its service for piracy purposes, and Fitzergerald said there was enough evidence to make this likely. As such, the judge said there is sufficient reason to believe TickBox can be held liable for inducing copyright infringement. TickBox had said they had simply offered a computer that users can configure the way they want to. But the US judge said TickBox went further, as it directed users to install certain ‘themes’. These themes feature several add-ons that link to infringing content. In their findings, judge Fitzergerald wrote: “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.” The preliminary injunction compels TickBox to ensure set-top boxes should no longer have links to themes or add-ons that the ACE has flagged up as copyright infringing. TickBox said their business could be shutdown by a broad injunction, but the court argued against this as customers can still use the devices for legitimate purposes. The court added if customers are no longer interested then it suggests piracy was the main draw of the devices. The preliminary injunction is not final, and it remains to be seen how TickBox can remove add-ons from devices that already have been sold. The Court has told both TickBox and the ACE to reach an agreement on outstanding issues which can be included in an updated injunction. The ACE has also filed a similar lawsuit against Dragon Box, a set-top box that makes use of Kodi add-ons. The complaint alleges Dragon Box advertised the product as a way for users to avoid paying for authorised subscription services. It quotes marketing material that encourages users to “Get rid of your premium channels … [and] Stop paying for Netflix and Hulu.” The set top box costs around £255 and is in over a quarter million homes in the US.

A host of major industry bodies have banded together to plead with the EU for tougher rules on pirated content available on sites like YouTube and Facebook LISTENING to music for free on websites like YouTube might be banned one day, if creative industry giants get their way. A host of major bodies that represent the film, TV, music and sport industries have written to the EU to ask for a crackdown on sites where users upload their own content – like Facebook and YouTube. The industry bodies are complaining about the "Value Gap". That's the term they used to describe a mismatch between the money that the creative industry makes, compared to the money that websites like YouTube generates through the content they host. "User uploaded content services have become vast distributors of our creative works...all while refusing to negotiate fair or any copyright licences with us as rights holders," reads an open letter to the EU, which was signed by 23 different industry bodies. The letter appeals directly to Boyko Borisov, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, the country that currently holds EU Council presidency. "We have formed an alliance to campaign for a solution to a major problem which is holding back our sector and jeopardising future sustainability," the letter continues. "Bulgaria's EU Presidency provides the unmissable opportunity for a solution." The alliance also blasts the EU's "safe harbour" protections, which protects big companies from being targeted if they "unknowingly" host copyrighted content. This is important for websites like YouTube, which can avoid liability for providing pirated content to users because anyone can upload videos or music to the platform. The letter explains that "a lack of clarity surrounding the application of copyright to certain online services, and the abuse of European copyright 'safe harbour' rules" is causing major problems for the creative industries. It could mean that consumers are eventually forced to pay for premium content – like music or videos – on YouTube, to avoid any piracy issues. Speaking to The Sun, GBH Insights' Daniel Ives said: "This, will continue to put more pressure on the likes of Google and YouTube given copyright and IP issues." He said that Brits probably won't be forced to pay for music on YouTube "in the near-term", but added: "We do believe – especially in Europe – there is growing concern around this area, which is putting more heat in the kitchen for the company." Groups that wrote to the EU in this latest plea include the International Council of Music Authors, the Association of Commercial Television, and Writers & Directors Worldwide. To help ease the woes of these creative giants, YouTube already provides a mechanism for content creators to report any stolen videos or music. "If your copyright-protected work was posted on YouTube without authorisation, you may submit a copyright infringement notification," YouTube explains. "Make sure that you consider whether fair use, fair dealing or a similar exception to copyright applies before you submit. "These requests should only be sent in by the copyright owner or an agent authorised to act on the owner's behalf."

Cloudflare should be held liable for copyright infringements committed by its customers, adult publisher ALS Scan has informed the California District Court. The company requests a partial summary judgment, claiming that the CDN provider assists pirates and doesn't qualify for safe harbor protection. "The evidence is undisputed," ALS writes. As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe. This includes thousands of “pirate” sites, including the likes of The Pirate Bay, which rely on the U.S.-based company to keep server loads down. Many rightsholders have complained about Cloudflare’s involvement with these sites and last year adult entertainment publisher ALS Scan took it a step further by dragging the company to court. ALS accused the CDN service of various types of copyright and trademark infringement, noting that several customers used the Cloudflare’s servers to distribute pirated content. While Cloudflare managed to have several counts dismissed, the accusation of contributory copyright infringement remains. An upcoming trial could determine whether Cloudflare is liable or not, but ALS believes that this isn’t needed. This week, the publisher filed a request for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule over the matter in advance of a trial. “The evidence is undisputed,” ALS writes. “Cloudflare materially assists website operators in reproduction, distribution and display of copyrighted works, including infringing copies of ALS works. Cloudflare also masks information about pirate sites and their hosts.” ALS anticipates that Cloudflare may argue that the company or its clients are protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor provision, but contests this claim. The publisher notes that none of the customers registered the required paperwork at the US Copyright Office. “Cloudflare may say that the Cloudflare Customer Sites are themselves service providers entitled to DMCA protections, however, none have qualified for safe harbors by submitting the required notices to the US Copyright Office.” Cloudflare itself has no safe harbor protection either, they argue, because it operates differently than a service provider as defined in the DMCA. It’s a “smart system” which also modifies content, instead of a “dumb pipe,” they claim. In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders. “Cloudflare has no available safe harbors. Even if any safe harbors apply, Cloudflare has lost such safe harbors for failure to adopt and reasonably implement a policy including termination of repeat infringers,” ALS writes. Previously, the court clarified that under U.S. law the company can be held liable for caching content of copyright infringing websites. Cloudflare’s “infrastructure-level caching” cannot be seen as fair use, it ruled. ALS now asks the court to issue a partial summary judgment ruling that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. If this motion is granted, a trial would only be needed to establish the damages amount. The lawsuit is a crucial matter for Cloudflare, and not only because of the potential damages it faces in this case. If Cloudflare loses, other rightsholders are likely to make similar demands, forcing the company to actively police potential pirate sites. Cloudflare will undoubtedly counter ALS’ claims in a future filing, so this case is far from over. — A copy of ALS Scan’s memorandum in support of the motion for partial summary judgment can be found here (pdf). Source: Torrentfreak.com

As the US dismantles net neutrality protections for the internet, a powerful group of Canadian telecom companies, cultural organizations, one labour union, and the national broadcaster are all lining up behind a proposal that would allow the government to block access to websites that illegally host pirated content within Canada. The proposal has raised the ire of digital rights activists in Canada, who believe that such provisions constitute censorship, and could be used to block access to legitimate content. The coalition, called FairPlay Canada, was unveiled on Monday. That day, the group also filed an application to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) asking the federal regulator to create an "Independent Piracy Review Agency" that will “consider applications identifying piracy sites” and recommend websites serving pirated content to the CRTC, which would then order internet service providers to block their customers’ access to those websites. “We’re really worried about the idea that there’s inevitably going to be false positives and legitimate things are going to be caught up in that,” Lauren Tribe, executive director of nonprofit advocacy group OpenMedia, said over the phone. “As soon as we open the door for the government to decide what we can and can’t see online, I think we’re going to see a lot of lobby groups pushing to see their interests protected by this agency as well.” Precise numbers on piracy in Canada are hard to come by, but according to CRTC data cited in The Globe and Mail, cable, IPTV, and satellite subscriptions declined by 400,000 between 2012 and 2016. As for what that’s meant for profits, the CRTC reported that broadcasting sector revenues dropped .14 percent in the same time period. FairPlay Canada cites a 2017 report from anti-piracy company MUSO that claims piracy websites received 1.88 billion visits from Canadians in 2016. The FairPlay Canada coalition and its application come at a crucial time for net neutrality—the principle that information on the internet should flow freely and without interference from service providers. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently voted to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections. Weeks before the vote, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he would “defend net neutrality.” Read More: Justin Trudeau Is ‘Very Concerned’ With FCC’s Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality In September, telecom giant Bell, now a member of FairPlay Canada, proposed website blocking at NAFTA negotiations. Other members of the coalition include the CBC (Canada’s national broadcaster), Rogers (one of the “big three” telecom companies, which also owns numerous media properties), labour union Unifor, and the Toronto International Film Festival, among other companies and organizations. “For us it's a question of principle,” Douglas Chow, a CBC spokesperson, wrote me in an email. “We support efforts, like FairPlay Canada, to stop piracy of copyrighted content. Groups who steal and re-sell content without permission are breaking the law and undermining financial support for culture.” FairPlay Canada’s application resembles provisions in the US Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that would have allowed internet service providers to block access to websites providing pirated content. The Act was ultimately abandoned by lawmakers in 2012 after pressure from digital rights groups and the public, but the industry continues to push for SOPA-like provisions in various forms. When asked if the CBC’s membership in FairPlay Canada would require disclosure in future news stories around website blocking, Chow replied, “A CBC/Radio-Canada journalist independently reports on any organization, including us.” The pressure on federal regulators now is immense as it must now review FairPlay Canada’s application. Indeed, most of Canada’s most important telecommunications and media organizations are now pushing a government-administered website blocking scheme. The internet in Canada is at a crossroads. Source: https://motherboard.vice.com