Thursday, July 27, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

YouTube Rippers' Appeal of RIAA's $83 Million Piracy Win Moves Forward
Ernesto Van der Sar, 27 Jul 12:39 PM

youtube sad errorIn 2021, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com, and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov.

A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of the RIAA, which represented several prominent music companies.

Following this win, the RIAA demanded $83 million in damages for the widespread copyright infringement that allegedly took place through the sites. The request was met with heavy opposition from Mr. Kurbanov, but last year it was granted nonetheless.

The RIAA, which described the legal battle as a landmark case, was happy with the outcome. As it stands, it will act as a deterrent against similar stream-rippers and other potentially infringing sites. However, the case is not over just yet.

$83 Million Appeal

While Mr. Kurbanov previously walked away from the U.S. court battle, he may choose to keep on fighting. In a new filing submitted yesterday, a challenge against the piracy liability ruling and damages award was docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

appeal docketed

The appeal doesn't come as a complete surprise. More than a year ago, Kurbanov's legal team already signaled their intention to challenge the verdict. A notice of appeal was filed in March 2022, but it took more than a year before the case was formally docketed.

TorrentFreak reached out to the defense's team for a comment on their plans, but they didn't immediately reply. Since quite a bit of time has passed, and considering Kurbanov's previous change of heart regarding U.S. courts, anything could happen.

Questions Remain, Traffic Slides

Last year, defense lawyer Val Gurvits informed us that his client intended to challenge the fact that the sites are being held liable for millions of dollars in damages, without having to present concrete evidence of copyright infringements that allegedly took place in the United States.

"If the record companies can really get multi-million dollar judgments without having to prove a single instance of infringement within the United States, then no one who operates a website is safe," Gurvits said at the time.

Whether this is still the plan remains unclear. If the operator of the YouTube rippers does decide to proceed with the appeal, an opening brief could be expected later this year, with the RIAA to respond after that.

Meanwhile, the contested YouTube rippers are still online. Their traffic has been decimated, however, in part because the sites voluntarily blocked all traffic from the United States.

When the RIAA filed its lawsuit five years ago, FLVTO.biz had an estimated 94 million visits per month and 2conv.com pulled in around 23 million monthly visits. Today, these visitor numbers have dropped to 3 million and 2 million visits, respectively.

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

RIAA Urges NTIA to Keep .US Domain WHOIS Info Public to Deter Online Piracy
Ernesto Van der Sar, 26 Jul 09:47 PM

.us domain nameHistorically, the domain name WHOIS system has been an important tool to track down the operators of pirate sites and services.

While WHOIS data is not always accurate, it is still helpful in holding site operators accountable, at least when the information is available for access.

In recent years, access to domain registration information has often been restricted. This change is in large part the result of EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a privacy law that limits the availability of personal information in public databases.

In response to the law, domain name oversight body ICANN implemented a measure to restrict access to personal WHOIS data for gTLDs, unless explicit permission is granted. This was a welcome privacy upgrade for many domain registrants, but anti-piracy groups were not happy.

.US WHOIS Restrictions

Copyright holders have complained about the stricter privacy rules but were pleased to see that these didn't apply universally. The .US ccTLD, for example, which falls under the oversight of the United States Department of Commerce's NTIA, remains publicly accessible.

Public access helps enforcement efforts but also has some drawbacks. Since anyone can access the private details of domain registrants anonymously, the information can be used to spam, phish, or dox people.

To reduce the potential for abuse, NTIA and its contractor GoDaddy are proposing to limit anonymous access to .US registrant data and make information seekers accountable too.

"In response to concerns about the potential for abuse of usTLD registrant data, NTIA is considering a proposal from its Contractor to create an Accountable WHOIS Gateway System to provide public access to usTLD registrant information," NTIA noted.

"The System would require those seeking access to the usTLD registration data to provide their name, an email address, and to accept the Terms of Service (TOS)."

NTIA summary

RIAA Opposes WHOIS Shield

Earlier this year, NTIA asked the public for input on this proposal. As expected, that triggered opposition from various parties including the music industry's anti-piracy watchdog, RIAA.

In response to the proposal, RIAA points out that EU privacy regulation and proxy registration services for many top-level domains have made it virtually impossible to obtain accurate registrant data for anti-piracy purposes.

The .US TLD is a rare exception, which is also apparent in the abuse numbers. Pirate sites tend to avoid .US domain names, presumably because WHOIS data is publicly available.

"We have seen much less copyright infringement on sites with .us domains than on those in the gTLD space," RIAA writes.

This statement is backed up by figures showing that copyright infringement through .US domain names is trending down in recent years, while it has increased on .COM domain names.

riaa domain infringement

WHOIS data is not only important to catch pirates, RIAA writes. It can also be helpful to other investigators, including law enforcement agencies, who also deal with online harms.

At the same time, RIAA suggests that the harm faced by registrants is minimal. At least, the organization is not aware of any concrete examples where public .US WHOIS information has caused any problems.

"[W]hile we have heard of anecdotal evidence of harm to registrants generally, we don't know of any documented, verifiable, widespread, pervasive harm to .us registrants caused by publicly available registrant data."

Why Change?

NTIA doesn't propose to make it entirely impossible for rightsholders and other interested parties to obtain WHOIS data. Instead, it wants to hold WHOIS data seekers accountable, by asking them for their information as well.

This shouldn't prevent RIAA and other rightsholders from accessing WHOIS records, but the RIAA sees no reason to change the status quo.

"Given the steep rise of cyber problems since the WHOIS data for gTLDs was masked, and the challenges such masking has caused to those combatting those problems, we don't understand why .us would change its current policies.

"Accordingly, the current system of access to usTLD domain name registration data should remain unchanged, and we do not support efforts to create unnecessary gates around registrant data," RIAA adds.

If NTIA decides to block unlimited and anonymous access to WHOIS data, RIAA notes that copyright holders should be granted free and immediate access. In addition, WHOIS data should be vetted through 'know-your-customer' requirements, while corporate domain registrations should remain publicly accessible.

A copy of RIAA's full response to the NTIA's proposal was published this week and is available here (pdf)

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

Can India's Cinematograph Bill Kill Camcorder Piracy & Satisfy the U.S. ?
Andy Maxwell, 26 Jul 01:00 PM

cinema-camming-For the last 40 years the Motion Picture Association has regularly highlighted the damage caused by in-theater recordings of the latest movies. And quite rightly so.

So-called 'cam' copies appear online within hours of movies first appearing in theaters, yet as piracy releases go, cams are unique in their ability to disappoint just about everyone. Not only do these often potato-quality copies somehow eat away at the box office, but filmmakers' work is often reduced to a smear, and that disappoints pirates too.

The fact that unlicensed gambling 'companies' continue to use cams as a promotional vehicle leaves few obvious grounds to argue that the majority of cams benefit anyone at all. Yet camming persists in a number of countries, despite intense pressure from the United States demanding meaningful action against it.

In-theater camming contributed to India being placed on the USTR's Priority Watch List and the question now is whether a long-running legal amendment process can even begin to address it.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2019

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2019 was introduced to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which contained provisions for the certification of films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions of those films.

Certain amendments proposed to the 2019 bill (pdf) recognized the growth of piracy in India and specifically targeted 'cam' piracy. It stated that "no person shall, without the written authorization of the author, be permitted to use any audiovisual recording device in a place to knowingly make or transmit or attempt to make or transmit or abet the making or transmission of a copy of a film or a part thereof."

The proposals stated that violations would be punishable by a prison term of up to three years, a fine, or both

The bill was the subject of a Standing Committee Report published in March 2020. A copy available via PRS Legislative Research (pdf) shows that the committee heard evidence from the Motion Picture Distributors Association, Viacom 18, the Film and Television Producers Guild of India, and others.

Amended Amendments

The Standing Committee Report referenced 18 U.S. Code Section 2319B, the United States' anti-camcording provision, which also provides for up to three years in prison for a first 'camming' offense.

The Committee felt that since movies are expensive, punishments should be reviewed in an upwards direction. Somewhat remarkably, the Committee also raised doubts over the bill's ability to counter the piracy that takes place inside India's Censor Board.

Throughout the process, concerns were raised over a number of issues. They included fears of potential overreach in the statement that "no person shall be permitted to use any audio-visual recording device…," which could include the use of a mobile phone, for example. Other debates centered on whether broadly defining recording "in a place" or more specifically an "exhibition facility" would be better or worse, or vice-versa.

A clear definition for the word "knowingly" was sought to establish mens rea while the reference to recording a movie "or a part thereof" raised questions over punishing behavior that should be protected under fair use exceptions.

Calls for tougher sentencing were addressed with proposals for a minimum three-month prison sentence, a minimum fine of roughly US$3,600, and a maximum fine of 5% of the audited gross production cost of the recorded movie. Not even the United States has ventured that far.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023

The Union Cabinet, the supreme decision-making body in India, approved the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023 (pdf) in April.

Anurag Thakur, Minister for Information and Broadcasting, predicted the bill would meet the needs of all.

"This Bill will live up to the expectations of the industry," the minister said. "This Bill is going to satisfy each and every one without any controversy."

The bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament) on July 20, 2023. It includes provisions for film certification and the prospect of films being denied any kind of exhibition at all. For our purposes here we will not venture into that political quagmire, but it's fair to say that controversy is rarely far away.

A PRS India summary of the section relevant to camming reads as follows:

The Bill prohibits carrying out or abetting: (i) the unauthorized recording and (ii) unauthorized exhibition of films. Attempting an unauthorized recording will also be an offense. An unauthorized recording means making or transmitting an infringing copy of a film at a licensed place for film exhibition without the owner's authorization. An unauthorized exhibition means the public exhibition of an infringing copy of the film for profit: (i) at a location not licensed to exhibit films or (ii) in a manner that infringes upon the copyright law

When accompanied by the fines mentioned earlier, which include up to 5% of a movie's audited gross production costs, it seems likely that the United States would've been quite pleased with India's latest attempt at anti-camming legislation. And then this;

Certain exemptions under the Copyright Act, 1957 will also apply to the above offenses. The 1957 Act allows limited use of copyrighted content without owner's authorization in specified cases such as: (i) private or personal use, (ii) reporting of current affairs, or (iii) review or critique of that work.

That fair use-style exemptionsFpurp, available under the Copyright Act 1957, will also apply to in-theater recording scenarios, seems unlikely to be viewed in the same positive light. The IIPA previously urged India to "swiftly enact legislative amendments to outlaw unauthorized recording of all or part of an audiovisual work in a cinema."

Image credit: Pixabay/igorovsyannykov

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

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: