Thursday, July 2, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

New York Times Selectively Cracks Down on 'Copyright Infringing' Trump Meme
Ernesto Van der Sar, 02 Jul 05:07 PM

Last year, millions of people feared that the new EU Copyright Directive would 'kill' memes.

While the first signs of a massive meme-massacre have yet to appear, captioned photos are not above the law. President Trump can attest to that.

Yesterday, he posted a meme featuring a photo of himself with the text: "In reality they're not after me. They're after you. I'm just in the way."

Needless to say, this tweet was either loved or hated, depending on personal conviction. That by itself is nothing new. However, Trump's post also triggered a response from the New York Times (NYT) because the newspaper hadn't approved the photo for use in this context.

The photo, taken by Damon Winter, originates from a NYT feature that was published in 2015. After the article came out, however, the same photo was memeified and published numerous times all over the Internet. You can even buy a t-shirt featuring the meme on Amazon.

The removed image

trump deleted tweet

These memes have never triggered a copyright complaint from the newspaper, as far as we know. But when Trump posted it to Twitter the company was quick to respond, as spotted by Axios. The complaint is documented by the Lumen Database, which has a copy of the takedown notice.

While the NYT certainly has the right to protect its content, the action appears to be more than just a basic copyright issue. The newspaper's takedown request only targets Trump's tweet and leaves all other copies of the same image untouched.

It doesn't take much effort to find the exact same meme or anti-Trump memes featuring the same image on Twitter. However, these all remain freely accessible. Further research reveals that NYT sent only one other takedown notice to Twitter this year. That was for a video that was allegedly copied from the news site.

Counter-meme

The NYT confirmed to TorrentFreak that the company is indeed behind the takedown request. We also asked why no action was taken against the same image posted by other accounts, but that question remains unanswered (see update below).

The newspaper has been very critical of Trump so that may play a role here as well. Or simply the fact that his tweets have so much exposure compared to others. Whether that is right or wrong is up for debate. The New York Times has the law on its side, but the selective use of a DMCA takedown is worth highlighting.

This is also true for another special 'Trump-treatment' when it comes to copyright infringement. Twitter usually suspends accounts of repeat copyright infringers, but that's not the case with Trump.

The US President has had over a dozen of his tweets flagged for copyright infringement but his account remains intact. Others have not been so lucky. This preferential treatment also expands to other alleged policy violations.

Twitter grants Trump more leeway than the average Twitter user. This is in part because it has a special stance toward 'world leaders.'

While Twitter has removed the original meme from Trump's tweet, a copy remains available on the Internet Archive.

On Twitter, people can still see the meme and counter-memes as well, just not from the President directly. In fact, as we've seen in the past with takedown requests, people are now sharing the meme even more following its removal, which is exemplary of the Streisand Effect.

Update: We received an additional comment form the newspaper, clarifying that they are looking into other meme postings as well.

"We only recently became aware of the fact that this meme has been circulating. We are looking at the other social media accounts that are using it to determine whether they, too, are in violation of copyright laws. That requires a case-by-case fair use analysis, which is ongoing," Eileen Murphy, a NYT spokesperson tells TorrentFreak.

Please keep the discussion limited to the issue at hand.

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

The Pirate Bay: VPN Provider OVPN Hit With Court Injunction, Vows to Fight
Andy Maxwell, 02 Jul 09:25 AM

The Pirate BayEarly June, movie companies Svensk Filmindustri and Nordisk Film, supported by anti-piracy partner Rights Alliance, obtained an IP address from Cloudflare which they hoped would lead to The Pirate Bay.

The parties subsequently went to court in Sweden and obtained an injunction compelling local ISP Obenetwork, to which the parties had linked the address, to hand over information about its dealings with the site.

It soon became clear that the IP address wasn't operated by Obenetwork and had actually been allocated to Swedish VPN provider OVPN. As a result, the Stockholm District Court threw out the injunction but the movie companies weren't done just yet.

New Court Injunction Targeting OVPN

Undeterred by this setback, the movie companies and Rights Alliance returned to court last week demanding that OVPN, on pain of financial penalties, should hand over customer information relating to the IP address including name and address, how long the service had been used for, and how much was paid for it.

"The defendant [OVPN] sells VPN services. A VPN service means that the traffic was tunneled off the original [IP address] via a VPN service and then out to the internet. This means that only the VPN service's [IP-address] is publicly visible," the application reviewed by TF reads.

Citing an earlier TF interview with OVPN, the applicants stated that they now believe the IP address does belong to the VPN provider and was in use by The Pirate Bay early June. Furthermore, in common with the matter against Obenetwork, the applicants asked the court to keep OVPN in the dark about the application. However, according to OVPN's David Wibergh, that was unsuccessful.

Case is Already Public Knowledge, Secrecy Unjustified

"The Rights Alliance filed that we should not be involved, but the court overruled that decision and referenced that we were already made aware of the circumstances due to [TorrentFreak's] article where I was quoted," Wibergh informs TF.

"The Rights Alliance requested a penalty of 100,000 SEK if we did not provide the requested information, as well as a penalty of 100,000 SEK in case we delete any user information connected to who had the IP address at the specified time, i.e penalties connected to information that we don't have."

OVPN Will Fight the Injunction

As previously reported, OVPN states that its entire structure is built to ensure that no logs can be stored, with servers locked in cabinets and operated without hard drives. The studios are seeking names and addresses, the length of time the service was in use, and how much was paid for it.

However, while OVPN could in theory have a username it could hand over, there is no requirement for its customers to provide physical or email addresses, or pay with anything other than Bitcoin or cash.

"We are responding to the court order [Wednesday], as we were made aware of it [Monday] and were only given 48 hours to provide a response," Wibergh informs TF.

"We have retained legal counsel and are contesting the injunction in court. As always, we are prepared to go the entire way to ensure our customers' privacy and safety."

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: