TorrentFreak's Latest News

Windows Users Stream More Pirated Video than OthersErnesto, 12 Mar 09:17 PM Piracy is a complicated and multi-faceted phenomenon. People who stream

Windows Users Stream More Pirated Video than Others Ernesto, 12 Mar 09:17 PM Piracy is a complicated and multi-faceted phenomenon. People who stream content illegally are seen as a direct threat by the entertainment industries, but many of these pirates have paid subscriptions as well. Against this backdrop, Sarah Oh and fellow researchers from the Technology Policy Institute looked at the interplay between legal and illegal video consumption online. The main question they asked is whether pirate video consumption directly competes with legal viewing time. The results, published in a paper titled "Do Pirated Video Streams Crowd Out Non-Pirated Video Streams?" show that this is indeed the case. The findings are based on a massive dataset that includes 5.25 terabytes of online activity data from 19,764 American households who together own more than 468,612. This data, including raw Internet traffic from 2016 to 2017, was then used to create an economic analysis. The sheer volume of the information is a goldmine that provides some unique insights. For example, it includes the time spent on viewing legal and pirated video per operating system. While it's merely used as an instrumental variable by the researchers, it's worth highlighting separately. The data shows that Windows users watch the most pirated content of all, more than 2 minutes per hour on average. This is more than Mac and Android OS users, which are both still well above the average. "Windows PC devices show higher proportions of time spent on pirate sites than devices with other types of operating systems," the researchers write, adding that "most devices used for piracy are represented by a few top operating systems." The graph above shows that Linux users view significantly less pirated video. They fall below the average, with slightly more than half a minute of pirated streaming per hour. The viewing time goes down even further for other operating systems, including iOS, Xbox, Roku and others. When looking at the time spent on legal video consumption platforms, other operating systems come out on top. The Linux-based Tizen OS is in the lead, followed by WebOS and Roku. Although these are intriguing statistics, the main purpose of the research is to look at the link between time spent on legal and illegal video streaming. Specifically, if one competes with the other. The article answers this question with a resounding 'yes'. On average, the researchers found that more minutes spent on pirate streaming decreases the time spent on legal video sites including Amazon and Netflix. While the overall effect is strong enough to hold up across all legal services, the effect is actually the opposite for YouTube. Watching more pirated video streams is linked to watching more content on YouTube. One of the explanations for this finding, according to the researchers, could be that both are free forms of entertainment, which may appeal to a similar audience. The overarching conclusion, however, is that time spent watching pirated videos directly competes with time spent on legal alternatives. "Pirate sites compete with non-pirated streaming services for a growing share of time that American households spend each day watching online video," the researchers conclude. The raw data, based on the volume of files, suggests that for every extra minute on a pirate site people spend 3.5 fewer minutes on a legal streaming service. However, since pirate files generally are more compressed, a one-on-one tradeoff is seen as more likely. "Because pirated video files are more compressed than non-pirated video files, often by a factor of four, and because pirated video is frequently downloaded in full and non-pirated video is streamed, we conclude that time spent watching pirated video displaces nearly the same amount of time spent watching over-the-top streaming apps," the research concludes. — The full article titled "Do Pirated Video Streams Crowd Out Non-Pirated Video Streams? Evidence from Online Activity," written by Sarah Oh, Scott Wallsten and Nathaniel Lovin, is available here. Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review. Red Dead Redemption: Damned Enhancement Modder Counters Take-Two Lawsuit Andy, 12 Mar 09:51 AM Last August, calls for Take Two Interactive's Red Dead Redemption (RDR1) to land on PC appeared they might be answered by the developer behind the 'Red Dead Redemption: Damned Enhancement Project'. The supposed plan of 'DamnedDev' (real name Johnathan Wyckoff) was to modify the Xbox360 and PS3 versions of RDR1 and bring the game to the PC while improving the game with better graphics and additional features. In September 2019, however, Wyckoff revealed that he was being "bullied" by a corporation. A lawsuit filed at a New York court in December revealed that Take-Two was taking action to bring the project to an end. Citing breaches of its intellectual property rights (direct and contributory copyright infringement) and user licensing agreements, Take-Two said that it had repeatedly asked Wyckoff to cease and desist but when the project continued, it had no other choice than to take legal action. It did so on two grounds. Firstly, the lawsuit targeted the RDRII Project, which reportedly aimed to add the RDR1 game map to RDR2. It went on to make claims about the Damned Enhancement Project, which would reportedly enable users to play RDR1 on PC, where it isn't officially available, "thereby destroying the market for an official, updated version from Take-Two, and creating competition for Take-Two's PC-version of RDR2." The case has been rolling on for several months now and this week Wyckoff filed an answer to Take-Two's lawsuit along with a series of counterclaims. Describing himself as an "enthusiastic player" and modifier of Take-Two videogames, Wyckoff first provides a short background on what modding is all about, such as improving game graphics or changing features. He claims that this activity is accepted by gaming companies which typically publish a 'mod policy' to explain what type of mods are allowed. He believes that he acted within the boundaries set out in the Rockstar/Take-Two policy. "Defendant believes it was acting in accordance with the Plaintiff's published policy on 'PC Single-Player Mods' which says that 'Take-Two has agreed that it generally will not take legal action against third-party projects involving Rockstar's PC games that are single-player, non-commercial, and respect the intellectual property (IP) rights of third parties," Wyckoff's answer reads, referencing the document below. From here, Wyckoff refutes many of Take-Two's allegations, including that his RDR2 mod "did not contain maps" from the original RDR1 game and that the publisher's description of the mod appeared to describe a previous mod he developed (RDRV) "that was abandoned in 2017 at the request of the Plaintiff." As the above 'mod policy' lays out, to meet the criteria any mod must be non-commercial. In its lawsuit, Take-Two implied that donations solicited by Wyckoff were used to create the "infringing programs" which were then used to "drive followers" to his social media and streaming accounts. Wyckoff sees things differently. "Defendant asserts that it is a hobbyist and worked on the project without expecting or soliciting compensation for the mod," he writes. "Defendant denies receiving any compensation for its mod projects." In its lawsuit, Take-Two wrote that it had hoped to settle the dispute with Wyckoff without resorting to the courts. However, the company claims that rather than ending his activities, Wyckoff suggested that the project might get "leaked" by him or others. In his answer, Wyckoff admits to discussions with Take-Two but denies that he ever threatened to leak the project online. In any event, he says he's in no position to do so. "Defendant no longer has access to the mod project files and does not intend to redevelop them," he writes. "Defendant will not restart work on the now-lost mod files and has expressly agreed to same," he adds, noting that all claims that Take-Two has been injured in any way are also refuted, not least since the mods were never released. In conclusion, Wyckoff says that since everything he did was within the parameters of Take-Two's 'mod policy', all copyright infringement claims should be rejected and the court should issue a declaration to that effect or, in the alternative, determine that Wyckoff is an innocent infringer. Finally, he points to the fact that Take-Two's 'user agreement' contains a clause that compels parties in dispute to enter into an arbitration process (that Take-Two must pay for) to settle their differences. Wyckoff wants that to happen. Wyckoff's answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims can be found here (pdf) Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review. ©2020 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company