The operator of MP3Juices and YTMP3, two of the best-known YouTube downloaders, is taking action to protect these valuable brands. The sites have many copycats and competitors that use the brands' keywords to attract search traffic. The operator wants this to stop and has asked Google to remove the 'infringing' sites from its search results. mp3juicesEvery day millions of people use YouTube rippers, tools that are often used to download music for free. The music industry is not happy with these services. Stream-ripping is viewed as the largest piracy problem, one that’s more serious than those posed by torrent sites and direct download portals. In response to this threat, the RIAA and its members have taken legal steps to shut down sites or have them blocked by Internet providers. On top of that, rightsholders have also sent hundreds of thousands of takedown requests to Google, asking the company to purge stream-rippers from its search results. These DMCA notices can be pretty effective but since many of the targeted sites take countermeasures, it remains a game of cat and mouse. MP3Juices and YTMP3 Take Action This month, we learned that the proverbial mice are also getting into a takedown battle of their own. Apparently, the operator of two of the best-known stream-ripping sites, MP3Juices.cc and YTMP3.cc, is seeking help from Google as well. As with most popular brands on the Internet, the ‘MP3Juices’ and ‘YTMP3’ keywords are used by third parties to attract search traffic. The official site is heavily downranked because it’s repeatedly targeted by rightsholders, so these ‘copycats’ often end up higher in search results than the original. This is a problem for the operator, who wants to put a stop to it. And what better tool to achieve this than sending a DMCA takedown notice? ‘Brand Infringers’ The notice in question came in a few days ago and was sent by someone using the name Ryan Milne. The first request covers both ‘MP3 Juice’ and ‘YTMP3’ brands and 22 URLs that use these terms without permission. “All the reported websites copied our brand name ‘MP3 Juice’ without any authorization. We request immediate removal of all the infringing URLs from Google index and help us to protect our copyrights. Thanks,” it reads. mp3juices google Interestingly, most of the reported sites don’t use any copied logos or other content that we could see, so any copyright infringement isn’t immediately obvious to us. All sites do use the ‘MP3 Juice’ and ‘YTMP3’ keywords, but that would fall into the trademark infringement category. However, a search for the respective trademarks in the register didn’t return any results. TorrentFreak reached out to the operator of the sites to learn more about the takedown request and the motivations behind it. Thus far, we have yet to hear back. Google also seems to be puzzled by the notice. After a week, most of the URLs were still in the pending queue and the search engine eventually decided not to remove them. However, there is a similar “YTMP3” takedown request sent the someone named Hunter Kipling, which did result in the removal of nearly two dozen ‘competing’ URLs.

The MPA has teamed up with Google to remove pirate site domain names from search results in countries where these are already blocked by ISPs. No court has ordered Google to take action but the company is voluntarily complying with "no-fault" ISP injunctions. According to the MPA, this delisting of pirate sites is an effective tool in the fight against online piracy. google pirate bayEarlier this year, we noticed that Google had removed several popular pirate sites from its search results. In the Netherlands, for example, The Pirate Bay and many of its mirrors and proxies were delisted by Google in response to a notice sent by local anti-piracy group BREIN. Later, we learned that similar requests were being sent to Google by movie company representatives in other countries. In response, Google removed thousands of URLs from its search engine in countries such as France, Norway, and the UK. In all cases, the domains were already blocked by ISPs following a court order. Google’s decision to voluntarily take action is noteworthy. The company apparently removed thousands of ‘pirate site’ domain names without being named in a lawsuit and despite earlier objections to this type of whole-site blocking, of which it doubted the efficacy. The search engine hasn’t elaborated publicly on this remarkable step, but it’s clear that the company now believes that delisting pirate sites is the way forward. This is music to the ears of Hollywood, which is happy with Google’s voluntary help. MPA is Happy With Google’s Help Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin believes that initiatives like this really make a difference in the fight against online piracy. Behind the scenes, the MPA assisted Google in this delisting campaign which has been rolled out in ten countries thus far. “Working with MPA, Google has removed a substantial number of piracy-related domains from its search results in these countries to help effectively enforce court orders requiring ISPs to block access to piracy sites,” Rivkin notes. MPA’s boss mentions that nearly 10,000 domains have been removed by Google, spread across ten countries. The search engine takes action based on so-called “no-fault” court orders, which are typically directed at ISPs. Google isn’t mentioned in these orders but is choosing to enforce them voluntarily. This means that domain names such as thepiratebay.org and fmovies.to will be removed from search results completely in many cases. According to the MPA, this action has already had a positive effect. “Google’s delisting of pirate sites works,” Rivkin says. “Our initial research into the efficacy of delisting efforts is promising, showing that traffic to piracy sites when blocked and delisted decreased more sharply than traffic to piracy sites that were only subject to blocking by ISPs.” Better Than Standard Blockades ISP blocking orders already reduce traffic to pirate sites but paired with search engine blocks they are even more effective. According to Rivkin, this is especially true for piracy streaming sites, which show a 1.5 times larger traffic decline on average when they are also delisted. “Given the scale of the problem — remember, we’re talking about over 137 billion visits to film and TV piracy sites annually — in real terms, delisting of pirate sites matters,” Rivkin notes. In the past, the entertainment industries and Google haven’t always had the best relationship. In fact, Google was a fierce opponent of the SOPA bill, which would’ve opened the door to pirate site blocking orders in the United States. The current delisting actions show that Google’s perspective has changed. ‘Blocking Injunctions Are Safe and Effective’ In addition to praising Google’s efforts, the MPA also takes the opportunity to show how effective blocking orders can be. This is important, as these are available in dozens of countries around the world, but not in the U.S. The MPA previously opted to change the legal framework in the United States to allow for these orders on its home turf. Rivkin indirectly suggests the same, noting that these “no-fault” blocking orders are both effective and proportional. “The process to issue these orders includes a high level of due process, and often the ISPs and intermediaries participate voluntarily. All the while, these orders have worked exactly as intended by the law — tackling illegal content only and ensuring that the internet user experience and access to legal content is unhindered.” Critics of blocking orders have often countered that they could lead to overblocking, while hardcore pirates can easily circumvent that. According to Rivkin, however, overblocking isn’t really an issue, and while no anti-piracy measure is 100% effective, site blocking is one of the best tools around. “To be sure, no anti-piracy tool is perfect. And there will always be a segment of users who will actively work to evade and circumvent these blocks. But the data are clear: these ‘no-fault’ judicial orders are safe, especially when narrowly targeted at genuine bad actors under the supervision of the courts. “And we know from empirical research and real-world testing with our partners at Google that delisting adjudicated piracy sites from search results makes this already effective legal tool even more potent,” Rivkin concludes.

Infamous Russian torrent site RuTracker is one of many pirate sites that are permanently blocked by the Russian authorities for failing to remove copyrighted content. However, when the site suddenly became accessible again this month, RuTracker took its own measures to block Russian users. RuTrackerAfter Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, it became clear that the conflict would result in devastating loss of life with implications for the whole planet. As countries around the world implemented the broadest sanctions regime in history against Russia, entire nations and their industries prepared for the aftershocks and entertainment was no exception. Companies including Disney, Sony and Warner Bros. suspended all new theatrical releases and shortly after, Netflix announced the closure of its service in Russia. Gaming platforms have been affected too. These and similar actions raised the possibility that traffic to pirate sites might increase in Russia. It’s a little too early to conduct a broad analysis but local reports suggest that infamous Russian torrent site RuTracker received a massive boost in traffic in early March and then took measures to restrict access. That said, there’s a fairly complex picture to unpack. RuTracker is Subjected to Permanent Blocking in Russia RuTracker is one of the most popular torrent sites on the Internet and has been for some time but copyright holders have done their best to hold the tracker back. The site is currently operating under an ‘eternal lock’ in Russia meaning that local ISPs should never unblock it. However, a suggestion from a Russian politician that RuTracker should be unblocked to counter sanctions led to much speculation that the site (and others like it) might soon become widely available again. The complication is that this type of move would run contrary to Russia law. Nevertheless, in early March rumors suggested that RuTracker had been removed from Russia’s blacklist, enabling previously blocked users to access the site once again. We saw no change in Russia’s registry of blocked sites, which clearly lists two decisions handed down by the Moscow City Court dating back to 2015. However, it turns out that RuTracker.org was indeed unblocked and while that is surprising in itself, there is much more to the story. RuTracker’s Traffic Surged In 2016, Herman Klimenko became Vladimir Putin’s key adviser on Internet-related affairs but after less than three years, he was dismissed. Klimenko had previously criticized the blocking of pirate sites but it transpired he had a horse in the race – he was the reported owner of the company behind Torrnado.ru, a locally operated torrent site. Given his background, Klimenko often turns up in Russian media and in recent comments to Kommersant, he reported that RuTracker had received a 40% surge in traffic on March 6-7. “Now the demand of users has shifted to pirated streaming services, such as [streaming site] Kinopub, it is unlikely that torrents will continue to actively gain popularity,” he said, suggesting that the increase might be temporary. While any increase in traffic is usually appreciated, RuTracker received not only a boost in Russian users but also the attention of a top Putin ally. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev Accessed RuTracker Despite all of the chaos in Ukraine, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was present at a meeting this month where local rightsholders complained that blocked pirate sites simply reappear under a new domain or are still accessible. Medvedev then reportedly got out his iPad and accessed rutracker.org without any issue. It later transpired that a local ISP undergoing liquidation had fired all of its technical staff and as a result, blocking wasn’t being properly implemented. This was reported to Russian telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor but it’s not clear what action was taken. RuTracker had its own plan, however. RuTracker Blocks Russian IP Addresses In response to the new traffic, RuTracker implemented a Russian IP address blockade. It’s not the usual reaction to being unblocked but the torrent site had its reasons. “Possible unlocking of the RuTracker carries certain risks for our users who will access it from their IP addresses without using a VPN. Copyright holders did not go anywhere, no one canceled [the laws] about piracy,” a site representative said. “We are also not looking for communication with state bodies of Russia demanding to give them personal data of users. Therefore, in the current situation, we are categorically against and will prevent such an ‘unlock’.” RuTracker also revealed that it had experienced DDoS attacks and a mass sign-up of user accounts with Chinese IP addresses. These were determined to be driven by bots so, in addition to banning Russian IP addresses, RuTracker banned Chinese IP addresses too. RuTracker Appears to Be Against the War Following the invasion of Ukraine, RuTracker changed its logo to incorporate the yellow and blue colors of the Ukrainian flag. The change was short-lived but perhaps gave an early sign that despite being a Russia-focused site, it is not in favor of the war. In comments published in local media, RuTracker stops short of condemning the Kremlin but does state that “in the current situation [RuTracker] does not support any actions of the Russian authorities.” New sign-ups to RuTracker are currently closed but will open again in the coming weeks. Russian users will need a VPN, which will also come in handy for viewing another perspective on the ‘special operation’.

Four individuals connected to the illegal streaming of copyrighted content have been handed prison sentences in the UK totaling more than 10 years. Three men and a woman were convicted of fraud and money laundering for offenses against broadcasters including Sky and BT Sport. Assets have also been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act. IPTVOn September 11, 2018, following an investigation and referral by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, two people were arrested in connection with the unauthorized streaming of TV broadcasts. Officers from Hampshire County Council’s Trading Standards unit assisted by local police executed a warrant at an address in Bursledon, Hampshire, close to the city of Southampton. Reports indicated that two people – a 41-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman – had been arrested under suspicion of offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and money laundering. From the outset, it was clear the operation had been carried out against some type of illegal streaming operation to protect the rights of companies including Sky and BT Sports. The investigation formed part of a wider investigation coordinated by Europol. A day later, Europol announced that four people had been arrested in Ireland. FACT and Trading Standards Announce Convictions Information sent to TorrentFreak by FACT and an announcement from Hampshire County Council Trading Standards now reveals that on 18 March, 2022, four individuals were sentenced at Southampton Crown Court after being convicted in connection with the illegal streaming of copyrighted material, including that owned by Sky Sports and BT Sport. Neither release mentions a specific streaming operation but following a request for clarification, FACT suggested that we should look at a well-known online handle. For perhaps a decade, MIKEY1234 has been involved in the development and distribution of software (including Kodi addons) that facilitated access to copyrighted content. In several forum posts over the years, MIKEY1234 also admitted to living in the Southampton area. FACT didn’t immediately respond to additional questions relating to how revenue was generated by MIKEY1234 and his associates but given the harsh sentences handed down last week, it is clear that significant sums were involved. Defendants Receive Prison Sentences Exceeding 10 Years According to FACT, the four convicted people, their crimes, and their sentences are as follows: Michael James Simmonds – age 45 of Bridge Road, Bursledon, sentenced under Section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Participating in business for a Fraudulent Purpose) and Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering): 5 years 6 months imprisonment on each to run concurrently. To serve half sentence in custody with the remainder served on license Kieran Collins – age 38 of Beccles Road, Great Yarmouth, sentenced under Section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Participating in business for a Fraudulent Purpose) and Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering): 3 years imprisonment on each to run concurrently. To serve half sentence in custody with the remainder served on license Amanda Collins – age 37 of Beccles Road, Great Yarmouth, sentenced under Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering): 18 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years, requirement to conduct 200 hours of unpaid work Robert Kurian – age 46 of Mascalls Way, Chelmsford, sentenced under Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering): 8 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years, requirement to conduct 180 hours of unpaid work Confiscation Under Proceeds of Crime Act Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, confiscation orders can be issued against people who benefit from criminal conduct to facilitate the recovery of unlawfully obtained property. For his part in the MIKEY1234-connected operation, Keiran Collins was found to have benefited in the sum of £329,239.51 and was ordered to pay back £15,399.59. Amanda Collins was found to have benefited in the sum of £80,000 and has to pay £59,698.07. Robert Kurian was found to have benefited in the sum of £21,039.06 and is required to pay a nominal amount of £1. Confiscation proceedings against Michael Simmons, who received the harshest sentence, have been instituted but no monetary value has been made public. Kieron Sharp, Chief Executive of FACT, welcomes the convictions and thanks those involved in the operation for their work. “I would like to thank Hampshire County Council Trading Standards for taking on this case following an initial investigation by FACT, assisted by National Trading Standards,” Sharp says. “The individuals sentenced were involved in running a criminal enterprise that generated substantial profits with no regard for the rights of content owners. FACT continues to pursue those operating illegal streaming services who risk criminal convictions and forfeiture of assets.”

The operator of YouTube rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com has announced that he will appeal the piracy verdict, where the RIAA won $83 million in damages. According to his attorneys, the legal process has gone off the rails, as the music companies didn't have to prove a single instance of copyright infringement. youtube sad errorLast October, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov. A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of the RIAA, which represented several prominent music companies. Following this win, the RIAA demanded $83 million in damages for the widespread copyright infringement that allegedly took place through the sites. This request was met with heavy opposition from Mr. Kurbanov but a few weeks ago it was granted nonetheless. The RIAA, which described the legal battle as a landmark case, was happy with the outcome. As it stands, it will act as a deterrent against similar stream-rippers and other potentially infringing sites. However, it is not over yet. $83 Million Appeal While Mr. Kurbanov previously walked away from the U.S. court battle, he now intends to keep on fighting. In a new filing submitted a few days ago his legal team informs the court that it will appeal the piracy liability ruling and the damages award at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. kurbanov appeal Speaking with TorrentFreak, defense lawyer Val Gurvits explains that his client will challenge the fact that the sites are held liable for millions of dollars in damages. This is wrong, he believes, as the rightsholders didn’t present any concrete evidence of copyright infringements that took place in the United States. “At this point, Mr. Kurbanov is doing this less for himself and more to shed light on a legal process that has gone off the rails,” Gurvits tells TorrentFreak. This apparent lack of evidence was also brought up in a response to the damages recommendation issued by the magistrate judge last fall. However, District Court Judge Claude Hilton later concluded that these recommendations are in line with the law. Dangerous Precedent? Mr. Kurbanov’s legal team sees this conclusion as a clear error. If it stands, they fear that any website owner can be held liable for millions of dollars in damages, without the need for concrete evidence. This would be a great precedent for the RIAA and its members, but not so much for the public at large. “If the record companies can really get multi-million dollar judgments without having to prove a single instance of infringement within the United States, then no one who operates a website is safe,” Gurvits says. “And it is the American consumer that will suffer the most as websites simply decide that it’s just easier to block visitors from the US. That doesn’t benefit anyone… other than the record companies, of course.” The opening brief has yet to be filed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and we plan to report on that in due course. The same is true for RIAA’s response to it.

Thanks for awarding points and raps I am glad to be part of Invitehawk.

I cannot attach the Instagram file due to the size issue, please check through the link I provided. thanks

I have promoted Invitehawk.com on my Twitter, Facebook and Instagram one screenshot I will share in other reply because of the file size Here are the links with screenshot https://www.facebook.com/samee.shah.75/posts/10221574834588453 https://twitter.com/Sameeshah9/status/1506578865451417603 https://www.instagram.com/p/CbcYmTugTW2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Hello, I know, i’m not the first one, but i can’t get a bltouch to work properly and since i ruled out every other possibility i ask here for help. So, randomly, like every fouth to every 40th attempt a probing fails and ends in a headcrash. Setup: Anet Et4 (i know) original BLTouch V3.1 Raspberry Pi3B V1.2 Mainsail OS So, since adding a BLTouch to the Printerboard is a little difficult i added the Raspberry as MCU and drive it from there. Controlpin works fine. As Sensorpin i use GPIO0 or GPIO1 since they have an inbuild pullup. After initial setup i receive several crashes. So i build a connectorcable from a CAT6 cable → same result switched to the probe-pin from my Anet Board → same result ordered a new BLTouch → same result So in general it’s working, but expecting a crash before every print makes it unusable. In the Log you will find a working manual check, a working home command and during probe_accuracy the thrid attempt failed. How could i debug this futher? Thanks for your help!

New Delhi: The national capital continued to sizzle under blistering heat with the maximum temperature on Saturday settling at 44.9 degree Celsius, a day after the city experienced the hottest day of this summer. Advertisement The maximum temperature was five notches above normal and slightly below from Friday's 45 degree Celsius. The minimum temperature breached the 30 degree mark on Saturday as it settled at 30.8 degree Celsius, three points above normal. Both these readings were of the Safdarjung observatory, considered to be the official reading for the city. In Palam, the day temperature settled at 47 degree Celsius on Saturday, a day after it registered a scorching 47.2 degree Celsius, the hottest in the last 19 years. Advertisement The maximum temperature at Aaya Nagar in South East Delhi was recorded at 46.5 degree while it was 46 degree in the ridge areas. Hot and dry winds and the blazing sun ensured that Delhiites have to sweat it out if they dared to step out. Humidity levels were recorded between 51 and 21 during the day. There seems to be no respite for Delhiites from the scorching heat in the next couple of days as the weatherman has predicted that the day temperature may continue to hover around 45 degree Celsius and the minimum around 30 degree Celsius till June 10. Weatherman has forecast a mainly clear sky tomorrow with maximum temperature expected to remain around 45 degrees Celsius while the minimum is expected to be around 30 degree Celsius.

Lucknow: Banda recorded a high of 43.6 degrees Celsius and was the hottest place in Uttar Pradesh where several districts registered above normal temperatures. Advertisement Met office here said the day temperatures rose at many places and were markedly above normal in districts like Varanasi, Faizabad, Jhansi and Agra. Banda with 43.6 degree Celsius was the hottest place in the state, they said. They forecast that weather was likely to remain dry and heat wave conditions at few places.

Melting of Himalayan glaciers has doubled since the start of the 21st century due to rising temperatures, losing over a vertical foot and half of ice each year and potentially threatening water supply for hundreds of millions of people in countries including India, a study has found. The analysis, spanning 40 years of satellite observations across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, is the latest and perhaps most convincing indication that climate change is eating the Himalayas' glaciers, researchers said. It indicates that glaciers have been losing the equivalent of more than a vertical foot and half of ice each year since 2000 double the amount of melting that took place from 1975 to 2000. "This is the clearest picture yet of how fast Himalayan glaciers are melting over this time interval, and why," said Joshua Maurer, a PhD candidate at Columbia University in the US. While not specifically calculated in the study, the glaciers may have lost as much as a quarter of their enormous mass over the last four decades, said Maurer, lead author of the study published in the journal Science Advances. Advertisement Currently harbouring some 600 billion tonnes of ice, the Himalayas are sometimes called the earth's "Third Pole." The study synthesises data from across the region, stretching from early satellite observations to the present. The synthesis indicates that the melting is consistent in time and space, and that rising temperatures are to blame. Temperatures vary from place to place, but from 2000 to 2016 they have averaged one degree Celsius higher than those from 1975 to 2000. Researchers analysed repeat satellite images of some 650 glaciers spanning 2,000 kilometers from west to east. Many of the 20th-century observations came from recently declassified photographic images taken by US spy satellites. They created an automated system to turn these into 3D models that could show the changing elevations of glaciers over time. They then compared these images with post-2000 optical data from more sophisticated satellites, which more directly convey elevation changes. They found that from 1975 to 2000, glaciers across the region lost an average of about 0.25 metres of ice each year in the face of slight warming. Following a more pronounced warming trend starting in the 1990s, starting in 2000 the loss accelerated to about half a metre annually. Recent yearly losses have averaged about 8 billion tonnes of water, or the equivalent 3.2 million Olympic-size swimming pools, said Maurer. Asian nations are burning ever-greater loads of fossil fuels and biomass, sending soot into the sky, researchers said. Much of it eventually lands on snowy glacier surfaces, where it absorbs solar energy and hastens melting. Researchers compiled temperature data during the study period from ground stations and then calculated the amount of melting that observed temperature increases would be expected to produce. They then compared those figures with what actually happened. They matched. "It looks just like what we would expect if warming were the dominant driver of ice loss," Maurer said. The Himalayas are generally not melting as fast as the Alps, but the general progression is similar, say the researchers. The study does not include the huge adjoining ranges of high-mountain Asia such as the Pamir, Hindu Kush or Tian Shan, but other studies suggest similar melting is underway there as well. Some 800 million people depend in part on seasonal runoff from Himalayan glaciers for irrigation, hydropower and drinking water. The accelerated melting appears so far to be swelling runoff during warm seasons, but scientists project that this will taper off within decades as the glaciers lose mass. This will eventually lead to water shortages. Even on Mount Everest, long-lost corpses of climbers who failed to return are emerging from melting ice and snow along trails. The study shows that "even glaciers in the highest mountains of the world are responding to global air temperature increases driven by the combustion of fossil fuels," said Joseph Shea, a glacial geographer at the University of Northern British Columbia in Canadia who was not involved in the study. "In the long term, this will lead to changes in the timing and magnitude of streamflow in a heavily populated region," said Shea.

As the virus that causes Covid-19 spreads worldwide, this dashboard offers a snapshot of the crisis right now. Click on a country name to get a more detailed geographic breakdown at the state, province, or county level. Please note that because of limited testing capacity in some areas, the actual number of cases is believed to be higher. You can look at the rolling average of new cases over a selected range of time — one day, three days, five days, one week, two weeks, or one month — to get a far more robust sense for the trends in any given location. You can also view the rate of infection and of deaths per 100,000 people. The datasets are drawn from over 15 sources and can be reviewed here. In some cases, data on hospitalizations were not available. ADVERTISEMENT This dashboard was produced through a partnership between STAT and Applied XL, a Newlab Venture Studio company. This tool will be updated with new datasets in the future, based on additional reporting and reader input. You can participate by sharing your ideas. What kind of data should we explore next? Let us know.

In 2018, a court in the Netherlands ruled that companies selling access to a pirate IPTV playlist acted illegally, even though they weren't the suppliers of the infringing streams. The decision was a win for Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, which later demanded a cash settlement from the companies' directors. They ultimately refused to pay so BREIN filed a full lawsuit and has now come out on top. IPTVAn interesting feature of the file-sharing and streaming landscapes of the past couple of decades is their interaction with existing copyright law. Over the years many sites, services and platforms providing or facilitating access to infringing content have taken sanctuary in perceived loopholes but most found that few – if any – exist. In Europe, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has been the engine behind several important cases featuring defendants who believed they had found a legal foothold in an otherwise illegal market. In one of these lawsuits, BREIN took on Leaper Beheer BV, a Netherlands-based company and related business entities, that sold pirate IPTV subscriptions in .M3U playlist form. These types of playlists carry no infringing content but they can direct users to where infringing content can be found. In this case, around 4,000 live TV channels and 1,000 movies via an unlicensed IPTV service. In its defense, Leaper argued that it supplied no infringing content itself and that the playlists did not make anything available that wasn’t already available on the internet. BREIN insisted that the distribution of the playlist amounted to a ‘communication to the public’ under EU copyright law. In 2018 the court sided with BREIN, noting that when Leaper Beheer BV, Growler BV, DITisTV and their respective directors distributed the playlist, they made the linked content available to a ‘new audience’ beyond that envisioned by the copyright holders. Court Orders Infringement to Stop After copyright infringement was determined, the court ordered the defendants to stop facilitating access to the unlicensed streams or face penalties of 5,000 euros per playlist/IPTV subscription sold, to a maximum of one million euros. Having been found potentially liable, the three companies and their directors signed agreements with BREIN to cease and desist, in order to avoid a full lawsuit that would incur additional costs and a damages award. BREIN says the defendants were also required to pay a settlement fee. When no such payment was forthcoming, BREIN made good on its threat. In partnership with media companies including Talpa and RTL, BREIN seized evidence and initiated legal proceedings. Predictably, the plaintiffs came out on top. Court Rules in Favor of BREIN – Again BREIN now reveals that on March 16, 2022, the Court of Maastricht ruled that four companies (Leaper, Growler, DITisTV and Ultimo) and their two directors are liable for the damage caused by their sale of IPTV subscriptions, links to illegal IPTV, and associated set-top boxes. BREIN says that it tried to get the traders to stop selling the 10 euros per month subscriptions as far back as 2014 and had to take the matter to court in 2018 to show infringement was taking place. When the offer to pay a settlement in lieu of a full lawsuit was refused, a case was presented on the merits. Evidence was presented to show that the two directors and their companies willfully set out to infringe copyright, something that is considered an aggravating factor when calculating a damages award. The following email between the directors certainly didn’t help in that respect. Perhaps the market will be really destroyed by the entire competition and BREIN within a year. With 100 shops we can fuck the market all the way to its mother! If we have a lot of money in a year’s time, we can then step into a new business. Court Finds Directors Personally Liable A corporate structure can sometimes offer a level of protection for directors when things don’t go to plan but that isn’t the case here. The Dutch court found the companies (and their directors personally), jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the copyright holders. The exact amount is yet to be determined but the financial costs are already mounting. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated at €20,764 ($22,986), plus legal costs of €2,252 ($2,493). At this point the defendants are worse off financially than they were when a settlement was first offered. However, BREIN suggests that it is still open to the matter being settled out of court. If not, then a separate proceeding to determine damages will go ahead. That’s unlikely to be a small amount. In the meantime, BREIN seems pleased with the results so far. “These guys tried to sing it out as long as possible to rake in as much money as possible. That’s going to cost them now,” says BREIN director Tim Kuik. “Because they are also personally liable, they can no longer hide behind their companies.”

U.S. Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy have introduced the SMART Copyright Act of 2022. The bill requires online hosting services to implement standard technical protection measures, designated by the Copyright Office. Rightsholders see the proposal as a great step forward to protect creators, while opponents classify it as a filtering tool that will censor free speech. copyright glass lookingFor years, U.S. lawmakers have considered options to update the DMCA so it can more effectively deal with today’s online copyright issues. Senator Thom Tillis was one of the most recent to take up the baton. A little over a year ago, he released a discussion draft of the “Digital Copyright Act of 2021” (DCA) a potential successor to the current DMCA. Among other things, the Republican senator believes that online platforms can and should do more to tackle online piracy, a view shared by Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy. Last summer, the pair wrote a letter to the Copyright Office, asking it to look into the feasibility of technical protection measures and automated takedown tools. The Copyright Office launched a consultation in 2021 which triggered massive opposition against upload filters. In the meantime, Tillis and Leahy did not stand idly by. The senators drafted a bill to amend the DMCA to make it easier for the government to prescribe specific takedown tools for online hosting platforms. SMART Copyright Act of 2022 With a bipartisan bill, the senators want to break the impasse between online services and rightsholders and move things forward. Last week they introduced the SMART Copyright Act of 2022, which could result in some significant changes to the DMCA. The general idea is to grant the Copyright Office the power to designate standard technical protection measures to be implemented by online hosting platforms. These STMs can be tailored to specific niches such as audio and video, which offers much more flexibility than the current regime under the DMCA. “In the fight to combat copyright piracy, there is currently no consensus-based standard technical measures and that needs to be addressed,” Senator Tillis comments. “I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation that will provide widely available piracy-fighting measures and create a trusted and workable internet for our creative communities.” Senator Leahy shares this view and stresses that the changes will help to protect artists and creators while enabling them to get paid. “The technology exists to protect against this theft; we just need online platforms to use the technology. I’m working hard to make sure our artists get paid, and we can enjoy legal access to their wonderful creations,” Senator Leahy notes. Support and Opposition A government-imposed upload filter is something many rightsholders can rally behind, And indeed, groups such as the Motion Picture Association and Creative Future have already responded positively. However, there are also more reserved responses. Public Knowledge, for example, believes that the bill opens the door to online censorship on a massive scale. “This bill is the latest example of legislation that threatens the vibrant, open, and innovative internet in the name of intellectual property protection,” PK’s Policy Counsel Nicholas Garcia says. “This bill will force digital platforms and websites to implement technical measures that monitor all content that users upload, automatically scrutinizing everything we write, create, and upload online for the sake of copyright protection,” he adds. Re:Create Executive Director Joshua Lamel also believes that the bill is a step in the wrong direction. Describing it as very dangerous, he warns that it will stifle creativity, instead of promoting it. “Technical mandates handed down by government lawyers without technical expertise or oversight will result in content filtering – stifling creativity, innovation, and the flow of information,” Lamel says. “Facts and Myths” These comments shouldn’t come as a surprise to Senators Tillis and Leahy. When they announced the bill, they also released a “facts and myths” sheet that aims to address some of this criticism. Among other things, the senators stress that all government-imposed protection tools and takedown measures will go through a consultation process, where all stakeholders and the public are allowed to have their say. Technical experts, such as a yet-to-be appointed Chief Technology Advisor, will weigh in as well. In short, the bill will give the government more tools to facilitate and encourage the implementation of anti-piracy mechanisms, while allowing online services to keep their safe harbors. The full text of the bill provides more details on how the approval process of a proposed protection measure works. In addition to hearing stakeholders, experts, and the public, the designated protection measures have to be weighed on factors such as cost and availability. They shouldn’t create any major burdens for online services. Some Factors Taken into Account smart factors Similarly, the rights of the public are taken into account as well. This includes the impact a technical measure may have on privacy and data protection, as well as on free speech issues such as criticism and news. “The Copyright Office’s particular expertise in the area of copyright and its exceptions — like fair use — can assist with ensuring the right balance is struck between curbing infringement that undermines authors’ constitutional rights and promoting online availability of materials,” the facts and myths sheet reads. Appeals and Damages Finally, it is worth noting that online services will be able to appeal officially designated protection measures in court. In addition, they can also choose not to implement them. However, that opens the door to lawsuits from copyright holders. The statutory damages amounts for services that fail to implement the designated technical protection measures are capped at $150,000 for a single violation, but that number can shoot up for repeat offenders. With the bill, Senators Tillis and Leahy want to break the stalemate between copyright holders and online platforms. While many of the latter have already implemented their own takedown tools and systems, the SMART Copyright Act of 2022 envisions a broader rollout, where the authorities can pull more strings. Whether the bill will ever be adopted is unclear at this point, but we can be certain that it will generate plenty of discussion in the months ahead.

When we started this site more than sixteen years ago, we never expected it to last this long. The fact that TorrentFreak is still around today is in large part thanks to our loyal readers. The commenters have played their part as well but, eventually, most things come to an end. thanks for the fishToday, we will stop offering the option to comment on articles. This is a tough decision that has been discussed internally for some time. We are thankful for all the insightful and helpful responses that many readers have provided over the years, they often gave us inspiration and encouragement to press ahead. Sadly, however, increasing ‘noise’ in more recent times ran counter to community spirit and productive discussion, not to mention our core mission and beliefs. Our goal is to report news, navigating through various perspectives on copyright battles, deflecting the bias on both sides. While we strongly feel that everybody has the right to voice their opinion, we are not immune to the disproportionate effects of a minority on otherwise productive discourse. Almost everywhere on the internet, this isn’t a new phenomenon. However, we work as a tiny team and have reached a point where dealing with unnecessary diversions has become too much of a distraction. And with a plethora of other public fora available today, pulling the plug is regrettably the best option. The comment threads on older articles will remain visible on the Disqus platform for now, but that might also change in the future. We understand that this will come as a disappointment to the many people who have made considered contributions but we can assure everyone that the decision wasn’t taken lightly. For those who feel the need to vent, our email inboxes are still open, and there are no plans to shut these down anytime soon.

One of the best-known pirate streaming sites says it will go to extreme lengths to prevent its latest new domain from being seized. In a response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of major Hollywood studios and Netflix, PrimeWire claims it will ban all links to movies and TV shows hosted on cyberlocker-type sites, preemptively filter uploads, and promote legal content. primewire logoIn December 2021, Paramount, Universal, Warner, Columbia, Disney and Netflix sued PrimeWire, one of the most recognizable pirate streaming sites around today. The lawsuit claims that PrimeWire encouraged users to upload links to pirated movies and TV shows hosted on third-party sites, then facilitated access to these via its own curated portal. The plaintiffs quickly obtained a preliminary injunction that required PrimeWire to stop infringing their copyrights. At least in the short term, PrimeWire failed to acknowledge the injunction but when one of its domains was seized, the site began preparing for others to fall too. However, to comply with the terms of the preliminary and forthcoming permanent injunction, PrimeWire was required to do much more. Drastic Action By PrimeWire – And Then Some Around March 8, 2022, after PrimeWire had announced a new domain (primewire.tf), its operators took a step that would’ve been unthinkable before the lawsuit was filed. In what appears to be an effort to isolate the .tf domain from seizure, PrimeWire removed all links to pirated movies and TV shows hosted on cyberlocker sites, effectively decimating the site’s usefulness to its core audience. In response, the studios told the court that this was a ploy to prevent the new domain from being seized. PrimeWire, which has circumvented blocking orders in the past with new domains, would probably reverse its decision later on and get back into the piracy game, the plaintiffs said. Whether that will happen is unclear for now but PrimeWire is doubling down on its claim that it won’t be a useful piracy source in the future. Indeed, the streaming portal now says it will implement drastic changes to stay on the right side of the law. Ban on Cyberlocker Links PrimeWire doesn’t host movies or TV shows itself but does allow users to upload links to them. Essentially, users submit the URLs of videos hosted on cyberlocker-type sites and these are later embedded in PrimeWire, providing the site’s visitors with a central source of curated content. PrimeWire now claims that moving forward, links to these sites (the primary sources of unlicensed streaming content online today) will be completely banned from the platform. “All links to external video services other than youtube.com, archive.org, dailymotion.com and vimeo.com will be permanently removed. Only new links from these services can be submitted,” PrimeWire’s announcement reads. While there is pirated content available on sites like YouTube, the chances of building a competitor to Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, and Hulu (as PrimeWire was) is vanishingly small. Unlike third-party cyberlockers, movies and TV shows are quickly deleted from official sites along with their uploaders, meaning that offering end-users anything but a frustrating experience seems impossible. That being said, PrimeWire says it will go further still. Preemptive Upload Filtering, Honoring DMCA Notices While it sounds like PrimeWire will continue to allow users to submit links to video content hosted on the limited platforms listed above, these will be moderated to prevent copyright-infringing material ending up on the site. PrimeWire says it will also implement an upload filter to preemptively target certain material. “To protect against the submission of links from these services that may contain copyrighted content, we will delete links and disable submission of new links preemptively for certain titles, as well as at the request of copyright holders,” the site says. The content to be preemptively filtered isn’t named but logic suggests that removing any content produced by the plaintiffs would be enough to ensure compliance with any injunction the court might hand down. Allowing content produced by other companies wouldn’t breach the injunction but it’s beyond clear that removing all movies and TV shows owned by the plaintiffs would push PrimeWire into a no-man’s land in piracy terms. Promoting Legal Content From Legal Sources PrimeWire insists that it is not shutting down. All user accounts will remain, as will the ability for users to comment and chat. TV episode tracking will also continue, along with search and personal TV schedules. However, in an apparent effort to demonstrate change, PrimeWire has introduced features that allow its users to find legal content on licensed platforms. The listing for The Walking Dead, for example, now includes links to Netflix, AppleTV, Amazon and Google Play, among others. primewire-licensed Whether the plaintiffs will accept these changes as a genuine effort to stop infringement remains a question but after spending years chasing PrimeWire around the world with blocking orders, trust is probably in short supply right now. Add that to the fact that PrimeWire hasn’t appeared in court to defend the lawsuit and all the pieces are in place to give the studios a relatively easy win, including the seizure of new domains, if they eventually prove to be infringing.

IDM

Zinedine Zidane

Indore

Bastian Schweinsteiger

Gimp

Virgin Mojito

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Muhammad Rizwan