Wednesday, January 13, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

christmascatvpn
 

Nintendo Manually Targets Game & Watch Hacker's YouTube Video Using Content ID
Andy Maxwell, 13 Jan 09:13 PM

hackerUsing any amount of copyrighted content in a YouTube video can result in a claim by a copyright holder, even when fair use exceptions should be applicable.

This type of action is often taken through YouTube's Content ID system after being detected by an algorithm. However, there is another option available to rightsholders that requires action from real-life people which, perhaps counter-intuitively, can mean claims are sometimes more controversial.

Nintendo Game & Watch Hacker 'stacksmashing'

As previously reported by Gizmodo, last November and a day before its official release, Nintendo's Game & Watch console was hacked by IT researcher 'stacksmashing' in order to play new games.

Of course, this type of activity is always frowned upon by Nintendo. The Game & Watch released with Super Mario Bros. and the gaming giant would've preferred it to stay that way. But with Doom, Pokémon, The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros. 3 and even Contra playable on the new machine, there's now more variety, whether Nintendo likes it or not.

Surprise: Nintendo Doesn't Like It

Nintendo can put pressure on hackers in all kinds of ways but an action taken against at least one of stacksmashing's videos on YouTube reveals the company isn't averse to playing some games of its own. As revealed by the hacker on Twitter, Nintendo has filed an interesting copyright complaint against one of his videos.

As the above shows, Nintendo says that the video infringes its copyrights relating to Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros. However, the important information relates to what supposedly infringing content stacksmashing used in his video and in what context. According to the hacker, not much at all and not for very long either.

The Claim From Nintendo

"It's a claim with time stamps – the beginning of the time stamp is a terminal window.. and then just the device being on and Mario running for a couple of seconds," he explains.

From the explanation and assuming that the terminal window didn't infringe any of Nintendo's rights, that leaves the few seconds of gameplay footage as a potential Nintendo irritant. While that could conceivably get caught up in an automatic Content ID claim, that wasn't the case here. Fairly unusually, an actual human being made a manual claim against stacksmashing's video, within Content ID.

"This was actually a manual match, so someone at the big N put in the time to do this," he notes on Twitter.

So how exactly do manual Content ID claims work?

The Parameters As Per YouTube

"A manual claim is sent to you when a copyright owner identifies that their content has been used without their permission. Copyright owners use the manual claiming tool to claim your video, which sends you a manual claim," YouTube explains.

In a nutshell, Content ID's algorithms didn't flag the video as infringing but someone acting on Nintendo's behalf watched the video and determined that it did. They then took time out to tell YouTube that Nintendo's copyrights had been infringed so it should be taken down.

"The manual claiming tool is used by copyright owners who demonstrate advanced knowledge of our Content ID system. The tool gives copyright owners a way to manually claim videos not matched by the Content ID system. Manual claims must include accurate timestamps to show exactly where the claimed content is in your video," YouTube adds.

While stacksmashing hasn't revealed the exact timestamps, the progress bar on the screenshot shows that Nintendo claimed a very small part of the video. Furthermore, the requirement for an accurate set of stamps doesn't appear to have been strictly adhered to, if indeed the only problem was a few seconds of Super Mario Bros. gameplay footage.

Taking that to its logical conclusion, another question raises its head: Why are there so many other videos on YouTube showing Game & Watch gameplay that haven't received a copyright complaint?

Stacksmashing is Reportedly Editing, Filing Disputes

With Gizmodo reporting that stacksmashing has had two of his videos targeted in this way, the hacker is reportedly editing them in an effort to get them back on YouTube without further issues. On top, he's also filing disputes against Nintendo's claims of copyright infringement.

While having any kind of copyright claim against a video is an irritant, in this case a manual Content ID claim does not immediately mean copyright 'strikes' for stacksmashing. However, there is an option for a copyright holder to send an actual takedown notice (rather than a Content ID claim) and if this is deemed accurate, a damaging 'strike' can be applied to an account.

Since the hacker is reportedly prepared to trim out the contentious few seconds of video, his YouTube account will remain in good standing. On the other hand, if Nintendo is found to be "improperly claiming content that they don't own the rights to" this could result in "penalties including legal liability and partnership termination," as per YouTube.

This, of course, is highly unlikely.

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

Court Confirms $1 Billion Piracy Damages Verdict Against Cox
Ernesto Van der Sar, 13 Jan 12:50 PM

Late 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages.

Heavily disappointed by the decision, Cox later asked the court to set the jury verdict aside and decide the issue directly. In addition, the ISP argued that the "shockingly excessive" damages should be lowered. If that wasn't an option, Cox wanted a new trial.

Last June, the court denied Cox's request for a new trial. The damages amount of $99,830 per work wasn't seen as excessive either. Cox had summed up a list of arguments why this is "historic" amount is "shockingly" excessive. However, unlike Cox, the court saw no "miscarriage of justice."

While the vast majority of Cox's arguments fell flat there was a small win for the ISP as well, one that could have large financial consequences. The court agreed with the ISP that damages should be issued per 'work' and not for each 'copyright.'

There are 10,017 copyrights listed in the case which were multiplied by $99,3830 in damages per work, which led to the final figure of $1 billion. However, that could be adjusted as there are some overlapping works as well, where one song is covered by multiple copyrights.

After going over all the compilations and the various copyrights involved, Cox concluded that 2,438 works should be removed. This represents a total damages value of $243,386.25, which is nearly a quarter of the total damages sum.

The record companies didn't contest that there was overlap, but they informed the court that it's not correct to lower the damages award on this basis after the jury already had already gone over all the evidence. They argue that Cox should have brought this issue up during trial, not afterward.

After reviewing the briefs from both sides, US District Court Judge Liam O'Grady issued an order yesterday that sides with the record labels.

While Cox already brought up the 'duplicate' issue in a motion for summary judgment before trial, it didn't raise the matter before the jury. This was despite an earlier ruling from the court the issue should be determined at trial.

"Clearly, the number of derivative works in play in this case was a question for the jury. The jury answered that question with the information available, and Cox did not provide the information to the jury that it has provided to the Court in its post-trial brief," Judge O'Grady writes.

This means that the court's earlier suggestion that the damages award should be reduced was wrong. Cox had its chance at trial but failed to properly address it at the time.

"The Court was therefore wrong that this re-calculation could be made on the trial record by the Court performing a ministerial act. Cox's failure to present evidence to the jury that it had infringed on only 7,579 works resulted in the jury's determination that Cox had infringed on 10,017 works."

This means that the damages amount would be lowered and the original $1 billion judgment still stands.

The Internet provider has yet to comment on the ruling. Given the gravity of the case, it is likely that the company will explore further options to appeal.

cox billion

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

©2021 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom

 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)