TorrentFreak's Latest News

Major Publishers Mull Legal Action Against Pirate Ebook PlatformAndy Maxwell, 26 Mar 12:45 PM There's something special about professionally produce

Major Publishers Mull Legal Action Against Pirate Ebook Platform Andy Maxwell, 26 Mar 12:45 PM There's something special about professionally produced textbooks. From the information inside to the tactile feel of the paper, textbooks can be items of beauty. Unfortunately, reality rains on the parade more than just a little. Textbooks are bulky, woefully underpowered for mass research purposes, and then suddenly out date for any number of reasons. After factoring in the extraordinary expense, it's no surprise that some turn to sites like the recently resurrected Z-Library. Check Out The Bargains, Beware of the Scams A student posting on Reddit's /r/college earlier this year posed questions about digital textbooks. As a distance learner, digital copies made sense since they don't have to be physically returned. After spotting a website offering every textbook the student needed for 'just' $20 each, a question needed to be answered: Is Fenlita.com really 'legit'? As suggested by some of the responses, sites selling new textbooks for $20 should always be viewed with caution. Several people claiming to have used Fenlita say they pretty much got what they expected – a pirated copy of a textbook in PDF format, in some cases delivered via a Dropbox link. Other reviews and reports suggest more serious problems for potential buyers. One reported purchase consisted of a file that "took about an hour" to download and then turned out to be 400 pages of screenshots. Given the low price, that might've been tolerable; if the textbook in its original form hadn't run to 650 pages. Reports of multiple charges to credit cards and items appearing in baskets multiple times weren't supported by proof but are still a concern. A report from a buyer, who complained that a download link went to an apparently 'seized' website, hardly inspires confidence. Publishers Target Fenlita.com Given the above, it's interesting to note that major educational publishers Cengage, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson were in court earlier this month on a mission to unmask the operator of Fenlita.com via DMCA subpoena. Court documents reveal that the publishers filed a complaint with domain registrar Namecheap on February 21, 2023. When the website remained operational, counsel for the publishers filed a second complaint on March 2, requesting an urgent response. The application was accompanied by four-and-a-half pages of microscopic text listing hundreds of URLs where infringing textbooks were being offered. A small sample of URLs The publishers asked Namecheap to take action, including by disabling the fenlita.com domain. When that didn't happen, Cengage, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson asked a Washington court to compel Namecheap to hand over the domain owner's personal details. Namecheap Ordered to Unmask Domain Owner The court granted the request a few days ago, and after being served with the DMCA subpoena, Namecheap must now produce the following: Identifying information for the person(s) responsible for the alleged infringing content listed in the attached Exhibit A, including but not limited to billing or administrative records that provide the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), account number(s), or any other contact information for such persons. These requests for information aren't always successful. Domain buyers are often aware of the trail they leave behind, so it's possible that Namecheap has only false information to hand over. That being said, the publishers' are likely to be aware of the bigger picture. Commerical Pirates and Deception Most pirate sites have no interest in passing themselves off as legal suppliers. For commercial operations like Fenlita, the impression of being a legitimate vendor offering discounts is helpful when offering pirate copies available for free elsewhere. A physical address for the 'company' behind Fenlita.com features prominently on the website. It leads to a residential property in Sedalia, Missouri, and is unlikely to be genuine. The same address is linked to ads promoting an ethical and environmentally aware seller of returned Amazon books. Fenlita endeavor to redirect books from landfills, keep books reasonable, offer assistance support library maintainability and through their accomplices, give important arrangements to the worldwide issue of lack of education. That books are a ageless expression of disclosure, creative ability, and accomplishment. Fenlita let stories live on by guaranteeing books are perused once more, given to somebody in require, or reused as another valuable buyer great with a modern story to tell. This entire pitch was ripped off from genuine booksellers, Discover Books, before being transformed into a mangled mess. That adds to the weight of evidence pointing to an operation people should really avoid. Unfortunately, people seeking advice from the 'People also ask' section of Google search are likely to get the opposite impression. In fairness to Google, the structure of the linked article doesn't help. Google's Transparency Report reveals that since January 2023, the publishers sent takedown notices requesting 12,113 fenlita.com URLs to be removed from search results. Unfortunately, 99.4% of those requests failed to remove anything because the URLs didn't exist when Google processed the request. It's not hard to see why that might be annoying for the publishers but buyers might be a little annoyed too. WHOIS records show that fenlita.com was registered with Namecheap in October 2021 and currently uses Cloudflare which hides its server IP address. In Fenlita's case, it was possible to obtain an IP address of a server it had used in the past when Cloudflare wasn't providing cover. Payments Diverted, Spam Calls Accepted When people buy books from Fenlita today, without their knowledge their payment is processed on a subdomain of another 'book' store located at getelfinbook.com, which uses the same IP address used by Fenlita in the past. Whether people supply or have their phone numbers obtained by the platform in other ways is unclear, but in the tiniest of print, buyers agree to receive recurring automated text messages from an automatic dialing system which charges for the privilege. The same IP address mentioned earlier shows hundreds of similar sites, all products of an instant online shopping website creation platform. We haven't viewed them all but we did check a few dozen, and many show hallmarks of some type of scam; fake addresses and fake contact details, images culled from other sites, and the same bogus DMCA complaint page. The publishers' DMCA subpoena application can be found here (1,2,3,4, pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Internet Archive is Liable for Copyright Infringement, Court Rules Ernesto Van der Sar, 25 Mar 02:43 PM In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its 'Open Library' to a pirate site. IA's library is operated by a non-profit organization that scans physical books and then lends the digital copies to patrons in an ebook format. While 'digital' book lending is not uncommon, libraries typically loan out DRM-protected files after acquiring a license from publishers. In this case, IA sent physical books it owned to a scanning facility and made its own copies. Fair Use or Mass Copyright Infringement? These digital copies were subsequently loaned out to patrons, with IA ensuring that only one person at a time could access a single digital copy of a single physical book. IA previously sought summary judgment in its favor, arguing that a digital copy of a physical book 'transforms' the original work, with lending limits and the absence of profit also supporting a finding of fair use. In contrast, the publishers described IA's library as a rogue operation engaging in willful mass copyright infringement. Claiming direct damage to their bottom line, the publishers' lawsuit aimed to put an end to the "illegal" lending program once and for all. The publishers went on to request summary judgment and a declaration that this type of copying is a clear case of copyright infringement. Opinion and Order Earlier this week, the parties had the opportunity to back up their arguments during a New York Court hearing. District Court Judge John Koeltl questioned both sides on their summary judgment requests, before deliberating on his final decision. After weighing the arguments. Judge Koeltl published his opinion and order yesterday. His order clearly sides with the publishers, whose request for summary judgment was granted. IA's fair use defense and summary judgment in its favor was denied. Courts typically weigh four factors when determining fair use. Judge Koeltl concludes that all four factors weigh strongly in favor of the publishers. Starting with the first factor – whether the use is transformative – the order stresses that IA failed to show that its book lending operation meets the standard. The fact that only one patron at a time can borrow a book is irrelevant to the fair use question, the order notes. "The crux of IA's first-factor argument is that an organization has the right under fair use to make whatever copies of its print books are necessary to facilitate digital lending of that book, so long as only one patron at a time can borrow the book for each copy that has been bought and paid for," Judge Koetl writes. "But there is no such right, which risks eviscerating the rights of authors and publishers to profit from the creation and dissemination of derivatives of their protected works." The court fails to see how IA's operation transforms the original work. The fact that IA is a non-profit organization isn't a strong defense either, as the lending program still allows IA to benefit through donations and other means, without obtaining an appropriate license from the publishers. "IA's wholesale copying and unauthorized lending of digital copies of the Publishers' print books does not transform the use of the books, and IA profits from exploiting the copyrighted material without paying the customary price," Judge Koetl notes. Competing With Free? Profits and revenue are also relevant in determining the fourth fair use factor, which questions whether the library affects the original book market and existing revenues. IA argued that this isn't the case, as sales volumes fail to show a negative correlation with its lending service. Unconvinced by the argument, Judge Koetl says that IA's program amounts to direct competition for licensed alternatives. "In this case, there is a 'thriving ebook licensing market for libraries' in which the Publishers earn a fee whenever a library obtains one of their licensed ebooks from an aggregator like OverDrive. "This market generates at least tens of millions of dollars a year for the Publishers. And IA supplants the Publishers' place in this market." IA's library offers a vastly cheaper alternative to licensed platforms, which allows libraries and the public to save money. However, it does so at the expense of the publishers and their authors, according to the court. "It is equally clear that if IA's conduct becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the Works in Suit," Judge Koetl writes. IA is Liable for Copyright Infringement Since the remaining fair use factors weigh clearly in favor of the publishers, IA's fair use defense fails. As a result, the court concludes that the Internet Archive is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The scale of the damages has yet to be established. IA asked for statutory damages to be remitted, citing its status as a nonprofit library. Judge Koeltl says that at this time, any decision on damages is premature. Based on this order, it's clear that IA's ebook lending library won't be allowed to continue in its current form. That said, the Archive still has the option to appeal. In response to the order, IA's Director of Open Libraries, Chris Freeland, confirmed that an appeal is forthcoming. "We will keep fighting for the traditional right of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books. We will be appealing the judgment and encourage everyone to come together as a community to support libraries against this attack by corporate publishers." From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2023 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