Thursday, October 21, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Mega: 144,000+ Users Have Been Terminated For Repeat Copyright Infringement
Andy Maxwell, 21 Oct 10:06 AM

mega_logoFamously founded by Kim Dotcom a year after the 2012 shutdown of Megaupload, Mega has grown to become one of the most popular cloud storage sites online today. Dotcom is no longer involved with the platform but that hasn't affected its growth.

In its launch year Mega hosted just 0.6 million files but just 12 months later, that had grown to an impressive 3.6 billion. By 2019, the number of files stored had swelled to 63.8 billion and last year that figure grew further still, topping out at 84 billion files.

This data is presented in Mega's annual transparency report and this week the company published its latest set, revealing that it now has 230 million users in more than 200 countries and territories. Together those users are storing more than 100 billion files utilizing end-to-end encryption, meaning that the platform continues to grow.

Copyright Infringement & Content Removal

Right from the beginning, Mega has been promoted as a privacy platform, meaning that not even the company itself is able to look at what content is being stored on its servers. This is a welcome feature for users but it's still possible for them to share stored content with outsiders, as long as links are distributed with a decryption key.

It follows then that some Mega users utilize the service for sharing copyrighted content including movies, music and TV shows, much as they had done with Megaupload. In what appears to be a clear effort to distance itself from its predecessor, however, Mega is overtly public about what actions it takes to tackle infringement in response to valid or at least uncontested copyright holder requests.

During the most recent reporting period spanning 12 months to September 2021, Mega received more than 2.3 million takedown requests from copyright holders, up from around 1.2 million in the previous reporting period. The company says that it aims to process takedowns within a maximum of four hours, with most takedowns being actioned within minutes.

Mega takedowns 2021 transparency

"The number of files which have been subject to such takedown notices continues to be very small [compared to overall files stored], indicative of a user base which appreciates the speed, flexibility and privacy of Mega's systems for legitimate business and personal use," the company says.

"In Q3 2021, the links taken down represented 0.0007% of the 107 billion files uploaded to Mega servers."

In common with many online platforms that handle user-uploaded content, Mega also processes copyright counternotices, which allow those wrongfully targeted with a takedown request to file an objection. The company says that most of the counternotices it receives are both genuine and appropriate but the number it receives is vanishingly small.

In the previous reporting period, Mega processed 20 counternotices. In the latest, that had dropped to just 13, none of which were contested by the original complainant. This suggests that the overwhelming majority of copyright complaints are genuine, with possibly a small number targeting files that users simply don't care enough about.

Repeat Infringer Policy

After initially operating a "five strikes" policy, in 2015 Mega introduced a "three strikes" regime that remains in place today.

"Mega suspends the account of any user with three copyright takedown strikes within six months. In some cases, the account can be reinstated after it is proved to be the subject of invalid takedown notices, but most suspended accounts are terminated," the company says.

Account suspensions for alleged copyright infringement peaked in the third quarter of 2017 at just over 8,000 but tailed off to a relatively steady 2,000 to 2,500 suspensions per quarter thereafter. In the 2019/20 period, Mega suspended a total of 8,845 accounts, a number that increased to 9,716 in the most recent 12-month period.

Added together, the total number of accounts suspended is large but as Mega is keen to point out, the overall number of users on the platform should be considered for context.

"As at 30th September 2021, Mega had suspended 144,813 users for repeated copyright infringement. The data below shows that suspensions are a very small % of the number of registered users," its new report reads.

Mega Repeat infringers

Storage of Personal Data

Finally, Mega reports that it currently stores "very limited" non-encrypted personal data on servers in New Zealand, Canada and/or Europe, suggesting none in the United States. This data includes users' email addresses and "some activity" relating to account access, file uploads, shares, and chats.

However, digging into the service's privacy policy reveals that when people use Mega, its systems retain metadata including IP address and port information for logins, API usage, file uploads, folder creations and link exports. This means that if a user shares a file in public with a decryption key attached, copyright owners can identify the content and potentially link that to an account at Mega carrying personal data.

Mega also stores the email addresses of anyone that users have contacted using Mega's systems, the email addresses of chat participants, plus chat commencement and duration times.

Account data is kept for as long as accounts are active and in the event that an account is suspended or terminated, the company 'may' hold that data if enforcement action takes place or is likely. After 12 months, if no action is apparent, account data will be anonymized with the following condition:

"[W]here you are a contact of, have had a folder shared with you by, or have chatted with, another MEGA user, those details will continue to be retained to allow services to continue for those other users," the company writes.

"If we think it is necessary or we are obliged by law in any jurisdiction, then we are entitled to give Your Files, Your Chats, any Account Data and any Usage Data to competent authorities, even if those items are encrypted. We reserve the right to assist any law enforcement agency with investigations, including disclosure of information to them or their agents."

Mega's latest transparency report can be found here

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

YouTube Rippers Oppose RIAA's Worldwide 'Blocking' Injunction & Massive Damages
Ernesto Van der Sar, 20 Oct 09:53 PM

2convEarier this month the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov.

A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of several prominent music companies after the defendant walked away from the lawsuit.

According to Judge Buchanan there is a clear need to deter the behavior of Kurbanov, who also failed to hand over evidence including server logs. "A less drastic sanction is unlikely to salvage this case," he noted.

Following this win, the RIAA also asked for an injunction to stop the sites' worldwide stream-ripping activities. In addition, the music group demanded $82 million in damages. Both of these requests have yet to be signed off by the court.

YouTube Rippers Oppose Demands

While the Russian operator previously indicated that he would no longer take part in the lawsuit, his legal team is not letting the case go completely. This week, they filed a brief in opposition of the RIAA's demands.

Among other things, Kurbanov's attorneys point out that the RIAA failed to provide evidence of concrete copyright infringing activity that took place in the United States. Without infringements, there shouldn't be any damages, they argue.

"Plaintiffs have provided the Court with no competent evidence from which the Court could conclude that any infringement took place at all in connection with the 1,618 works in suit, much less that such infringement took place within the boundaries of the United States.

"Without such evidence, this Court cannot find that Plaintiffs are entitled to any statutory damages, since the evidence of actual infringement does not exist," the attorneys note.

The defense argues that if the court decides to award statutory damages nonetheless, these should be substantially lower than the millions the music companies demand. Lower damages are appropriate because the case only deals with contributory infringement, while Mr. Kurbanov himself has never set foot on U.S. soil.

YouTube-DL Defense

In addition, the attorneys stress that the stream-rippers' alleged infringing activity stems from open source software that's freely available on the Internet. This software, youtube-dl, was previously removed from GitHub by the RIAA but it was reinstated after an intervention from the Electonic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Kurbanov's legal team specifically cites the EFF which concluded that, in circumvention terms, youtube-dl works in the same way as a regular web browser.

"As the EFF explains, the youtube-dl software does nothing more than provide YouTube's servers with the same code that any web browser would provide if an individual went to YouTube looking to play one of the songs that Plaintiffs make freely available to the entire world."

In addition to the damages, the RIAA also asked for an injunction that would effectively order Kurbanov to block worldwide traffic to his sites. Not just that, the Russian site operator would also lose ownership of his domain names.

Blocking Should be Limited to U.S. Traffic

This global 'blocking' demand goes too far, the lawyers point out, as United States courts have no jurisdiction over alleged infringing activity that takes place in other countries.

Mr. Kurbanov has already decided to block U.S visitors from accessing FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com so there is no need for any further measures. If the court decided to issue an injunction after all, it would be appropriate to limit it to the United States.

"Should this Court find injunctive relief appropriate, it should narrowly target such relief, ordering only that Mr. Kurbanov continue to block visitors to the Websites from the United States from accessing any copyrighted materials owned by the Plaintiffs," Kurbanov's attorneys write.

"Such an order – while not currently necessary given the complete blocking of the sites in the United States – is sufficient to protect all of Plaintiffs' legitimate concerns."

Given the stakes at play, we can expect the RIAA to contest this opposition brief if it gets the chance. After that, it will be up to the court to decide if damages and injunction measures are appropriate and what these should be.

A copy of Mr. Kurbanov's brief in opposition to RIAA's request for damages and a permanent injunction is available here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: