TorrentFreak's Latest News

RIAA Targets 'AI Hub' Discord Users Over Copyright InfringementErnesto Van der Sar, 22 Jun 09:33 AM With over 142k members, the 'AI Hub' Discord ser

RIAA Targets 'AI Hub' Discord Users Over Copyright Infringement Ernesto Van der Sar, 22 Jun 09:33 AM With over 142k members, the 'AI Hub' Discord server is a thriving community that opens the door to lots of AI-related content. There's a wide variety of information available, including voice models of major musicians such as Bruno Mars, Frank Sinatra, Rihanna, and Stevie Wonder. All of this information can be used to make homebrew AI tracks that mimic the sound of one's favorite artists. This is a highly controversial topic in the music industry, with many insiders suggesting that commercial use of these models could breach copyright law. Exactly what is allowed and what isn't is a topic of legislative debate. In the United States, for example, Congress is actively looking into the matter through a series of hearings. RIAA Targets 'AI Hub' Discord Server The RIAA, which represents the rights of American music companies, is keeping a very close eye on the AI landscape. In a letter sent earlier this month, the anti-piracy group effectively asked Discord to shut down the AI Hub server. Whether the voice models are the main issue here is unclear. It's certainly possible that the music group views the complete datasets of music posted by some users as more problematic. The letter to Discord simply states that AI Hub is dedicated to copyright infringement of its members' works. "We have learned that Discord is operating and/or hosting the below-referenced Discord server(s) on its network. This server(s) is/are dedicated to infringing our members' copyrighted sound recordings by offering, selling, linking to, hosting, streaming, and/or distributing files containing our members' sound recordings without authorization." Shut Down Server, Ban Repeat Infringers The anti-piracy group wants the server taken offline and warnings issued to its operators. Specifically, the RIAA asks Discord to take the following steps: (i) remove and/or disable access to this Discord server (ii) remove the files or links from your system, including any mirrored or duplicate copies of those files or links, and/or that you disable all access to the infringing files and associated links (iii) inform the server operator/s and the uploader/ to that server(s), as applicable, of the illegality of their conduct. In addition, repeat-infringers should be permanently booted from the platform, the group notes, which would be in line with Discord's copyright policy. This strongly worded letter is a follow-up to a similar request sent in late May. At the time, the AI Hub server had 82k users but in the space of just a few weeks, that number has grown to a massive 143k and counting. Infringing Voice models? Discord hasn't taken the complete server offline, as the RIAA requested, but several messages have since disappeared. The letter came with a list of URLs that are going nowhere now. The reported links don't reveal the nature of the content. TorrentFreak asked the RIAA for more detail on their takedown notice and whether it sees voice models as copyright infringements, but the group couldn't go into detail citing "pending litigation". More on that later. We can't independently confirm that voice models were targeted but some suggest that this could be the case. A few hours ago, Discord user StakenS reuploaded a Frank Sinatra model, which was originally posted by another user. "Reupload because I am not scared to go to jail," they write, adding that the takedown request likely came from a Frank Sinatra rightsholder that doesn't appreciate the AI model. It's easy to jump to conclusions based on this post, but it's likely that this voice model, and others, were removed because they included links to full datasets. This is what AI Hub admin ".tea" believes is what happened. Speaking with TorrentFreak, .tea notes that despite RIAA's takedown letters, Discord didn't reach out to the server's operators directly. "The admins were informed about [RIAA's takedown letter], not through Discord though, we heard from the people who actually got the letter. Discord has not contacted us as of yet," .tea says. The admin hasn't seen voice models being targeted in isolation either and believes that datasets with infringing tracks from RIAA members are the real problem. This content isn't allowed on the AI Hub server, so the operators don't mind seeing that removed. As for the users who posted the content, there's nothing to suggest that prison sentences are on the horizon. That being said, the RIAA did go to court a few days ago hoping to learn more about the alleged infringers. DMCA Subpoena Targets AI Hub Users At the federal court for the District of Columbia, the anti-piracy group obtained a DMCA subpoena that requires Discord to identify the alleged infringers. The subpoena was sent to Discord on June 14th with an accompanying letter. "[Y]ou are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringers. This would include the individuals' names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history, as available," the letter reads. Discord has until the end of the month to comply with the request, if it doesn't formally oppose it. In response to our questions, RIAA didn't go into detail on the potential repercussions of this action. However, it stresses that AI itself isn't the problem. Their enforcement efforts are focused on those who exploit the work of artists without consent. "The creative community supports AI that is ethical, follows the law and respects creators' rights. But when those who seek to profit from AI train their systems on unauthorized content, it undermines the entire music ecosystem – harming creators, fans, and responsible developers alike." "This action seeks to help ensure that lawless systems that exploit the life's work of artists without consent cannot and do not become the future of AI," the RIAA spokesperson added. Meanwhile, the AI Hub server remains online. In a public announcement, the admins reiterated that uploading entire datasets containing copyrighted content directly to Discord is not allowed. "Please do not upload datasets to the server or any copyrighted material. We have 0 tolerance for this kind of stuff"," the announcement reads. —- A copy of all the documentation referenced in this post, which was obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Filmmakers Take Reddit to Court Again to Unmask 'Piracy' Commenters Ernesto Van der Sar, 21 Jun 09:42 PM Under U.S. copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers "in appropriate circumstances." Many ISPs have been reluctant to take such drastic measures, which triggered a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits in recent years. The driving force behind a series of these lawsuits is a group of independent film companies, including the makers of the movies The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard, London Has Fallen, Rambo V, and Hellboy. Represented by attorney Kerry Culpepper they sued several Internet providers including RCN and Grande. The movie companies claim that the providers haven't done enough to stop subscribers from pirating on their networks. Instead of terminating the accounts of persistent pirates, the Internet providers looked away, the complaints alleged. Reddit Users as Evidence Earlier this year, the filmmakers turned to Reddit after they found public comments by site users that could help their case. As part of the RCN lawsuit, they identified several potentially relevant comments and requested a DMCA subpoena, ordering Reddit to identify the anonymous users. The Redditors in question discussed issues such as RCN's handling of copyright infringement emails. The filmmakers could use this information to their advantage, but only if they could obtain the identities of the commenters first. Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena, characterizing it as overbroad and more akin to a fishing expedition than regular evidence gathering. Reddit only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN, denying other 'less relevant' ones, while citing the users' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. The court eventually agreed with this defense, concluding that Redditors' First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighs the interest of rightsholders. According to U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, the filmmakers have other options to obtain this type of information., including through RCN itself. Filmmakers Subpoena Reddit Again The court's denial was a setback for the film companies, but they are not letting all Redditors off the hook. As part of their evidence gathering in the related Grande lawsuit, they filed a motion to compel Reddit to comply with a subpoena that again targets a group of anonymous users. The comments in question are several years old and were posted by "robowiener", "SquirtyBottoms", "Aikidi", "kelsoATX", "xBROKEx", and "Schadenfreude_Taco". The Grande references appear in the images below. Some of the comments The subpoena was filed in late April, a week before the court denied the previous motion to compel. On May 8th, Reddit responded, again refusing to hand over the requested information, citing the right to anonymous speech. While this places the camps back in their previous positions, this time around the filmmakers believe they have a stronger case supporting their motion to compel. Other Ways to Get Information Failed In its objection, Reddit pointed out that the anonymous speech rights of its users shouldn't be violated, as long as the filmmakers have other ways to obtain the information. This was also highlighted by the court as a reason to deny the earlier motion to compel. Responding to this critique, the new motion mentions that the documents provided by Grande during discovery haven't resulted in any usable documents that discuss the motivation of its subscribers to use its service for piracy. Also, following an earlier legal procedure, the plaintiffs were able to contact several Grande subscribers whose IP-addresses were frequently showing up in piracy-related BitTorrent swarms. However, they don't believe this will result in any "substantive response" that can be used as evidence. "Plaintiffs have sent letters to most of the subscribers of the 118 IP addresses but have had limited success establishing dialogue with most of them due to time constraints and refusals to respond to Plaintiffs' counsel's communications," the motion reads. Directly and Materially Relevant In the earlier dispute, the court found that most comments from the targeted Redditors were not directly and materially relevant to the underlying lawsuit. This was particularly true because they didn't always mention which Internet provider they referred to. In this case, the comments respond to "Grande" threads and repeatedly mention the ISP by name. As such, the filmmakers believe that the balance tips in their favor. "[T]here is no question that the comments are referring to Defendant as they directly mention Defendant's name and are comments to a thread discussing Defendant," the motion to compel reads. The filmmakers say the comments are relevant to the Grande lawsuit because they show that the ISP failed to implement a proper repeat infringer policy. In addition, the apparent lack of piracy repercussions acted as a draw to potential subscribers. "Reddit commentators 'Aikidi'; 'kelsoATX'; 'xBROKEx'; and 'Schadenfreude_Taco' make comments emphatically stating that they prefer Defendant because they can use Defendant's service to pirate copyright protected content without any consequences. "'Schadenfreude_Taco' admits to having 'downloaded about 1tb…from torrents and uploaded just under 2tb…'. Aikido states that 'I have torrented like a motherf*cker all over grande and never seen anything'," the filing adds. Piracy Admission? Adding to these arguments, the motion also highlights a 12-year-old comment from the user "xBROKEx", who specifically mentions that they pirated the movie Expendables. This admission is valuable in itself, the filmmakers argue. "Plaintiffs do not have any other reasonable way to prove that Defendant's subscriber pirated Expendables because the data provider that provided the evidence did not track this film," the motion reads. The fact that this activity took place more than a decade ago may explain why it wasn't tracked. In any case, it's quite unique to see that comments on Reddit can come back to haunt people, even after all these years. Whether the filmmakers will have their way has yet to be seen. It is ultimately up to the court to decide whether these arguments are sufficient to unmask the anonymous Redditors, or if their right to anonymous speech remains protected. — A copy of the motion to compel, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf) 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