Sunday, August 23, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Overbroad UEFA Takedown Notice Targets Virgin Media, Best Buy and DIRECTV
Ernesto Van der Sar, 23 Aug 11:39 PM

uefa logoLike many other sports organizations, UEFA is gravely concerned about the continued rise of online streaming piracy.

Pirate IPTV and streaming services, in particular, are seen as a direct threat. One that has to be promptly dealt with.

Just how seriously UEFA takes this issue became apparent earlier this month, when the organization announced a new tender for anti-piracy services. This potential multi-million dollar contract revealed UEFA's multi-faceted anti-piracy plans.

The prospective partner is expected to help with takedowns of live streams, investigating piracy apps, and helping out with blocking orders. However, plain old DMCA takedown notices to third-party intermediaries such as Google are also covered. This prompted us to take a look at UEFA's current anti-piracy partners.

According to Google's Transparency Report, the organization works with NetResult, MarkMonitor and Pointer Brand Protection. Together, these have flagged tens of thousands of URLs, most of which indeed point to infringing material.

Overbroad DMCA Notice

The most flagged domains are gfycat.com and footballia.net, which apparently hosted pirated images and clips. However, the websites of pirate IPTV services are targeted as well. This is where things went horribly wrong recently.

When looking through Google's report we found a notice NetResult sent on behalf of UEFA. The notice claims to target "illegal IPTV services" that share "UEFA audio-visual content without permission."

uefa iptv notice

And indeed, it lists nearly a thousand fishy-looking IPTV vendors but also some premium brands that are not infringing at all.

The takedown notice includes the official shop page from the British telco Virgin Media, for example, as well a channel listing from the American broadcast provider DIRECTV.

virgin flagged

UEFA also singles out a search for "android TV box" on the site of retailer Best Buy, Brightcove's streaming service Play TV, the Disney-owned media company Star TV, and a customer help page from UK broadcaster Sky.

Infringing CBD and Hemp Shop?

We haven't researched all reported domains in detail, so there may be more errors. For example, this site that sells CBD and other hemp products doesn't appear to infringe on any UEFA content, but another domain with a similar name may be problematic.

When UEFA released its anti-piracy tender the organization specifically said that it wants to minimize 'false positives.' However, these examples show that there is still some progress to be made.

These occasional errors can have serious consequences as Google might remove these pages from its search results. In this case, however, the search engine caught the mistakes before they were processed.

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

YTS Torrent Giant is Part of a Bizarre & Brand New Anti-Piracy Scheme
Andy Maxwell, 23 Aug 12:24 PM

yts.mx logoIt's public knowledge that sites like The Pirate Bay store IP addresses and other data relating to its users.

Users hope that this data will be handled with care but in 2013, when the site effectively did the unthinkable, many users cheered the site on instead.

In order to assist the criminal prosecution of the infamous lawyers behind the now-defunct Prenda Law copyright troll outfit, The Pirate Bay released user logs that identified the company as the uploader of several movies. This and other evidence put two lawyers behind bars, where both remain today.

Seven years later, users of YTS – which is currently the second most-visited torrent site in the world – have an entirely more worrying scenario to consider because this time around, they are on the receiving end.

FACT: YTS is Handing Over User Data to a Law Firm

This saga has been running for some time but this week we were able to confirm what we've long suspected. The operator of YTS is actively handing over personal information about his own users to a law firm in Hawaii, which is acting on behalf of companies behind movies including Hellboy and Rambo: Last Blood.

The background to this 'partnership' appears to have its roots in cases where YTS itself was sued by attorney Kerry Culpepper for copyright infringement.

Since or around that time, YTS operator Senthal Vijay Segaran seems to have started cooperating with Culpepper, giving up email and IP addresses to the attorney in support of lawsuits against alleged pirates in the United States.

What we are seeing now, however, is that user data handed over to the attorney by YTS's operator is being used in emailed threats to alleged users of YTS, demanding cash settlements to make potential lawsuits disappear.

Emailed Pay-Up-Or-Else Threats

TorrentFreak recently obtained an email sent by Culpepper IP to an alleged user of YTS. It begins with three pieces of information; the email and IP address of the recipient, plus the date (but not the precise time) of the alleged infringement. (Note: We have redacted some information to protect the privacy of our source)

It continues by stating that the law firm previously filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Hawaii on behalf of its clients and "subsequently obtained identifying contact information for many of these users from the YTS website operator, including yours."

The point of the email, it adds, is one of "courtesy" before legal action is taken that may result in additional costs.

With there being no doubt whatsoever that YTS data is helping to power this campaign, the email claims that the recipient "logged into the website YTS using the email address [redacted] from the IP address [redacted] and illegally downloaded a torrent file for copying our clients' motion picture…"

In isolation, this claim is interesting. Torrent files contain no copyrighted content and it isn't illegal to download them as they contain only metadata, i.e data that describes other data. No one has ever been prosecuted for downloading a .torrent file – anywhere, ever. That's because it does not necessarily follow that the .torrent file downloader subsequently loaded it into a torrent client to download and/or share the work it references.

It is possible for the IP address of a user to be observed sharing the actual content in a torrent swarm if they later chose to do that, but the emailed letter offers no indication that is the case.

To be clear: downloading a torrent file is not illegal, sharing copyrighted content is. And there is a big difference as far as the courts are concerned. That being said, evidence showing the downloading of a torrent file on a specific date via a torrent site account attached to an email address, could also be accompanied by IP address evidence from a torrent swarm. That could be much more compelling in court.

The Options on Offer According to the Emailed Letter

In common with most settlement schemes, the letter seeks a cash payment from the recipient. For privacy reasons, we aren't detailing the exact amount but it's around the $1,000 mark. In exchange for paying this amount quickly, the law firm offers a "comprehensive release of all legal claims", including the recipient not becoming a named defendant in a lawsuit.

Somewhat unusually and for reasons that are not immediately clear, it also demands additional information.

This includes a signed declaration indicating the BitTorrent client used to carry out the alleged infringement, the name of the site or business that promoted that BitTorrent client, and whether the letter recipient has ever received a copyright warning notice from his or her Internet service provider.

One can only speculate as to how this information might be put to use in the future but it certainly sounds like a bigger picture is being formed. Recall, the same law firm – Culpepper IP – is also trying to hold Internet backbone company Hurricane Electric responsible for piracy carried out by BitTorrent users.

Why This Approach is So Unusual

Apart from the operator of one of the world's largest torrent sites giving up the personal information of his users, it's worth looking at the structure of how this is taking place.

A $1 million consent judgment from earlier this year between movie companies affiliated with Millennium Media (under the legal guidance of Culpepper IP) and YTS, positively identified India-resident Senthil Vijay Segaran and the UK company Techmodo Limited as the operators of YTS.

So, a UK company runs YTS? Perhaps we should let that sink in for a moment.

Techmodo Limited is officially registered with the government in the UK, with Segaran listed as the sole director. It hasn't yet filed any meaningful accounts and the same is true for the company of the same name, also operated by Segaran, that was dissolved following a via compulsory strike-off just months earlier.

So, what we appear to have here is an official UK-registered company, which is subject to all relevant local law (both civil and criminal), being identified by plaintiffs in a US-lawsuit as the operator of an illegal site. We use the term 'illegal' here as guided by the High Court of England and Wales, which previously determined that YTS and hundreds of similar sites act illegally under civil law (at least) in the UK and should be blocked by local ISPs.

So the big questions must follow. If Techmodo Limited is the operator of YTS and YTS is a site that operates illegally, it seems highly unlikely that Techmodo Limited can legally operate the YTS site in the UK. What charges or challenges it might face are matters for HMRC and possibly even the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit because, when infringement is carried out in the course of business, it becomes a criminal offense.

Big Questions to Be Answered in Murky and Unchartered Waters

In summary, what we appear to have here is a verifiably illegal site, run through an ostensibly legal entity, collecting and processing private user information, then handing that data over to third-party overseas attorneys/media companies, ones that appear to know the legal status of the site and the company behind it. This, so that people can be approached for payments for alleged offenses that took place utilizing that illegal site.

We can only presume that Culpepper IP and its associates have done their homework, they're lawyers after all, but this business and/or legal arrangement is unorthodox, to say the very least. If a UK precedent exists determining the legality of the transfer of this kind of user data in these circumstances, we're completely unaware of it.

If nothing else, the bar seems to be set particularly low when a legal entity, Techmodo Limited, is stated to be the operator of an illegal site, one that's also supplying private information on alleged infringers that were only able to infringe because the YTS site supplied the torrent files in the first place. Quite remarkable.

Copyright experts, privacy buffs, and company law lawyers on both sides of the pond are invited to write in with an opinion on the implications of this massive conundrum because this goes way, way beyond anything we've ever seen before.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: