One of the most popular pirate sites in the world is about to rise from its ashes, despite the various legal proceedings against it . The Popcorn Time site closed shop several weeks ago, following various complaints from several movie companies for massive copyright infringement. This closure suggested that the developers of Popcorn Time were finally throwing in the towel from their pirate site, but according to TorrentFreak , it is not. One of the developers of the site has indeed affirmed that the return of Popcorn Time was well planned and that it was soon, and this, although the platform is still the subject of a judicial investigation and that the federal court de Virginie issued a preliminary injunction to lock down the site's domain name so that it cannot be transferred. The TorrentFreak source also said that the site's demise was not related to complaints from the movie companies, but was the result of several internal issues. Yet Popcorn Time disappeared just days after the court injunction. A mystery At the moment, we do not yet know how or when Popcorn Time could make its comeback. It's a real mystery and it seems quite implausible given the legal pressure on the platform. And yet, getting rid of this illegal streaming site , "Pirate's Netflix", does not seem easy. The point is, the official Popcorn Time repository is available on GitHub , so it's quite "easy" to make copies of the site. This is what happened when the original developers of the platform left the ship in 2014, others took up the torch based on the repository available on GitHub and put online several heirs of Popcorn Time. The hacker site's GitHub page has already been the subject of a complaint by the Motion Picture Association and was only withdrawn for a time. Due to legal pressure against Popcorn Time, GitHub could be forced to remove the repository from the platform. It would certainly be a great way to pull the rug out from under the developers of the site and its multiple variations.

Alongside legal streaming services, IPTV has many supporters who opt for this solution. Naturally, they are exposed and using an illegal service, but for most this is a scenario that pays off, even with all the risks. One of the problems with the choice of IPTV is the legal aspect, which can bring serious problems. The most recent came to the side of Cloudflare, which is now forced to block many of these services or is subject to a very high fine. IPTV again in the courts The case now brought to the public is not new and dates back to the end of last year. An Italian court has now ruled that Cloudflare should block a set of illegal IPTV services and that it will have to prevent access to them, which are within its infrastructure. It all came from a complaint from Serie A and Sky Italia, which resolved to legally address the block on these services. The case passed through court and initially it was decided that Cloudflare would have to do this block, since the services were on its servers. Did you use the Mobdro app on Android? Well-known video streaming app crashed Cloudflare forced to block The American company reportedly rejected that request, claiming that it was just an entity that provided a service, and that it had no active part in the process. The new decision reinforces the previous one, rejecting all Cloudflare's arguments. Thus, and in light of the new Italian court decision, Cloudflare will have to start the blocking process. You will also have to terminate accounts where the same service is illegally provided. If you do not comply, you will be subject to a daily fine of 5,000 euros. Illegal service will have its days numbered The court's decision appears to have gone even further and has also urged Google itself to provide all data on providers and end users of the services. Altogether there are 160 illegal IPTV services and over 2,200 IP addresses and domains. Despite this decision being focused on the Italian market, the siege on illegal IPTV services has increased in recent years. It is probably still a struggle that is beginning, but which should soon be extended to other markets and other countries.

Safaricom’s Internet subscribers can continue streaming football matches after the Court of Appeal suspended earlier orders that directed the telecoms operator to block access to 141 websites that host the content allegedly pirated from pay TV firm Multichoice. The cable TV provider had sued Safaricom and Jamii Telecom at the High Court, arguing that the firms had enabled illegal access to premium sports content which should be viewed exclusively on its SuperSport channel. Subscribers to Multichoice’s DStv and Gotv packages pay a monthly fee while those streaming the games on the controversial websites only incur data costs. The High Court in November last year ordered the telcos to take down or disable access to the sites, agreeing with Multichoice’s position that they were infringing on its copyrights. The appellate court has now suspended the orders after Safaricom argued that it stands to suffer irreparable damages in complying with them. The telco listed civil and criminal lawsuits from its customers besides a tainted reputation in the global communications arena as some of the likely repercussions from attempts to control the behaviours of its subscribers. “The upshot of the above is that Safaricom has satisfied the conditions for granting an order of stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court Rules, and deem it appropriate that we grant an order of stay of execution of the order of the High Court,” appeal court judges Hannah Okwengu, Fatuma Sichale and Jamila Mohammed said. Safaricom convinced the court that the issues it raised in the appeal were serious and needed to have been considered before the orders to block the sites were issued. MultiChoice meanwhile holds that rebroadcasting and retransmitting of the football matches without its authorisation is a breach of its rights. Safaricom argued that Lady Justice Okwany of the High Court failed to consider if there were any special circumstances that required the granting of the order. MultiChoice, the telco said, failed to demonstrate that it had been empowered by the copyright owners to take enforcement actions on their behalf. Safaricom also said that complying with the order would affect the rights of other copyright holders, and that the damage to its local and international reputation would be irreparable. On its part, MultiChoice argued that the order was temporary and that Safaricom had in fact expressed its willingness to comply with the court order and even sought a virtual meeting with its lawyers to discuss the matter. The pay TV firm added that Safaricom had not complied with the High Court order and was seeking relief from the appellate court without clean hands. The judges noted that both Safaricom and MultiChoice agreed that the dispute involved take-down notices in Copyright (Amendment Act) 2019, which is an emerging area of law. “There is no doubt that the development of this law will require frequent intervention of the courts by way of interpretation of the law,” the judges said. They noted that if they did not suspend the order, Safaricom would be forced to comply with the notice, yet it had demonstrated that the move may have serious ramifications for the company. These include the risk of civil and criminal sanctions, “and the effects of such consequences may be irreversible”.

Some present it almost as a measure of self-defense. At a time when Mediapro believed that it was possible to gather 3.5 million subscribers around a 25 euros monthly offer for Ligue 1 , IPTV suddenly took on the air of a white knight. Faced with the greed of broadcasters, the pirate offer seemed all the more legitimate. Even the collapse of the Téléfoot channel has not changed the equation: too expensive, too scattered, too volatile, paid football on television is boring and annoying. For several years, it has been IPTV (Internet Protocol Television)which convinces a growing number of French households. The deal? Pay a monthly or annual amount to afford a box or an application, which gives access to dozens, even hundreds of pay channels. In particular those which broadcast football matches, normally reserved for their subscribers. End of the story ? Not at all. Behind slashed prices and HD quality matches, the backdrop of IPTV isn't quite clean. Travel to the other side of the mirror of a well-established business, which may soon find itself in the hands of serious organized crime. Internets gangsters Illustration on September 18, 2019. This Wednesday, Eurojust, the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, announces that it has dismantled a vast network of online pay-TV platform piracy. More than 200 servers are disabled in Germany, France and the Netherlands, while more than 150 criminal PayPal accounts are blocked. Twenty-three suspects are arrested in Italy. It is the illegal IPTV service Xstream Codes, particularly popular in the Boot, which is then targeted. The latter looted the content of many pay channels such as Sky Italia (holder of a large part of the rights to Serie A) and even online streaming services such as Netflix, to sell them at low prices to its subscribers. Among the individuals arrested, one distinguishes in particular a certain Franco Maccarelli, designated by the Guardia di Finanza as one of, if not the brains of the operation. Small computer genius to believe the transalpine media, the guy has set up a platform that would have generated a shortfall estimated at 6.5 million euros for legal broadcasters. A high-tech crime that would not have been without attracting the greed of the Mafia: in a phone call recorded by the police, Maccarelli mentions in particular threats he would have received from the Lo Russo clan, a of the “families” of the Neapolitan Camorra. the guy has set up a platform that would have generated a shortfall estimated at 6.5 million euros for legal broadcasters. A high-tech crime that would not have been without attracting the greed of the Mafia: in a phone call recorded by the police, Maccarelli mentions in particular threats he would have received from the Lo Russo clan, a of the “families” of the Neapolitan Camorra. the guy has set up a platform that would have generated a shortfall estimated at 6.5 million euros for legal broadcasters. A high-tech crime that would not have been without attracting the greed of the Mafia: in a phone call recorded by the police, Maccarelli mentions in particular threats he would have received from the Lo Russo clan, a of the “families” of the Neapolitan Camorra. “Do the traditional mafias have their hands on a piece of criminal IPTV? This is something we have to watch out for ... "Cameron Andrews, beIN Group Anti-Piracy Legal Director What to wonder if organized crime is not already eyeing illegal IPTV. Even if he does not already have partial control over it. “Do the traditional mafias have their hands on a piece of criminal IPTV? I think this is something we need to watch out for ... says Cameron Andrews, director of beIN Group's anti-piracy legal department. It is in this direction that the illegal IPTV business could move. Although I think that, for the moment, the existing networks are more managed by hackers with a more traditional profile. For example, like the individuals who administered this site in France, which hijacked the beIN signal. "Andrews is referring here to the closure of the beinsport-streaming.com site in June 2019. It illegally broadcast live sports events from the main French sports broadcasters such as Canal +, RMC Sport or even beIN Sports. “Where appropriate, it was streaming, not IPTV , nuance Andrews. But the managers of this site were quite organized. They had offshore accounts, they generated significant sums by broadcasting advertising on their platform ... " From suppliers to resellers In fact, if we can assume that organized crime will take an increasingly close interest in IPTV in the years to come, the activity remains mainly the preserve of pirates familiar with the process of hijacking television signals. “In the countries of northern Europe, the pirates who did what is called cardsharing (a hacking technique that allows multiple users to access TV channels from a single shared subscription card , Editor's note) have migrated massively to IPTV ”, observes Stian Loland, security manager of Nordic Content Protection, an anti-piracy organization working for television channels in Scandinavian countries. The illegal IPTV distribution chain, for its part, follows a rigorously studied operation, the command core of which is protected by several intermediary actors. “Youtube is a very active supplier. If you flag any content, they remove it. Other ISPs are much less receptive. "Stian Loland, Security Manager at Nordic Content Protection Basically, there are two main types of actors behind these networks. First, large-scale providers, who capture and pirate the signal of TV channels and offer illegal IPTV subscriptions to their subscribers. These providers also use resellers, to whom they “lend” their pirate signal. The latter use the broadcasters' streaming infrastructure and also offer IPTV packages to their customers. They then donate a percentage of their income to the (often unique) supplier with which they are associated. It is also necessary to mention the re-streamers which constitute a sub-category of resellers more technically sophisticated. The latter indeed have their own infrastructure to distribute illegal streaming."Resellers and re-streamers are the public face of piracy, it is quite easy to spot them ," says Cameron Andrews. The trickiest thing is to find those who copy the source to distribute it. Why ? Because the Internet makes it easy to hide, regulations facilitate anonymity. Internet service providers are under no obligation to keep precise records of the activity and nature of their customers. Obtaining this information is also difficult and time consuming. "

In 2019, Danish citizen Anni Pape took to Facebook, pleading for help after being accused of downloading and sharing a pornographic film using BitTorrent. Two years later she has cause to celebrate after a court in Denmark threw out the case because the plaintiffs had no right to sue. The defendant believes the victory undermines the plaintiff's entire business model. In 2019, Danish citizen Anni Pape posted a cry for help on Facebook. Like thousands of other Danes, she had received a demand for cash settlement on the basis she had downloaded and shared pornographic content online using BitTorrent. “HELP! Are there others who are being sued for having illegally downloaded and shared pornographic films and have to pay 7,500 (US$1,226) to the law firm Njord? And maybe 15,500 (US$2,535) in legal costs!” she wrote. Pape explained that she had been summoned to appear at the court in Lyngby because the law firm claimed that her IP address had been observed sharing the movie “Big Tits Only”. Making matters worse, she said that her daughter, who lives somewhere else, had also received a similar demand, alongside claims that she had downloaded “Amazing Girls Orgasm” and must also pay the same amount. “We do not download illegally – and not porn movies at all,” Pape wrote, horrified at the explicit nature of these movie titles. NJORD Law and Cyprus-Based MIRCOM Strike Again That these two companies are involved in yet another copyright troll lawsuit in Scandinavia is no surprise. Thousands of similar demands have been delivered through the mail to Internet bill payers right across the region but after a relatively trouble-free run, the authorities are now deeply involved. As recently reported, NJORD Law and partner lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen are now facing charges of serious fraud related to their work with both MIRCOM and Copyright Management Services (CMS), two copyright-troll middle-man companies that have targeted Internet users around Europe in similar schemes. The prosecution of Clausen and his company is being carried out by the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK), which says that the entities fraudulently extracted 7.5 million kroner (US$1.22 million) from their targets. NJORD denies the claims but as the case against Pape shows, the campaign against Danish internet users is fundamentally flawed. Case Thrown Out By The Court As reported by Berlingske (paywall), the court in Lyngby has now thrown out the case filed against Pape. In common with earlier rejected cases, the court found that yet again, NJORD’s client does not have the right to prosecute these cases on behalf of rightsholders. In an EU opinion published last December, MIRCOM was described as a classic copyright-troll outfit, with a recommendation that entities like it should not gain access to Internet subscriber information. The problem, according to the opinion, is that while MIRCOM claims to have obtained licenses to communicate certain copyright works on P2P networks, MIRCOM does not exploit those licenses in a way that a regular rightsholder usually does. Indeed, MIRCOM is not a copyright holder at all so this type of behavior falls under the definition of an abuse of rights, something prohibited under EU law. Case Backfires, Pape’s Lawyer Contacts SØIK The above points were also highlighted by Anni Pape’s lawyer, Henrik Hein, who has reported the decision to throw out the case against his client to SØIK. In comments to Berlingske, he also mentions another interesting finding. The piracy allegedly carried out by Pape took place on the very same day that “Big Tits Only” was published and in advance of being registered for copyright purposes in the United States. Also of interest is that while other MIRCOM cases were withdrawn by NJORD, the case against Pape was not. According to Pape, this was done in an “act of revenge” for making the case public. “I think it was a sheer punishment because I made the case play out in public. The punishment for that was they then got a sentence that was worse than anything they could have expected. Their entire business model is buried and declared illegal. I see it as a double victory,” she told the publication. Finally, comments from lawyer Henrik Hein indicate that the authorities are on the right track by taking an interest in the business model underpinning these cases. He has dealt with around 90 of these cases and according to him, several of his clients were nursing home residents “who have never had computers and where the IP address was only used to connect the TV.”

Strike 3 Holdings has targeted thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates in U.S. courts over the past several years, collecting millions of dollars in settlements. Not all judges are pleased with the way Strike 3 operates, however, and Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro is particularly critical of the IP-address evidence. Over the past three years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in US federal courts. These lawsuits target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent. While many of these cases resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 has also experienced some setbacks in court. For example, not all judges are convinced that an IP-address is sufficient evidence for a viable case. The Court as an ATM Others are even more outspoken. A few years ago, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused Strike 3 of being a known “copyright troll” that was using his court “as an ATM.” The company flooded the court with lawsuits “smacking of extortion”, he added. Strike 3 Holdings sees things differently. And while a few judges are clearly upset with these targets, there are many who still play along. This allowed the company to collect millions of dollars in settlements over the years. Even judges in the same District Court can handle these cases differently, which brings us to the topic at hand today. The Southern District of Florida is one of the courts where Strike 3 is active. Over the last year, it filed roughly a dozen cases, and most judges signed off on a subpoena request. This is crucial, as it allows the company to ask ISPs for the personal information of subscribers. Geolocation and IP-address Doubts Not all judges are easy to convince though. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro is particularly critical. Simply put, she doesn’t believe that the geolocation tools, which link IP-addresses to her district, are 100% accurate. “Plaintiff’s assertions as to Defendant’s residency therefore seem to be in large part based upon the assumption that the geographic data results of IP address geolocation are valid and accurate,” she writes in a recent order. “This strikes the Court as possibly problematic after reviewing technical literature which suggests otherwise,” Judge Ungaro adds. The Internet doesn’t have an inherent mechanism to link IP-addresses to specific locations, the order adds, linking to research and various articles on the topic. An IP-address Isn’t Enough If Strike 3 wants to continues its case, it will have to come up with more conclusive evidence to show that the IP-address is linked to the Florida district. Not just that, but Strike 3 also has to provide evidence that shows that this IP-address is linked to a specific person “Additionally, this Court recognizes that IP addresses are assigned to nodes connected to the Internet, but are not necessarily representative of individual end-node/end-system devices, and especially are not representative of individual people,” Judge Ungaro notes. “This Court therefore requires that Plaintiff show that due diligence, as well as due care, have been employed in ascertaining that the IP address associated with the alleged tortfeasor is or was assigned to a system or node that can be used to reasonably calculate the identity of the alleged infringing party.” Rinse and Repeat Regular readers may recall that the “IP-address is not a person” argument has been brought up in the past. In fact, Judge Ungaro highlighted this last year in a similar order, also directed at Strike 3 Holdings. While this may seem like a major stumbling block for the adult content producer, the reality is a bit different. When Judge Ursula issued her motion last year, Strike 3 simply dropped the case and moved on to the next. It wouldn’t be a surprise if we see that happening here as well. Pragmatically speaking, it’s easier for the company to drop the case and file a new one, hoping for a ‘friendlier’ judge. That paid off after Judge Ungaro’s order last year, and it will likely work again. Rinse and repeat. Or other words, if the ATM is not working, just try the one next door.

The MENA Broadcast Satellite Anti-Piracy Coalition is celebrating the purge of pirate channels following public commitments by all its service providers to clean up the system by Thursday. The breakthrough came at the coalition’s 10th meeting in Dubai attended by the region’s major broadcasters and satellite providers. All but one of the service providers reported that they had already removed channels proven to be broadcasting content that did not belong to them. Noorsat made a public commitment at the meeting that it would comply by Thursday provided other operators agree to maintain their current position. Sam Barnett, MBC CEO, said: “The coalition has been successful in highlighting where and how piracy happens, and the joint action to remove pirates from the region’s satellites is a great step. Noorsat’s commitment to take down the remaining pirate channels within days is clearly welcome.” The coalition also reinforced its commitment to protect content against illegal satellite distribution, and agreed to widen its focus to include new threats from Internet piracy. The coalition was set up in 2014, bringing together major broadcast satellite providers, (Eutelsat, Arabsat, Gulfsat) and content production and distribution companies (MBC, OSN, Rotana, ART, CNE and the MPA) to fight pirate channel operators. For the first time, members discussed the increasing threat from illegal Internet streaming and downloads and agreed to work together to lobby regional regulators. Sophie Moloney, OSN chief legal officer, presented the latest industry research showing IPTV piracy is growing at an alarming rate and fast becoming “normalized behavior” within the family home. According to Britain’s The Industry Trust, the sale of IPTV boxes has risen by 99 percent globally in the last 12 months and 25 percent of users admit watching illegal content services. “Our industry faces a number of threats from illegal satellite distributors as well as from the emerging scourge of Internet content piracy. The worrying thing is that illegal IPTV providers are openly selling their hardware and services through social media in the Middle East,” explained Moloney.

After the Eurojust announced the Mobdro network’s broken down last week, Luminati, a proxy service, has announced to cut ties with Mobdro. This is because the Luminati isn’t aware that Mobdro was using its network for illegal activities. Users participating in the Luminati network allow their IP addresses to be used as a proxy for others. Mobdro Using Luminati’s Proxy Network Mobdro is a popular IPTV service that is said to have made illegal profits of over five million euros to date. It allows users to stream live TV, movies, sports, etc., for free and is supported by ads. While it’s hard to track the ad sources of Mobdro, the platform allowed users to upgrade to a plan where they can avoid ads. This is to join them in a proxy network and let others use their IP addresses to satisfy their internet needs. The network in question was Luminati, which too is a popular proxy service provider serving Fortune 500 companies. Though Luminati is being used for legal reasons, past researchers believe the network was used to launch DDoS attacks. Also Read- Mobdro Alternatives In special, Luminati’s residential proxy network lets users use an IP address of another person’s device for all their internet activity. This masks their online identity and helps them bypass the blocked content and, in other cases. But, how does Luminati gets those trusted IP addresses? Luminati has mentioned in its EULA that any user joining the network voluntarily shall have their IP address used for other purposes. And this is how Mobdro cashed on its free users. All those Mobdro users who agreed singing up to Luminati’s proxy network are allowed to stream Mobdro’s content without ads. This is more of cheating since Mobdro hasn’t informed its users what exactly happens in the background. Thus, after hearing Mobdro’s breakdown last week, Luminati has come up with a statement. Luminati Cut Ties With Mobdro Luminati’s CEO Or Lenchner informed TorrentFreak as the company. “is not currently and has not been in any way involved in the law enforcement investigation against Mobdro. In fact, we were not aware of the reported investigation until recent press coverage.” Further, “We have zero tolerance to illegal activities. When it came to our attention that Mobdro (a publisher which was using our commercial SDK) had been subject to a law enforcement investigation for alleged copyright infringement, we suspended their right to use our SDK.

Nintendo is taking its animosity toward Bowsers (though not all Bowsers) one step further. Polygon has learned that Nintendo sued Gary Bowser, a leader of the Switch hacking group Team Xecuter, for allegedly violating copyright by making and selling hacks. Law enforcement had already arrested Bowser in the fall, but the company hoped the suit would punish the leader for both the copyright violation and two counts of trafficking. Much of the lawsuit is focused on Bowser reportedly running an "international pirate ring" and distributing the Switch-oriented hacking tools SX Core, SX Lite and SX Pro. While some critics have argued that bootlegs are helpful for preserving games, Team Xecuter has been selling the SX suite for profit — something that hurts its chances. If successful, Nintendo would shut down Bowser's operations and extract damages of $2,500 for each trafficked device, plus $150,000 per copyright violation. It's safe to say the financial penalties would incapacitate Team Xecuter even if it remained in business. The lawsuit reflects Nintendo's history of cracking down on hacks and any other tools that could enable piracy. It's not completely surprising that the company would be so aggressive, mind you. Nintendo is even more dependent on software sales than rivals like Microsoft and Sony, as its sales successes are often tied to the latest games in franchises like Mario or Zelda. However much damage piracy really does to Nintendo's bottom line, lawsuits like this make its stance clear and might discourage bootleggers.

Sky Sports and BT Sport are the place to watch a wealth of live sports content in the UK. Premier League matches are broadcast live on both Sky Sports and BT Sport, but that's just scratching the surface of what's on offer. If you love F1, golf or cricket then a Sky Sports subscription is virtually essential, while BT Sport has coverage of - among other things - the UFC, MotoGP, the Champions League and Europa League. RELATED ARTICLES Illegal downloads remain VERY popular as billions take serious risks As piracy crackdown heats up, you can now earn a £720,000 reward Access to all of this great sports content does come at a price though, which is something internet pirates have long capitalised on. And for rights holders, the scourge of illegal live streams has been a consistent thorn in their sides. Thankfully though, the European Commission - the EU's legislative arm - has in recent years proposed and adopted a slew of measures design to combat piracy. The Digital Services Act, which was unveiled in December, is one of the many ways the EC has been looking to combat online piracy - with the legislation "significantly" improving "the mechanisms for the removal of illegal content" that breaches copyright law.

In 2019, a video of a man headbutting a restaurant worker in the face went viral. Months later the incident reentered the public consciousness when a wave of DMCA notices targeted sites that reported on the news. It's now close to two years after the initial incident and some people still aren't getting the message. Sending bogus DMCA notices to erase the past is not an effective solution. There’s a very good chance that thousands of readers will already be familiar with the antics of one Mr. Joel Singer and his nemesis, Steve Heflin. Thousands will have forgotten. Thousands more will be hearing about this debacle for the first time. The short story is easy to tell. In 2019, Steve Heflin was on business in Fort Lauderdale to interview a prospective employee with a view to hiring him as a new salesman for his Internet infrastructure company. During a visit to a local bar, Steve observed “two guys in suits” sitting at the bar, one of whom was Joel Singer. Violence Meets The DMCA According to Steve, Singer was drunk, and when the valet refused to return Mr. Singer’s keys, advising him to get an Uber instead, an altercation broke out. In short, Mr. Singer headbutted a restaurant worker in the face, Heflin took the assailant to the ground, and the whole thing was filmed by a third-party and ended up on YouTube. So why would we be interested in this event? Well, someone later decided that this negative publicity needed to be erased from the Internet, from every nook and cranny, using copyright law. As previously reported, DMCA notices were liberally filed in an effort to remove every video, news article, report, and search result that referenced the event. Of course, this campaign was totally counterproductive. After most people had consigned the event to their mental history books, here it was back in the news again, prompting yet more people to repost the video, start more social media threads about Mr. Singer, and relive the Internet drama all over again. And again…and again. As per usual, the whole thing fizzled out but some people cannot let things rest. Here We Go Again… We didn’t mention it at the time because the story was effectively done and Mr. Singer and his adventures were yesterday’s news. However, in July 2020, a number of sites – Reddit and TorrentFreak included – were targeted in another wave of DMCA notices and other copyright complaints (examples here) These sought the removal of our article and various Reddit threads from Google but whoever sent them didn’t want to be identified, since they were sent under the name “.TEC.LAW.“, an entity that doesn’t appear to exist. Since Google appeared to be rejecting most of the notices, we let things slide and got on with more important things. Sadly, someone had other ideas. Yet More DMCA Notices Filed in December 2020 As can be seen from this page on the Lumen Database, an entity identifying itself as “TECH LAW” began sending another wave of notices targeted hundreds upon hundreds of URLs that allegedly referenced the infamous attack back in the summer of 2019. According to many of the takedown requests, the reason for deletion is as follows (no errors corrected): The photographs of the video of Joel Micheal Singer in restaurant URL below or “JoelMichaelSinger” is infringed by the text excerpted on the site, beginning with the text Joel Michael Singer assaults two innocent people at a store .” “Who is Joel Michael Singer? To be clear, we have not checked every single URL for infringement. However, what we can confirm is that many of these URLs contain a photograph of Mr. Singer that someone, somewhere, holds the copyright to. The argument over whether other sites can or cannot repost that image in various contexts is a battle they can have with the copyright holder. However, many of the links also lead to the video of the attack and it is yet to be established who owns the rights to that recording. Steve Heflin says that Mr. Singer could not have filmed it himself, since he had his face pressed into the floor. It is possible, of course, that Mr. Singer has since obtained exclusive rights to it. Maybe we’ll never know. That being said, some things are much more clean-cut. TorrentFreak is NOT Infringing Your Copyrights This week, the Lumen Database published a new DMCA notice filed by a mysterious entity called TEKKLAWWZ.Z on behalf of the previously mentioned TECH LAW. It targets more than 70 URLs that allegedly contain a copyrighted image of Mr. Singer. “Digital image. Property of TEKKLAWW not authorized for reuse or pecuniary gain. Headshot not authorized to be used by any third party,” the notice begins. Again, some of the pages do indeed carry the image of Mr. Singer, potentially in breach of copyright. However, many do not, such as these negative ‘reviews‘ on BirdEye.com or this page on Urban Dictionary. Image credit: Urban Dictionary But of course, the takedown attempt we were most disappointed to learn of targeted the article published by TorrentFreak last summer. We have been targeted before so perhaps at this point, it’s best to put our cards on the table for absolute clarity. Our article does not carry the ‘headshot’ of Mr. Singer and never did. The video of the altercation appears as a link to YouTube, which is required to support the text of the article. And, to be very specific, our original reporting did not even mention Mr. Singer by name. So, in the likely event the notice senders still haven’t managed to connect the dots, perhaps we should spell it out: There is no copyright infringement here and there never has been. This is what is known as an abuse of the DMCA and if there is something we are interested in reporting here at TF, it’s abuses of the DMCA. We sincerely hope we don’t have to do a follow-up, the Streisand Effect has had more than enough fuel on this topic.

It’s been a while since we covered any news about blocks imposed to ‘Sci-Hub’ and ‘LibGen’, but that doesn’t mean that scientific publishers forgot about the specialized file-sharing platforms. This time, the blocks are to be imposed by ISPs (internet service providers) in India, as this could be soon ordered by the High Court of Delhi. If that happens, it will be the result of a complaint that was submitted by Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society, who feel that this blatant copyright infringement has to stop. Sci-Hub and LibGen were both created by scientific activist Alexandra Elbakyan. During her studies in IT and neural engineering, Elbakyan realized the negative impact that locking useful, oftentimes key information behind absurd pricing models has for scientists, students, professors, and researchers. She believes that these models are kept in place only to make a handful of copyright holders rich, who are essentially keeping the scientific community hostage. So, the two platforms offer free access to pirated books and scientific publications that otherwise sell for a couple hundred USD or more. Obviously, publishers like Wiley and Elsevier aren’t happy with Sci-Hub’s effect on their business, and they don’t share the same views with Elbakyan. To them, these platforms are nothing but portals of “glorified piracy” that breach intellectual property rights for profit. The plaintiffs ask the court to approve a “dynamic injunction”, meaning that even if Sci-Hub and LibGen return online via a different domain or new mirrors, ISPs should proactively block them without requiring a new legal action. ALL SCI-HUB ADDRESSES ARE UNDER THREAT OF BEING BLOCKED IN INDIA AFTER ELSEVIER, WILEY AND AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY LAWSUIT. THE HEARING IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI IS SCHEDULED ON 24 DECEMBER. HTTPS://T.CO/UFO8P63USC PIC.TWITTER.COM/KFPDMGTXUC — Sci Hub (@Sci_Hub) December 21, 2020 The complaint, which is 2,169 pages long, is to be reviewed by the High Court in Delhi at the end of the week. Interestingly, Elbakyan is included in the complaint as a defendant, even though there’s no evidence connecting her to the sites other than her own public admission. It should also be noted that Sci-Hub has an onion domain that cannot be blocked or scrutinized, as it’s essentially part of the dark web. If you are a scientist in need of accessing information for your research or work, we would suggest that you use that portal instead, as this is the best way to maintain your anonymity. Of course, we only suggest that you do that to access historical archives, not to take part in pirating activities.

The video piracy market in Russia was worth an estimated $59 million in 2020. This, according to the global threat hunting and adversary-centric cyber intelligence company Group-IB, indicates that the market decline slowed down, with a 7% drop last year compared to 27% in 2019. It adds that online pirates were not quite successful in fully restoring the video content database after the elimination of the CDN big three. After Moonwalk, HDGO, and Kodik were shut down, the geographical scope of pirate CDNs has been quite limited, with three locations: the Netherlands, Lithuania, and Russia (Mnogobyte/ZeroCDN). Furthermore, they have lost advertising profits and found themselves in competition for viewers with legal online streaming platforms which were able to increase their audience during the pandemic. Despite the circumstances, digital pirates found a workaround for the anti-piracy memorandum. In pandemic-hit 2020, the number of people using legal video streaming services in Russia increased by 17% to 63 million viewers compared to the previous year. According to TMT Consulting, the revenue of the legal streaming services market in Russia increased by 66% and reached $365.7 million. The number of searches in popular search engines in Russian for free trending movies and TV shows on illegal websites has also grown. The figures show a 12% increase compared to 2019, amounting to 11.8 billion search queries (compared to 10.5 billion in 2019). The number of searches for illegal content rose to a record-high 1.4 billion intentions in April 2020. At times, servers streaming illegal content failed to deal with such a high influx of viewers. Dmitriy Tiunkin, head of Digital Risk Protection Europe at Group-IB, said: “In 2020 both legal and illegal streaming platforms significantly increased their audience but failed to get the maximum benefit out of it. “We witnessed pirates recover from the three largest CDNs being shut down. Pirates are restoring their technical capacity and increasing opposition to copyright owners. Some digital pirates use mutating links, domain changes, and decentralized CDNs to bypass the anti-piracy memorandum, thereby undermining attempts of manual regulation and anti-piracy techniques that were relevant several years ago”.

The EU Court of Justice has ruled that if rightsholders have taken or ordered protective steps to prevent their images from being embedded within frames on third-party sites, such embedding represents a violation of copyright law. The decision goes against a non-binding opinion handed down last year. Framing is a common technique used online to make content published on one site appear on another. Examples include YouTube videos and tweets that are hosted by their respective platforms but can be embedded in third-party sites for a seamless viewing experience. A less straightforward example can be found in a dispute involving Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek (DDB), a library website based in Germany. Embedding: A Digital ‘Showcase’ The main goal of the DDB project is to provide free access to the cultural and scientific heritage of Germany via the Internet. This includes millions of books, archives, images, sculptures, music and other audio, films, and sheet music. DDB’s library links to digitized content stored on the Internet portals of various participating institutions, displaying thumbnails of that content in what is described as a “digital showcase”. DDB operator Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz (SPK) has a licensing agreement with copyright collecting society Verwertungsgesellschaft Bild-Kunst (VG Bild-Kunst) to display those thumbnails. However, the agreement mandates that DBB should use technical measures to prevent third-party websites from embedding those images using the ‘framing’ technique. Referral to the EU Court of Justice Following a dispute with VG Bild-Kunst, SPK went to court in Germany arguing that the requirement to prevent framing on third-party sites was unreasonable. Seeking clarification, the Federal Court of Justice referred questions to the EU Court of Justice. The German court asked the EUCJ to determine whether Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted to conclude that when a copyrighted image is embedded in a third party site and made freely accessible to the public – contrary to deployed or demanded protection measures imposed by the copyright holder – that constitutes a communication to the public. EU Court Of Justice Decision In a decision handed down Tuesday, the EUCJ states that embedding copyright images on third-party sites is indeed a communication to the public. As such, this type of activity requires permission from the copyright holder. “[W]here the copyright holder has adopted, or obliged licensees to employ, measures to restrict framing so as to limit access to his or her work from websites other than that of his or her licensees, the initial act of making available on the original website and the secondary act of making available, by means of the technique of framing, constitute different communications to the public, and each such act must, consequently, be authorized by the rights holders concerned,” the decision reads. The Court found that copyright holders must be able to rely on the rights laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 [pdf] otherwise a fair balance between the rights of users of protected content and those of the rightsholders would be disregarded. Indeed, should third-party embedding be allowed without the permission of the rightsholder, as soon as the content is made freely available anywhere on the Internet, the right of communication to the public would be effectively exhausted. This would mean that the rightsholder would be unable to retain control of the exploitation of his or her content, contrary to Article 3(3) of the Copyright Directive. As a result, the Grand Chamber ruled as follows: Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page, of works that are protected by copyright and that are freely accessible to the public with the authorization of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents measures adopted or imposed by that copyright holder to provide protection from framing, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision. The decision goes against the nonbinding opinion of EU Advocate General Szpunar published last September. Advocate General Szpunar advised that framing should not require the copyright holder’s permission, since he or she was “deemed to have given it” when the work was initially made available. He noted that the same should apply to works protected by measures to prevent framing since the “public” is always the same, i.e the public of the website targeted by the link.

The sentence fell. A collective of pirates who had developed a galaxy of illegal streaming sites were ordered to pay heavy damages to the legitimate broadcasters of sports matches whose streams they hijacked. Three men aged 43 to 57 were ordered jointly and severally on Wednesday to pay more than seven million euros in damages to Canal Plus, beIN Sports and RMC Sports by the Rennes criminal court for having created and fed illegal sites of sports streaming. Two other defendants, aged 49 and 44, were also ordered to pay damages relating to part of this sum. The five men had already been convicted in criminal proceedings in June, to sentences ranging from 5,000 euros in suspended fine to 12 months in prison, six of which were suspended. During the hearing on civil interests in January, the television channels had claimed more than 91 million euros in material and moral damage. The court set the material and moral damage of Canal Plus at 2.75 million euros, that of beIN Sports at 3.94 million euros and that of Sportscotv and MCS, publishers of RMC Sport, at more than 600,000. euros. Also to discover in video: “ It is a satisfactory decision in the sense that the damages are extremely reduced compared to the sums requested. However, we remain on extremely high sentences " , reacted Me Katell Plançon, lawyer of Franck C., 49, an employee of Roubaix (North), who said to have been taken for a" simpleton " in this case. " Whether we are at one, two, three or four million, it does not change much because these are people who do not have the means to repay" , added Me Hélène Laudic-Baron, who specified that it was " not impossible " for her to appeal. " The Robin Hood spirit" Among the men condemned are in particular a Breton computer scientist or an invalid Girondin, who said to have acted "in the spirit of Robin Hood". The creator of the sites, Olivier O., 47, was a former seller of photocopiers living near Rennes. The five men broadcast on " a galaxy of sites ", since at least 2014 and until 2018, sporting events reserved for subscribers of pay channels. The Canal Plus channel was thus broadcast free of charge 24 hours a day. The nine busiest sites attracted more than 7.5 million unique visitors from 2014 to 2017, according to an estimate cited at the criminal hearing in March 2020. Thanks to special software, the defendants captured the video stream of their Canal Plus, beIN Sports or RMC Sports subscription, and then retransmitted it to a server. For foreign channels, links to illegal content sites were put online, according to the elements of the investigation cited at the hearing. Visitors to the sites were then "bombarded" with advertisements which would have brought in nearly 230,000 euros, paid by 50 advertising agencies between 2014 and 2018.

The TorrentFreak site echoes two recent court decisions in Italy which order Cloudflare to block two illegal IPTV services. A content distribution and domain name server service, Cloudflare appealed by highlighting its position as a neutral intermediary. The IPTV services concerned bear the names of IPTV The Best and Energy IPTV. For a blockage, a lawsuit had been brought by the National Professional League Serie A (LNPA) which manages the main football competitions in Italy. Cloudflare argued that it does not provide hosting services, while stressing that IPTV's services will remain active even after termination of accounts. An argument that clearly did not hit the mark. The blocking will have to be dynamic in the sense that if the IPTV services opt for new domain names or IP addresses, they will also have to be blocked. A role of facilitator of access The legal team representing the ADSL states: " Cloudflare participates in activities which allow visibility of the illicit services IPTV The Best and Energy IPTV - also via data storage of these sites - and participates in the data feed in violation of the rights of ADSL. " CDNs optimize the delivery of often large content to end users, bringing it closer to their location through data replication across multiple locations in the distribution network. In France, a complaint lodged by the Association for the Fight against Audiovisual Piracy, television channels and with the support of the CNC (National Center for Cinema and Animated Image) led in France to the blocking of eight illegal services. of IPTV . In this case, DNS (Domain Name System) blocking.

The amount is offered by the Association of the Software and Information Industry (SIIA). Created in 1984, the organization used to combat piracy by users on illegal download sites. Over the years, the group began to focus on copyright infringement by companies. On its website, SIIA encourages the reporting of illegal use of software in exchange for the reward. “Piracy is theft. We need your help to fight this crime. If you see something, say something. Report piracy issues here. SIIA defends the industry and protects intellectual property against theft, ”says the page. $ 1 million for reporting piracy The association sets out dozens of conditions to pay the $ 1 million reward. One of them says that the amount will be paid only if SIIA reaches an agreement with the company that used pirated software. The amount of the agreement will determine how much the employee will receive for the report. If the settlement is between $ 10,000 and $ 100,000, for example, the whistleblower may receive between $ 500 and $ 5,000. The maximum amount of US $ 1 million will only be paid for a complaint that leads to an agreement of more than US $ 20 million for the use of pirated software. The group promises to keep the name of those who send the complaints anonymous. Despite the promised amount, the group does not guarantee payment even if all criteria are met. "SIIA reserves the right to deny the payment of a reward or to revoke the source reward program at any time and without prior notice and for any reason," says the campaign regulations.

The Center Netherlands District Court ha The TorrentFreak points out that the removal of IPTV services pirate is controversial, since the restrictions were not decided by the courts. Unlike other countries, Italy does not require copyright holders to go to court to add websites to Internet service providers' blacklists. The block was requested from the Italian telecommunications agency (equivalent to Anatel in Brazil), which monitored and interrupted access to the five pirated IPTV servers. The names of illegal services have not been released, and it is estimated that each attracted more than one million hits per month The Italy also ordered the Cloudflare that blocked two IPTV services that used the company 's platform. The lawsuit was filed by the football league Serie A and the operator Sky Italia (it is not a company related to Sky do Brasil). Justice aims at pirated IPTV in Brazil and other countries Pay-TV piracy faces problems with justice: a website that provided illegal IPTV lists was ordered in the United States to pay $ 15.8 million to Dish, a legitimate satellite TV operator. In Brazil, it is estimated that illegal TV is available in 4.5 million households. Meanwhile, official pay TV suffers from the loss of customers, with around 800,000 contracts terminated in 2020. Some measures have been taken by the government, such as an operation by the Ministry of Justice shut down 300 pirated IPTV services that were used by 26 million people. In addition, the IRS and Anatel confiscated thousands of irregular TV Box sets. Between July and September 2020, more than 240,000 illegal equipment was seized and another 7,000 devices were destroyed after being detained in a city bordering Paraguay. s ruled that Rabobank is obliged to hand over whatever identification details it has on the operators of the pirate platform that uses the domain “GoFastIPTV.eu” and has given the financial institute five days to comply. According to the court documents, Rabobank will also have to pay 1,775 euros to BREIN to cover their legal expenses, as the Dutch anti-piracy platform is the one that has been chasing the particular pirates so tenaciously all these years. At the time of writing this, GoFastIPTV is still online, offering subscribers access to 10,000 channels from 50 countries and 85,000 films and TV series episodes from various sources. All that is needed to access this trove of illegally distributed content is a set-top TV box and a subscription. The platform is selling IPTV boxes on the site, so one can buy a pre-configured device for a cost between €83.00 and €155.00. As for the subscription cost, this is set to €15.00 for a month, €30.00 for three months, and €80.00 for a year. BREIN believes that GoFastIPTV is the largest service of this kind in the Netherlands, so they have been after the operators for over a decade now but could not find out their real identities. Rabobank may have the real name and address of the account holder that received the money from the subscriptions on the platform but has so far denied giving it away. The bank argued, among other things, that there’s no proof that the account holder is infringing any copyrights himself. Therefore BREIN’s interests and the effort to protect them may be totally irrelevant. As the institute maintains, the contractual relationship with its customer involved ‘bank secrecy’ clauses that are in its discretion to protect and preconceive against the resolution of the interests of third parties. In addition to this, the bank argues that BREIN has had ample opportunity in the past to acquire that data from other parties and didn’t. As such, they put forth discriminatory practices that will almost certainly damage their business in the long term, creating a negative reputation in the market. As the court explained in its ruling, it all comes down to weighing up EU Directive 2004/48 (the IP Directive) against the provisions in and pursuant to the EU Regulation 2016/679 (the GDPR), or if you prefer, the value of the fundamental right to personal data protection against the importance of stopping copyright infringement. The court has answered this question by ordering the bank to comply with BREIN’s request, as the interests of the copyright holders prevail over those of Rabobank and the account holder. The court further explained that even if the account holder is not the infringer (website operator), identifying the owner will possibly lead the investigators one step closer to the infringer. And finally, in Rabobank’s terms, there’s a clause that specifically mentions data processing and sharing with other entities for combating fraud and preventing damage to third parties, so this was actually provisioned in the bank’s terms.

At the end of this month, there will be a new rearrangement of sports content offered by domestic IPTV operators. All this was preceded by last year's trading in the rights to broadcast the most attractive sports competitions. We remind you that then the rights to the matches of the Champions League from the season 2021/2022. for the entire region took over Arena Sport (Telekom Srbija), and at the same time they bought the rights to some other extremely attractive competitions, such as the first Spanish La Liga. Therefore, it is not surprising that information appeared today about the failed negotiations between the media house United Media, which holds a number of regional channels, including Sport Klub (until now they had the rights to La Liga) and N1, with the telecommunications service provider A1 Hrvatska ( so far they have had rights to the Champions League). From March 29, viewers who watch television in Croatia through the services of the A1 operator will no longer be able to watch the N1 and Sport Klub channels, it was announced today from United Media via the regional news channel N1. United Media says that no agreement has been reached with A1 on the continuation of cooperation: " We are very surprised by A1's decision not to renew the channel distribution agreement, especially considering that they were offered exactly the same conditions as before. We cooperated with them. for many years and we are sorry that this cooperation has not continued, despite the good will on our part to make it happen, "they said. Termination of cooperation already this month From the end of March, those who use the television services of Telecom A1 Croatia will be able to follow the information channel N1, the sports program on the channels of the Sport Club, as well as the children's channels Pikaboo and Vavoom. This will mostly affect fans of Formula 1 races, whose new season starts at the end of the month, and for which the exclusive right to broadcast in Croatia from this season has the Sport Club. In addition to Formula 1 races, the Sport Club broadcasts the German Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2, the English Premier League and FA Cup, MOTO GP races, the Euroleague and Eurocup, tennis at ATP tournaments and Wimbledon as well as the NFL. All United Media channels will remain available in Croatia only in the offer of Hrvatski Telekom and Total TV. A1 shifts the focus to Arena Sport Regarding this reshuffle, we also addressed A1 Telekom, which tells its side of the story of negotiations with United Group: " Despite all our efforts to ensure the continuation of these channels, the owner of TV rights with the loss of some attractive competitions set unacceptable conditions for contract extension. , the provision of TV services to our customers would no longer be possible under equally favorable conditions . " From March 29, users of A1 services in "exchange" for Sport Klub will get access to a number of Arena Sport channels , which will be expanded with Arena Fight and Arena Esports channels, and additional Arena Sport 7-10 programs. We remind you that so far Arena Sport has had an exclusive contract with Hrvatski Telekom (they were also offered by Iskon.TV) In addition to competitions that are already broadcast, such as the domestic 1. HNL (competition currently called "Hrvatski Telekom Prva liga"), Italian Serie A, French football league, NBA and others, on Arena sport channels, users of A1 TV In the next three-year cycle, you will be able to watch various other prestigious football competitions, such as the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the new UEFA Conference League competition and the Spanish La Liga. In addition, Arena Sport channels bring numerous domestic and regional competitions such as basketball leagues - regional ABA and Croatian Premier, regional handball and water polo leagues, as well as the EHF handball Champions League, automotive and many other competitions. Regarding the announcement of the expansion of the sports offer, the General Manager for private users Ivana Marković pointed out: “Investing in first-class content is investing in customer satisfaction, which is the most important thing for us at A1 Croatia. We have continuously ensured the users' enjoyment of the UEFA Champions League from 2018 to 2024, and we are now adding even more diverse and attractive sports content to this most prestigious and most watched football competition. We will continue to follow the trends and wishes of users, improve our offer and user experience, justifying the position of the operator in which users can rely when it comes to providing the best TV content . By July 1, a total of 23 new channels will be added to the A1 TV offer. All A1 TV users in the promotional period from March 29 to July 1 will have available Arena Sport 1 - 6 channels in their basic TV package, free of charge, while after the promotional period the prices of TV packages remain the same as before the arrival of Arena Sport on A1 TV. At the same time, the new offer of spor

A new law is soon to be reviewed and decided upon by the Council of Ministers in France, aiming to modernize the legal context that underpins the protection of access to cultural works. The bill focuses mainly on practical and technical challenges that arise from the digital age that we live in and how public access to French cinematographic and audiovisual works can be regulated effectively. The first pillar of the new bill is to get more aggressive against websites that make a profit out of piracy. The proposal is to create a “blacklist” that will be populated with platforms that are known for regularly violating copyrights and then connect it with a blocking mechanism. This way, ISPs in the country will be able to block pirate sites and all their mirrors without having to go through a tedious legal procedure and acquiring new blocking orders. The second part of the text describes creating a new regulator that will come through a merger of the High Authority for the dissemination of works and the protection of rights on the Internet (HADOPI) and the Superior Audiovisual Council (CSA). This new entity will be called the Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority (ARCOM) and will be given greater powers and jurisdiction to govern the entire field effectively. ARCOM won’t be responsible only for fighting piracy but also for protecting the public against disinformation and hate speech, as well as protecting minors from various online dangers. And thirdly, the bill suggests that in the cases that foreign entities purchase French works, these will have to remain accessible to the French public at all times because they are essentially part of the country’s cultural heritage. The bill suggests that adding this safeguard helps in forging a strong cultural identity among the French, which is a fundamental issue these days. All in all, the ideas proposed by the new bill aren’t new or ground-breaking, and there’s a large margin for abuse that could lead to widespread censorship online. We’re not saying that this is the lawmakers’ goal, but the fact that details about how the system is protected against such cases are missing from the bill isn’t helping.

I did not follow the group that was overthrown, but I certainly saw prints of it circulating on Twitter because it is practically impossible to avoid content about Big Brother Brasil 21 on the social network - no matter how many words you block. And for those who want to follow the reality, Telegram channels are an easy and free way to find out what Jaque said, how long Pocah slept or what Lumena banned this time. In the case of Canal BBB 21, you didn't even have to pay Globoplay to see parts of the pay-per-view - something that Globo certainly does not approve of. “Globo has a constant commitment to defend copyright,” says the broadcaster in a statement to Thássius Veloso of TechTudo . "We actively participate in actions to combat piracy, which causes damage and is subject to punishment in the criminal, administrative and civil spheres." The company claims to use several tools to protect its content, and argues that "piracy exposes the user to data theft and other crimes". She ends the position saying: “piracy is a crime”. Telegram banned group on BBB 21 (Image: Reproduction / Twitter) New Telegram channel covers BBB 21 without videos Now there is a new BBB 21 Channel on Telegram , which has already reached more than 100 thousand subscribers in less than 24 hours. Of course, this time it will be a little different: "unfortunately the channel will not be able to send more videos due to copyright, but the dialogues and photos continue", warns one of the messages. To watch BBB 21 , it is necessary to subscribe to Globoplay, which costs R $ 22.90 per month; or resort to DirecTV Go or Pay TV pay-per-view (Claro / NET, Oi, Sky and Vivo ). Boninho, director of the reality show, plans that this edition will last about 100 days - that is, it should only end in May. For some years, Globo has been dropping videos for copyright claims on its soap operas, newspapers and other TV shows - some channels on YouTube even had a live broadcast from the broadcaster .

Sky (Sky Broadband) has today announced that they’ve begun to roll-out a new firmware update for their Sky Q TV boxes and service, which adds a bunch of new voice features (e.g. Voice Guidance). On top of that their Sky Go app has gained new ‘Continue Watching‘, ‘Sky Channels‘ and ‘Browse by Category‘ rails to make it easier to use. The main additions to Sky Q this time around include some further improvements to its Voice Control feature, which means that Disney+ content will now appear in voice and text searches, making it even easier to navigate and search. On top of that they’ve also added Voice Guidance, which gives customers spoken descriptions of the menu you’re currently navigating, as well as a description of the option you’re hovering over or have selected, and instructions for how you can easily get to your favourite shows or movies. Fraser Stirling, Sky’s Group Chief Product Officer, said: “Today marks another big moment for Sky Q as we roll out exciting new voice features. Integrating Disney+ into voice search means it’s now much easier to find more of what you love and adding voice guidance to our strong accessibility offering helps to create an even better experience for all Sky Q customers.” The new features are starting to roll-out today and the phased update process is due to complete for all customers by the “end of April 2021“. Customers can activate Voice Guidance by saying “Voice Guidance on” or “Voice Guidance Off” into their Sky Q voice remote.

Nintendo has for many years been one of the most active game manufacturers in fighting piracy. With a strong in-house anti-piracy team, this has resulted in lawsuits against ROM sites (where games once in a cartridge and protected by technological measures are hacked and uploaded online) and stores offering Switch hacks and chips. A while back, we reported that Nintendo was after Team-Xecuter, a team producing a device called RCM Loader containing a software allowing to circumvent the Nintendo Switch protection measures. Nintendo is going after all resellers of the RCM and has now asked Google to remove any link offering this device or anything similar. Recently, Nintendo has identified several links for the online stores Carousell and AliExpress that were leading to RCM loaders. According to Nintendo, all these links lead, directly or indirectly, to software and devices designed to bypass technological protection measures in Nintendo Switch video game systems, and allow users to play unauthorised copies of games that are offered illegally on the internet. Google advances in its negotiation with press publishers: after France, Italy Google announced last week that they have signed licensing deals with numerous Italian media publishers to pay for news content. This agreement will give the Italian publishers access to the Google News Showcase programme, which pays outlets for a selection of enriched content. This follows an agreement struck with some French publishers earlier in the year over "neighbouring rights", which were introduced by the new EU directive and call for payment for showing snippets of news content as part of internet searches (press publishers' right).

The British copyright collective "PRS for Music" has shared some intriguing statistics on its anti-piracy efforts over the past few years. Through its in-house anti-piracy system, the group reported millions of pirated URLs, most of which were removed. Sites that failed to comply were referred to the police. According to PRS, its efforts helped to shut down 1,346 infringing sites, although it's unclear which ones. PRS for Music is a UK outfit that collects royalties for more than 150,000 members, including songwriters, composers and publishers. The organization also takes an active stance against piracy. Five years ago it rolled out the Member Anti-Piracy System (MAPS) which tracks down infringing content on the web and sends takedown notices to associated sites. Reporting Millions of URLs This week PRS is looking back at the performance of its system thus far. According to the organization, MAPS has reported 6.7 million URLs to sites that host or link to pirated content. In addition, search engines Google and Bing were asked to delist an additional 424,000 links. These are big numbers but in the grander scheme of things they are relatively modest. Google alone processes over a million takedown requests per day and the volume of PRS requests represent only a tiny fraction of the total. That said, the music group did share some additional details that caught our eye. Of the 6.7 million takedown requests that were sent to hosting or linking sites, 76% were indeed removed. That’s a decent result, given that many pirate sites ignore takedown notices. Reporting Sites to the Police PRS further notes that the sites that ignored its notices did not necessarily get away with that. The group writes that “non-compliant sites” are referred to the City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit. These referrals reportedly had quite an effect as well. “We are pleased that MAPS has allowed us to protect the value of our members’ music. It has also led to the demise of hundreds of illegitimate services,” PRS for Music’s Simon Bourn says. 1,346 Pirate Sites Shuttered In their press release, the music group is even more specific, noting that its efforts were “instrumental in forcing 1,346 infringing sites to cease operating completely.” Unfortunately, PRS doesn’t share any further details on the types of sites it helped to take offline. We are not aware of any sites that have shut down as a direct result of PRS-related pressure. PRS told us that they would try to get additional details on this issue (see update below). Sharan Ghuman, Rights Protection Manager at PRS for Music, is happy with what MAPS has achieved over the years. It has helped members to tackle millions of copyright infringements and also provided important data for law enforcement. “The tool was built to empower our members to carry out enforcement action on their chosen repertoire and their dedicated commitment and usage of the system has been key in MAPS’ success,” Ghuman says. “MAPS is not only a notice and takedown tool, it has proven to be a great information source, providing valuable data in other areas of rights protection work, specifically in relation to our work with the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit,” she adds. Update: PRS for Music shared a few examples of sites that disappeared, including Mp3cube.net, Musicwhale.net, Mp3monkey.net, Mp3with.co and Zaycev4.net. While the press release suggests that there’s a causal link between the enforcement efforts and the ‘shutdowns’ it appears to be more circumstantial. “We believe that the constant notice sending is effective in forcing sites, or hosting providers to shut down sites,” PRS for Music informed us.

Signal emerged as a popular and safer alternative to WhatsApp after the latter announced its new, and rather controversial, Terms of Service. However, Signal's Achilles Heel is that there's no straightforward option to transfer your chats between devices. That could soon change if the latest Signal beta for Android is anything to go by. Transfer Signal Chat Data Securely Between Android Devices As first spotted by TestingCatalog, the latest Signal beta (v5.5.0) introduces a new chat migration tool to transfer your account and chat data to another device. For safety and security reasons, the transfer process happens over a secure Wi-Fi Direct connection with end-to-end encryption. The change-log of the update explains the feature as follows: Your next upgrade deserves an upgrade. Quickly and securely transfer your Signal information to a brand-new Android phone. Use the end-to-end encrypted migration feature to move your account and messages from an old device to a new device over a private local WiFi Direct connection. Unlike WhatsApp and Telegram, Signal chat backups will not be uploaded to the cloud and restored on another device. Instead, the new migration tool will require access to both the old and new Android devices as the chat data transfer will happen locally. Signal has not rolled out a similar chat migration tool for its iS app so far. It is also unclear if this new chat migration tool will allow the transfer of chat data between iOS and Android. While this might sound inconvenient at first, Signal's new migration tool is actually more secure than WhatsApp and Telegram's offering. RELATED: Why Are People Suddenly Looking For WhatsApp Alternatives? If you are already on the Signal beta channel on Android, you can find the chat migration tool under Settings > Chats > Transfer Account. You can join the Signal beta program for Android on this Google Play link. Signal Already Offers a Tedious Method to Restore Chat Data Signal already offers an option to move chat data between devices. However, it is not as straightforward as, say, Telegram and WhatsApp. It also does not work between different operating systems. This means you cannot move your Signal chat history from Android to iPhone or vice versa. RELATED: What Do These Popular Messaging Apps Know About You? The current process requires you to manually move Signal's chat data from your old Android device to a specific folder on your new device. You then have to enter the 30-digit passphrase to decrypt the backup. The new chat migration tool makes the entire process simple and straightforward. It should help anyone looking to switch from WhatsApp or Telegram to Signal without worrying about losing their chat data when switching devices.