Tuesday, August 24, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Fake 'U.S. Copyright Office' Sends Takedown Notices to Google
Ernesto Van der Sar, 24 Aug 09:49 PM

copyright officeThe U.S. Copyright Office is seen as the authority on intellectual property issues in the United States.

Just a few months ago, the Government body released a thorough review of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, to see if these can be improved to better suit today's online environment.

During meetings with various stakeholders, DMCA takedown notices were also discussed in detail. Many rightsholders believe that the current system is flawed, while digital rights organizations warned of abusive notices.

'Copyright Office' Takedown Notices

The Copyright Office is not supposed to take sides in these matters. So, we were quite surprised to see its name on several takedown notices that were sent to Google over the past few days.

The takedown requests are not typical 'Section 512' notices. Instead, they point out sites that circumvent technical protection measures, which is in violation of the DMCA's 'Section 1201.' That's also how Google processed them.

Below is one of the takedown requests which clearly lists the "United States Copyright Office" as the sender, supposedly acting on behalf of the "Video Industry Association of America."

But not all is as it seems.

copyright office notice

A detailed look at the notices shows that they are similar to the ones we have covered a few days ago. These were sent by "The American Society of Composers" and listed various DVDFab-related results, including a perfectly legitimate news article from TorrentFreak.

Targeting Stream-Rippers and More

The 'Copyright Office' notices flagged DVDFab-related links too, but also URLs of stream-ripping services and sites that merely mention stream-ripping services. These targets include several TorrentFreak news articles, as can be seen below.

copyright office tf

This small snapshot also flags a page from Google's Transparency Report. This profile summarizes the takedown efforts of APCM Mexico, which happens to target quite a few stream-ripper services itself.

Needless to say, this dubious type of enforcement isn't something the Copyright Office should concern itself with. And paired with the similarly-styled notices that came in earlier, we suspect that there's an imposter at work.

Imposter At Work

This suspicion was confirmed by the U.S. Copyright Office. A spokesperson informs TorrentFreak that the notices in question were not submitted by them.

This doesn't mean that the takedown requests were ignored by Google. While our links are still indexed, several of the URLs listed in the notices have indeed been removed because of the notices, which is a problem.

While we don't know who impersonated the U.S. Copyright Office, it's possible that it's someone who operates sites or services that directly compete with the flagged links.

This is a strategy we have seen several times in the past. A competitor targets URLs from competing apps and sites, so they end up higher in search results themselves. A classic example of abusive behavior.

No Appeal Option (Yet)

Unfortunately, there is no counter-notification option for 'Section 1201' takedown notices. This means that sites and services that are affected by these bogus notices have no official appeal process they can use.

But perhaps the U.S. Copyright Office can help with that?

While we had the Office's attention, we pointed out this omission in the current DMCA law. Perhaps that could set some wheels in motion, so that this series of bogus takedown notices lead to something constructive in the end.

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

After Being Sued By ACE, Nitro IPTV Now Faces a New DISH Network Lawsuit
Andy Maxwell, 24 Aug 11:58 AM

IPTVIn April 2020, a coalition of entertainment companies headed up by Universal, Paramount, Columbia, Disney and Amazon filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the operators of 'pirate' IPTV service Nitro TV.

The lawsuit alleged that Nitro TV offered subscription packages consisting of thousands of "live and title-curated television channels" available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, throughout the United States and abroad.

Naming Alejandro Galindo as the alleged administrator of the service, the lawsuit also identified family members Anna Galindo, Martha Galindo, and Osvaldo Galindo as defendants.

The main focus of the lawsuit was Nitro's VOD offering and so-called '24/7′ channels, which are only possible to offer after content is copied and stored, contrary to copyright law. YouTuber 'Touchtone' (Raul Orelanna) was later added as a defendant in an amended complaint alongside accusations he was paid $500,000 to market the service.

That particular lawsuit is still active with the studios now claiming that Alejandro Galindo deliberately destroyed evidence to hinder the case. However, Alejandro Galindo, Anna Galindo and Martha Galindo are now facing more headaches after the trio were sued again in the United States, this time by broadcaster DISH Network and NagraStar.

Lawsuit Summary

According to DISH, Nitro illegally accessed both DISH satellite programming and Sling programming and distributed it to subscribers paying $20 per month to $170 per year.

"Nitro TV was advertised as a subscription-based streaming service providing 7500 high-definition channels, movies and television series on demand, pay-per-view events, and sports programming, among other content, all for a low monthly fee. Nitro TV advertising emphasized converting customers from cable or satellite television services such as those provided by DISH," the complaint reads.

Nitro allegedly sold these subscriptions (described as 'device codes') into the market either directly or via its network of resellers, with the latter buying "reseller credits" at a discount so they could be sold at a profit.

"[D]efendants received millions of dollars from the sale of Device Codes using merchant services accounts and bank accounts held in the name of Alejandro, Anna, Osvaldo, and Martha, including accounts at PayPal, Stripe, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, and Woodforest National Bank," the lawsuit adds.

"Statements on Nitroiptv.com touted having 'a large number of satisfied members,' with '[o]ver 45,000 customers activated in the last 12 months,' and '96% of the clients renew'."

Lawsuit Alleges Different Type of Copyright Infringement

The earlier lawsuit filed by the studios alleges willful direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. The DISH lawsuit goes in a different direction by alleging violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and breaches of the Federal Communications Act, with the former relating to its online Sling service and the latter relating to its satellite broadcasts.

In respect of the Federal Communications Act count, DISH alleges that Nitro accessed its satellite broadcasts and distributed them to its subscribers, knowing that breached 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4).

The DMCA violations count is more complex.

Breaches of the DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Provisions

According to DISH, Sling's internet transmissions are protected by a number of DRM technologies including Google's Widevine DRM, Apple's FairPlay DRM, and Microsoft's PlayReady DRM. Each system has a key-based encryption and decryption process designed to restrict playback to only authorized Sling subscribers.

It's claimed that Nitro TV either directly carried out (or aided and abetted others to carry out) circumvention of Sling's DRM in order to retransmit Sling programming.

"The DRMs are believed to be circumvented using either a differential fault analysis attack where faults are injected into the DRM to disrupt its operation and create pathways to extract the keys necessary to decrypt Sling Programming, or a man-in-the-middle attack whereby customized software is used to bypass the DRM by intercepting Sling Programming passing from the DRM's decryption library to the user's viewing platform," the broadcaster says.

This amounted to violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), DISH notes, adding that the violations were "willful and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain."

DISH Demands Broad Injunction

DISH demands a permanent injunction that prohibits the defendants from receiving or assisting others to receive DISH content without permission, including via the Nitro TV service. The broadcaster also wants to prevent the sales of subscription and reseller credits for Nitro and any similar service. It further seeks to restrain the defendants from circumventing its DRM.

In keeping with its usual strategy, DISH also wants to take control of all hard copy and electronic records relating to Nitro TV. This type of data is often used to support DISH legal action against other players in the IPTV scene.

On top, DISH demands a damages award of up to $100,000 for each breach of the FCA, $2,500 for each breach of the DMCA, plus attorney's fees and costs. The full amount is yet to be determined but it could run to tens of millions of dollars.

The DISH complaint against the operators of Nitro TV can be found here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: