Thursday, December 1, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Popular File-Sharing Service Refuses to 'Filter' Content as it Fears Overblocking
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Dec 11:16 AM

ulozTo the global audience, Ulož.to may not be a household name, but in the Czech Republic, it is massive.

The file-sharing and hosting service is listed among the most-visited websites in the country, while its mobile apps are frequently used as well.

Like many other file storage platforms, Ulož can be used to share a wide variety of files but according to copyright holders, many people abuse the platform to share pirated music, movies, and TV shows.

This criticism isn't new. Over the years, Ulož has been reported to the US Trade Representative as a notorious pirate site several times. In addition, the platform was taken to court by the Czech anti-piracy outfit Dilia, which demanded the implementation of an upload filter.

Ulož lost this upload filter battle at the Supreme Court this year, but that certainly didn't end the controversy. The service still resists the use of broad keyword-based upload checks.

Uloz Competitors Start Filtering

This topic has become relevant again this month after Hellspy and Hellshare, two other Czech file-sharing platforms, signed a deal with rightsholders to filter uploads and search results. The agreement is the result of lengthy discussions with the Association of Commercial Television (AKTV) over how and what should be filtered.

The end result appears to be a fairly rudimentary filtering mechanism where the file-sharing services use filenames, duration, and types of files to flag potentially infringing content. This is more basic than the hash-matching technologies major tech companies such as Google and Facebook use.

Hellshare's parent company I&Q Group said that the first filtering results are positive. According to CEO Jan Hřebabecký, the measures are easy and effective. And as an added bonus, the filters also ensure that the service fulfills its obligations under the EU's updated Copyright Directive.

Whether these filtering measures are necessary or sufficient is open for debate. Some rightsholders may believe that it doesn't go far enough while others may see the basic filters as a threat to the free flow of information. Fellow file-sharing service Uloz.to finds itself in the latter camp.

Overblocking Fears

The site responded critically to the Hellshare and Hellspy deals. According to Uloz, the proposed blocking mechanisms are not "smart" at all. On the contrary, basic keyword filters will likely lead to overblocking.

"This is not a smart filtering of content, as it appears in some media, but a simple blocking of keywords, which significantly limits the rights of users," Uloz notes.

"If someone wants to use the word street in a file name, for example, they are now out of luck on these platforms. By applying this principle, there will soon be no words left, and commercial entities will gradually parcel out the formerly free Internet."

Jan Karabina, CEO of Uloz's parent company says that they will continue to push back on broad blocking requests, both in- and outside of court.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

Uloz booked a victory in an earlier filtering case but, as previously noted, the file-sharing platform lost an important legal battle against local anti-piracy group Dilia this summer.

Uloz is unhappy with the ruling and is challenging the censorship part at the Constitutional Court. According to Uloz, the current verdict restricts people's freedom of expression, which violates the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"We are also under pressure to introduce overblocking. However, we consider such a step unconstitutional and in violation of users' rights. In this context, we have already filed a constitutional complaint, which specifically concerns overblocking," Karabina says.

In addition, Uloz doesn't agree that it is obligated to implement basic upload checks under the EU Copyright Directive either. While Article 13 does indeed hint at upload filters, the legislation also stresses that overblocking should be avoided.

By implementing rudimentary upload checks, which Hellspy and Hellshare appear to use, Uloz's CEO believes that overblocking is impossible to avoid and would actually violate EU law.

"In accordance with Article 17, we consider overblocking unacceptable, as well as yielding to the pressure of commercial entities at the expense of the rights of ordinary users," Karabina soncludes.

App Troubles

The above clearly shows that Uloz puts the rights of its users first. This position isn't welcomed by rightsholders, which will undoubtedly keep up the pressure.

Defeating the file-sharing service will be easier said than done, however. Earlier this year Uloz had its official app removed from the Google Play but it was reinstated a few weeks later after a successful appeal.

The app was reportedly removed by anti-piracy outfit Weemazz and will likely end up in court.

"We are taking legal action against the company Weemazz s.r.o. because such deliberate abuse of the platforms' processes cannot be tolerated," Uloz said in an earlier statement.

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

"Pro Camcorder Pirate" Arrested in Govt, Police & UK Cinema Chain Operation
Andy Maxwell, 30 Nov 06:39 PM

liverpool cammer pipcuAfter two decades of perpetual battles with pirates, rightsholders and their anti-piracy partners are showing momentum.

There's no victory on the horizon, but a recent surge in collaborative efforts shows that pooled resources and combined skillsets are much more effective than costly lone missions.

When law enforcement agencies support these initiatives thanks to direct government backing, opportunities for action can open up signficantly.

Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

Significant rightsholders facing challenges in the UK can seek help from the fraud specialists at the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Subsequent actions such as raids, arrests and investigations, are publicized to boost deterrent messaging.

Other announcements carry too little information to warrant an article.

liverpool cammer pipcu

Unlike PIPCU's press releases, the tweet doesn't offer an instant story on a plate. However, any mention of the Film Content Protection Agency (FCPA) is significant and all but confirms the arrest of a specific and important type of movie pirate.

Cammers vs. Film Content Protection Agency

By recording the latest movies directly from the silver screen using concealed devices, 'cammers' fuel the illicit piracy market that thrives during the first few days of a film's initial release. Hollywood believes that these 'cam' copies cause significant damage to the cinema industry, an opinion shared by the UK's Film Distributors' Association.

The Film Content Protection Agency (FCPA) mentioned by PIPCU is the FDA's big-screen anti-piracy unit. It works hard to prevent UK camming incidents, but with over 4,500 screens nationwide, it's impossible to monitor them all, all of the time. Events during the summer seem to have taken everyone by surprise

An industry report seen by TorrentFreak reveals that in a three-month period starting in June, at least four movies were recorded in the UK during their theatrical release windows. We cannot confirm the titles of these movies but where they were recorded is more straightforward.

Sources confirm that the copies were traced back to two multi-screen cinemas, both of them in Liverpool, the location mentioned by PIPCU.

Movies Were Shared on TorrentGalaxy

TorrentGalaxy (TGx) is among the top 10 most-visited torrent sites online today. TGx is an open platform with an active and lively community, a relative rarity in today's streaming-dominated market. Competition among uploaders ensures that most content is uploaded quickly and since TGx is easy to navigate, many users consider it their online home.

tgx ss

The issue facing the site today concerns the movies recorded in Liverpool. Whether every film recorded in those cinemas appeared on TGx first is unknown, but the site is clearly named as a key source for the cammed movies. Considering the potential for even more movies to appear, identifying the cammer was always the top priority.

FDA & FCPA Call For Backup

To assist anti-piracy groups, movies shown in cinemas are protected by forensic watermarks that persist in pirate copies. They can identify the cinema's location, the screen where the recording took place, and a specific time.

Some specifications claim to calculate recording distance and angle to identify where the camming pirate was sitting, but matching the recording time with CCTV footage or matching online booking records with pre-booked seats can also be effective.

We're informed that the suspected pirate in Liverpool was caught on security cameras with support from evidence obtained from ticketing/payment records. The FDA/FCPA investigation received support from PIPCU/City of London Police, the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office, and unidentified cinema operators. The suspect never stood a chance.

PIPCU & Organized Crime Unit Make Arrest

The PIPCU tweet announcing the arrest was dated October 5, 2022, but we believe it occurred weeks earlier, around September 7th/8th/9th. Officers from PIPCU and the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit (NWROCU) arrested a man in his mid-twenties at an address just a few miles from Liverpool city center.

How long the man has been in the UK isn't clear but we're informed that he was born in Eastern Europe. The suspect is further described as a professional videographer, an obvious eye-catcher under the circumstances, but other details are even more curious.

We're unable to go into specifics but we understand that a piece of recording hardware with wireless functionality raised suspicions of a connection to rogue online casino 1XBET. At this early stage, any allegations are no more than that, and no evidence is available to us to show any 1XBET links to the suspect, direct or otherwise.

What can be easily verified is the huge number of 1XBET-branded releases indexed on TorrentGalaxy, the site identified as offering the movies recorded in Liverpool cinemas. To put things mildly, 1XBET is an extremely controversial brand in piracy circles but that's just a small part of a much bigger story.

1XBET's Links to Piracy

Over the past few years, 1XBET has become the star of its very own Netflix-worthy thriller. Russian authorities identified one of its operators as a former head of the Internal Affairs Directorate, a government department with responsibility for preventing cybercrime.

Today, 1XBET remains synonymous with movie piracy. Advertising for 1XBET has appeared in thousands of pirate releases, most of them first-run movies. In one six month period alone, 1XBET ads appeared on 1,200 pirate sites and in 2019 the company was identified as having the third-largest advertising spend in Russia.

The achievement was carefully noted by Hollywood and considering the MPA's direct links to the UK's FDA, yet more reports to the US Government seem likely.

A 1XBET Office Pictured During a Raid1xbet-office

Three men connected to 1XBET remain international fugitives with Russian authorities still keen to discuss an estimated 63 billion rubles, more than US$1.1 billion at today's rates, generated between October 2014 and May 2019 without appropriate licensing.

High-Quality Cams Surprise Pirates

The names of the movies allegedly recorded in Liverpool are currently unknown, so further research into their quality is impossible. What we can confirm is a relatively recent and surprising upturn in cammed copies with exceptional image quality. Some say these could be the best copies that have appeared, not just in years, but since camming began.

Opinions are inherently subjective but there's little doubt that Hollywood panic is directly linked to the quality of first-run pirate copies, and that quality is directly linked to the scale of any response.

In the meantime we understand that the camming suspect has already appeared in court and is currently out on bail. Until he's informed otherwise, he must stay away from every cinema in the country.

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

Telegram Discloses User Details of Pirating Users Following Court Order (Updated)
Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Nov 01:02 PM

With over half a billion active users around the globe, Telegram is one of the most used messaging services.

The application is particularly popular in India, where more than 20% of its user base resides. This includes a small subset of rather persistent pirates.

Telegram doesn't permit copyright infringement and generally takes swift action in response to complaints. This includes the removal of channels dedicated to piracy but for some copyright holders that's not enough; they also want to know who the copyright-infringing users are.

Rightsholders Request User Data

In India, this resulted in a legal battle against Telegram that began in 2020. The case in question was filed by Ms. Neetu Singh and KD Campus. The former is the author of various books, courses, and lectures, for which the latter runs coaching centers.

The rightsholders complained about the infringing activity and the messaging service properly addressed it. The court became involved because Telegram refused to hand over information that could identify the alleged pirates and channel operators.

In late August, the Delhi High Court sided with the rightsholders. Judge Prathiba Maninder Singh ruled that Telegram had to share all identifying information it has on file. This includes the phone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses of uploaders and channel operators.

Telegram Complies

A new court filing reveals that after a period of quiet, Telegram has indeed complied with the order. While Telegram says that some of the requested data is no longer available, it shared everything it could, under seal.

"The said data, which is in the form of a chart, has been perused by the Court. It shows that the names of the admins, the phone numbers, and IP addresses of some of the channels as are available with Telegram have been filed," Judge Singh writes.

telegram data

The Judge says that this data may be shared confidentially with the rightsholders and should only be used for the present lawsuit. However, in a somewhat confusing statement, she stresses that the information in question can also be shared with the Government and police.

"[N]either the Plaintiffs nor their counsel shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings. To this end, disclosure to the governmental authorities/police is permissible," the order reads.

Objections Failed, Precedent Set

The original disclosure order was issued despite fierce opposition. One of Telegram's main defenses was that the user data is stored in Singapore, which prohibits the decryption of personal information under local privacy law.

The Court dismissed this argument on the basis that the ongoing infringing activity is related to Indian works and will likely be tied to Indian users. And even if the data is stored elsewhere, it could be accessed from India.

Telegram also brought up the Indian constitution, which protects people's privacy, as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression. That defense was unsuccessful too.

The Court's initial order appears to have set a precedent as it's now widely cited. Last week, the Delhi High Court ordered Telegram to hand over data in another piracy case, and the precedent was also cited in a defamation case involving YouTube.

Update: A follow-up by Durov's Code notes that while Telegram formally complied with the court order, this doesn't necessarily mean that all the names, phone numbers, and IP addresses of users were shared. Telegram only stores minimal information and the court also noted that some information was not available. However, we can't independently verify what was and wasn't shared.

A full copy of the order from the Delhi High Court that confirms the data handover, is available here (pdf), courtesy of Live Law

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: