Wednesday, June 24, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

President Sends South Africa's New Copyright Bill Back to Parliament after US & EU Pressure
Ernesto Van der Sar, 24 Jun 09:00 PM

south africaSouth Africa was on the verge of implementing a new copyright law that would bring some significant changes, including the approach to fair use. The only thing missing was a signature from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

That signature has to wait. Last week, President Ramaphosa sent the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers' Protection Amendment Bill back to Parliament for a new review.

The President cited concerns over the fair use provisions as one of the reasons for this do-over.

Fair Use Controversy Sparks Global Concerns

These provisions were the result of negotiations and discussions that started in 2017. After two years, lawmakers settled on a set of fair use rules that were largely copied from US law. In most cases, copyright holders are pleased to see foreign countries adopting US policy. However, with fair use it was different.

In fact, several organizations warned that the proposal could hurt legitimate copyright holders.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents the MPA, RIAA, and other entertainment industry groups, sounded the alarm bell which resulted in an official review by the US Trade Representative. If South Africa's new copyright law was indeed deemed problematic, this could lead to trade sanctions.

While IIPA flagged multiple issues, the fair use aspect attracted the most interest. Earlier this year, dozens of stakeholders chimed in to support or oppose South Africa's proposals.

According to the IIPA, South Africa's fair use proposals are dangerous, as the country, unlike the US, can't rely on 150 years of existing case law. In addition, the group warns that the new provisions are even broader than the US variant and arrive on top of the existing 'fair dealing' system.

At the same time, dozens of other organizations spoke out in favor of the fair use proposal, as it gives South African citizens the freedoms they deserve. These are the same rights that people in other countries, including the US, have long enjoyed.

Looming US sanctions and copyright holder complaints were later backed up by the EU, which also shared its concerns about the South African fair use proposals. The plans, especially the broad list of fair use exceptions, which protect groups including researchers and people with disabilities, are seen as problematic.

"This is bound to result in a significant degree of legal uncertainty with negative effects on the South African creative community at large as well as on foreign investments, including the European ones," the EU wrote in a recent letter.

Caving into Economic Bullying?

Fast forward a few weeks and President Ramaphosa has sent the controversial fair use provisions back to the drawing board. While the Government didn't mention outside pressure, supporters of the fair use provisions hint at a connection.

Denise Rosemary Nicholson, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of the Witwatersrand, wonders if the President really has constitutional concerns or if he's mostly responding to USTR and EU "economic bullying."

"Perhaps the USTR, EU, and multibillionaire conglomerates that are the main beneficiaries of copyright from South Africa, especially from the educational and library sectors, perceive this as a 'win'," Nicholson notes.

"Well, it is indeed a sad day for access to information for education, research, innovation, AI, people with disabilities, digitization programmes and preservation of our cultural heritage, authors and creators, libraries and archives, etc. They all need many of the provisions in the Bill to function in a digital world in the 21st century," she adds.

Given the controversy, it is likely that the fair use provisions will not return in their current form when they land on the President's desk again.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

The Pirate Bay: Swedish Court Throws Out Injunction That Wrongly Targeted ISP
Andy Maxwell, 24 Jun 10:45 AM

The Pirate BayWith The Pirate Bay bearing all the hallmarks of an unstoppable force, early this month two movie companies decided on legal action to get closer to the site's operators.

Svensk Filmindustri and Nordisk Film, supported by anti-piracy partner Rights Alliance, approached Cloudflare for information on where The Pirate Bay was hosted.

Cloudflare responded with an IP address which according to the movie companies belonged to Swedish ISP Obenetwork.

Demand for Obenetwork to Hand Over Information on The Pirate Bay

Acting on this information, the companies went to court in Sweden, demanding an information injunction compelling Obenetwork to hand over all information about their customer, in this case – presumably at least – The Pirate Bay.

The matter was so urgent, the movie companies argued, that Obenetwork shouldn't be given the chance to be heard in the case, alleging it could decide to destroy evidence, hindering the inquiry.

The court decided that an injunction was appropriate but it soon became apparent that things weren't going in the direction the movie companies might've hoped. Speaking with TorrentFreak earlier this month, Obenetwork insisted that the IP address in question wasn't theirs and actually belonged to a customer, VPN provider OVPN.

IP Address Belongs to Another Company

"The IP specified in the court order is from OVPN's own PA-space [Provider Aggregatable Address Space] they have directly from RIPE. However OVPN doesn't have its own AS-number, their space is announced by different ISPs around the world where they have servers," the company said.

OVPN confirmed to TF that the address is indeed theirs, although they would provide no further details on who may or may not have been using it early June when the injunction was issued. What was clear, however, is that Obenetwork intended to fight its corner, a battle that has now come to fruition.

Decision of the Stockhom District Court

In a decision handed down yesterday at the Stockholm District Court, the IP address in question is visible – 185.157.162.73 – with a note that Obenetwork disputed the injunction on the basis that the IP address isn't theirs so the company is the wrong respondent.

Indeed, a WHOIS query on the IP address in question reveals quite clearly that the IP is registered to OVPN.

Obenetwork informed the Court that while OVPN had bought capacity from the ISP, it lacked any knowledge or information about OVPN's customers, arguing that the requirement for data storage is the responsibility of the entity closest to the end-user, in this OVPN.

The movie companies persisted, however, arguing that Obenetwork's operations are a prerequisite for OVPN's operations and Obenetwork must therefore have the ability to obtain the necessary information from OVPN. Obenetwork countered that it does not form a "vital part of OVPN's operation" and does not have the ability to log information about end customers, including OVPN.

In its judgment, the Court said that the Copyright Act allows entities to obtain information if a communication service has been used to breach copyright. However, there is a requirement that the target of such a request has access to the information that the applicant is seeking to obtain.

In the event that the target (in this case Obenetwork) disputes that it has access to the information, the applicant must provide sufficient evidence that its claim will be successful. The movie companies fell short in this respect.

"The defendants have not shown this in the present case," the decision reads. "The application for information disclosure should therefore be rejected because the information referred to in the request for information disclosure cannot be obtained by Obenetwork."

Case Dismissed

With that, the Court dismissed the application filed by Svensk Filmindustri and Nordisk Film and retracted the interim order. Obenetwork informs TorrentFreak that it is pleased with the outcome.

"I'm glad that the court shared our position we've had from the very beginning, that subscriber information is the responsibility of the company closest to the end customer," says Tobias Windh, co-founder of Obenetwork.

"It is not reasonable nor possible for a capacity provider higher in the chain to have knowledge of their customers' end-users, otherwise a lot of companies selling wholesale services like IP transit would have had to rethink their whole business model."

What happens next is unclear. In theory at least, the movie companies could file a similar application against OVPN, which is also based in Sweden. However, OVPN's David Wibergh previously informed us that OVPN's entire structure is built to ensure that no logs can be stored, with servers locked in cabinets and operated without hard drives.

If that is indeed the case, OVPN will not be able to comply either.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: