Wednesday, July 14, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

VPN Hosting Company Asks Court to Dismiss Piracy Lawsuit
Ernesto Van der Sar, 14 Jul 07:26 PM

pirate-flagCopyright holders have tried a wide variety of legal options to tackle online piracy.

In recent years we have seen lawsuits against people who download and share pirated material. At the same time, operators of pirate sites have been sued as well.

A group of US-based independent movie companies is trying to expand the legal reach by going after third-party intermediaries. The makers of movies such as "Dallas Buyers Club," "Rambo V: Last Blood," and "The Hitman's Bodyguard" have taken aim at VPN services and their hosting companies.

Suing VPNs and Hosting Companies

Earlier this year the movie outfits filed lawsuits against VPN.ht and LiquidVPN. Not much later, they also sued the cloud hosting and DDoS protection provider Sharktech, which counts several VPN providers among its customers.

The copyright holders argue that the hosting provider contributes to the alleged movie piracy of the subscribers (VPN users) of its customers (VPN providers). Sharktech was alerted to these infringements through takedown notices but continued to do business with the VPN companies.

"Sharktech failed to terminate the subscribers or the accounts associated with these IP addresses or take any meaningful action in response to these Notices," the movie companies complaint read. "Sharktech failed to even forward the Notices to its subscribers."

Sharktech Returns Fire

This week the hosting provider fired back at the movie companies. Sharktech filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The filing describes the filmmakers as "opportunistic litigants" that rely on "unsupported" liability theories.

"Plaintiffs purport to be the copyright owners of various films, but are becoming better known as opportunistic litigants who have commenced a series of copyright infringement claims against online service providers on increasingly attenuated and unsupported theories of liability," Sharktech writes.

The hosting company stresses that it's at least three steps removed from the actual pirates. But instead of going after the infringers or sites that offer pirated content, the rightsholders choose to go after a hosting company that provides services to VPN providers.

"Plaintiffs' lawsuit is premised on the unsupportable notion that providers of general-purpose IaaS services like Defendants should be liable because their customers provide privacy-enhancing services that sometimes – but not always – are used to help Internet infringers anonymize their identities online.'

'No Evidence to Support Claim'

This liability theory is not recognized by any federal court, Sharktech notes. The hosting service has plenty of non-infringing uses and there is no evidence that it intentionally or actively induced copyright infringement.

If the movie companies have their way, all sorts of third-party intermediaries could be held liable simply because they offer a service that's used by an infringer.

"Plaintiffs' theory is akin to demanding that a commercial airline that supplies FedEx with supplementary cargo space should be required to terminate FedEx as a customer because a few of FedEx's individual customers may use FedEx's services for illegal purposes," Sharktech argues.

"This is not the law. Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim for which relief can be granted, and the Court should dismiss the action with prejudice."

Needless to say, this case will be watched closely by VPN providers, hosting companies, and other third-party intermediaries. These liability arguments are largely untested in court. While we know that a consumer ISP can be held liable for pirating subscribers, this case goes a step further.

The full motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, submitted by Sharktech and its owner Tim Mouhieddine Timrawi, is available here (pdf). In addition, they also filed a separate motion to dismiss the case (pdf)

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

Spotify Blocks Users For "Improperly Downloading" Tracks With Third-Party Software
Andy Maxwell, 14 Jul 10:10 AM

SpotifyStreaming services like Spotify have revolutionized music consumption online by offering access to massive libraries at a reasonable price.

Premium subscribers are also able to save music locally to their own devices but these tracks are only playable within Spotify itself, meaning that those hoping to amass a private collection of music – playable on any device – are left disappointed.

In an effort to fill this gap, numerous software tools have appeared over the years claiming to help users download and keep tracks from Spotify in MP3 format. While this is technically possible, users of one specific piece of software have discovered that Spotify is able to detect their license-infringing behavior and put a stop to it.

'Audials Music' Bills Itself as a Premium Music Downloader

Audials Music is a software tool that gives users the ability to stream and save content from a wide range of services including Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer, TIDAL and Soundcloud. It achieves this by capturing audio streams, trimming them down into individual tracks, and saving them locally as MP3 files.

According to the service, this can be achieved at breakneck speed. Indeed, Audials Music claims to download content from Spotify at 30 times the standard pace, something that allows users to quickly amass large libraries of audio material in a convenient and permanent format.

Unfortunately, users of Audials Music are discovering that Spotify knows what's going on.

Audials Music Users Get Their Accounts Suspended By Spotify

A few weeks ago, Audials Music users began posting to the company's official forum, noting that they had received an email from Spotify stating that since abuse had been observed on their accounts, they had been blocked.

"Spotify has determined that your account was involved in an improper use of the Spotify service that violates the terms of use, including potentially improper downloads," the company's email reads, as per a statement from the Audials team.

The problem, it appears, is that Spotify holds data on when and how its subscribers access audio content and as a result was able to determine that users triggered faster streaming with Audials than is usually allowed. Audials explains as follows:

"Spotify apparently stores detailed data about each user in the long term. In particular, it saves when you have heard which piece of music. Basically, this data should look identical, whether you are only playing or recording," the company writes.

"But Audials has a 'high speed' function. This quasi 'makes time pass faster', so that Spotify plays music faster, and so the recording succeeds faster. However, this means that the data stored by Spotify could say, for example, that you have listened to music with a playing time of 50 minutes within 5 minutes.

"We strongly suspect that this is the criterion used by Spotify to select users for temporary bans. So far, we have only received reports from users who actually used the 'high speed' option and were blocked," the company adds.

Audials Says That Accounts Can Be Unblocked

While users of Audials were no doubt disappointed to have their accounts blocked by Spotify, a new statement published by Audials suggests that a little groveling to the Swedish streaming platform results in suspensions being reversed.

"If you have been temporarily blocked by Spotify, it is advisable to contact them via (link) and ask them to unblock the account, which according to the reports here happens without any problems," Audials write.

"If you want to avoid being blocked, you should especially not use the Audials 'high speed' option when recording, especially not after you have been unblocked."

Audials add that the 'high speed' feature available at Spotify isn't present on other streaming services so the problems aren't experienced on Amazon Music or Deezer, for example. There's no suggestion that Spotify is able to detect the streaming and saving of tracks played at normal speeds either, so for now no more account suspensions in this respect are expected.

Is It Illegal to Record Streams? Audials Says No

Audials says that as long as users do not circumvent the DRM that protects tracks, the recording of streams is "clearly legal under US copyright law" but cautions that sharing those tracks is illegal. However, Spotify's terms and conditions expressly forbid such activity.

"Spotify respects intellectual property rights and expects you to do the same. We've established a few ground rules for you to follow when using the Service, to make sure Spotify stays enjoyable for everyone. You must follow these rules and should encourage other users to do the same," its user agreement reads.

Copying, redistributing, reproducing, 'ripping,' recording, transferring, performing or displaying to the public, broadcasting, or making available to the public any part of the Spotify service or its content is expressly forbidden.

This means that if Spotify can show that any of this has taken place, it's well within its rights to "suspend your access to the Spotify Service at any time, including in the event of your actual or suspected unauthorised use of the Spotify Service.."

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: