TorrentFreak's Latest News

Record Labels and RCN Open to Settling Piracy Liability LawsuitErnesto Van der Sar, 09 Jun 09:47 PM Under US copyright law, Internet providers must

Record Labels and RCN Open to Settling Piracy Liability Lawsuit Ernesto Van der Sar, 09 Jun 09:47 PM Under US copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers "in appropriate circumstances." Historically, Internet providers rarely applied such a drastic measure, but under pressure from lawsuits, many ISPs are now acutely aware of their obligations. Music Companies sued RCN Internet provider RCN is one of the providers targeted by this legal campaign. Four years ago, the company was sued by several major music industry companies including Arista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records. The music companies alleged that RCN wasn't doing enough to stop subscribers from pirating on its network. Instead of terminating the accounts of persistent pirates, the Internet provider looked away, they argued. The stakes in these liability lawsuits are high. Internet providers face hundreds of millions of dollars in damages claims, while tens of thousands of Internet subscribers are at risk of having their accounts terminated. Exploring a Potential Settlement RCN initially responded to the allegations with a counterattack. The company accused the RIAA and its anti-piracy partner of sending 'false and fraudulent' DMCA notices, arguing they shouldn't serve as evidence for disconnections. This countersuit ultimately failed. In two instances, a New Jersey federal court concluded that RCN failed to show that it was financially hurt by any incorrect or incomplete DMCA notices. As such, the case moved forward. These cases can lead to a high-profile trial, but it appears that both parties are exploring options to end the matter before it gets that far. Specifically, they are considering a potential settlement. "More recently, the Parties have communicated directly about the possibility of settlement but are not currently engaged in settlement discussions. The Parties are open to discussing potential settlement avenues with the Court," they wrote in a status report to the court last week. The settlement option is serious, both parties reiterated in a court hearing this week. And to help the process, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hirsch appointed a mediator yesterday. "Counsel and the parties (including individuals with settlement authority) shall attend mediation sessions as requested by the Mediator," Judge Hirsch writes. While we don't know the positions of both parties, rightsholders have won similar lawsuits in the past which puts the music companies at an advantage. However, with a settlement, RCN is likely to avoid a Cox-style billion-dollar verdict. Filmmaker Suit 'Expands' An eventual settlement won't end all piracy-related trouble at RCN. The provider is also involved in a similar lawsuit with several movie companies; they recently tried to involve Reddit users in their evidence-gathering efforts. This lawsuit continues, and a few days ago the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they demand millions of dollars in damages. The complaint also calls for a site-blocking injunction targeting popular pirate site domains such as YTS, The Pirate Bay, and 1337x. The amended complaint now lists high-profile law firm Foley and Lardner among the plaintiffs' attorneys and adds new piracy evidence from Facterra. The evidence-gathering company, owned by American Films, was also added to a similar lawsuit against Internet provider WOW. — A copy of the status update in the lawsuit between the music companies and RCN is available here (pdf). The proposed amended complaint of the filmmakers against RCN can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. YouTube Orders 'Invidious' Privacy Software to Shut Down in 7 Days Andy Maxwell, 09 Jun 01:09 PM With an estimated 2.5 billion users overall and around 120 million users active daily, YouTube is an entertainment powerhouse and a globally-recognized brand. Premium products aside, YouTube is free to use. But with around a billion hours of content consumed every day, YouTube has to find ways to make that pay. The most visible cost to the user is advertising, lots and lots of advertising. Less visible costs include significant user tracking, with an average of seven trackers per YouTube page, according to WhoTracksMe data. With a growing subset of YouTube's users becoming more aware of how the platform is monetized, YouTube appears to be paying greater attention to those with a preference to opt out, whether that's through browser extensions like uBlock Origin or other methods that require even less effort. Invidious: A Privacy Front-End For YouTube Invidious describes itself as an open source alternative front-end to YouTube. In basic terms, this means accessing YouTube via a different interface on a different domain which strips away the advertising, user tracking, and reliance on Google subscriptions. A Public Invidious Instance The software is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and, for those with nominal technical skills, Invidious can be self-hosted on relatively modest hardware using Docker. For those who prefer just to use Invidious, there is no shortage of people happy to share their instances with the public. How long that will continue is now up for debate. YouTube Legal Orders Invidious to Shut Down A few hours ago, the Invidious team revealed that YouTube's legal department had made contact, claiming to have become "recently aware" of breaches of YouTube terms of service agreements and developer policies. The crux of YouTube/Google's claims is that clients (Invidious in this case) that use YouTube's API (application programming interface) must display and link to Google's privacy policy and "clearly and comprehensively" explain how their client uses and processes user information. API clients must not "place any limitations" on YouTube functionality, or "mimic or replicate core user experiences" unless they add "significant independent value or functionality." Clients may not infringe copyrights or exploit copyright-infringing materials, Google adds. (1,2) "We hope that you will cooperate with us by correcting and ceasing to Offer Your Client that violates our terms and policies within 7 days from the date of this letter," the shutdown notice concludes. Invidious Team Feel Uncooperative The main problems apparent in Google's cease and desist are straightforward; Invidious does not use YouTube's API, and as a result, the project's developers never agreed to any associated terms of service. As anyone who foolishly left their own instance open to the public will confirm, Invidious is effectively a proxy service, one with a penchant for bandwidth. "[YouTube/Google] don't understand that we never agreed to any of their TOS/policies, they don't understand that we don't use their API," team member TheFrenchGhosty commented on GitHub. "Things will continue normally until they can't anymore. Assume it's just the start. Assume they'll ask GitHub to takedown the repos (if so go to our Gitea https://gitea.invidious.io/iv-org). Assume the team wont be able to work on Invidious. You know what you have to do." The team says they "won't do anything" unless they have to, but also acknowledge that this may not end well. The cease and desist may not specifically apply due to its focus on YouTube's API but, since users of YouTube are also subjected to endless terms and conditions, finding a different angle won't be hard. If YouTube/Google really wants the Invidious team out of the picture, they are prepared for that, but disappearing their software will present a whole new set of challenges. "May Invidious live and prosper, with, or without us," the team conclude. 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