TorrentFreak's Latest News

Cloudflare: EU's Piracy Watchlist Should Focus on Illegal Acts, Not Copyright AdvocacyErnesto Van der Sar, 18 May 11:30 AM Following the example set

Cloudflare: EU's Piracy Watchlist Should Focus on Illegal Acts, Not Copyright Advocacy Ernesto Van der Sar, 18 May 11:30 AM Following the example set by United States, the EU started publishing its very own piracy watchlist in 2018. The biannual 'Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List' is put together by the European Commission. As in the US, it is based on submissions from copyright holder groups that report on problematic sites and services. Rightsholders are happy to contribute. In addition to pointing out sites and services that blatantly engage in copyright-infringing activities, they also use the opportunity to request broader cooperation from third-party services. In some cases, this leads to concrete suggestions that go beyond what the law requires. Listing Anti-Piracy Demands For example, in their latest submission, music industry group IFPI suggested that third-party services should implement robust "know your customer" policies. This also applies to the popular CDN and proxy service Cloudflare. "CloudFlare should exercise due diligence in confirming who its customers are and establishing their proposed and actual activities," IFPI wrote. Other rightsholder groups made similar suggestions. For example, the movie industry's MPA stressed that online intermediaries such as CDNs, domain registrars and hosting companies, should stop offering their services to customers who are not properly verified. These are understandable requests from rightsholders, who can use every bit of information to track down the operators of problematic sites. However, these verification demands are not cemented in EU legislation, so services are not legally required to vet all customers. Cloudflare Asks the EU to Focus on 'Illegal' Acts That last point was also highlighted by Cloudflare, which sent a rebuttal to the EU commission after it was flagged by several rightsholders as a potential candidate for the piracy watchlist. The San Francisco company has millions of customers all over the world. These include governments and copyright holders but also many smaller sites that take advantage of the platform's CDN and security features. In its rebuttal, Cloudflare supports the watchlist initiative. However, it urges the EU to keep the listed sites and services limited to those that actually appear to act against the law, not those who fail to comply with all copyright holders' wishes. "The Commission should not issue a report – even an informal one – that is simply a mechanism for particular stakeholders to air their grievances that entities are not taking particular voluntary action to meet their concerns or to advocate for new policies." Listing companies such as Cloudflare solely based on complaints from copyright holders could give the impression that the EU supports these allegations, the company argues. That could potentially impact ongoing legal discussions and policy debates. "Our view is that the Commission's staff document and Watch List should be limited to Commission-verified allegations of illegal behaviour, based on principled and fair legal standards," Cloudflare notes. 'Verification is an Indirect Security Threat' In addition to this broader criticism, the company also argues that some of the demands from rightsholders could prove to be problematic. For example, an extensive verification process would involve significant costs which could mean that the company is unable to maintain its free tier. As a result, smaller sites may lose the benefit of the free protection that's offered, because they can't afford to pay for the service. "Altering this online sign up process, which is consistent with existing law, to require manual review of new accounts would make it impossible to offer these free services at scale, degrading the Internet experience for all users and making much of the web more vulnerable to cyber attack," Cloudflare writes. The CDN provider also stresses that it already goes beyond what the law requires to help rightsholders. For example, it works with "trusted notifiers" who can request the origin IP addresses of problematic sites, when these are flagged. These and other voluntary measures were previously highlighted in a separate submission to the US Government as well. According to Cloudflare, the company is showing its good will while operating in line with all applicable laws. Several of the rightsholder groups complaining about Cloudflare are also "trusted notifiers". While this indeed helps to find out where sites and services are hosted, they believe it's not enough. IFPI, for example, mentions that Cloudflare apparently does very little to address customers for which it receives a large volume of complaints. "[N]otices or requests for information under the 'trusted flagger' program should result in meaningful action vis-à-vis the customer. The program needs to feed into a repeat infringer policy, yet in the case of CloudFlare, there is no evidence that it does." It is clear that copyright holders and Cloudflare have different takes on how to tackle the piracy problem. Whether the EU believes that this warrants a mention on the piracy watchlist has yet to be seen. Cloudflare was mentioned in the EU's first watchlist in 2018, but was taken off the next version. If it's up to the San Francisco CDN provider, it will stay off the list in future. "The Watch List is not the appropriate place for advocacy on new policies as to what online service providers should collect on their users," the company writes. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Is it Illegal to Use Pirate Streaming Sites? Ernesto Van der Sar, 17 May 10:11 PM There are many options for people to enjoy movies and TV shows legally but millions still choose to pirate content instead. Up until a decade ago, this piracy landscape was dominated by torrent sites and direct download portals. Today, the vast majority of pirates use streaming sites. The entertainment industries have swiftly adapted to this shift. At the moment, most anti-piracy initiatives are streaming-related, spearheaded by the Alliance of Creativity and Entertainment (ACE). These efforts have resulted in the shutdown of hundreds of sites already. Despite the successes, many challenges remain as well. In a recent appearance on Reuters, MPA's Senior Executive Vice President Karyn Temple points out that pirates can be pretty creative too. Especially when it comes to evading law enforcement. "The illegal pirates that we deal with and have to go after are almost as creative, in some sense, as our own creators," Temple says. "They try to take advantage of new technology and new tools as soon as they are developed. We have to continually develop tools to stay out ahead." The MPA and ACE have learned that DMCA subpoenas targeted at third-party services such as Cloudflare can be quite effective. While most site operators use fake information to sign up, some of the information is actionable. Going After Streaming Pirates Isn't Straightforward It's clear that rightsholders have the tools and legal backing to go after operators of streaming sites but going after the end-users of these sites is a challenge, for a variety of reasons. The first and most obvious problem is that rightsholders have no easy way to find out who the consumers of pirated streams are. Unlike BitTorrent transfers, the IP addresses of people who watch centrally hosted streams are not publicly available, so can't be easily tracked. In theory, the site operators could monitor the people who use their platforms to watch videos but getting site owners to hand over user data would generally only happen if a site or service is compromised. That's not impossible, but far from straightforward. There's another more fundamental problem as well. Even if rightsholders could obtain the IP address or even a name of an alleged streaming pirate, they would have to prove that the person in question is actually engaged in copyright infringement. That's easier said than done. Not Clear Whether Streaming is Infringing This is also what James Gibson, Professor of Law at Richmond University, hinted at. Unlike downloading pirated movies, consuming pirated streams isn't a clear violation of copyright law. "It's not at all clear that if you merely consume pirated streaming content that you're actually engaging in copyright infringement," Gibson says. As a result, rightsholders may not be eager to file complaints against consumers who stream pirated content. After all, if they lose one of these cases, it may empower streaming pirates instead of deterring them, which could only make the problem worse. "So it could be that the media companies do not want to set a bad precedent by claiming that it's an infringement and then finding out that it's not. That might embolden end users rather than make them more attentive to the legal aspects of streaming," Gibson notes. The fact that downloading and streaming are handled differently under US copyright law boils down to the definition of copyright infringement. These infringements always require the distribution, reproduction, or public performance of copyrighted content. When someone downloads a pirated file a full and lasting copy is created, which fits the definition of reproduction. However, when someone watches a pirated stream this is typically not the case. No Lasting Copy Speaking with TorrentFreak, Professor Gibson explains the difference in a clear and concise manner. "In streaming, there's no lasting copy made; the content disappears as soon as the stream ends. That means the copyright owner's exclusive control over reproduction and distribution rights is irrelevant, because reproduction and distribution require the creation of a lasting copy. "Therefore, the only liability hook is the copyright owner's exclusive control over public performance of the content. The piracy platforms are definitely engaging in public performance by providing the streams, but the end user is simply watching the streams, not performing them — let alone doing so publicly," Gibson adds. Whether streaming can or can't be classified as copyright infringement is ultimately up to the courts to decide. It is definitely less straightforward than downloading, but it might not be impossible. For now, however, Gibson is not aware of any cases where this has been put to the test. Site Operators Are Infringers For the operators of pirate streaming sites, the situation is quite different. They offer pirated content to a broader audience, which is a "public performance" and can therefore be seen as copyright infringement. Historically, these "public performance" infringements were seen as misdemeanors under criminal law but, with the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, performances were updated to a felony, putting them on par with the penalties available against operators of traditional download and torrent sites. With all the hurdles involved, it's not likely that the major Hollywood studios will crack down on users of pirate streaming sites. But that's not really a surprise, as these companies are not involved in lawsuits against individual downloaders either. The lawsuits against BitTorrent users that are currently being filed are all coming from adult content producers or smaller independent film companies, in the US at least. Finally, we would like to stress that this article is obviously not meant to encourage or justify the use of pirate streaming sites. However, it is worth highlighting that not all forms of piracy are treated equally under current copyright laws. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Software Downloads Netflix & Disney+ Videos to Make DRM-Free Copies Andy Maxwell, 17 May 01:36 PM Long before the advent of legitimate online video streaming services, torrent sites and similar platforms allowed users to download and keep copies of movies and TV shows. Building a local video library from unlicensed sources has its attractions. Even if we leave cost out of the equation, these copies come in convenient formats that will play on any device, play over a network, and can be organized to create a Netflix-type experience using legal tools such as Plex. They can also be transported from location to location and even shared among friends. Services like Netflix have sought to mimic some of these benefits by allowing content to be played on most devices and even downloaded for offline viewing. However, the key benefits enjoyed by pirates, such as maintaining permanent access to copiable DRM-free files, represent a threat to the subscription streaming model. People Want to Download and Keep Movies & TV Shows It is unlikely that these features will appear on a licensed mainstream service but that doesn't stop subscribers from desiring them. Every week questions are posted on social media asking how videos can be downloaded from Netflix, for example, and the answers are usually the same: It is possible, there are quality issues, and people are better off grabbing a pirate copy ripped by 'professionals'. Clearly motivated by this demand, a piece of software called StreamFab has been promoted for a while now, with claims that it has the ability to download and create DRM-free 1080p MP4 files from services including Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO (720p is only available for new content due to a DRM update), Disney+, Hulu, Paramount Plus, U-Next, Rakuten TV, and even YouTube. It's available from the Microsoft Store in trial format but gets pretty costly if users want to cover all possible services. StreamFab All-In-One, for example, weighs in at a hefty $259.99 for a 'lifetime' license. Whether it always performs as advertised is up for debate but there are videos showing it in action on Amazon and other platforms quickly downloading files, rather than attempting to record the screen. Aside from living up to the significant functional claims in its marketing, the big questions revolve around legality. Is it permissible to download and keep copies of movies and TV shows if you've paid for a legal subscription? Do the streaming services allow users to make copies and is this type of software legal? Subscriber Agreements Before tackling more serious matters, a quick look at legal streaming services' subscriber agreements provides a wealth of information. Netflix, for example, is extremely clear that using tools such as StreamFab to make copies is expressly forbidden. 4.6. You agree not to archive, reproduce, distribute, modify, display, perform, publish, license, create derivative works from, offer for sale, or use (except as explicitly authorized in these Terms of Use) content and information contained on or obtained from or through the Netflix service. You also agree not to: circumvent, remove, alter, deactivate, degrade or thwart any of the content protections in the Netflix service; Disney's subscriber agreement is equally strict. For reasons that aren't exactly clear, the Disney+ website also denies visitors the ability to copy and paste the text of the agreement. Still, here's the relevant section. You agree that as a condition of your license, you will not: i. circumvent or disable any content protection system or digital rights management technology used in connection with the Disney Product; ii. copy the Disney Product (except as expressly permitted by us); iii. rebroadcast, transmit or perform the Disney Product; There's no real need to check out the agreements on other platforms since a basic rule tends to apply. If a service does not give users the ability to download and store DRM-free copies of videos as standard, the terms and conditions are guaranteed to forbid these actions. Anyone who breaches their legal agreement with a platform is, at a minimum, in breach of relevant contract law. We've never heard of a case where anyone has been taken to court but legal documents are named as such for a reason. Copyright Law and DRM Due to geographical issues, there is no perfect one-size-fits-all advice when it comes to copying content for personal use. Even when such copying is allowed there tend to be restrictions, such as owning an original copy and making a backup, or conditional on the payment of a blank media levy. That said, making a copy of anything from an illegal copy or an unlicensed source is generally forbidden. In the case of streaming services like Netflix, they are extremely clear that the license granted to the user outlaws any kind of copying beyond that expressly permitted in the subscriber agreement. Any copying outside that generates an unlicensed copy which is obviously a copyright issue. All of this, however, is already jumping the gun. All major streaming services are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools that attempt to enforce the restrictions laid out in the subscriber agreement, i.e no circumvention of content protection measures and no unlicensed copying. This means that the use of software such as StreamFab is effectively outlawed by a legally binding document and also by copyright law. Rules in the United States are particularly clear. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has provisions that make it unlawful to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including movies and TV shows. This covers the decryption of an encrypted work or any other technique to "bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure" without the authority of the copyright owner. This applies to all of the streaming services mentioned above. The DMCA also makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner." Given the clarity, there's no real need to highlight why a tool designed to circumvent DRM and make unlicensed copies likely falls foul of the above, even given the existence of a lengthy disclaimer. StreamFab is a Progression of DVDFab StreamFab claims to be a sub-brand of DVDFab, a popular piece of software used to copy DVD and Blu-ray discs. Following a lawsuit filed by AACS, the decryption licensing group founded by movie studios and technology partners including Warner Bros, Disney, Microsoft and Intel, in 2014 a New York court ordered the seizure of DVDFab's domains, bank funds and social media accounts. The order was handed down following claims by AACS that by providing tools to bypass disc encryption, DVDFab violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. In 2016, AACS told the Court that DVDFab had blatantly ignored its injunction and was continuing to conduct business as usual. StreamFab's 'Anti-Piracy' Measures Finally, it should go without saying that uploading any copies of movies or TV shows to the internet carries risks but in the case of StreamFab users, things get even more complicated. Buried inside a lengthy statement on the StreamFab site is a warning that content ripped from services such as Netflix can be traced right back to the user – not by the streaming service but by StreamFab itself. "Please understand that whoever wants the same benefits, whoever wants to do the same cool high-resolution TV episodes as yourself, whether a friend, a coworker or someone else on the Internet, they all need to get their own streaming platform accounts and downloader license," it reads. "Therefore we took one step further to help anyone who's willing to share content to think harder before deciding to do so. We've included the customer/account id in the metadata of the files extracted from streaming platforms. For our majority of users, that understand that the files are strictly for personal use, that piece of info has no importance since the files never leave their own personal storages." From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2022 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company