Dutch anti-piracy advocate BREIN identified the operator of the cyberlocker discoverthisplace, which was used to distribute copyrighted content illegally, as well as two individuals who uploaded thousands of copyrighted video, music and books to it. BREIN made a request to Dutch courts to order the cessation of the cyberlocker’s operation. The three had uploaded about 38,000 audiovisual files, 3,300 music files, and more than 20,000 writings to the cyberlocker. A fine of €2000 per day with a €50,000 maximum was established, although a settlement of 20,000 was reached and the cyberlocker was shut down. Read BREIN’s announcement (Auto-translated from Dutch by Google Translate) Read the court order (which contains a link to PDF of the BREIN request, in Dutch) Why it matters This case was a collaboration between rights holders and Dutch courts. There was no mention of assistance by law enforcement at a local, national, EU, or international level. The case adds to several other successes during 2021, to date; including settlements in March against several individuals who were uploading copyrighted content to Usenet groups and in another case announced in March, a Dutch individual who claimed to be Belgian, and was distributing illegal streaming services over Web portals in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Those illegal services gave access to more than 6,000 TV channels and 10,000 video programs. BREIN (Dutch for ‘Brain’) is an organization whose affiliates include the Motion Picture Association and several dozen organizations, including platform providers, intellectual property advocates, numerous Dutch media companies, the Dutch Association of Cinemas Films and Theatres, and Netflix.

Record labels association the BPI has today won two significant new piracy cases, brought by major and independent record companies, confirming for the first time that cyberlockers and stream rippers – and those who use them – break the law. The cases were dealt with following an online hearing by Mr Justice Miles at London’s High Court, who ruled that the operators and users of the websites use the services of internet companies (ISPs) to infringe copyright and that therefore the ISPs should block access to them. The infringing uses included providing or linking to a downloadable stream ripping app. The two judgments are significant developments and benefit the whole music industry – artists, songwriters, music publishers and record companies large and small, as well as legitimate music streaming services. Stream ripping and cyberlockers are the music industry’s current biggest piracy threats. They are responsible for part of the £200 million a year that is illegally ripped out of the music industry ecosystem and which could otherwise be helping to boost the legal music streaming economy. Related Skiddle celebrates 20 years in business with 19 million ticket sales 75% of nightlife venues face bankruptcy without rent solution The landmark group litigation represents a hard-won legal victory in the ongoing fight against music piracy. The BPI has been developing the cases for two years, with 3,000 pages of evidence and months of negotiations with the UK’s six biggest ISPs – BT, EE, PlusNet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media. The Court heard the industry’s legal arguments on 3rd February 2021 in an online hearing due to the pandemic. The cases were brought in relation to a major cyberlocker ‘Nitroflare’ and a number of stream ripping sites including two of the world’s biggest, ‘Flvto’ and ‘2Conv’. Some of these sites provided or linked to the downloadable app, ‘MP3 Studio’. Together these sites attract over a billion visits a year worldwide, and tens of millions a year from the UK alone. Stream ripping sites like ‘Flvto’ are so problematic that they appear on the US Government’s ‘Notorious Markets List’ and on the European Commission’s ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’. When a user accesses an illegal stream ripping site, or downloads and uses a stream ripping app, a song is ripped from services like YouTube (or in some cases social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram) and downloaded, enabling the user to listen to the music over and over again illegally, without any payment to the songwriters, performers, music publishers and record companies who create and invest in that music. The operators of the illegal stream ripping sites make millions of pounds a year from advertising in the UK alone, but do not share a penny with the creators of the music they are exploiting. As to cyberlockers, sites like Nitroflare are deliberately designed to encourage and reward users to upload music and other valuable copyright material, and illegally share links to it with others who can then illegally download it. Mr Justice Miles found that although music only represents around 10% of all files available on Nitroflare, the site warranted being blocked because it actively encouraged illegal sharing and it was highly unlikely that the site was being used for legitimate storage on a significant scale. The site also rewards those who illegally share music and penalises those who do not share by deleting their files. The High Court’s decision also comes as a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry is looking into Economics of Music Streaming, including the impact that piracy is having. Legal music streaming now accounts for 80% of music consumption in the UK and is helping the industry return to growth after years of piracy-driven decline. But revenues have still not recovered to their pre-piracy levels and much more still needs to be done to help protect the music industry ecosystem and creators. Although the BPI’s latest two cases are powerful tools to help protect the music industry from unacceptably high levels of online piracy, they are not silver bullets. That is why in its response to the Parliamentary inquiry, the BPI has called on Government to continue to do more to help reduce piracy and to grow the value of the legal streaming market for the benefit of the whole industry, in particular (1) by introducing a ‘duty of care’ for online platforms who use music in their business models; (2) by preventing such platforms misusing ‘safe harbour’ provisions to underpay for the music they use; (3) by introducing a statutory damages regime in the UK to deter illegal sites and (4) by introducing faster and more affordable ways for rightsholders to obtain website blocking orders against illegal sites. The record industry continues to invest heavily in anti-piracy for the benefit of the wider music community. It started to take action against illegal streaming sites in 2017 when it shut down YouTube-mp3, the world’s biggest stream ripper at the time. The BPI has also been working with search engines to have stream ripper links demoted and delisted from search results, and with YouTube to prohibit ‘how to’ piracy tutorial videos. The BPI’s two latest legal actions were group litigation cases by major label and independent record companies in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of BPI and PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited). They were brought under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 against the six Defendant ISPs (BT, EE, PlusNet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media), who did not attend the hearing because, following negotiations with BPI, they agreed ultimately not to oppose the case and to comply with the Court’s decision. In terms of usage, the BPI has today reviewed updated data for the period January 2018 – December 2020 showing that ‘Nitroflare’, the cyberlocker to be blocked, has received an average of 3.5 million annual UK visits over that three year period. There are four currently active stream ripping sites to be blocked, varying in popularity – namely ‘Flvto’ (with an average 58 million annual UK visits over the last three years), ‘2Conv’ (25 million annual UK visits), ‘Flv2mp3’ (1.7 million annual UK visits) and ‘H2Converter’ (700,000 annual UK visits), plus the downloadable app provider ‘MP3 Studio’ (1.2 million annual UK visits). Kiaron Whitehead, BPI General Counsel responsible for the UK litigation said: “The High Court has confirmed what we all believed, namely that the operators and users of these egregious cyberlocker and stream ripping sites – together with the associated stream ripping app – infringe copyright in multiple ways and should be blocked in the UK. The illegal sites have more visits to them than even global brand websites like Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and they deprive those who create and invest in music from their rightful rewards. These two new judgments are important both legally and practically. They are not a silver bullet, but they develop existing European law and represent a significant step forwards in copyright law in the UK. We are grateful to the High Court in dealing with this group litigation so efficiently in an online hearing. The BPI will be taking further actions following these judgments.” Amanda Solloway, Minister for Intellectual Property said: “This result is good news for artists and performers, and I am grateful to BPI for its defence of our country’s intellectual property laws. These ‘stream ripping’ providers steal hundreds of millions of pounds which should be going to our world-renowned music industry. The Government will continue working closely with the music industry to combat piracy, protect jobs and maintain one of the strongest intellectual property frameworks in the world.” Detective Constable Abdun Noor, The City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) said: “Intellectual property crime causes significant harm. The BPI’s new High Court stream ripping and cyberlocker judgments assist the work we do nationally and internationally as the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit, together with our law enforcement partners, to tackle IP crime. Intellectual property crime is not a victimless crime: the revenue lost through copyright infringement means people in the industry losing their jobs.” Gee Davy, COO and Head of Legal & Business Affairs, Association of Independent Music (AIM) said: “These judgments are not only a win for the independent music businesses named in the cases but the whole music ecosystem and AIM congratulates BPI on their expert handling of these cases. Getting music from illegitimate sites and services drives down the value of music and the money available to pay musicians and fund creativity. We hope that these judgments will serve as a strong deterrent to other illegitimate cyberlockers and stream rippers and raise awareness of legitimate ways to enjoy great music.” Simon Bourn – Associate General Counsel, PRS for Music, said: We welcome today’s High Court decisions, which recognise the harmful impact of stream-ripping and other piracy on the careers of music creators and the longer term health of the music industry. For five years, PRS for Music has closely monitored the growth of stream-ripping services, as evidenced in the independent research published in 2017 and 2020, with the latest research showing that overall usage of stream-ripping services dramatically increased by 1390% between 2016 and 2019. These two test case judgments are important legal precedents, reinforcing our longer term concerns about these types of illegal services and their increased proliferation as key facilitators of music piracy.”

Maekyung Media Group’s Maeil Broadcasting Network (MBN) can air TV shows for a while after a local court suspended the execution of the Korea Communications Commission’s punitive measure against the TV network to halt its business for six months from May. MBN came under fire for breaking the country’s broadcasting law after it allegedly used illegal means to raise capital required to obtain TV business license. MBN retorted the six-month probation was too harsh and legally challenged the commission to nullify the measure

DSI Director-General Lt Col Korrawat Panprapakorn confirmed the news at a press conference held at the DSI headquarters in Bangkok on Monday (Feb 8). A team of 50 DSI officers, led by Lt Col Wichai Suwanprasert, seized over 100 pieces of evidence from the raid including cable TV boxes, computers, decoders, laptops, notebooks, hard disks, mobile phones and satellite dishes. Suspects largely believed to be technicians running the operation were arrested onsite although no further details have been released at this point. The equipment was used to stream illegal films and sport including the English Premier League football via the website www.fwiptv.com. Lt Col Korrawat explained that the raid and subsequent shut down came after representatives from True Vision Group Co Ltd, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Football Association Premier League Ltd filed a complaint to the Division of Technology and Information of DSI. “We arrested the relevant people who provided the service through www.fwiptv.com and other websites,” he said. “They provided a service showing foreign movies and live broadcasts of the Premier League.” he added. “The fwiptv website has more than 720,000 visitors per month and was ranked the 729th most viewed website in Thailand. It charges members a subscription fee of B300 per month or B3,000 per year. “The total damages for copyrighted content is estimated around B2 billion,” Lt Col Korrawat added. “I have already ordered DSI officers to investigate further in case the website had connections to additional online gambling or sex trading sites,” he said. “If anyone is aware of such offenses related to technology and pirated materials, please inform the DSI via the ‘Rootan’ app.”

Canada's Federal Court of Appeal concluded today that the country's first pirate site blocking order can stay in place. The Court dismissed the appeal from Internet provider TekSavvy. According to the Court, site-blocking injunctions don't violate the Copyright Act, freedom of speech, or net neutrality. While it's not a perfect remedy, it trumps other available options. In 2018, Canada’s Federal Court approved the country’s first pirate site-blocking order. Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to the domains and IP-addresses of pirate IPTV service GoldTV. There was little opposition from Internet providers, except for TekSavvy, which quickly announced that it would appeal the ruling. The blocking injunction threatens the open Internet to advance the interests of a few powerful media conglomerates, the company said. Soon after, the landmark case also drew the interest of several third parties. There were copyright holder groups that argued in favor of site blocking, but also the Canadian domain registry (CIRA) and the University of Ottowa’s legal clinic CIPPIC, which both oppose the blocking order. Appeal Dismissed In March the Federal Court of Appeal heard arguments from both sides and today Justice George R. Locke issued the final judgment, which dismisses the appeal. In a 42-page reasoning, Justice Locke considers whether the Federal Court has the power to grant a blocking order, if that order violates freedom of expression, and whether it is just and equitable. On all issues the Court sides with the copyright holders. Copyright Act TekSavvy argued that site-blocking shouldn’t be used as a remedy because it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Copyright Act carefully constructed in Parliament. Copyright holders should rely on the notice-and-notice system instead. However, Justice Locke disagrees. “The fact that Parliament has put in place a regime to notify an alleged copyright infringer that its activities have come to the attention of the copyright owner does not suggest that this represents a limit on the remedies to which the copyright owner is entitled,” the reasoning reads. According to the Court, there is no doubt that the GoldTV Service infringes the plaintiffs’ copyrights. And after an injunction against the service itself failed to have any effect, a site-blocking injunction is warranted. Net Neutrality TekSavvy also argued that site-blocking would violate net neutrality. According to the Telecommunications Act, ISPs are not allowed to control or influence the content on their network without approval from the CRTC. Again, the Federal Court of Appeal sees things differently. “In my view, the general wording of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act does not displace the Federal Court’s equitable powers of injunction, including the power to impose a site-blocking order,” Justice Locke writes. The reasoning clarifies that TekSavvy isn’t “controlling or influencing” anything when it complies with a court order. On the contrary, it is being controlled or influenced by the order. Freedom of Expression The freedom of expression defenses didn’t fare much better. The Court of Appeal sees no errors in the original verdict and concludes that this factor was sufficiently considered. This includes any potential over-blocking problems that may occur. TekSavvy’s arguments that the blocking order not ‘just and equitable’ were dismissed as well. This includes the burden that a constant stream of blocking amendments and dozens of new blocking cases will cause. Justice Locke agrees that problems may eventually arise in the future, but these will be dealt with then. They are no reason to deny the blocking order. Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal wasn’t receptive to the suggestion that copyright holders should consider other non-blocking options first, such as seeking help from Cloudflare or payment providers. There is no basis to conclude that these options would be effective, according to the Court. All in all, Justice Locke concludes that the appeal should be dismissed and Justices Nadon and LeBlanc concur. “Having found no error in the Judge’s conclusion that the Federal Court has the power to grant a site-blocking order, and having likewise found no error in his analysis of the applicable legal test, I conclude that this Court should not interfere with the Judge’s decision,” Justice Locke writes. Update: Responses The Canadian domain registry CIRA, which intervened in this case, is disappointed with the outcome. “Many Canadians will be disappointed by today’s ruling,” CIRA president and CEO, Byron Holland says. “While it is important to underline that the court did not open the door for ISPs to block of their own volition, we believe fundamentally that there are more proportionate responses to copyright infringement than the GoldTV precedent prescribes.”

The European Union Justice Ministers want illegal content to be removed from the internet in order to combat online child sexual abuse, hate speech and other crimes “with the cooperation of the service providers under the scope of the draft Digital Services Act”. Attention was called to this need at the informal video conference of Justice Ministers yesterday, which was chaired by Portuguese Minister Francisca Van Dunem. Moving forward with the digitalisation of justice in the European Union is also a common priority for the Member States. The Minister of Justice noted the possibility of using funding from the Recovery and Resilience Facility for this. According to the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, each Member State is expected to earmark 20% of the funds they receive for the digital transition. Justice Minister Francisca Van Dunem at the press conference © Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2021 / António Pedro Santos/LUSA Francisca Van Dunem also announced that, taking the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union into account, the Ministers from the 27 Member States believe a solution needs to be found to the issue of retention of electronic communications data as a tool for fighting organised crime and terrorism. “ The retention [of electronic communications data] is vital in the fight against crime and terrorism and in judicial cooperation ” Francisca Van Dunem, Portuguese Minister of Justice Conference on professional training in the justice field Improving the digitalisation of justice systems is an item on the EU agenda for the next three years. To this end, the Portuguese Presidency and the European Commission will be organising a conference on professional training in the justice field, to be held next May. On another issue, the Justice Ministers warmly welcomed the presentation of an EU-North Africa initiative aimed at “promoting more intensive dialogue in the areas of justice and home affairs”. Human rights were also on the table at this meeting, with an appeal to legislators and human rights organisations to intensify their efforts in order to implement respect for and the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the date marking European Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Terrorism, there was a minute’s silence for all the people and families who have directly or indirectly been victims of terrorist acts.

More than 1.5 subscribers with the “pezzotto” were left without services to illegally watch pay TV broadcasts. Postal operation throughout Italy Since last week the “pezzotto” does not work more in the houses beyond 1.5 million Italians. Digital piracy conveyed via streaming, and specifically IPTV, has suffered an unprecedented blow in these hours. With the’Operation Black Out, launched in recent days, more than 200 specialists from eleven regional compartments of the Police post in eighteen provinces they dismantled a “complex criminal infrastructure, both from an organizational and technological point of view“. In practice, as reported by the Police, “it is state cleared 80% of the illegal flow of Ip tv in Italy“ A national pirate streaming network The Postal and Communications Police had spotted one several months ago technological infrastructure operating at national level, responsible for dissemination through various sites “of the illegally captured signal of numerous pay-TV content platforms“, including Sky, Dazn, Mediaset, Netflix. At that point the Catania District Prosecutor opened a file and coordinated the investigations by delegating all operational actions to the police. The unit of Catania, with the coordination of the Postal and Communications Police Service of Rome, after months has identified the sources of the pirate stream and consequently began to compose the picture of the suspects. The plant, responsible for about 80% of the illegal IP TV flow in Italy, was identified in Messina. After that, the investigators reconstructed a pyramid scheme where, however, many members did not know each other personally. In the face of 45 suspects Many searches were carried out throughout Italy: Rome (15), Catania (6), Messina (5), Syracuse (1), Bari (1), Taranto (2), Fermo (1), Verona (1), Palermo (1), Agrigento (1), Naples (2), Caserta (3), Salerno (1), Pisa (1), Pistoia (1), Milan (1), Potenza (1) and Cagliari (1). The agents, during the searches, seized a large amount of illegal computer material, servers and devices “used for streaming connections and broadcasting activities“. In some cases, cash was also seized for tens of thousands of euros “deemed to be the proceeds of the illegal activity“, Reads the note released by the investigators. Part of the seized decoders The system The police have discovered a real criminal association based on a proven model. First the leaders of the association (called Sources) proceeded with the lawful purchase of services and then the signal, then the “transformation into computer data […] conveyed in audio / video streams“. Finally, the flows were transmitted through “a dense criminal framework to one capillary network of dealers and end users, equipped with home internet connection and equipment suitable for reception“. In practice, the fruition at home took place with the known “pezzotto”, a sort of Android-based multimedia device to be connected to the internet and television. The pirated streaming service was advertised on Telegram (as in the past), in various social networks and in various bot sites, channels, groups, accounts, forums and blogs. Obviously, the main paid streaming or satellite services at bargain prices ended up in the spotlight. Net of the computer investigations, the police also analyzed documents, banking information and also proceeded to stalking. The crimes The prosecutor in charge of the investigations and of the team specialized in computer crimes contested the crime of criminal association aimed at committing the crimes of aunauthorized access to a computer system protected by security measures (article 615 ter aggravated by the criminal code), computer fraud aggravated by the enormous damage caused (article 640 ter) and illegal reproduction and dissemination via the internet of works protected by copyright and intellectual property (article 171 ter law, number 633/1941). It should be remembered that the police have detected 1.5 million pirate subscribers, which with a monthly outlay of about 10 euros, they fed “a turnover for crime amounting to 15 million euros per month“. Not to mention the alleged loss of income for pay TV service providers

An amendment to the bill consolidating respect for the principles of the Republic (formerly the Law against separatism) proposes to allow judges to impose decisions to block sites on all necessary intermediaries. An improvement because until now the blocking of sites relies mainly on hosts and ISPs – it can generally be easily bypassed by changing DNS or using a VPN. Credit: Unsplash Justice will soon benefit from more extensive powers to block websites in France, whether they are pirate sites promoting terrorism, or other sites liable to be targeted by a blocking procedure. Adopted on April 2, 2021, an amendment to the Bill consolidating respect for the principles of the Republic modifies the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN) to allow judges to impose site blocking decisions on any actor involved in making the site available on the internet. The amendment presented by the government states in its reasons: “In the current state of the law, the summary proceedings available to 8 of I of Article 6 of the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN) no longer make it possible to respond effectively to requests for the closure of sites. To remedy this, it is necessary to broaden the scope of the actors targeted by this procedure and to modernize the procedural remedies it prescribes “. Until then, court decisions ordering the blocking of websites were mainly imposed on ISPs and hosts based in France.. Judges will be able to force more players to block websites However, many pirate sites operate from abroad. It is therefore generally easy to bypass the blocking, whether by modifying the DNS addresses of the machine or by using a VPN service that directly connects the Internet user to the network from another point in the world most often located abroad. . And that should not go smoothly. The reasons for the text speak in particular of the emergence of the DNS over HTTPS protocol, a new protocol which secures DNS queries (DNS blocking of sites is one of the measures applied in the event of administrative blocking). By making the connection more secure, the protocol scrambles the tracks, and implies that a judge will have to give formal notice to new actors if he wants his decisions to be implemented. “It is therefore necessary to widen the scope of the actors covered by the current 8 of I of article 6 of the LCEN to all the actors having the possibility of taking measures to prevent or put an end to the damage caused. by the content of a service, such as for example the blocking of a website or the removal of content ”, continues the text. Henceforth, thus, “Any susceptible person” contributing to the blocking of a mirror site may be involved in a blocking decision, and no longer members of a restricted list provided for by law. In addition to this increased number of actors, the amendment proposes changes to speed up the procedure, and do not give mirror sites time to multiply. The amendment provides for “Replace the summary proceedings and request of the LCEN by the accelerated procedure on the merits provided for by the new article 481-1 of the code of civil procedure (CPC)”. And to specify: “This adversarial procedure allows the parties to obtain a decision on the merits, and not a provisional one, unlike the current procedural arrangements – this modification allows a more appropriate response to be provided to the parties while guaranteeing their legal certainty, since site blocking decisions will thus be final and no longer provisional as is currently the case“. The defense will still be able to appeal, but the blocking can still be applied immediately on a temporary basis. We therefore understand that this modification will strengthen the arsenal available to judges, but also that the latter will have increasing power to block websites in France more effectively for various and varied reasons. France quite frequently uses decisions to block websites. Precise figures are not available, but in 2016 for example (year or figures are available) 312 requests to block entire sites were filed, including 244 for child pornography content and 68 for content promoting terrorism. 1,439 content removal requests were also filed (mainly for terrorism), accompanied by more than 855 delisting requests.

Allarco Entertainment 2008 Inc., the Edmonton-based media company that owns and operates the premium cable and satellite TV channel, alleges several big-box retailers have been selling streaming devices programmed to pirate television content, including Super Channel’s. The company has filed for an injunction that would order Staples Canada ULC, Best Buy Canada Ltd., London Drugs Ltd. and Canada Computers Inc. to stop selling the devices immediately. The case will be heard Tuesday. “The only reason why people buy these boxes is to steal content,” Allarco president and chief executive officer Donald McDonald said in an interview. Super Channel has exclusive Canadian rights to shows such as The Oath and Swedish Dicks. The company has filed for an injunction that would order Staples Canada ULC, Best Buy Canada Ltd., London Drugs Ltd. and Canada Computers Inc. to stop selling the devices immediately. The case will be heard Tuesday. “The only reason why people buy these boxes is to steal content,” Allarco president and chief executive officer Donald McDonald said in an interview. Super Channel has exclusive Canadian rights to shows such as The Oath and Swedish Dicks. It’s not the first time a broadcaster has turned to the courts over piracy issues. Super Channel filed a copyright lawsuit over this issue in 2019; it is still pending. And in 2016, BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron Ltd. teamed up to take legal action against five manufacturers of digital set-top boxes that came preloaded with applications that could be used to.

Content piracy – whether it is of a song, movie or any other piece of art – has been a challenge for decades. Downloading a movie, illegally, before its theatrical release or official TV premiere, is the most common form of piracy we know. The same goes for music, too. Last year, thanks to the lockdown, theatres had downed shutters for the most part, saw some relief earlier this year, only to be closed again owing to the second Covid-19 wave. Not just did consumers turn to OTT platforms for entertainment, but so did filmmakers and production houses; several released their films on the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Zee5 or Disney+Hotstar. Fresh content releases became par for the course on OTT. Recently, Zee Studios’ recent Salman Khan-starrer ‘Radhe’ had leaked on platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp. The production company filed an FIR at the Mumbai Cyber Cell, and a few were booked for downloading and selling pirated versions of the movie. Khan himself took to Twitter, to warn fans against engaging in piracy. However, piracy existed way before OTT ever did. In the new context, what does it mean in the context of streaming platforms? How can they up their privacy game to secure their content from this theft? Cons of the pay-per-view (PPV) model Content leaked on unofficial platforms can lead to huge losses in revenue for filmmakers and producers, in a very short span of time. Weighing in on this, Ambi Parameswaran, founder, Brand-Building, said, “Newspapers and magazines have been struggling with this for over a year. All the newspapers in the world, including the leading Indian papers, are downloaded and shared on platforms like Telegram,” adding that he knew someone who had a list of 3,000 people who regularly received these newspapers and magazines. The Indian media and entertainment sector reached $25.7 billion in 2019, registering a growth of 9%, as compared to the previous year, according to the FICCI report released by EY. Divya Dixit, SVP, marketing and revenue, ALTBalaji, stated that these numbers could grow at a much faster rate, if piracy ceased to exist. “Content piracy pulls the OTT platform two steps back by striking the business directly, as the potential audience downloads shrink and existing audiences view pirated content. It affects the revenue as well.” Karan Bedi, CEO, MX Player, claims that the impact of damage caused by piracy accounts for billions of dollars a year. He also adds that problems intensify when content is released without a theatrical release or on a PPV site. Efforts at securing content Reports have shown that a lot of applications and websites that offer pirated content, do not fall under the Indian jurisdiction. This makes it harder for OTT players to devise strategies to steer clear of their content being stolen and shared. Dixit states that ALTBalaji’s content is DRM-protected (digital rights management) and that the company has several digital tools to strike down illegal content that violates its copyrights. “These don’t work as a foolproof measure. However, as the OTT landscape is ever-evolving and hackers come out with new techniques every day, our DRM measures have to keep evolving to match the pace.” Agreeing with Dixit, Bedi explains, “People have to be educated that piracy of content is akin to stealing, even though it’s not a physical good that you’re robbing, content costs money to make and people are affected economically.” Platforms like MX Player, which follow an ad-led model offering free content, are also victims of privacy. Bedi is focused on weakening the top distribution channels. “Our viewers just have to watch ads. You have to constantly be on the lookout for at least 80% of distribution channels that engage in this activity. Figure out the top five or six that enable downloading of pirated content and use that as a starting point.” Getting people to view piracy as a real crime The campaign for the 2019 film ‘URI: The Surgical Strike’ makes for a classic example of creating public awareness against piracy. The brainchild Dentsu Webchutney had created a fake version of the film, with a message from the real actors and uploaded it on torrents, as bait for people who would land up downloading the pirated version. Speaking of the surgical strike it conducted on torrents, Sidharth Rao, chairman, Dentsu Webchutney and Dentsu mcgarrybowen India, said, “Everyone wanted to watch it and hence the problems were bigger. We realised one of the biggest platforms for films apart from regular social media platforms is torrents. But preaching doesn’t help. The idea was to make people aware of the problem and you can’t do that till you address it on its playground.” Rao added that the movie did feature on torrents, but created a great awareness amongst people, which before the campaign was a battle only fought by artists and filmmakers. However, Parameswaran makes a case saying, "The magic of a first day, first show and the collective euphoria of a new movie release drives box office collections and might have to come back to save the film industry." Radhe controversy Parameswaran is of the view that everyone awaited the release of a big-budget film to see how PPV would work. “I am sure the producers were aware of the problems with piracy. Probably they were hoping that the diehard fans will pay for content and not take it for free. Unfortunately, that has not happened.” Bedi believes that the consumer mindset is slowly getting better, but the piracy issue will never boil down to zero. “Everybody knew that the film ‘Radhe’ was available on the app and you could pay a certain amount and watch it and yet, an untold number of people pirated it.” Zee5 is the official streaming partner of the film and has instilled a three-pronged approach comprising origin and content protection, and piracy prevention to curb the problem. “We continue to evaluate successful global use cases, invest in them, and work closely with global technology partners and leading content security communities to fight against piracy,” a Zee5 spokesperson added. Real-time fix Parameswaran explains how nudging viewers to avoid free content could be a hard pass. He pens down a few real-time solutions that can help root out piracy. “In the case of movies released in theatres, every single print is watermarked, so that if a viewer shares it, it can be traced back. So, any theatre that allows piracy from its premises can be located and blacklisted. The same may have to be done with PPV. Or better still a print is viewable only for a few hours after purchase.” He also points out that the implementation complexity is the reason why PPV has not been a success in many countries. From a creative standpoint, Rao believes that agencies need to treat this problem differently. He says, “Understand that the universe of the internet is multiplying by the second. If we think that we can put a stop to piracy with one campaign, one idea, one innovation, it is impossible. While OTT players are constantly working towards stronger security layers, we need to keep the awareness engine running. Leverage the reach of the entertainment industry and content, and get more and more people to know about the problem. Only when everyone knows about the problem, you can solve it.” Dixit's suggestion for this is a regulatory framework for piracy, which she calls the need of the hour. The company agrees that this phenomenon is rapidly tiptoeing its way into companies’ revenue and reach. “While the OTT industry is finding ways to curb piracy, people do not believe it is a crime to consume pirated content in India and that perception needs to change on an immediate basis via various industries as well as brand campaigns." Zee's spokeperson says that this phenomenon is rapidly tiptoeing its way into companies’ revenue and reach. “While the OTT industry is finding ways to curb piracy, people do not believe it is a crime to consume pirated content in India and that perception needs to change on an immediate basis via various industries as well as brand campaigns,” a Zee spokesperson concluded. That being said, Bedi is certain that no matter how high-end the security, eradication of piracy will always be a constant battle, which would render someone or the other to break into the security systems and challenge this narrative.

The fight against pirated IPTV has intensified in recent years, but there are State security forces and bodies that have been fighting it for more than a decade. The UK had several units linked to online crime, and this week it announced that they have joined forces to form a group with even more operational power. The City of London Police, the lead body in the fight against fraud, has partnered with the Intellectual Property Office and the North West Regional Organized Crime Unit to create the North West Police Intellectual Property Crimes Unit (NWPIPCU) . In total, there are six forces that comprise it: Lancashire Police, Greater Manchester Police, Merseyside Police, Cheshire Police, Cumbria Police and North Wales Police, and they do not stop making new arrests. Two arrests against a pirated IPTV service This was announced yesterday, where the NWPIPCU carried out five raids related to pirate IPTV , which ended with the arrest of two people and the seizure of electronic devices, cash, and counterfeit products, including IPTV receivers . Unfortunately, they have not given more details on the name of the service or the number of users who used it. According to the authorities, crimes against intellectual property cost the economy hundreds of millions of euros a year, and threaten thousands of jobs. Of all their investigations, they affirm that the damage done by the piracy of these services amounts to 2.66 million euros . There will be more operations soon The operation carried out yesterday is far from the end. In fact, Superintendent Paul Denn says that they have "more operations against pirated IPTV" in the works that will demonstrate the real scope of this type of pirated IPTV services that more and more users use. The authorities claim to be aware of the activity carried out by those who offer these services. The IPTV Pirate payment has become an alternative increasingly used for sporting events live, as they offer good image quality and thousands of channels from around the world, adapting to what users demand. The problem is that those who offer this content are exposed to fines that can reach millions of dollars, in addition to jail time. In addition, users risk completely losing the money invested in these services, since, for example, if they pay a subscription year, and after two months it closes, all the money is lost and there is no way to claim it. Added to this is the risk that our data, such as our IP address , ends up in the hands of the authorities after the raids and may take us to court.

The Colonial Pipeline, which provides roughly 45% of the East Coast's oil, gas and jet fuel, was hacked last week by a group called DarkSide. The cyberattack forced the pipeline owners to shut down operations, leading to long gas lines in many American cities. The incident has sparked a long-overdue discussion about how to deal with what may be one of the biggest national security threats of the 21st century. A host of countries, including the United States, have sophisticated cyber operations. The Chinese have penetrated large swaths of our infrastructure. Russia and North Korea have sown mischief on several occasions. Last year, Russia hacked into the cybersecurity firm Solar Winds, whose clients include Microsoft and numerous U.S. government agencies, among them the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Treasury. In 2014, the Guardians of Peace, now more commonly known as the Lazarus Group, hacked into Sony Pictures' computers and stole a treasure trove of information, including emails between executives, personal data, salary information and copies of unreleased films. The hackers' stated aim was to prevent the release of the comedy "The Interview," which made fun of North Korea's crapulent boy king Kim Jung Un. The FBI designated Guardians of Peace a North Korean state-sponsored hacking organization. It all sounds so futuristic. But sometimes when we get a glimpse of future threats, it's wise to rummage through the lessons of the past. As metaphors go, describing the internet as a vast ocean isn't half bad. There are enormous continental powers such as Facebook. There are archipelagos of smaller sites linked to each other in various ways. There are even remote lawless islands in hard-to-access backwaters like the dark web. And, as with a real ocean, commerce and communication depend on being able to navigate it. In the 18th and 19th centuries, being a seafaring nation brought power, prosperity and prestige. And it brought pirates. Which brings me back to DarkSide. Sure, it's a criminal organization, and its members should be brought to justice. But it's also fascinating. DarkSide's hackers claim to be bound by an ethical code, saying they won't hack hospitals or schools. "We are apolitical, we do not participate in geopolitics, do not need to tie us with a defined government and look for other our motives [sic]," DarkSide said in a statement. "Our goal is to make money, and not creating problems for society." There's no reason to take them at their word. DarkSide will not attack Russian targets, no doubt in part because it is based there, according to U.S. officials, and operates with a wink and nod from Vladimir Putin. This is nothing new. Pirates and privateers often cut side deals with local authorities. Pirates also had their own codes. In his magnificent book "The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates," Peter Leeson describes the incredibly sophisticated ethical (and even constitutional) systems created by pirates to regulate and guide their profession. "Pirates' system of constitutional democracy predated constitutional democracy in France, Spain, the United States, and arguably even England," Leeson writes. Some pirate ships had detailed rules for everything from profit-sharing to trials by jury. Just because an outfit is "stateless" doesn't mean it can't have its own form of statecraft. Of course, pirates were also criminals, often vicious ones. But even their reputation for cruelty had a purpose. The Jolly Roger — that skull-and-crossbones flag — was a brilliant bit of marketing, according to Leeson, because it telegraphed to victims that they should surrender without a fight or face horrifying consequences. As the Dread Pirate Roberts says in "The Princess Bride, "Once word leaks out that a pirate has gone soft, people begin to disobey you, and then it's nothing but work, work, work all the time." That's the business many of these hackers are in. Pay up quickly or meet a horrible fate, in the form of economic calamity or leaked personal information. In the golden age of piracy, governments responded to the pirate threat in all sorts of clever ways. One response was the issuance of "letters of marque and reprisal" — mentioned in the U.S. Constitution — which granted private captains the authority to wage war on our enemies. Our 21st century enemies are doing that already. Perhaps as a great cyberfaring nation, it's time we do likewise.

Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) has grown in popularity in a short span of time, as a result of Internet connectivity speeds and the low cost of IPTV enabled devices. While legitimate broadcasters are starting to utilise IPTV solutions, a growing number of rogue streamers are using the same technology to deliver unauthorised content. Not only can thousands of channels be distributed via illegal IPTV subscriptions, but channels that should be geo-blocked are being made available outside of their own territories. Live sports broadcasts, pay-per-views and even award shows are being shown through these unauthorized services. As a result, many rights owners and broadcast partners are facing real threats to subscriber revenue due to the availability of cheaper, or even free, pirated content. In fact, it is extremely easy to search the web for “free” IPTV services – there are even videos to help get you singed up and running. Infringement includes: streaming servers used to deliver unauthorized channels the payment providers servicing the IPTV supplier and/or the suppliers making the boxes and IPTV subscriptions available. Sales impact IPTV piracy is not only undermining the value of content but also the average revenue per user (ARPU). Unfortunately some consumers don’t see anything wrong with this â a survey from YouGov estimates that around 4.9 million UK broadband connected adults use pirated IPTV streaming services. In light of this your solution should detect document and remove illegal streams from unauthorized IPTV services. You should be able to: Detect verify and enforce in near real-time Gather intelligence over a comprehensive database of IPTV services Avoid detection by unauthorised platforms with discreet scanning Prioritise IPTV services for disruption with traffic-based enforcement Managing the process can be difficult so be sure that you have the support of a global team of dedicated engineers and analysts that can customise your strategy and streamline the process for you. While the demand for IPTV will undoubtedly grow your ARPU revenues do not need to decline as a result. Learn more about fighting piracy here.

“Copyright trolls” may not receive information about users sharing copyright-protected works on peer to peer networks and even a fragment transferred can be a communication to the public. Advocate General Szpunar has issued an opinion on various directives in the context of copyright infringement involving peer-to-peer networks in Mircom International Content Management & Consulting (MICM) Limited v Telenet BVBA (Case C 597/19). The case centred on so-called “copyright trolls” who threaten court action so they can collect the names and addresses of infringers to offer them an amicable settlement in return for the payment of a certain sum, usually without actually going ahead with court proceedings. In effect the AG said that “copyright trolls” may not receive information about users sharing copyright-protected content on peer-to-peer networks so that they can pursue them for damages for infringement and that EU law could not be used for abusive or fraudulent reasons. In addition, users sharing copyright-protected works on peer-to-peer networks, even if only short fragments, are carrying out acts of communication to the public. The case arose in the context of licences for the communication to the public of films on peer-to-peer networks and internet file-sharing networks, which were held by the claimant Mircom. The licences contracts required Mircom to investigate acts of infringement of the film producers’ exclusive rights committed on the networks and, in its own name, to take legal action against the infringers to get compensation. It had to pass half of that compensation to the film producers. Mircom sought an order in the Antwerp Companies Court that the ISP Telenet produce the identification data for its customers whose internet connections had been used to share on a peer-to-peer network using the BitTorrent protocol films from the claimant's catalogue. The Belgian court referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the following questions: Can the downloading of a file via a peer-to-peer network and the simultaneous provision for uploading of parts (‘pieces’) thereof (which may be very fragmentary as compared to the whole) (‘seeding’) be regarded as a communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive 2001/29, even if the individual pieces as such are unusable? If so, is there a de minimis threshold above which the seeding of those pieces would constitute a communication to the public? Is the fact that seeding can take place automatically (as a result of the torrent client’s settings), and thus without the user’s knowledge, relevant? Can a person who is the contractual holder of the copyright (or related rights), but does not themselves exploit those rights but merely claims damages from alleged infringers — and whose economic business model thus depends on the existence of piracy, not on combating it — enjoy the same rights as those conferred by Chapter II of the Enforcement Directive 2004/48 on authors or licence holders who do exploit copyright in the normal way? How can the licence holder in that case have suffered ‘prejudice’ (under Article 13 of Directive 2004/48) as a result of the infringement? Are the specific circumstances set out in questions 1 and 2 relevant when assessing the correct balance to be struck between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Charter on Human Rights, such as respect for private life and protection of personal data, particularly in the context of the assessment of proportionality? Is, in all those circumstances, the systematic registration and general further processing of the IP-addresses of a ‘swarm’ of ‘seeders’ (by the licence holder, and by a third party on their behalf) legitimate under Article 6(1) of the GDPR? Advocate General Szpunar delivered an opinion in the proceedings, saying: Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the act of making pieces of a file containing a protected work available for download within the context of a peer-to-peer network, even before the user concerned has themselves downloaded that file in its entirety, falls within the scope of the right to make works available to the public, in accordance with that article, and that user’s full knowledge of the facts is not decisive. Article 4(b) of Directive 2004/48/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a body which, although it has acquired certain rights over protected works, does not exploit them, but merely claims damages from individuals who infringe those rights, does not have the status to benefit from the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Chapter II of that Directive, to the extent that the national court finds that the acquisition of rights by that body was solely for the purpose of obtaining that status. Directive 2004/48 neither requires nor prevents the member state from attributing that status, in its national legislation, to an assignee of claims relating to infringements of intellectual property rights. Articles 8(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2004/48 mean that the national court must refuse to grant entitlement to the right of information provided for in Article 8, in the light of the circumstances of the dispute, it finds that the request for information is unjustified or unlawful. Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR means that the recording of the IP addresses of persons whose internet connections have been used to share protected works on peer-to-peer networks constitutes the lawful processing of personal data where that recording is carried out in the pursuit of a legitimate interest of the controller or a third party, in particular to file a justified request for the disclosure of the names of the owners of the internet connections identified by the IP addresses under Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 2004/48. The query here would be whether Mircom had a “legitimate interest”.

It's taken over a decade, but the Supreme Court has finally said that Google's copying of the Sun Java API for Android was clearly fair use in a 6-2 ruling (Barrett did not take part since she was not on the Court when the case was heard). The background of this case is actually kind of important to understanding what just happened, so here's a quick(ish) recap. As you'll probably know, this case began in 2010 when Oracle, which had just taken over Sun, sued Google for patent infringement. The patent parts were quickly tossed out and what remained was what referred to as a "sideshow" to the main event: a question about whether APIs could be covered by copyright. Pretty much all historical evidence, including an important Supreme Court ruling from the 1990s, said no, interfaces are not covered by copyright. Oracle and friends then spent the next decade deliberately gaslighting basically everyone who doesn't understand what an API is, and insisting that it's the same as executable code. The district court, under Judge William Alsup, who somewhat famously taught himself Java to better understand the issues in the case (he already knew how to code and was a hobbyist programmer), correctly found that APIs are not subject to copyright as they represent a "system or method of operation" which is explicitly not covered by copyright, as per Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. Rather than go to the 9th Circuit (as it should have) the case went to the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals. That was because the case began as a patent case, even though it no longer was. CAFC judges are somewhat infamous for never finding a patent issue they couldn't screw up, and decided to extend that to copyright. In the ruling overturning the lower court, they made it clear that because they were code illiterate they could not understand the difference between executing code and an API, even though it's like the difference between a novel and a dictionary. The case went back to the district court, where the jury this time sided with Google, this time saying that the use of the code was covered under fair use. That whole trial was a little weird, because reading between the lines, you could see that nearly all the arguments for why copying an API was fair use were really about why an API shouldn't be covered by copyright at all (as per Alsup's original ruling) and then squeezing that square peg into the round hole of fair use to make it work. Once again, however, CAFC got flummoxed by an API looking like code and overturned -- which is quite crazy because CAFC had, in its first ruling, insisted that the jury should decide this issue (as a matter of fact) and then when the jury said "fair use" CAFC suddenly decided that it was a matter of law that it could overrule. Finally, we get to the Supreme Court. From oral arguments, it wasn't clear where the court was leaning -- with some good questions and some crazy questions. But with today's ruling, it's clear that the smarter questioners won out. The majority opinion was written by Justice Breyer, who has always been the best Justice on copyright issues, and had the support of Justices Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor. Breyer starts out by noting (thankfully, unlike the CAFC judges) that it's important to understand just what an API actually is. Consider in more detail just what an API does. A computer can perform thousands, perhaps millions, of different tasks that a programmer may wish to use. These tasks range from the most basic to the enormously complex. Ask the computer, for example, to tell you which of two numbers is the higher number or to sort one thousand numbers in ascending order, and it will instantly give you the right answer. An API divides and organizes the world of computing tasks in a particular way. Programmers can then use the API to select the particular task that they need for their programs. In Sun’s API (which we refer to as the Sun Java API), each individual task is known as a “method.” The API groups somewhat similar methods into larger “classes,” and groups somewhat similar classes into larger “packages.” This method-class-package organizational structure is referred to as the Sun Java API’s “structure, sequence, and organization,” or SSO. For each task, there is computer code, known as “implementing code,” that in effect tells the computer how to execute the particular task you have asked it to perform (such as telling you, of two numbers, which is the higher). See Oracle, 872 F. Supp. 2d, at 979–980. The implementing code (which Google independently wrote) is not at issue here. For a single task, the implementing code may be hundreds of lines long. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, for a programmer to create complex software programs without drawing on prewritten task-implementing programs to execute discrete tasks. But how do you as the programmer tell the computer which of the implementing code programs it should choose, i.e., which task it should carry out? You do so by entering into your own program a command that corresponds to the specific task and calls it up. Those commands, known as “method calls,” help you carry out the task by choosing those programs written in implementing code that will do the trick, i.e., that will instruct the computer so that your program will find the higher of two numbers. If a particular computer might perform, say, a million different tasks, different method calls will tell the computer which of those tasks to choose. Those familiar with the Java language already know countless method calls that allow them to invoke countless tasks. And how does the method call (which a programmer types) actually locate and invoke the particular implementing code that it needs to instruct the computer how to carry out a particular task? It does so through another type of code, which the parties have labeled “declaring code.” Declaring code is part of the API. For each task, the specific command entered by the programmer matches up with specific declaring code inside the API. That declaring code provides both the name for each task and the location of each task within the API’s overall organizational system (i.e., the placement of a method within a particular class and the placement of a class within a particular package). In this sense, the declaring code and the method call form a link, allowing the programmer to draw upon the thousands of prewritten tasks, written in implementing code. See id., at 979–980. Without that declaring code, the method calls entered by the programmer would not call up the implementing code. The declaring code therefore performs at least two important functions in the Sun Java API. The first, more obvious, function is that the declaring code enables a set of shortcuts for programmers. By connecting complex implementing code with method calls, it allows a programmer to pick out from the API’s task library a particular task without having to learn anything more than a simple command. For example, a programmer building a new application for personal banking may wish to use various tasks to, say, calculate a user’s balance or authenticate a password. To do so, she need only learn the method calls associated with those tasks. In this way, the declaring code’s shortcut function is similar to a gas pedal in a car that tells the car to move faster or the QWERTY keyboard on a typewriter that calls up a certain letter when you press a particular key. As those analogies demonstrate, one can think of the declaring code as part of an interface between human beings and a machine. The second, less obvious, function is to reflect the way in which Java’s creators have divided the potential world of different tasks into an actual world, i.e., precisely which set of potentially millions of different tasks we want to have our Java-based computer systems perform and how we want those tasks arranged and grouped. In this sense, the declaring code performs an organizational function. It determines the structure of the task library that Java’s creators have decided to build. To understand this organizational system, think of the Dewey Decimal System that categorizes books into an accessible system or a travel guide that arranges a city’s attractions into different categories. Language itself provides a rough analogy to the declaring code’s organizational feature, for language itself divides into sets of concepts a world that in certain respects other languages might have divided differently. The developers of Java, for example, decided to place a method called “draw image” inside of a class called “graphics.” Not a bad description for an 82-year-old Supreme Court Justice (kudos to his clerks and the various parties and amici that briefed this). One of the big debates in the lead up to the case, and at oral arguments, was what "analogy" best represented what an API was. You can see above Breyer mention the Dewey Decimal System, which is a pretty good analogy. Then he includes another: Consider a comprehensive, albeit farfetched, analogy that illustrates how the API is actually used by a programmer. Imagine that you can, via certain keystrokes, instruct a robot to move to a particular file cabinet, to open a certain drawer, and to pick out a specific recipe. With the proper recipe in hand, the robot then moves to your kitchen and gives it to a cook to prepare the dish. This example mirrors the API’s task-related organizational system. Through your simple command, the robot locates the right recipe and hands it off to the cook. In the same way, typing in a method call prompts the API to locate the correct implementing code and hand it off to your computer. And importantly, to select the dish that you want for your meal, you do not need to know the recipe’s contents, just as a programmer using an API does not need to learn the implementing code. In both situations, learning the simple command is enough. Of course, reading this you might hope that Breyer is about to go all the way to the point that he should and say that APIs, as systems and methods, are clearly not covered by copyright under 102(b). But, unfortunately, he does not. The majority opinion goes for the 2nd best option, just saying that this is fair use. But there are still some fascinating tidbits on the way there. Incredibly, Breyer quotes Thomas Macaulay's amazing speech on copyright in 1841 that we've quoted on Techdirt many times before. I wasn't expecting to see it here, however. But here is Breyer explaining how copyright is a "tax": Macaulay once said that the principle of copyright is a “tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers.” T. Macaulay, Speeches on Copyright 25 (E. Miller ed. 1913). Congress, weighing advantages and disadvantages, will determine the more specific nature of the tax, its boundaries and conditions, the existence of exceptions and exemptions, all by exercising its own constitutional power to write a copyright statute. And then he notes that Congress has put limits on copyright, including the limits on what is subject to copyright (Section 102), and then other limitations found throughout the Copyright Act, including fair use (Section 107). Breyer then notes that even though Google asked the Court to say APIs are not covered by copyright, since they can answer the fair use question and dispose of the issue, the court will just assume that APIs are subject to copyright for the sake of exploring fair use, and leave the actual question of copyright and APIs to another day (groan). A holding for Google on either question presented would dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims. Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use.” Unlike the Federal Circuit, we conclude that it was. Still, the fair use analysis itself is quite interesting. It notes that software copyright has been a tricky question in general, given that it has both creative literary elements and functional elements (which are not supposed to be covered by copyright). Generically speaking, computer programs differ from books, films, and many other “literary works” in that such programs almost always serve functional purposes. These and other differences have led at least some judges to complain that “applying copyright law to computer programs is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces do not quite fit.” Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F. 3d 807, 820 (CA1 1995) (Boudin, J., concurring). These differences also led Congress to think long and hard about whether to grant computer programs copyright protection. In 1974, Congress established a National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) to look into the matter. §§201–208, 88 Stat. 1873–1875. After several years of research, CONTU concluded that the “availability of copyright protection for computer programs is desirable.” Final Report 11 (July 31, 1978). At the same time, it recognized that computer programs had unique features. Mindful of not “unduly burdening users of programs and the general public,” it wrote that copyright “should not grant anyone more economic power than is necessary to achieve the incentive to create.” Id., at 12. And it believed that copyright’s existing doctrines (e.g., fair use), applied by courts on a case-by-case basis, could prevent holders from using copyright to stifle innovation. Ibid. (“Relatively few changes in the Copyright Act of 1976 are required to attain these objectives”). Congress then wrote computer program protection into the law. See §10, 94 Stat. 3028. The upshot, in our view, is that fair use can play an important role in determining the lawful scope of a computer program copyright, such as the copyright at issue here. It can help to distinguish among technologies. It can distinguish between expressive and functional features of computer code where those features are mixed. It can focus on the legitimate need to provide incentives to produce copyrighted material while examining the extent to which yet further protection creates unrelated or illegitimate harms in other markets or to the development of other products. In a word, it can carry out its basic purpose of providing a context-based check that can help to keep a copyright monopoly within its lawful bounds. See H. R. Rep. No. 94– 1476, pp. 65–66 (1976) (explaining that courts are to “adapt the doctrine [of fair use] to particular situations on a caseby-case basis” and in light of “rapid technological change”); see, e.g., Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F. 3d 522, 543–545 (CA6 2004) (discussing fair use in the context of copying to preserve compatibility); Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F. 3d 596, 603–608 (CA9 2000) (applying fair use to intermediate copying necessary to reverse engineer access to unprotected functional elements within a program); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F. 2d 1510, 1521–1527 (CA9 1992) (holding that wholesale copying of copyrighted code as a preliminary step to develop a competing product was a fair use). Breyer notes his confusion over Justice Thomas' dissent (we'll get there) and says that Congress clearly meant for fair use to apply to software: We do not understand Congress, however, to have shielded computer programs from the ordinary application of copyright’s limiting doctrines in this way. By defining computer programs in §101, Congress chose to place this subject matter within the copyright regime. Like other protected works, that means that the owners of computer programs enjoy the exclusive rights set forth in the Act, including the right to “reproduce [a] copyrighted work” or to “prepare derivative works.” 17 U. S. C. §106. But that also means that exclusive rights in computer programs are limited like any other works. Just as fair use distinguishes among books and films, which are indisputably subjects of copyright, so too must it draw lines among computer programs. And just as fair use takes account of the market in which scripts and paintings are bought and sold, so too must it consider the realities of how technological works are created and disseminated. We do not believe that an approach close to “all or nothing” would be faithful to the Copyright Act’s overall design. Breyer notes that CAFC got things correct in saying that fair use is both a matter of fact (for juries) and of law (for judges) -- though leaves out that in the first go-round, the CAFC suggested otherwise. So he rejects Google's suggestion that the jury ruling on fair use should stand without judicial review. However, he still says that the jury was correct in the finding of fair use after going through the standard four factor test. The fact that the work in question was an API weighs heavily in the fair use determination, as part of the "nature of the work" test (the second of the four factors). The majority opinion notes that the key parts of the API, the declaring code, are not that "close to the core" of the purpose of copyright: The declaring code (inseparable from the programmer’s method calls) embodies a different kind of creativity. Sun Java’s creators, for example, tried to find declaring code names that would prove intuitively easy to remember. Id., at 211. They wanted to attract programmers who would learn the system, help to develop it further, and prove reluctant to use another. See post, at 10 (“Declaring code . . . is user facing. It must be designed and organized in a way that is intuitive and understandable to developers so that they can invoke it”). Sun’s business strategy originally emphasized the importance of using the API to attract programmers. It sought to make the API “open” and “then . . . compete on implementations.” App. 124–125. The testimony at trial was replete with examples of witnesses drawing this critical line between the user-centered declaratory code and the innovative implementing code.... These features mean that, as part of a user interface, the declaring code differs to some degree from the mine run of computer programs. Like other computer programs, it is functional in nature. But unlike many other programs, its use is inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (general task division and organization) and new creative expression (Android’s implementing code). Unlike many other programs, its value in significant part derives from the value that those who do not hold copyrights, namely, computer programmers, invest of their own time and effort to learn the API’s system. And unlike many other programs, its value lies in its efforts to encourage programmers to learn and to use that system so that they will use (and continue to use) Sun-related implementing programs that Google did not copy. Although copyrights protect many different kinds of writing, Leval 1116, we have emphasized the need to “recogni[ze] that some works are closer to the core of [copyright] than others,” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 586. In our view, for the reasons just described, the declaring code is, if copyrightable at all, further than are most computer programs (such as the implementing code) from the core of copyright. That fact diminishes the fear, expressed by both the dissent and the Federal Circuit, that application of “fair use” here would seriously undermine the general copyright protection that Congress provided for computer programs. And it means that this factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” points in the direction of fair use. As for the purpose and character of the use, that also leans towards fair use in important ways -- highlighting the transformative nature of Google's use for Android here: Here Google’s use of the Sun Java API seeks to create new products. It seeks to expand the use and usefulness of Android-based smartphones. Its new product offers programmers a highly creative and innovative tool for a smartphone environment. To the extent that Google used parts of the Sun Java API to create a new platform that could be readily used by programmers, its use was consistent with that creative “progress” that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself. Cf. Feist, 499 U. S., at 349–350 (“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’” (quoting U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8)). The opinion also rejects the idea that just because Google was copying the API for commercial reasons somehow means it's not fair use: There is no doubt that a finding that copying was not commercial in nature tips the scales in favor of fair use. But the inverse is not necessarily true, as many common fair uses are indisputably commercial. For instance, the text of §107 includes examples like “news reporting,” which is often done for commercial profit. So even though Google’s use was a commercial endeavor—a fact no party disputed, see 886 F. 3d, at 1197—that is not dispositive of the first factor, particularly in light of the inherently transformative role that the reimplementation played in the new Android system. One of the key arguments Oracle and its supporters made was that Google's actions were done in "bad faith" because it first tried to negotiate a license with Sun, and when that failed, just copied the API. However, Breyer points out that this just doesn't matter: As for bad faith, our decision in Campbell expressed some skepticism about whether bad faith has any role in a fair use analysis. 510 U. S., at 585, n. 18. We find this skepticism justifiable, as “[c]opyright is not a privilege reserved for the well-behaved.” Leval 1126. We have no occasion here to say whether good faith is as a general matter a helpful inquiry. We simply note that given the strength of the other factors pointing toward fair use and the jury finding in Google’s favor on hotly contested evidence, that factbound consideration is not determinative in this context On the "amount and substantiality of the portion used", again the majority says this leans towards fair use. It mentions, in passing, that some of this could depend on whether the whole product being copied is all of Java or just the API, but then notes that doesn't really matter. The important question is whether or not Google copied more than it needed to to achieve the transformative use it set out to accomplish. And there the court says that Google did not go too far: Google copied those lines not because of their creativity, their beauty, or even (in a sense) because of their purpose. It copied them because programmers had already learned to work with the Sun Java API’s system, and it would have been difficult, perhaps prohibitively so, to attract programmers to build its Android smartphone system without them. Further, Google’s basic purpose was to create a different task-related system for a different computing environment (smartphones) and to create a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and popularize that objective. The “substantiality” factor will generally weigh in favor of fair use where, as here, the amount of copying was tethered to a valid, and transformative, purpose. Supra, at 25–26; see Campbell, 510 U. S., at 586–587 (explaining that the factor three “enquiry will harken back to the first of the statutory factors, for . . . the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use”). We do not agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that Google could have achieved its Java-compatibility objective by copying only the 170 lines of code that are “necessary to write in the Java language.” 886 F. 3d, at 1206. In our view, that conclusion views Google’s legitimate objectives too narrowly. Google’s basic objective was not simply to make the Java programming language usable on its Android systems. It was to permit programmers to make use of their knowledge and experience using the Sun Java API when they wrote new programs for smartphones with the Android platform. In principle, Google might have created its own, different system of declaring code. But the jury could have found that its doing so would not have achieved that basic objective. In a sense, the declaring code was the key that it needed to unlock the programmers’ creative energies. And it needed those energies to create and to improve its own innovative Android systems. Finally, there's the impact on the market question. The majority opinion goes back and forth presenting the arguments on both sides and then notes that if Oracle was allowed to completely lock up the Java API, it would go against copyright's basic objectives and potentially harm the public! It's really nice to hear that stated so clearly: Finally, given programmers’ investment in learning the Sun Java API, to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public. Given the costs and difficulties of producing alternative APIs with similar appeal to programmers, allowing enforcement here would make of the Sun Java API’s declaring code a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs. Oracle alone would hold the key. The result could well prove highly profitable to Oracle (or other firms holding a copyright in computer interfaces). But those profits could well flow from creative improvements, new applications, and new uses developed by users who have learned to work with that interface. To that extent, the lock would interfere with, not further, copyright’s basic creativity objectives Finally, Breyer notes that all of this is completely consistent with past Supreme Court precedent, and they're not overturning anything: The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world. See Lotus Development Corp., 49 F. 3d, at 820 (Boudin, J., concurring). In doing so here, we have not changed the nature of those concepts. We do not overturn or modify our earlier cases involving fair use—cases, for example, that involve “knockoff ” products, journalistic writings, and parodies. Rather, we here recognize that application of a copyright doctrine such as fair use has long proved a cooperative effort of Legislatures and courts, and that Congress, in our view, intended that it so continue. As such, we have looked to the principles set forth in the fair use statute, §107, and set forth in our earlier cases, and applied them to this different kind of copyrighted work. Well done. It would have been nicer if they'd also offered a clean answer on whether or not APIs are subject to copyright at all, but in absence of that, this will be a useful fair use case going forward. As for the dissent from Justices Thomas (co-signed by Alito)... it's weird. First it says that the majority should not have ignored the copyrightability question -- though it argues that if that had been explored, APIs would clearly be covered (again, I believe this is wrong). Thomas falls for the same trap that the CAFC judges did -- insisting that because it's all confusing to them, API code and executable code are basically the same thing, because they "are bound together." This is just weird. The Supreme Court has, in the past, recognized that multiple parts of the same work, even those that are bound together, can have some elements that are covered by copyright and some that are not. Why Thomas and Alito ignore this is beyond me. Their fair use analysis is similarly just wrong. Whereas the majority found all four factors favored Google, Thomas/Alito insist that three "decisively favor Oracle." Again, Thomas demonstrates his technical ignorance in insisting that declaring code and implementing code are effectively no different. Regarding the harm on the market, Thomas insists that the majority is all speculative, and the fact that the European Commission has fined Google for antitrust practices shows that if the Court is worried about lock-in, it should be worried about Google, not Oracle. There is a kernel of a point in there, but it's got nothing to do with the case at hand. Thomas then gives the freakout we've been hearing from Oracle supporters for the last decade: that saying an API is not covered by copyright (or copying it is fair use) will somehow eviscerate copyright on software. Now, we are told, “transformative” simply means—at least for computer code—a use that will help others “create new products.” Ibid; accord, ante, at 26 (Google’s copying “can further the development of computer programs”). That new definition eviscerates copyright. A movie studio that converts a book into a film without permission not only creates a new product (the film) but enables others to “create products”—film reviews, merchandise, YouTube highlight reels, late night television interviews, and the like. Nearly every computer program, once copied, can be used to create new products. Surely the majority would not say that an author can pirate the next version of Microsoft Word simply because he can use it to create new manuscripts. But that's just ludicrous. The majority decision lays out all the ways Google copying the API resulted in new products -- because it enabled more programmers to write apps for Android. It's not saying that the Android copy itself was to create products. Thomas is completely misreading the issue, and I can assure you that no court is going to read the majority decision to say that standard piracy is now fair use. Thomas claims that the majority is conflating transformative use with derivative use, but it's actually Thomas who is doing that with the above paragraph. The majority is not saying that derivative use is obviously fair use, but if the effort is transformative, using functional specs to create a system for others to make use of, then it can be transformative. Google's use wasn't derivative -- it was building an entirely different system, and wanted to include some familiar guideposts for developers. Hilariously, after previously insisting that the Java declaring code and implementing code were too inextricably tied together to separate out what was copyrightable and what was not, Thomas then rejects that in looking at the amount used factor -- saying we must only look at the declaring code. But the proper denominator is declaring code, not all code. A copied work is quantitatively substantial if it could “serve as a market substitute for the original” work or “potentially licensed derivatives” of that work. Campbell, 510 U. S., at 587. The declaring code is what attracted programmers. And it is what made Android a “market substitute” for “potentially licensed derivatives” of Oracle’s Java platform. Google’s copying was both qualitatively and quantitatively substantial. The entire dissent is a mess of nonsense and question-begging. In the end, this is a good decision and helps avoid the disaster that would have occurred if Oracle's viewpoint had won out. Somewhat ironically, as we've pointed out before, Google winning on this argument is actually good for competition, as it will also create more opportunities for new companies to undermine Google's own position in the market as well. This is a good ruling and the entire software development community can breathe a bit easier.

Russia's media regulator announced on Wednesday that it was slowing down online access to the social media giant Twitter in order to "protect Russian citizens." It said that the slowdown was the first step, but that it would consider blocking the service if Twitter did not act upon the complaints. An official from the communications watchdog told Russian news agency Ifax that the slowdown of Twitter's services would only affect images and video, not text. They also confirmed that the measures would stay in place until the platform has removed all the content under complaint. Why is Russia restricting access to Twitter? The Federal Service for the Supervision in the Sphere of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) based its decision on Twitter's failure to remove "illegal content." The regulator cited 2,569 cases of users inciting minors to commit suicide, 450 cases of child pornography and 149 cases of information on drug use. Volume 90% Watch video01:30 Women unite in the fight against online attacks The statement indicated that Roskomnadzor had made over 28,000 complaints to Twitter since 2017, including repeated requests to remove illegal links and publications. Roskomnadzor said that this first measure to slow down Twitter's service in Russia would affect all mobile devices and half of non-mobile devices. What is the dispute between Moscow and Big Tech? Moscow has been increasingly tightening its grip on US-based social media platforms in an attempt to make them abide by Russian laws. In December, the Russian Parliament's lower house passed two bills that would give greater power to the state to punish companies such as Facebook and Twitter. The bills included powers to fine the platforms for failing to delete banned content and allowing restrictions if they "discriminate" against Russian media organizations. In August of last year, Twitter began tagging posts from certain Russian media accounts as "state-affiliated media." The platform has also been popular with imprisoned Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny as well as his allies. Member of the Russian Duma and committee on information and media, Anton Gorelkin, told the Russian agency Interfax on Wednesday that Facebook would be next to be hit with restrictions if it did not deal with the illegal content on its platform.

TV pirates could find themselves in trouble after an RAF corporal was convicted of profiting from illegal television streams, a watchdog has warned. The corporal sold illegal subscriptions through a Facebook group and via an app which could be loaded onto Firestick devices However, he was rumbled and the Oxfordshire based corporal was prosecuted. Now, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) have warned the public that the subscribers to his illegal scam have been been "identified" - and that further action is expected.. Kieron Sharp, FACT chief executive, said: “Those running illegal streaming services are committing a serious crime and must be held accountable for their actions. “This result shows the serious consequences faced by individuals who choose to break the law by supplying illegal content. "This type of conviction will have a significant and long- lasting effect on this individual’s career and future opportunities." Despite requests from ChronicleLive FACT would not disclose the serving corporal's identity. However, the organisation said his illegal services provided access to premium sport, TV and films. Investigations into these additional providers are continuing. Mr Sharp added: “We thank the RAF for their work on this and FACT will continue to monitor channels used to advertise, market, sell and distribute apps, devices and streams to take action against suppliers and operators”

Malaysia's Intellectual Property High Court has ruled that the sale and distribution of streaming devices configured for piracy purposes constitutes infringement under the Copyright Act. The decision comes a year after Malaysia informed the United States Patent and Trademark Office that pirate set-top devices were a "serious problem" in the country. Hoping to reduced the online availability of pirated content in the country, in 2019 the Malaysian Communica­tions and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry said they had blocked 246 sites. The aim of the blocking was to reduce the usefulness of set-top boxes that are configured to provide access to copyrighted material. Running parallel, Malaysia deployed a secondary tactic to prevent the spread of Android-based devices by demanding that importers and distributors submit samples to ensure they meet quality assurance standards. What Malaysia really needed, however, was a legal basis to declare all pirate devices illegal to sell or distribute. This week that was achieved. Ruling From The Malaysia IP High Court Previously, Measat Broadcast Networks Sdn. Bhd., the service provider for Astro (All-Asian Satellite Television and Radio Operator), brought a case against a seller of set-top boxes that acted as gateways to websites and servers providing access to infringing content. In a landmark decision handed down yesterday in the matter, the Intellectual Property High Court in Kuala Lumpur declared the sale, distribution, and supply of devices configured to provide unauthorized access to copyrighted content a breach of the Copyright Act 1987. Rightsholders & Broadcasters Welcome Ruling The decision was welcomed by Laila Saat, Director, Regulatory of Astro, who noted that it would now be easier to pursue cases in civil courts. “The declaration by the High Court that sale of ISD [Illicit Streaming Devices] which allow access to unauthorized copyright content amounts to copyright infringement sets a precedent for future civil claims on copyright infringement against ISD sellers in the market, including those on e-commerce platforms,” Saat said. In addition to local support from the Asia Video Industry Association (AVIA), the decision was also welcomed by the Premier League, which together with Astro has been running the “Boot Out Piracy” campaign in Asia. “This is an important and welcome declaration by the Intellectual Property High Court, and sends a clear message that the sale of ISDs that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted works constitutes copyright infringement,” said Premier League Director of Legal Services, Kevin Plumb. “The Premier League is committed to pursuing all those involved with providing illegal access to Premier League content as well as working to raise awareness of the risks fans face when watching via unauthorized sources. We will continue to work with Astro and local authorities as part of our ongoing anti-piracy program in Malaysia.” Malaysia Previously Achieved Success in Criminal Cases While the decision from the IP High Court will prove beneficial in future civil cases, Malaysia has already booked recent successes in criminal proceedings. In February, the director of an IT company was charged under Section 41 of the Copyright Act with promoting Android boxes that circumvented technical protection measures on a copyrighted broadcast. Later that same month, a director of a mobile accessory company pleaded guilty to possessing TV boxes configured to illegally stream Astro content in breach of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Malaysia Warned United States of “Serious Problem” In March 2020, during the 50th Meeting of the Intellectual Property Rights Experts Group (IPEG) of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) held in Malaysia, the United States presented a proposal to survey members on the domestic treatment of illicit streaming devices. During the months that followed, the United States Patent and Trademark Office collated the responses and presented the results during the 51st Meeting of IPEG in October 2020. Malaysia told USPTO that the economic harm being caused to broadcasters and rightsholders in the country was a “serious problem” but noted that the Copyright Act 1987 allowed for action when devices are imported or sold for the purposes of circumventing technological protection measures. Interestingly, Malaysia also told the US that the law would need to be revised to allow for more efficient action against the sale and distribution of pirate devices. “Proposed amendment focused on the act of uploading, providing, sharing access to illegal copyright works instead of focusing on fighting the technologies itself,” Malaysia’s representatives wrote (pdf). Malaysia also reported that just three law enforcement investigations had been launched at the time of the survey, all of them in relation to the sale of set-top devices. In an unspecified number of cases, Malaysia noted that some investigations had been dropped either due to insufficient evidence or a lack of technical expertise to prosecute. Several Other Countries Reported ISDs as a Minor Problem While Malaysia was clearly concerned about the pirate set-top box problem, not all countries considered the devices as a particular threat. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, for example, reported that they present only a “minor problem” to local broadcasters and rightsholders while Russia and Brunei said there was no problem at all. China, on the other hand, said it had insufficient information to determine the scale of the threat.

Scammers are using the website of the European Banking Authority to trick people into signing up for dubious pirate streaming subscriptions. The 'hacking' scam, which also affected the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, has gained more popularity after search engines started to downrank regular pirate sites. In recent years, Google and other search engines have worked hard to demote pirate sites in their search results. In part motivated by complaints from copyright holders, these efforts have started to pay off. Search traffic to pirate sites is clearly dropping. At the same time, however, the downranking of pirate sites created a new problem. Prospective pirates don’t stop searching for leaked content. This means that search engines have to show something else instead, which isn’t always the best content. In some cases, small pirate sites are elevated to the top results but scammers are taking advantage of the situation as well. And these scammers are increasingly abusing legitimate sites to do so, finding loopholes to publish pirate scam ads on well-respected domains. This week we noticed a series of these promotions on the official site of the European Banking Authority (EBA). The EBA is the European Union’s official regulatory agency overseeing the local banking industry. However, its website also promotes scammy pirate sites. Since regular pirate sites are downranked in search results, the EBA’s domain now appears as the top result for many questionable searches. This includes variations with “123movies online,” as can be seen below. The scammers abuse the European Union website to upload PDFs that are stuffed with piracy-related terms, hoping to capture as much search traffic as possible. This works well because the EBA website has a good reputation and is not downranked in search results. There are several PDFs circulating which mostly target new films such as ‘Army of the Dead’ and Godzilla vs. Kong. We’ve also seen promotions for films that are not yet available on pirate sites in the ‘HD quality’ that’s promised, including Fast and Furious 9. All PDFs link visitors to scammy streaming portals where people have to pay a subscription to gain access. Needless to say, this isn’t a smart idea. These portals are illegal and probably don’t even provide access to the advertised films. They will gladly accept your credit card, however. The scammers appear to have found a backdoor into the EBA site, which allows them to upload files. Some of these PDFs have been removed over the past few days, but new ones keep appearing. The European Banking Authority is not the only reputable organization to be compromised by these scammers. The same advertisements appear on many other legitimate sites as well, including Mississippi’s Department of Public Safety. TorrentFreak contacted both organizations to alert them about the scammy content appearing on their sites. At the time of publication, we have yet to hear back

Accessing pirated IPTV is really simple, since it is also not required to have a special device for it. Having a player is comfortable, but it is not essential, being able to use a computer, a mobile, a Raspberry Pi, or even apps that come pre-installed on a television. However, they have tried to ban the sale of devices that allow pirated IPTV to be seen in supermarkets, and justice has prevented it. In September 2019, Allarco Entertainment (owners of Super Channel ), sued in each a multitude of supermarket chains and large stores such as Staples, Best Buy, London Drugs, Canada Computers and a multitude of smaller stores and 50,000 anonymous citizens. Allarco accused them of promoting and instructing users in the use of IPTV devices with which hackers could access content without paying for it . The lawsuit contained more than 100 hours of hidden recordings in which they claim sellers were instructing buyers on how to install IPTV software like Kodi and the like. They accuse supermarkets of fomenting piracy Allarco filed the lawsuit, but after the stores struggled, they dropped it in January 2020. However, in December 2019 they had registered another similar lawsuit in another court with the same evidence, and the failure in this case has been even greater because the court has torn them apart. For starters, lawsuits are usually brought by the rights owners, and Allarco only licenses content, but does not own it. Therefore, they added two series, but did not add or notify the owners. As a result, Allarco could not sue for copyright infringement in the litigation until rights owners come forward. However, it allowed them to defend their position. Allarco claimed that they had lost subscribers due to pirated devices sold in stores , but the judge found no evidence that this was the case in the evidence they provided. They could not even demonstrate with an example that someone canceled their subscription to Super Channel or considered it because they had bought a pirated player from a store. They didn't even show that people who bought it had used it to hack. The judge again granted them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that at least some of the devices could have been used to hack, so he wanted to see if the stores had really contributed to the infringement of rights . To do this, he analyzed the evidence collected by a single person in the stores, where he had been visiting several of them for more than a year posing as a consumer who wanted to hack, and who was secretly recording the interactions. But the judge puts them in their place The problem is that, in that case, the fake buyer was posing as someone who was already predisposed to pirate, so it would not have been a direct loss for the company. In addition, he misled sellers by saying that friends of his had bought a device that allowed hacking in his stores. Some sellers said that doing this was illegal, others did not know what he was talking about, and others did comment that, indeed, they could be used to hack. Almost everyone said the company couldn't offer help with modifying the devices, and the few that did had no legal knowledge, and were simply doing their job: helping a pushy buyer. Thus, there is no evidence that a seller tried to sell a device for those purposes without the buyer asking. Therefore, the judge has determined that there is no evidence that subscribers have been lost due to what happened in the recordings. In addition, the judge explained that Kodi can be used for legal purposes , in addition to coming with pre-installed legal apps such as Netflix, YouTube or Google Play.

Boxing, Soccer, & Sports Piracy (Copyright Infringement) Laws May Not Apply to Internet Apps Like DAZN Used to Show Paid Sporting Events in Businesses There May be No Merit to Lawsuits Filed by Thomas P. Riley on Behalf of G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Innovative Sports Management, Inc. DBA Integrated Sports Media, and J & J Sports Productions, Inc. Attorneys like Thomas P. Riley have made a career out of suing small business owners by alleging that they (accidentally) showed a pay-per-view style boxing or soccer match at their establishment (restaurant, barber shop, or other retail outlet) without paying the licensing fee to the boxing promoter. However, the new generation of cases often arises from showing the fights as they appear on streaming apps like DAZN. Some courts have rejected the main legal theories advanced by these attorneys based on the use of the Internet, rather than old fashioned cable or satellite signals. 47 USC Section 605 and 47 USC Section 553 May Not Apply to Alleged Internet Piracy Considerable authority indicates that 47 U.S.C. section 605 applies to satellite signals and 47 U.S.C. section 553 applies to cable signals. There are literally hundreds of cases that state that rule of law. A few cases include J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Man Thi Doan (N.D. Cal. 2008) WL 4911223, and J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Steve Sang Ro (2010) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21425, citing J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Manzano (2008) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84931, which states that “a signal pirate violates section 553 if he intercepts a cable signal, he violates section 605 if he intercepts a satellite broadcast. But he cannot violate both by a single act of interception.” If a signal is received via the internet (which is neither a satellite TV transmission or a cable TV transmission), it falls outside the coverage of the alleged TV signal piracy statutes. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Michael Cusi, et al. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66474 at 6-7; see Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 541, 549. That case addressed that issue head-on and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants for exactly this reason. The court noted that the discovery phase of the case was complete and plaintiff could not produce any evidence to support its claims under 47 USC section 605 or 47 USC section 552. Id. Furthermore, the court went on to state that it had “no confidence” in the assumption that the type of internet service could result in liability under sections 605 and 553, and it was “skeptical that feeds received over the internet from a third party violate sections 553 or 605.” Id. at FN4; see Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Shelley L. Spain, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00152-SMM, Document 39 filed on 8/5/2016. The case of Zuffa, LLC v. Justin.tv, Inc., 838 F.Supp.2d 1102 (D. Nev. 2012) also stands for the proposition that claims for TV signal piracy under 47 U.S.C. section 605 and 47 U.S.C. section 553 do not include circumstances where the defendant acquired the signal via the internet, as does Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 541, 549 (cited by the court in the Cusi case). This issue was also mentioned in the summary judgment decision in the case of Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Jacob Evans Albright d/b/a Miners Ranch Saloon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79268 (June 4, 2013 decided in the Eastern Dist. of CA) where the court stated that evidence that the program was received over the internet would be a defense. Id. at *15. To further bolster the notion that neither 47 U.S.C. section 605 nor 47 U.S.C. section 553 apply to a signal received through the internet is the fact that §605 was drafted in 1934, and §553 was drafted in 1984, at a time when this technology did not even exist. It is inconceivable that the statutory intent would be to cover signals on the internet. Courts in the Central District of California have repeatedly found that TV signal piracy statutes do not apply to internet signals. For example, see the case of G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC vs. Catherine Samusick, Case No. 2:18-cv-01796-WDK-JC, Document 29, Filed 5/4/2020, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment for this same reason. Yet another similar case in which this exact Court granted summary judgment for this same exact reason is the case of J & J Sports Productions, Inc. vs. Jade Thompson, Case No. 5:16-cv-01939-WDK-PLA, Document 59, Filed 9/20/2019. Many cases involve an allegation that the signal for the fight program in question was received over the internet, meaning there was no cable or satellite signal that was intercepted, received, or exhibited. These apps allowing Internet sports streaming include DAZN, Fubu, ESPN+, and others. In such cases, there should be no case for TV signal piracy. Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Thomas P. Riley Based on Internet Streaming App Not Violating Cable Satellite Boxing and Sports Piracy Laws Failed to fetch Error: URL to the PDF file must be on exactly the same domain as the current web page. Click here for more info Contact a Sports and Boxing Piracy Attorney to Understand Your Rights If you’ve received a letter or lawsuit from Thomas P. Riley or any attorney representing G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Innovative Sports Management, Inc. DBA Integrated Sports Media, or J & J Sports Productions, Inc., contact an experienced business attorney to advise you of your rights. The attorneys at Talkov Law can be reached at (844) 4-TALKOV (825568) or online. Talkov Law provides business attorneys in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Palm Springs, Palo Alto, San Jose, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Redding, Oakland, Long Beach, and surrounding areas.

Allarco Entertainment, parent company of Canadian pay-television provider Super Channel, has filed an application for an injunction with the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. They have asked the court to order four Canadian retailers to immediately stop selling set-top boxes that are designed to illegally pirate television programming — including Super Channel's. The retailers named in the injunction are Staples, Best Buy, London Drugs and Canada Computers. Super Channel also filed a lawsuit in 2019 calling on these retailers to stop selling the devices. The suit is still pending. In filing the suit, Super Channel published videotape evidence of retailers counselling customers on how to use the set-top boxes to illegally pirate television programming. "It shouldn't be the business of one Canadian business to hurt another Canadian business," says Don McDonald, President and CEO of Super Channel. "We would never tolerate a retailer openly selling a device to help someone defeat security surveillance and shoplift. But that's exactly what's happening, and we're asking the court to put an immediate stop to it." McDonald added, "This is not a victimless crime. Piracy hurts the Canadian television industry and costs Canadian jobs." During its investigation, Super Channel also discovered that many of these pirate devices, most of which are made in China, are pre-loaded with malware that can access consumers' home networks and private data without their knowledge. "These boxes are really digital-theft devices, and what they're stealing is data about you and your family," says Dr. Eric Cole, an expert on cyber security who consulted on the lawsuit. "People are putting themselves at real risk, and they don't even know it," says McDonald. "We hope to get the word out to people through this lawsuit, and by asking for this injunction." View the video evidence obtained by Super Channel here. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) has announced that it has begun targeting property owners and managers for knowingly permitting illegal AM and FM radio broadcasting from their properties under a new 2020 federal law known as the PIRATE Act. The Bureau will provide written notice to property owners and managers that are believed to be ignoring or facilitating illegal “pirate” AM or FM broadcast operations from their properties. Pirate broadcasting has become increasingly prevalent and disruptive to licensed broadcasters in recent years, particularly in large urban markets. In notices issued against three New York properties, the property owners and managers were given 10 days to respond before enforcement action moves forward. Relatedly, the Bureau and Office of Managing Director (OMD) released an Order amending the FCC’s rules to codify this new authority granted under the PIRATE Act. Background On January 24, 2020, Congress enacted the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement (PIRATE) Act. The PIRATE Act provides specific authority to the Commission, under section 511, to combat pirate radio broadcasting with significant penalties. The PIRATE Act authorizes the FCC not only to go after the pirate broadcasters themselves, but those who “suffer” pirate broadcasting, which the Bureau has construed to mean those, such as property owners and managers, who permit or facilitate pirate broadcasting from their premises. The PIRATE Act defines pirate radio broadcasting as the transmission of communications on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands without a license issued by the FCC (not including the use of unlicensed, low power devices permitted under the Commission’s rules). The PIRATE Act permits the Commission to issue forfeitures for violations of section 511 of up to $100,000 per day and up to a maximum fine of $2 million. Accused parties will have a designated period of time to remedy the violation before enforcement action moves forward. Notices of Pirate Broadcasting In notices issued on December 17, 2020, the Commission first asserted its authority under the PIRATE Act to target property owners and managers that are permitting third parties to engage in pirate radio broadcasting from their properties. The notices were issued against three New York properties: 3535 95th Street, 3512 99th Street, and 3520 97th Street. The property owners and managers were given 10 days to respond to the notice. Order Relatedly, the Bureau and OMD released an Order amending the FCC’s rules to codify this new authority granted under the PIRATE Act. The amended rules permit the FCC to propose penalties “against any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Bottom Line: The FCC has for the first time used its new authority under the PIRATE Act to propose significant forfeitures against property owners and managers alleged to be ignoring or facilitating illegal broadcasting. Accused parties may be found liable even if a pirate station ceases operation but later resumes its activity at the same site. Tower owners and other property owners that may allow broadcasting from their premises should make sure their lease agreements address these issues.

The IPTV pirate has become one of the ways majority of pirating today. These types of services offer everything users are looking for, including thousands of streaming movies and series , as well as live sports broadcasts. However, selling these types of services can lead to you losing your job. The sale of pirated IPTV is increasingly persecuted, and even in some cases consumption as well. The clients of these services are still paying clients looking to save some money, so if they see that they do not have pirated alternatives, they will end up agreeing to the payment of the legal service. You are demoted and convicted for selling pirated IPTV The latest case against this hacking has been published by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) , which has identified a man who sold illegal services that allowed access to paid sports, movies and series, selling subscriptions through a Facebook group and through an application. The contents could then be uploaded to devices through IPTV lists , where he himself recommended the use of a Fire TV Stick and offered guides on how to configure it, since it is one of the cheapest devices to watch pirated IPTV . These types of activities are common, but in this case, the FACT has emphasized that this citizen, from Oxfordshire , was an active duty soldier with the rank of corporal in the Royal British Air Force . In collaboration with the RAF, they managed to identify him. However, they have not published if the man pleaded guilty or not, but there is already a final sentence. The consequence for the military man not only reaches a personal or monetary level, but also reaches a work level, since he has degraded, losing his rank of corporal. In addition, he has been convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud. However, what is curious about this case is that this illegal activity has had a direct impact on his professional career. We do not usually know the effects that those convicted of selling pirated IPTV have on their lives for having done this, since also normally their only activity consists of selling pirated IPTV. The FACT affirms that it will go against users With these types of convictions, the FACT wants to show that offering these types of services illegally can ruin your personal and work life, and if they go against a military man, they can go against any other type of person. Those who get involved in this activity know the consequences, and a military man should know it more than anyone, but in this case he preferred to take risks in exchange for making quick money, albeit illegally. In addition to identifying the operator, the FACT affirms that the service subscribers have also been identified , and they affirm that now they are going to go after them. In the past these accusations have not ended in lawsuit, but this time they could comply.

The High Court of London has ruled after hearing the matter online that a cyberlocker, stream-ripping sites, and a stream-ripping app infringe UK copyright. The High Court has recently ordered internet companies to block them. These two rulings will benefit artists, songwriters, music publishers, and record companies who usually suffer annual piracy losses of amount nearly £200 million. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) calls on the Government for taking stronger measures to require plenty of platforms for two main purposes i.e., to tackle piracy and to boost the streaming economy. The BPI has won two major significantly new piracy cases and confirming for the first time that these cyberlockers and stream rippers including all those people who use them actually break the law. These two cases were brought by major and independent labels before the High Court of London. The cases, however, were dealt with following an online hearing by Mr. Justice Miles at London’s High Court. He ruled, “All the operators and users of the websites use the services of internet companies to infringe copyright and that therefore the ISPs should block access to them. The infringing uses included providing or linking to a downloadable stream-ripping app as well.” The decision of the High Court comes as a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry which is currently looking into the economics of streaming along with the impact that piracy is having. The BPI said, “Stream-ripping and cyberlockers are responsible for part of the £200 million a year that is illegally taken out of the music industry ecosystem by piracy.” The landmark group litigation undoubtedly is now representing a hard-won legal victory in an old ongoing fight against music piracy. The BPI has been working really hard in developing the cases for the last two years. The victory is a result of 3,000 pages of evidence and uncountable months-long of negotiations with the UK’s six biggest ISPs i.e., BT, EE, PlusNet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media. The Court heard the industry’s full-fledged legal arguments in an online hearing due to the reason of the COVID pandemic. The cases were brought before the court in relation to a major cyberlocker famous as Nitroflare and other numbers of stream-ripping sites which include two of the world’s biggest sites i.e., Flvto and 2Conv. Some of these sites were alleged of providing or linking to the downloadable app, MP3 Studio. These sites altogether attract over a billion visitors per year worldwide where tens of millions per year are generally from the UK alone. “The operators of the illegal stream-ripping sites make millions of pounds a year from advertising in the UK alone,” said BPI. Cyberlocker sites like Nitroflare are wilfully designed in a manner to encourage and reward their users to upload different music and other copyrighted material. These sites then illegally share links of that uploaded content with others who can later illegally download it. Mr. Justice Miles observed, “Although music only represents around 10% of all files available on Nitroflare, the site warranted being blocked because it actively encouraged illegal sharing and it was highly unlikely that the site was being used for legitimate storage on a significant scale.” The BPI’s two latest legal actions were group litigation cases by a major label and independent record companies being in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of two organizations i.e., BPI and PPL. However, the cases were brought under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 against the six famous defendant ISPs (BT, EE, PlusNet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media). These defendants chose not to attend the hearing because they eventually agreed after numerous negotiations with BPInot to oppose the case and to even comply with the High Court’s decision. There are still four active stream-ripping sites that need to be blocked and they are Flvto, 2Conv, Flv2mp3, and H2Converter. Apart from the sites, the downloadable app provider MP3 Studio is also left.