Saturday, April 25, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Motion Picture Association Doubles Down on Push for US Pirate Site Blocking
Ernesto, 25 Apr 10:18 PM

For a long time, pirate site blocking was regarded as a no-go topic in US politics.

This was a remnant of the SOPA defeat, which drove copyright holders to focus on blocking efforts in other countries instead, with success.

Now that nearly a decade has passed, momentum is changing. After Canada became the first North American country to impose a pirate site blockade, the issue is now openly debated on the Hill. Just a few weeks ago, it was the main topic during a Senate subcommittee hearing.

This hearing was informative but also raised further questions from Senators Tillis, Coons, and Blumenthal, who asked participants to follow up in writing. Stan McCoy, President and Managing Director of the Motion Picture Association's EMEA region, for example, was asked to go into the site-blocking issue in more detail.

His answers, which have now been published, are carefully worded but clearly suggest that "takedown notices" alone are not effective in stopping piracy. According to the MPA, the standard takedown procedure must be paired with site blocking.

"The lesson of our experience at the Motion Picture Association is that notice-and-takedown must be complimented [sic] by voluntary proactive measures and other legal tools, such as no-fault injunctive relief," McCoy writes.

This experience comes from the various blocking efforts in other countries. These have shown that the process works without significantly affecting the availability of legal content.

[T]he experiences of numerous jurisdictions that have implemented site blocking to date demonstrate clearly that the remedy is highly effective and has posed no obstacle to innovation, nor has it adversely affected the internet and online services in those countries.

"Quite the contrary in fact: By curbing piracy, this remedy enhances the opportunity for legitimate services to flourish," McCoy adds.

During the Senate hearing, it was stressed that site blocking is already an option in the US. Under DMCA section 512(j), copyright holders can request such an injunction, without making any changes to the current law.

At the time, MPA's Stan McCoy said this was a "hypothetical remedy" that may not work, so Senator Tillis asked him to explain what the problem is.

In his response, McCoy writes that the MPA indeed believes that the relevant DMCA section allows courts to order pirate site blockades. However, the text of the law is not entirely clear on whether ISPs have to be held liable or not.

"[T]his provision suffers from some drafting ambiguity – including its location within the overall safe harbor regime – and has likely not been used due to concern by rightsholders that the provision might be interpreted as requiring a finding of liability on the part of the ISP," McCoy responds.

According to some, this could be fixed by changing the provision to allow for so-called "no-fault" injunctions. However, the MPA understands that legislative change is not easy, so they are also looking for alternative legal options, while also trying to get ISPs and other intermediaries to cooperate voluntarily.

Throughout his answers, the MPA executive repeats that site blocking is an effective tool. In response to a question from Senator Coons, McCoy confirms that the US can implement a similar framework while providing adequate due process protections and without violating free speech rights.

"[M]any jurisdictions around the world that share a strong commitment to human rights, including freedom of speech, have implemented site blocking with due process safeguards appropriate to their legal systems," McCoy writes.

The responses clearly show that the MPA is continuing to push US lawmakers to consider options for 'no fault' site-blocking injunctions in the US.

The hearing and subsequent questions also included different opinions, however. As highlighted earlier, former Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda stressed that the availability of affordable legal options should be the priority.

More recently, Daphne Keller of Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center cautioned senators that site blockades have led to negative consequences in other countries, and that foreign standards may prove to be problematic in the US.

"Whatever attempted safeguards may pass muster under European or international standards for protection of free expression, however, there will likely remain serious questions under the U.S.'s stringent constitutional standards," Keller cautioned.

As said before, these recent developments are a clear change compared to previous years, when the site-blocking topic was largely avoided. The question is whether this will result in any concrete legislative proposals.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Europol Says Pirate IPTV Services Are Upping Their Game During COVID-19
Andy, 25 Apr 12:50 PM

From a standing start just few short years ago, pirate IPTV services are now just a few clicks away for anyone determined to obtain a subscription.

Packages start at pocket-money prices of just a few dollars, euros, or pounds each month and in return, subscribers are treated to packages that can include up to thousands of otherwise premium channels, plus PPV events.

One of the big draws is live sporting events, which goes a long way to explaining why companies like the Premier League are determined to disrupt IPTV providers. However, during the more or less global coronavirus lockdown, sports are a major casualty, meaning that everyone from the Premier League to the NBA, NFL and UFC aren't putting out any new content at all.

While this is a serious problem for the sports organizations and traditional broadcasters, this week EU law enforcement agency Europol inadvertently pointed out something that looks like a bit of an own goal. Due to the current restrictions, pirate IPTV services are apparently stepping up their game to ensure that subscribing to them remains attractive to the public at large.

In an advisory covering streaming but majoring on 'pirate' IPTV, Europol warned that due to millions of people being locked down, many will turn to online entertainment outlets to cope with social isolation. If that choice involves an illegal service, consumers have at least a couple of things to look forward to.

"Criminals are quickly adapting their activities, offering high-quality stream[s] while legitimate providers have agreed to reduce stream quality due to EU broadband overload," Europol writes.

This is an obvious reference to Netflix which agreed last month to reduce the bitrate of streams for 30 days in an effort to reduce the load on the Internet in Europe. Europol's aim, it seems, is to portray pirate services as behaving irresponsibly towards the yet-to-emerge Internet capacity crisis. Counter-intuitively, however, it seems to suggest that if people want high-quality video, pirate sources are a good option.

While pirate suppliers could probably care less about available bandwidth, the vast majority of suppliers don't provide content in anywhere near the highest quality available via Netflix. Certainly, true 4K streams are so rare as to seem non-existent, so the claim they're using up too much bandwidth seems a little picky in the scheme of things.

Additionally, Europol goes on to inadvertently highlight another benefit of using pirate services – content choice. While mainstream subscription TV companies are struggling to fill in the gaps, especially those created by a lack of live sporting content, the EU law enforcement agency claims that pirate suppliers are actually upping their game by offering "more content variety to compensate [for] the lack of sport events."

While both of these claims sound like reasons for people to take interest in pirate suppliers rather than stay away, Europol also balances things out with a number of warnings. These take the form of the standard caveats regularly cited by the entertainment industries, including malicious software infecting devices, 'criminals' stealing payment credentials, and bank accounts getting compromised.

As is common with these types of warnings, the standard advice from Europol doesn't highlight how these things happen or how they can be prevented. The agency simply states that people should stay away from pirate services which would work, as would staying off the Internet completely. However, with most (but not all) users enjoying the benefits trouble-free, the warnings may not have much of an effect. That's not to say that Europol doesn't have some genuinely good advice in other areas though.

While there is no single piece of guidance that covers all streaming apps, the agency warns that people are probably better off not accessing "free IPTV platforms". They don't give a specific reason why but it is true that users could do worse than to consider how free IPTV services, usually supplied via apps, are funding their operations.

Much like free VPNs, there will be a cost somewhere, whether that's intrusive or lots of advertising or, as Europol points out, potentially crypto-miners or other software that most people would prefer not to have on their machines. But sound advice from the law enforcement agency doesn't stop there.

"Don't share your phone number, email address or contact details with unofficial streaming platforms," Europol warns.

While casual users might think that handing over such information is required, it shouldn't be shared under any circumstances. Whether it's a 'reputable' pirate IPTV supplier or one seeking to monetize free streams, no supplier needs to know a user's personal details.

Fake names, phone numbers, temporary email addresses and imaginary physical addresses are never a problem for 'reputable' pirate suppliers because they have no interest in any of this information. Many use standard platforms that request it as part of the sign-up process but the information (email address aside) is never used to make contact or deliver goods.

Equally, providing fake details to a malicious third-party effectively gives them nothing, which is exactly what many savvy users already do with Internet-based services they are unsure of, whether that's an IPTV provider or anything else for that matter.

Finally, Europol mentions something that cannot be disputed. While giving money to Netflix means that you will get precisely what you pay for, subscribing to pirate IPTV services directly or through a reseller is always a gamble. Either can disappear at any time taking subscribers' money with them and many do.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: