Open registration hdatmos.club is open for registration, you can introduce it to friends around you who play PT~

x2 Upload Credit Offer This month's x2 Upload Credit Offer is now active. Any donation we receive towards our server costs over the next 7 days, and we will credit your account with double the amount of upload credit/free leech than usual.

3X Donation credits (4x Crypto) the whole of September! Heya all, As you all know we don't run the 3x promotion often so now is the time to help put the site and get lots of extras! (As this is at the same time as the 2x Crypto all Crypto donations will receive 4x donation credits) From 01 September 2020, for every donation made you will receive 3x the amount of credits you usually would (4x Crypto)! You can check the amount of credits you would usually receive on the donation page, multiply the credits by 3 (or 4 for Crypto). We know its an extra step in order to get the info but with the pressure sites are in, we have found this method keeps both our members and our staff all safe and secure Its super easy to donate and you only need the info the first time you contact T****: Click anywhere to send T**** a message and we will send you the info within 24 hours. usually MUCH faster If you wish to donate Crypto all the currency addresses we currently accept are listed on the Crypto donation page. Please note that you will receive 3x/4x the donation CREDITS, NOT 3x the donation amount.

Free Leech Days Dear members! Since school will start tomorrow, the portal Candy-on.si decided to set ALL TORRENTS to FreeLeech this week from 01.09.2020 to 06.09.2020

@Nergal I would like to apply...

Every week we take a close look at the most pirated movies on torrent sites. What are pirates downloading? 'Ava' tops the chart, followed by ‘Bill & Ted Face the Music'. 'Project Power' completes the top three. ava movieThe data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. These torrent download statistics are meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources. This week we have three new entries in the list. The action thriller movie “Ava” is the most downloaded title this week. The film was released at the box office in a number of countries and will premiere in the US through Amazon Prime on September 25. The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 31 are: Ranking (Last Week) Movie IMDb Rating / Trailer 1 (2) Avengers: Age of Ultron (Web-DL) 7.8 / trailer 2 (1) Mad Max: Fury Road 8.4 / trailer 3 (…) San Andreas (Web-DL) 6.4 / trailer 4 (…) Self/less 6.5 / trailer 5 (2) Aloha 5.3 / trailer 6 (…) Magic Mike XXL (HDRip) 6.2 / trailer 7 (…) Southpaw (HDrip) 7.8 / trailer 8 (…) Minions (HDRip) 6.7 / trailer 9 (5) Terminator Genisys (Subbed HDTV rip) 7.0 / trailer 10 (7) Pitch Perfect 2 6.8 / trailer Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

Tenet — Christopher Nolan's epic time-bending espionage movie — has seemingly leaked onto torrent sites and other networks that enable piracy, in multiple differing versions of quality. While some copies are arguably genuine, given the attached screenshots and user comments attesting to their legitimacy, many are fraudulent and merely exist as a trap to load viruses, malware, and whatnot onto the computers of unsuspecting individuals. But even in those genuine cases, the illegal Tenet copies are of remarkably poor quality, feature hard-coded subtitles, and/or are filled with advertisements. Gadgets 360 does not condone illegal file-sharing. The first legitimate leaked version of Tenet showed up on torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay, Torrentz2, and 1337x over the weekend, with the labels “KOR” and “CAM”, suggesting they were filmed with a video camera in Korean cinemas. According to public comments, nearly all of them are filled with ads for a variety of online gambling and betting companies. Since then, several modified and newer versions of — labelled “V2” for version 2.0 or “NO ADS” — have been uploaded to piracy networks, to capture the heavy interest coming from those unable to catch Tenet in theatres. File sizes range from around 1-2.6GB, depending on the version you run into. Thankfully for Warner Bros. and Nolan, who champions the value of the big-screen experience, the quality of all the illegal Tenet rips is terrible. Per publicly available screenshots, Gadgets 360 can tell that they exhibit severe issues with sharpness, detail, contrast, cropping, and/or colour. We won't be posting any screenshots out of not wanting to spoil any part of the film. Gadgets 360 has not been able to verify audio quality, though user comments suggest that it's echo-y, muffled, and hard to hear. The Tenet full movie leaks only reinforce the fact that you should check out the movie when it's officially available in theatres or on home media. Written and directed by Nolan, Tenet stars John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Dimple Kapadia, Michael Caine, Kenneth Branagh, Clémence Poésy, Himesh Patel, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Fiona Dourif, Andrew Howard, Martin Donovan, Sean Avery, Jack Cutmore-Scott, and Denzil Smith. Tenet was made on a reported budget of $200 million (roughly Rs. 1,470 crores), making it Nolan's most expensive movie to date. Nolan produced Tenet with his wife Emma Thomas.

[Have] IH points, nCore, UHDBits , pussytorrent, bitseduce, pornbits, anime-torrents, bitHUMEN, bitGAMER, immortalseed, CrazyHD , PT.BTSCHOOL, New Propaganda, HDZONE invites.......AND.......Legacy HD, funfile, Exoticaz, digitalcore, TB-Asian, fou-du-cinema, film-paleis, DXDHD, Carpathians, x-files, HDAtmos, DragonHD, JoyHD, Libranet, Torrent DB, Torrent Seeds, HDStreet, movie-torrentz, megamix tracker, accounts [Want] superbits, TorrentBD invite/account... you may offer me anything other...

Site is down. The server is not responding.

New contest * whacky-zacky's Beautiful Mommies Upload Contest Beautiful Mommies Upload Contest THIS contest begins on September 1st and ends on September 30th Beautiful Mommies doing the nasty Every Beautiful Mommies upload that you post, you can collect 6,000 bonus credits I've added the ability to add 100gb to a request of your choice + credits, this will NOT be permanent but i can do this for a while Anything goes as long a pregnant woman is in the scene, solo, lesbian, hardcore, bdsm, fetish aso. SO, get ready, as here cums the mommies... Discuss this post here

WE WELCOME TWO NEW MODS AITHER proudly presents... An Aither production .....Screenplay by S**** .....Starring ...hmmm? WE WELCOME TWO NEW MODERATORS. Y**** and s**** They have earned this so pay them the love and respect they deserve. We are happy to have them on our team so give a shoutout in this thread YAY...

Before publishing animation resources, please read the animation release rules carefully: here Except for Chinese animation, all resources must be attached with aniDB link (unless there is no one), otherwise the review will fail!

@Nergal I would like to apply... I am a huge fan of their HDR X encodes... I am an active user with seedbox...

ANY READER WHOSE CONCEPTION of piracy was first shaped by, say, Treasure Island might retain a hazy notion of pirates as dangerous but ultimately charming rogues — conveniently forgetting how sadistic, treacherous, and scarily rum-addled the pirates were in Stevenson’s tale. And while pirates of the conventional “Arr, matey” variety still exert a peculiar hold on the popular imagination, most of us know little, or little that’s true, about the figures who defined the Golden Age of piracy (c. 1650–1720): the routine of their lives, the scope of their crimes, how terrestrial society viewed them in their day. Steven Johnson’s latest book, Enemy of All Mankind, goes a long way toward correcting the record — or refocusing the lens — on piracy in the age of Blackbeard, Captain Kidd, and other world-class reprobates. But as Johnson is an author who has been almost perversely eclectic in his subject matter across 11 previous titles, it’s no surprise that piracy is not the end-all and be-all of Enemy. In fact, as personified by the “enemy” of the title — a notorious, mystifying Briton named Henry Every — piracy is just one thread among many (fame versus infamy, the birth of print culture, the emergence of multinational capitalism) that bind together the compact, propulsive narrative. I spoke with Johnson — author of Everything Bad Is Good for You, The Ghost Map, How We Got to Now — about the difficulties and rewards of bringing an enigmatic historical figure like Every to life on the written page; how David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas inspired the way Enemy is constructed; and why, if a writer wants to explain how change happens in the world, recounting individual lives won’t cut it. BENEDICT COSGROVE: Let’s talk first about Henry Every. I had never heard of him, but Enemy of All Mankind kicks off with an event that, in your telling, helped shape the modern world — the moment Every and other pirates attacked an Indian treasure ship, the Gunsway, in 1695, and the political and economic shocks that flowed from that encounter. How did you learn of Every? Did you come across the Gunsway incident in your research on other projects? STEVEN JOHNSON: Actually, what you’re describing is closer to what happened with Ghost Map, where I’d known for years about the story of Dr. John Snow and his mapping of the London cholera outbreak in 1854, and finally realized, I could write a book about Snow, a kind of a page-turner. I’ve written three books — Ghost Map, Invention of Air, and now Enemy of All Mankind — that pursue a single story with tentacles going off in different directions. I like that format. It’s the most fun to write, and from the start I saw Enemy in that vein. I knew nothing about Every. But years ago, I was reading David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, with its crazy, time-jumping structure, and started wondering if I could do a nonfiction book structured in a comparably ambitious way — a book that focused on a brief, pivotal moment in history and moved back and forth from there. By brief, I mean maybe five or 10 minutes. I would start with that moment and go back, potentially thousands of years, discussing what led to the event. The second half of the book would examine the consequences. But I didn’t know what the event would be. You know, that’s a hard Google query. [Laughs.] That idea was in the back of my mind for three or four years, until I hit on the notion of a crime as the motivating event — some terrible thing has happened, people are chasing an outlaw, there’s a trial. I figured I could be more experimental with that. Because readers recognize, and trust, the underlying structure of the crime story? Yes, and that helped me narrow the search. I started researching famous crimes and came across the attack on the Gunsway, which some people view as one of the most lucrative heists in history. I dove into that story and realized it was perfect for what I wanted to do. You mentioned that, unlike most of your books, Enemy focuses on a single story. It has a through-line. But it also examines themes that obviously hold a certain fascination for you, like the mechanisms we use to share or hoard information, or power. Do you consciously work these topics into your books? Or are they just there, looming, and organically insert themselves into the narrative? I’ve written before on what I call the long zoom approach to storytelling. If you’re trying to explain how change happens in the world, or how an event shapes history, you can’t just describe it at the level of individual lives. You have to have a split-perspective, where you’re following one person’s trajectory, but also looking at things higher up in the chain: forms of social organization, for example, or of media. In the case of The Ghost Map, I had to move about on a much smaller scale, too, thinking about viruses and bacteria and how they’ve shaped the world. So anytime I tell a story, it’s going to jump around from scale to scale, the way Enemy does. I think a lot of people like that about my books, but I also know that some readers are like, “Could you just tell me more about the pirates, and not go off on this digression about the history of cannons?” You make an evocative assertion in the book that the final shape of any institution is not designed in advance by an engineer or architect, but is “carved away by challenges to its outer boundaries” — the way a shoreline is shaped by waves. The real work gets done at the edges. Is that a theme or dynamic that was singular to this book? I think singular is a good way to think about it — the idea that you often don’t realize exactly what you’re doing until you’re in the middle of it. For example, when I was in college I was very much into structuralism, post-structuralism, all that stuff. Michel Foucault was a hero of mine, and books like Discipline and Punish were hugely formative forces in my intellectual life. I grew less interested in structuralism over time and turned instead to things like science. But I guess Foucault never really left me, because as I was writing the trial scene near the end of Enemy, and was describing how London’s Old Bailey is designed to spatially display the power of the court, I was like, “Oh! This is a Foucault passage.” So much of Foucault is about how institutions build up power through things like surveillance and spectacular violence, and I realized, “This whole book is about how power expresses itself and how it’s challenged. I’m finally writing the Foucault book that I thought I was going to write when I was in school.” I want to return to Henry Every for a moment. It’s not a spoiler to point out that he’s a protagonist about whom we know remarkably little. You mention in the book that at different times in his life Every was a mutineer, a sort of Age of Discovery working-class hero, the world’s most wanted man — and eventually, he became a ghost. But he’s something of a ghost throughout, isn’t he? For such a charismatic guy, he’s barely there. It’s funny, I haven’t thought about this as a metaphor until now, but it’s a little bit like a black hole in the sense that while you can’t see it or observe it directly, you can see its effects. You define it, in part, by the effects it has on surrounding stars. The effects of the Gunsway attack, those gravitational waves, were enormous. You connect them to things like the rise of the East India Company, which was obviously foundational to the British Empire itself, and the birth of the concept of the international outlaw. Right. Every’s attack on the Gunsway sets energies in motion that we’re still grappling with today. But we barely know the man. I think about the one surviving letter we have that we’re sure he wrote. To have spent so much time thinking about this guy who lived more than 300 years ago, and to have just one hint of his voice — for an author, to only have this tiny bit of direct access to the protagonist is very weird. One last thing, and this has to do with “the long zoom” mentioned earlier. In this book, and in a lot of your other books, the implication is that ancient history is not ancient, right? Faulkner’s line about the past — It’s not even past. It’s not even past. Is this one of your aims, to remind people, if they’ve somehow forgotten it, that the past is not dead? That was definitely an animating force in Ghost Map — to show how listening to science enabled cities to solve a critical health problem that was restricting their ability to grow. In fact, the conclusion to Ghost Map includes a long riff about a future viral pandemic in New York, driving people out of the city, a thousand people dying every week, and so on. So that book ended with a sort of, “Hey, kids, there’s a moral to this story that applies to you.” What was liberating about Enemy is that I didn’t feel an obligation to do that. Instead, it’s relevant to our own time because we see the modern world coming online in these events happening 300 years ago. In the end, it’s just an incredible story about an incredible period in history. And, reader, if you’re not down for that, perhaps turn to another book.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court recently held that States cannot be held liable for monetary damages in copyright infringement lawsuits despite the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA). This act provides that a State “shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment [or] any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court” for copyright infringement. See Allen v. Cooper, 140 S. Ct. 994 (2020). The case involves videos of Queen Anne’s Revenge, a ship captured and sailed by Blackbeard, which ran aground off the coast of North Carolina in 1718. In 1996, the shipwreck was discovered, and Frederick Allen was hired as a videographer to document the recovery efforts. For over a decade, Allen captured and documented the ship’s treasures through video footage and photographs. Allen subsequently obtained copyright registrations for all his works. Without Allen’s permission and despite his protestation, North Carolina began publishing some of Allen’s videos and photographs in 2013. While Allen and North Carolina settled some of the claims, additional disputes over continued unpermitted use of Allen’s works arose, and Allen finally decided to file a copyright infringement action against North Carolina seeking monetary damages. North Carolina moved to dismiss the suit on sovereign immunity grounds and Allen countered that the CRCA provides an exception to immunity for copyright infringement. The Eastern District of North Carolina agreed with Allen — Congress had the clear intent “to abrogate sovereign immunity for copyright claims against a state.” The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, reversed finding there was no constitutional basis for the abrogation of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit. The Eleventh Amendment has always been interpreted to preclude suits brought by any person against a nonconsenting state. There are, however, two exceptions: (1) Congress may enact “unequivocal statutory language” abrogating states’ immunity, and (2) constitutional provisions may allow Congress to encroach on the states’ sovereignty. The language in the CRCA, as well as the Patent Remedy Act, was clear about Congress’s intent to abrogate the states’ immunity — the issue considered by the Supreme Court, however, was whether Congress had the authority to do so. Allen argued that Congress had the authority under the Intellectual Property Clause of Article I, or alternatively, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. Under Article I, Congress has the power to grant copyrights and patents. Allen argued that Congress, therefore, has the authority to abrogate sovereign immunity from copyright suits since abrogation is the best way to secure a copyright holder’s exclusive rights. The problem, however, was that the Supreme Court had already rejected this argument in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), where it held Congress could only abrogate sovereign immunity pursuant to its powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article I. Since the CRCA was enacted pursuant to Article I, it could not alter the states’ sovereign immunity. Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress is authorized to strip the states of immunity, subjecting them to suit in federal court. Abrogation statutes are only appropriate under Section 5 when they are tailored to “remedy or prevent” conduct that infringes the substantive prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The means-end test courts use in determining whether Congress’s actions fall under Section 5 authority considers whether there is “a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Because copyrights are a form of property, and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of property without due process of law, an intentional or reckless infringement may come within reach of the Due Process Clause. As with the Article I argument, the Section 5 argument had already been considered by the Supreme Court in Florida Prepaid where the Court found Congress did not identify a pattern of unconstitutional patent infringement, and the infringement that was found was mostly innocent. Because there was little evidence that states were depriving patent owners of property without due process of law, the Patent Remedy Act was too far sweeping—it abrogated sovereign immunity for any and every patent infringement suit without limitations. The Supreme Court found that because the CRCA was the copyright equivalent of the Patent Remedy Act, the result must be the same—the statute is too broad. Although there was more concrete evidence of states infringing copyrights than there was for patents, the evidence was not much more impressive than that presented in Florida Prepaid. In the end, the Supreme Court found that the Intellectual Property Clause could not provide a basis for abrogation of sovereign immunity and such a clause in the CRCA was out of proportion to any due process problem: the statute was aimed at providing a uniform remedy for infringement, not for preventing any unconstitutional conduct. Despite this decision, Congress may still pass a valid abrogation law in the future. The CRCA was enacted prior to several important decisions regarding sovereign immunity, and so if Congress were to enact a different abrogation law, it could tailor a statute to prevent states from infringing on both copyrights and patents, thereby subjecting them to suit for damages in federal court.

What TikTok has been to the music industry, Instagram has been to the photography industry: a blessing and a curse. Two professional photographers who post their photographs on Instagram recently felt the sting of infringement, and each filed a complaint in federal court. Both lawsuits relied on the premise that a third party who embeds a photo posted on Instagram is infringing the copyright of the original creator of the photo. The Terms of Use on Instagram at issue in both cases provided that: When you share post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights . . ., you hereby grant to [Instagram] a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). Furthermore, Instagram’s Privacy Policy in place at the time noted that once a user had “shared User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others.” It also told users that any User Content made public “is searchable by other Users and subject to use under [Instagram’s] API.” Finally, the Platform Policy, which governs API stated that the Platform was provided “to help broadcasters and publishers discover content, get digital rights to media, and share media using web embeds.” In her lawsuit against Mashable, Inc. (“Mashable”), Stephanie Sinclair, a photographer known for exploring human rights issues around the world, sued the media and entertainment platform for infringing use of one of her photographs posted on her public Instagram account. (Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, No. 18 Civ. 790 (KMW) (SDNY April 13, 2020)). Mashable used the process known as “embedding” to incorporate the photo into an article on female photographers. Relying on Instagram’s Terms of Use, Mashable moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it had a sublicense from Instagram to display the photo which it accessed using Instagram’s API (“application programming interface”) to access and share content posted by Sinclair. In April, Judge Wood agreed with Mashable and granted the motion to dismiss. In early June 2020, however, Judge Failla, also in New York’s Southern District, considered the same issue and refused to grant a motion to dismiss after concluding Instagram’s terms were somewhat ambiguous. (McGucken v. Newsweek, LLC, No. 19 Civ. 9617 (KPF) (SDNY June 1, 2020)). In that case, Elliot McGucken, a photographer known for landscapes and seascapes, posted a photograph of an ephemeral lake in Death Valley, California. Newsweek then published an article about the lake that embedded McGucken’s photo. Buoyed by Judge Wood’s holding in April, Newsweek moved to dismiss McGucken’s complaint, but Judge Failla denied the motion. Reading Instagram’s terms of use and the other policies, Judge Failla, like Judge Wood, found that under the terms of use, a user grants Instagram a “license to sublicense” publicly posted content. She also agreed that Instagram’s various terms and policies “clearly foresee the possibility of entities such as [Newsweek] using web embeds to share other user’s content.” But she concluded—and here’s the rub—that “none of [Instagram’s terms] expressly grants a sublicense to those who embed publicly posted content.” (emphasis added). Nor was the court persuaded that, at the early stage in the proceedings, sufficient evidence supported a finding that Instagram extends an implied license to embedders. Although the court acknowledged that it may be possible to read Instagram’s terms and policies to grant a sublicense to embedders, the court necessarily drew all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, since it was considering a motion to dismiss, and thus denied Newsweek’s motion. Three days after Judge Failla entered her order, an Instagram spokesperson publicly stated to Ars Technica, a tech industry news publication, that it did not grant a sublicense to embedders to display embedded images on other websites. After providing the Ars Technica article to Judge Wood and armed with the order in McGucken as persuasive authority, Sinclair successfully requested that Judge Wood reconsider her April order granting Mashable’s motion to dismiss. In her June 24, 2020 order, Judge Wood, having reconsidered the issues, concluded that absent the licensor’s “explicit consent” to use a copyrighted work, the terms of the governing contracts were insufficiently clear to warrant dismissal. Thus Sinclair has the opportunity to continue her lawsuit. Coming Developments in Copyright Law? It seems that most similar cases, including the case against our fictional TikTok embedder-defendant, will ultimately turn on the Terms of Use our fictional user-plaintiff “clicked” her consent to when she created her account. But perhaps those terms won’t entirely control the outcome. Such cases are likely to resurrect the ongoing debate surrounding the “server test.” The “server test” defense has gained acceptance only in the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)) but is touted as the most workable solution to the question of infringement in the world of the internet. Under this theory, only the host, not the embedding website, can be liable for any infringement. Understanding the theory requires understanding linking and embedding. Embedding allows a website coder to incorporate content located on a third-party server into the coder’s website. When visiting the website, a visitor’s internet browser retrieves content from a third-party server and displays it so it appears to be on the website initially viewed by the visitor. In linking the content, rather than embedding it, a website coder simply provides a link visible to the visitor which, when clicked, takes the visitor to the third party site. In either case, the content is hosted on a third-party server and not on the website initially viewed by the visitor. Eleven years after Perfect 10, a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York rejected the “server test” in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC (302 F.Supp. 3d 585 (SDNY 2018)), relying on reasoning in American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (573 U.S. 431 (2014)) that copyright liability could not be avoided through technical workarounds. Because the Goldman case settled, the Second Circuit never had the opportunity to weigh in on the matter. Perhaps Ms. Sinclair or Mr. McGucken will give them that chance. In any event, given the ever-burgeoning social media world, the mercurial alliance between the creative community and social media platforms promises to offer a never-ending saga punctuated with legal skirmishes.

While the sirens sounding security concerns about TikTok reach fever pitch, the purveyor of 15-second viral videos desperately seeks to silence a distress signal from another detractor: the music industry. Meanwhile photographers publicizing their work on Instagram battle unlicensed embedding of their images by websites like Mashable and Newsweek. What’s happening? For those whose livelihood depends on copyrighted works, social media sites like TikTok and Instagram present a quandary. These platforms can launch an artist’s work onto the world stage. But they can also facilitate and accelerate the copyright infringement of that same work. Thus a love/hate relationship has arisen between artists and social media platforms. And as with many love/hate relationships, the simmering attendant legal issues promise to be hotly contested and perhaps lead to some developments in copyright law. TikTok and the Music Industry TikTok, the multi-billion dollar platform first founded in China in 2012 and launched worldwide in 2018, allows users to create and upload 15 second videoclips ranging from lip syncs to dance routines. Songs used in TikTok videos have taken over the charts. The problem? The majority of TikTok clips include music—much of it unlicensed music. Consequently, the music industry around the world has been trying to negotiate agreements with TikTok and its parent company, Beijing-based Bytedance. Last October, the National Music Publishers Association (“NMPA”) joined those calling for an investigation of TikTok over security concerns and asked that copyright theft be included in the scope of the examination. In April 2020, NMPA’s chief executive, David Israelite, reportedly told the Financial Times a lawsuit was likely, estimating that 50 percent of the music publishing market was unlicensed with TikTok. But in July, NMPA signed an agreement with TikTok. The NMPA agreement gives members the ability to opt-in to a licensing framework and is retroactive as of May 1, 2020. That offers TikTok some relief from the looming legal storm, but the platform remains in contested negotiations with ICE, a joint venture representing music rights in the US, Germany and Sweden. Meanwhile, TikTok users grant TikTok a very generous license. Although the user retains ownership of the copyright in the user’s created work, a user in the US grants TikTok: an unconditional irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully transferable, perpetual worldwide licence to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, make derivative works of, publish and/or transmit, and/or distribute and to authorise other users of the Services and other third-parties to view, access, use, download, modify, adapt, reproduce, make derivative works of, publish and/or transmit your User Content in any format and on any platform, either now known or hereinafter invented. But does a user similarly grant a license to a third party who embeds a TikTok video? TikTok addresses that in its Terms of Service with “Through-to-the-Audience Rights.” All of the rights you grant in your User Content in these Terms are provided on a through-to-the-audience basis, meaning the owners or operators of third party services will not have any separate liability to you or any other third party for User Content posted or used on such third party service via the Services [defined as the Platform and related websites, services, applications, products and content]. So TikTok’s Terms of Service declare that users have no rights against any third party who picks up the video via TikTok’s services. Or so it seems. But the interpretation of terms of use may not be as incontrovertible as at first appears. Recent cases involving Instagram may prove instructive.

Copyright (or author's right) is a legal term used to describe the rights that creators have over their literary and artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculpture and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisements, maps and technical drawings. EVOLUTION OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN INDIA Pre-Independence Copyright law in India The Copyright Law of India was enacted by the British colony and like most of the acts of that time; it was an imitation of the English law. The first copyright act of India was enacted in 1847, during the regime of East India Company. As per the act, the term of copyright was either, for the lifetime of author plus 7 years or 42 years. The government had the power to grant the publishing license after the death of the author if the owner of the copyright refused permission. All suits and infringement related to copyright came under the jurisdiction of the highest local civil court. The act was replaced by the copyright act of 1914. The act of 1914 was the first 'modern' copyright law of India. It was the first law to include all works of art and literature under the ambit of copyright. It was a replica of the English law of 1911. It was done by the British to ease the passage of literature over colonial subcontinent. Post-Independence Copyright law in India The Copyright Act of 1957 came into force on the 21st of January, 1958 replacing the 1911 act. The act besides amending the copyright law also introduced milestone changes such as provisions for setting up copyright office under the control of Registrar of copyright for registration of books and other works of art. It also established a copyright board to deal with the disputes relating to copyright. CONCLUSION The history of copyright law is a long and complicated one. Even after more than 100 years, it is in developing stage. This is because technology is changing faster than ever. With new techniques, the old law seems to be falling behind, especially in the case of non-literal work. It is often difficult to tell what is similar to the extent of copyright infringement as it is a very subjective question. Thus, we need more specific laws to lessen the subjectivity.

EVOLUTION OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN UK The history of copyright protection began to emerge with the invention of the printing machine which made it possible to duplicate literary works by a mechanical process. The printing press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in Germany around 1440. In 1483, Gutenberg's invention reached England, and the then Monarch King Richard III lifted the ban on import of manuscripts and books. As a result, authors started sending their books in England for printing. They enjoyed a royal license and dueto proliferation of books, England soon became the Centre of printing across the length and breadth of Europe. In 1529, King Henry VII constituted a system of privilege, thus making printing business a monopoly of the crown. It was during this time that all the people who were earlier involved in writing manuscripts and making copies came together to form the Stationer's Guild. In 1516, the stationer's guild constituted into a company. The members of the company had exclusive right to reprint works in perpetuity in the name of other members of the company who had sole right to publish the work. The registered members had the right to both print and publish the books. In 1533, King Henry banned the imports of books and stationery under the pretense of growth and development of England's publishers and printers. In 1557, the Stationer's Company received a royal charter and was granted the privilege of regulating the book trade. The company was necessary for three reasons- Protect trade quality Minimize unprofessional practices Limit Competition LICENSING ACT Act of 1661 In 1661, the first licensing act was passed. The right of members of the stationary company to publish was later referred to as copyright. However, the members did not have the status of an owner of the book they published. The right was given to them as part of a commercial deal. Act of 1662 The licensing act of 1662 empowered the company to take action against the infringement of their right. A register of licensed books was maintained, and certain designated members had the right to conduct search and seizure of unlicensed books. This was the first act to check piracy. The Licensing Act could however didn't survive the test of time. As system weakened overtime, the ban on unlicensed printing was removed; as a result, independent printers entered the market. The Licensing Act could not distinguish between mechanical and intellectual piracy. It was eventually repealed in 1681. STATUTE OF ANNE The statute of Anne came into force on 10th April 1710. This act caused a paradigm shift in the copyright world. It acknowledged the rights of authors of published work. This came to be known world's first copyright law. The purpose of the act was twofold: To promote learning To give the author protection against piracy Main rules of the Act Author of a book not yet printed shall have the sole right of printing for 14 years and if after 14 years he is alive then additional 14 years. Infringers would forfeit the infringing books found in their custody and shall pay half amount of the fine to the crown and the other half to the plaintiff. No book shall be bought for infringement unless the title of the book has been entered before publication in the 'Register Book' of Stationer's Company. THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1911 Before the act of 1911, the books and literary works were protectedunder the statute of Anne and other art such as music, painting or photographs were protected under legislation such as the Engraving Copyright Act 1734 and the Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 The 1911 act consolidated all the acts into one and implemented the Berne Convention. Major features of this act are: Extension of term of copyright to life and 50 years. No need for prior registry in 'Register of Stationers' to receive protection under the act. Unpublished work is also entitled to protection Summary remedies in suits of infringement The act to include all form of arts such as literature, painting, music, photography etc.

Music label T-Series has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Roposo, a short-video app owned by advertising technology company InMobi. The lawsuit, filed in the Delhi High Court and reviewed by ET, alleges that Roposo is “blatantly, extensively and wilfully” infringing on T-Series’ copyrighted works. The music label has sought a permanent injunction to stop Roposo from using its copyright material. When contacted, Roposo declined to comment. “The app is infringing content under the user-generated content,” said T-Series president Neeraj Kalyan. “They are offering our music in their library and enticing users to upload our content in exchange for cash rewards. Their venture capitalists have not done due diligence, they are hand in glove.” The lawsuit has also named Roposo investors Tiger Global and Bertelsmann. T-Series has alleged that Roposo is actively providing and populating its app with the music label’s copyrighted works through the provision of a specially curated ‘Music Library’ and extracting songs from user devices and using such songs for commercial gain. It has also alleged that Roposo is removing the rights management information pertaining to its copyrighted songs in the ‘Music Library’ and knowingly distributing, broadcasting and communicating to the public infringing copies. T-Series recently signed a licence agreement with regional language social media platform ShareChat. It already has a similar deal with Facebook and Instagram. Last year, T-Series had filed a copyright infringement case against ShareChat.

GATHER 'ROUND, ALL, and hear the tale of the alleged Russian ransomware crook who tried and failed to recruit a Tesla employee for an insider scheme. Rather than go along with it, the target reported the approach, which got the FBI involved, which led to an arrest in Los Angeles the other week. It's all very exciting stuff, and an extremely rare instance of an alleged ransomware criminal actually getting caught. Speaking of which: We took a look this week at how ransomware operators have gotten increasingly "professional" in their dealings, dabbling in everything from chat support to press releases. The repercussions for not paying up have increased as well, with groups like DarkSide and Maze setting up dedicated sites to leak data from noncompliant victims. During the pandemic, the ubiquitous Chinese messaging service WeChat blocked thousands of pandemic-related keywords, according to a new report from the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. It's the latest in a long line of cases of Chinese government censorship online. Access to vital information during a pandemic can make a significant difference for public health outcomes, which is also why you should know exactly how and when to vote by mail. Here's our guide, complete with a state by state breakdown of deadlines. This week we also took a look at how Firefox completely redesigned its Android app to better take on Chrome. And a sneaky new botnet has already targeted millions of servers, which is not a great sign. And there's more! Every Saturday we round up the security and privacy stories that we didn’t break or report on in depth but think you should know about. Click on the headlines to read them, and stay safe out there. Arrests and Raids Have Roiled the Piracy World It's been an uncomfortable week for the streaming piracy community. On Wednesday, three indictments were unsealed against members of "the Scene," an elite tier of people who rip movies and put them on the internet for free. The three were allegedly affiliated with a group known as Sparks, and while court documents are a little thin on details, they do explain how first-run movies end up online before they come out on Blu-ray or streaming. The pirates allegedly convinced wholesale distributors that they were legitimate retailers, and so were able to obtain early copies of releases. As TorrentFreak reports, the crackdown appears to be wide-ranging, comprising law enforcement activity in nearly two dozen countries and sending the world of piracy at large into a tailspin. Palantir Says It May Fight the Feds Over Encryption Keys Ominous data company Palantir filed to go public this week, and as part of its S-1 filing the company said that it "may legally challenge law enforcement or other government requests to provide information, to obtain encryption keys, or to modify or weaken encryption." That puts it on the same page as Apple and others who have steadfastly declined to soften their cryptography under federal pressure. As TechCrunch notes, the position is notable in part because of Palantir's existing ties to the federal government—including between founder Peter Thiel and the Trump administration. Still, one wonders how much work "may" is doing in that sentence!

Under pressure from rightsholders, Google makes pirate sites harder to find in search results. As a result, pirates are increasingly advising each other to use DuckDuckGo instead. Surprisingly, in response to a very popular 'pirate' search term, Google appears to agree its rival is the best option. In an ideal world, search engine users would be presented with the most authoritative set of results in response to a specific search. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world but companies like Google, given the scale of the task, do a reasonable job of helping us find what we’re looking for, with some caveats. Piracy-Related Searches Are Tampered With By design, Google and other search engines have been deciding what’s ‘best’ for us for years. After all, it’s their own algorithms that decide which sites appear in response to any kind of search. Precisely how these decisions are made are closely-guarded secrets but in more recent years and under pressure from copyright holders, we known that Google has been heavily tampering with piracy-related searches. The general line is that Google voluntarily demotes and downranks sites for which it receives large numbers of valid DMCA notices. The theory is that sites are punished for continually infringing copyright so when users search for a particular movie, for example, torrent and streaming sites aren’t presented as the top options. As a result and unless searchers use a considerable amount of ‘Google-Fu’, Google is no longer a good place to find pirated content. In fact, people are more likely to find scammy and dangerous sites instead, as they bubble their way to the top to occupy the vacuum. Need the Pirate Bay Or a Proxy? Forget Google With The Pirate Bay the ‘proud’ receiver of millions of copyright complaints, searching for the site by name in Google is almost pointless. Even though the search term clearly shows what the user is looking for, the site doesn’t appear in the first few pages of Google’s results, unless people search for its precise domain. However, with the site blocked by ISPs all around the world, what millions of people are actually looking for these days is Pirate Bay proxy services that facilitate access to the site. Over time, these also receive millions of complaints so Google downranks these too. DuckDuckGo, on the other hand, produces exactly what one might expect as a result of these searches – ThePirateBay.org on the top and a list of Pirate Bay proxies respectively. DuckDuckGo is Less Comprehensive But Also More ‘Honest’ Search engine DuckDuckGo has a tiny 0.5% of the search market but with its pro-privacy stance, is increasingly favored when it comes to seeking out pirate content. The results that appear in response to searches tend to feel much more authentic when compared to those presented by Google, a suggestion perhaps that less or even no ‘tampering’ is taking place. While this might not please copyright holders, DuckDuckGo’s relative obscurity doesn’t make it a prime target for them right now but in a bizarre twist we noticed this week, it appears Google has somehow determined that its rival is the most authoritative option when it comes to a particular ‘pirate’ search. Google’s Algorithm Promotes DuckDuckGo to the Top Spot This week it was revealed that in Australia, Google will voluntarily block proxies and mirrors of pirate sites without being presented with a court order. This followed a similar agreement in 2019 which saw Google de-index more than 800 pirate sites. This move piqued our interest so we carried out a simple Google search for “pirate bay proxies”. The screenshot below reveals what we were presented with. Pirate Bay Proxies Accurate But Surprising in More Ways Than One Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this top result is that Google is promoting a rival’s service. This is interesting since whenever it reasonably can, modern-day Google has a tendency to recommend its own product. Had it done that here, however, users would get caught in an infinite loop of finding little of value. The other interesting thing about this valuable top-spot placement is that it promotes a custom search on DuckDuckGo when indexing internal searches of other sites is usually discouraged by Google itself. All that having been said, Google has arguably done its job here to perfection. Either by design or otherwise, its algorithms have determined that DuckDuckGo is the best place to find Pirate Bay proxies. And they have got that absolutely spot on. The Bigger Picture of Search Engines and Piracy It’s worth noting that if we look at the history of piracy on the Internet, it existed long before Google was founded. In fact, most early online piracy didn’t rely on today’s searchable web at all, with locations of file dumps mostly spread via word of mouth, early chat technologies, and newsgroups. But back then, of course, a whole generation was yet to be born, with most parents still unaware that the Internet existed. The point is that while mainstream piracy arguably began with Napster, it only exploded when the content of eDonkey and BitTorrent networks became searchable on the web. Search engines, rightly or wrongly depending on viewpoint, played a massive role in that. What we will probably see in the next few years, however, is that role diminishing again. By choice or by force, Google will undoubtedly clamp down further on piracy and its rivals will eventually have to follow suit. It may take a while but basic searches will no longer prove useful to pirates and they will have to find other ways to educate themselves on where to find content. Most large file-sharing discussion communities – and there were many – died out years ago, partly due to waning interest, partly due to the rise of social networks. But mainly because piracy was no longer niche and presented on a plate, often via search engines. These communities may have to rise again because (and you can quote me on this) Reddit, Facebook and similar platforms will eventually go the same way as search engines when it comes to piracy.

it's available now

available now