Tuesday, June 22, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

EU Court: YouTube and Uploaded Are, In Principle, Not Liable For Pirating Users
Ernesto Van der Sar, 22 Jun 05:58 PM

EU CopyrightWeek in and week out, YouTube's users upload millions of hours of videos. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content.

The file-hosting platform Uploaded faces similar issues. While it can be used to share legal files, some people choose to use it to share pirated content.

This is a thorn in the side of several rightsholders, who argue that YouTube and Uploaded are liable for the infringing activities of their users. In Germany, this resulted in two lawsuits that remain unresolved but had a breakthrough today.

The first case was brought by music producer Frank Peterson, who sued YouTube and Google for making his music available without permission. In the second case, publisher Elsevier filed a complaint against Uploaded's parent company Cyando, accusing it of distributing pirated books.

Top EU Court Weighs in on Platform Liability

The German courts referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), requesting guidance. In particular, they asked if, and under what conditions, online services make a 'communication to the public' when it comes to pirated files and videos.

There is no question that the uploaders of these files 'communicate' to the public. But the copyright holders would like to extend this to YouTube and Uploaded, so these companies can be held liable as well.

After reviewing the questions from the German court, as well as the advice from an Advocate General, the CJEU ruled that, in principle, online services are not directly liable for pirating users.

"As currently stands, operators of online platforms do not, in principle, themselves make a communication to the public of copyright-protected content illegally posted online by users of those platforms," the Court writes in a press release.

Communication to the Public

This is good news for YouTube and Uploaded, but the Court also clarified that there are situations where user uploads can be seen as a communication to the public. For example, when a service contributes to infringing activity by doing more than merely making its platform available.

"That is the case, inter alia, where that operator has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it," the CJEU writes in its judgment.

There are more situations when a service can be seen as directly communicating pirated content to the public. For example, when a service knows that users upload pirated content, but fails to take "appropriate technological measures" to stop this.

The same applies when a service "provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing". That's also the case when the platform has a "financial model that encourages users" to share infringing content.

Liability Exemption

The CJEU further concluded that online services can benefit from a liability exception as long as they have a passive role, and are not aware of any specific infringing activities.

"The Court finds that such an operator can benefit from the exemption from liability provided that it does not play an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform."

Injunction

Finally, the CJEU concluded that current EU law doesn't prevent national courts from denying an injunction against the operator of a service who is not aware of any infringing activity. If a platform is notified of illegal content but refuses to take action, injunctions should be available.

The judgment, which is available in full here, provides more guidance for courts that have to rule on liability issues. However, as the full answers below show, it still leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

cjeu judgment

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

Filelinked Made 'Banned' Piracy Apps Easier to Find But Has Now Disappeared
Andy Maxwell, 22 Jun 01:21 PM

Filelinked logoIn a normal environment, installing software to Android devices, including Amazon's popular Fire TV range, is a straightforward affair. Both Google and Amazon provide their own easy-to-use stores but for some users, these can have limitations.

While some apps can slip through Google or Amazon's moderation processes, it's generally accepted that these platforms don't allow piracy-focused apps to be made available to the public. This means that users have to obtain their APK files from third-party sources and sideload them to their devices.

None of this is particularly difficult for enthusiasts but the process is undoubtedly more cumbersome than using an official store. This was a problem that the Filelinked app and service comprehensively solved up until yesterday when the service abruptly disappeared offline.

How Filelinked Worked

Any user seeking to download and install a third-party app to an Amazon device, for example, could use the popular Downloader app, available from Amazon itself. Straightforward to use, Downloader allows the user to type in a URL where an APK is stored and have it delivered straight to their device. Unfortunately, this requires a) knowledge of where the APK is located and b) the patience to type in an often lengthy URL.

Filelinked simplified this process by allowing users to place APKs (and indeed any other type of files) on a cloud storage service (such as Dropbox) and link them to an account on Filelinked. The service would then generate a simple code that could be used within the Filelinked app that allowed users to download the APKs to their devices with a minimum of fuss.

However, this system also had broader uses. Many power users of Filelinked used the service to link dozens of piracy-focused apps to Filelinked codes so when these were shared in public, people only needed to enter these codes to see these users' private collections of piracy apps.

This essentially created a network of hand-curated mini app stores (repos) that weren't subjected to any of the moderation practices in place on Amazon or Google Play.

Filelinked codes

While it is pretty clear that many used Filelinked for piracy purposes, it is not immediately obvious that Filelinked encouraged its service to be used to distribute infringing apps. Indeed, many entirely legal apps (such as VLC and Kodi) were available too. That being said, there are now fears that copyright entities may have applied the necessary pressure to put Filelinked out of business.

Filelinked Disappears From the Web

During yesterday, reports began to surface that Filelinked had stopped working. No matter what codes people entered into the Filelinked app, nothing expected appeared. On top, the site's domain failed to return anything useful either, instead returning the message: "Sorry, the page you are looking for could not be found."

Of course, these issues can easily occur due to technical problems with servers but adding to the confusion is the fact that Filelinked's Facebook page has been archived. This group is certainly not on the same server as the Filelinked service and if the operator of Filelinked had encountered any technical issues, Facebook would be the logical place to post the news.

Currently Unsubstantiated Rumors of Anti-Piracy Action

For the last 20 years, any site disappearances without notice have been put down to anti-piracy outfit action and in recent years, most of those predictions have been proven correct. Site operators have so many ways to communicate with users these days that complete radio silence has a habit of being linked to non-disclosure instructions or agreements.

To be clear, at this stage we have no solid evidence that Filelinked is down due to a copyright complaint but we have seen plenty of previous actions, often initiated by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), that require services to not only shut down but also stay completely quiet on the matter.

TorrentFreak has contacted ACE for comment but we didn't receive a response before publication. We have also contacted the operator of Filelinked and other entities we believe may have operational links to the service. Again, no responses have been received.

No Concrete Signs of a Seizure or Shutdown

If we take previous site and service shutdowns as a template, simply going offline can be a sign of legal pressure, especially when that's accompanied by rapid closures or lack of communication on Facebook accounts. However, there are other useful indicators, particularly in respect of domain names.

Part of ACE's modus operandi is to have service owners hand over their domain names as part of a settlement agreement. Sometimes this can happen quickly, shortly after a service becomes unavailable. At the time of writing, however, there are no signs of domain transfers or DNS modifications on Filelinked domains that indicate a transfer of control to the Motion Picture Association.

That doesn't mean it won't eventually happen but in the event that Filelinked has been asked to close and/or settle, the pages and pages of documents associated with a cease-and-desist order or settlement offer can take several days to digest and run past a lawyer, meaning that public signs of an agreement could take many weeks to appear.

Finally, a couple of YouTubers also report that they have had videos removed by YouTube recently because they appear to have contained information or tutorials on various Filelinked stores.

Whether those videos actually infringed copyright isn't clear but as predicted in 2018, YouTube is now taking action against videos that encourage or help to enable piracy.

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

Anti-Piracy Lawyer Officially Secures RARBG Trademark
Ernesto Van der Sar, 22 Jun 10:45 AM

Copyright holders can take a wide variety of measures to tackle online piracy, with some being more creative than others.

Hawaiian attorney Kerry Culpepper has tried different options over the years. This includes using the brands of various pirate sites and services as a weapon.

Pirate Trademarks

To pull this off, Culpepper incorporated the Hawaiian corporation 42 Ventures, which he used to register several piracy-related trademarks. The company's current trademark portfolio includes the popular "YTS," "Popcorn Time," and "Terrarium" brands. In addition, it also owns the trademark for the Showbox arrow logo.

Last week, another popular 'pirate' trademark was added to this arsenal. 42 Ventures applied for the RARBG trademark which was officially granted on June 15.

The trademark is registered in the software class and described as 'downloadable computer software for downloading and streaming multimedia content images, videos and audio.' The same description also applies to the pirate trademarks that were previously registered.

No Objection

Prior to granting the RARBG trademark, the public had the chance to oppose the registration. However, as far as we know, no one objected.

rarbg trademark

One could argue that this application conflicts with the 'official' RARBG site that has been active for over a decade already. This hasn't escaped Mr. Culpepper, who openly addressed this issue in his initial application.

"There are websites that have been operating under the name RARBG since at least 2008 that promote and distribute torrent files for illegally reproducing and distributing copyright protected content," Culpepper wrote.

The existing RARBG sites are associated with "blatant piracy," Culpepper noted, adding that the US Trade Representative listed RARBG as a 'notorious market.' Because the official site is believed to be unlawful, it should not be able to claim the trademark.

42 Ventures' RARBG App?

According to the trademark registration, 42 Ventures first started using the RARBG trademark in commerce in January 2021. This refers to the company's "moviesstreamsapp" website, where people can download APK files that presumably give access to free movies. At the time of writing the APK link for the RARBG app returns a 404 error.

With the website, Culpepper and 42 Ventures can indeed claim that they use the trademark in commerce. However, they may be more interested in enforcing the trademark against pirate sites, than distributing these apps.

"We plan to enforce the mark to protect our rights," Culpepper tells TorrentFreak, without going into detail about what action this would involve.

Legals Threats and Action

This warning is backed up by the lawyer's previous actions against people who used the "Popcorn Time," "YTS," and "Showbox" trademarks.

Last year he filed a lawsuit against websites that used the "YTS" brand, accusing the operators of trademark infringement. Around the same time, a trademark claim was used in an effort to identify the owners of several Showbox sites.

42 Ventures has also used trademark complaints to suspend the Twitter account of a popular Popcorn Time fork. Interestingly, the company offered to lift the claim in return for a settlement payment.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: