Thursday, August 31, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Lithuania's Media Watchdog Issues First-Ever 'Fines' to Torrenting Movie Pirates
Ernesto Van der Sar, 31 Aug 11:09 AM

eurosA few weeks ago, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses, allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

This legislative change is the latest attempt to deter piracy in the European country. The potential fines should make pirates reconsider their habits, the idea goes.

Monitoring Pirates

While this plan may be sound on paper, there are some challenges to overcome. Tracking pirates isn't always possible. Outsiders can't easily see who uses a pirate streaming site, for example.

Tracking BitTorrent pirates is easier, but not straightforward when the largest torrent site in the country, LinkoManija.net, is a private community. The torrent site is relatively unknown in most parts of the world but it's a local legend. LinkoManija has been around for more than two decades and continues to survive.

linkomanija

Although the torrent site is not openly accessible, many Lithuanians are members, as evidenced by the fact that it's one of the most visited sites in the country. The site's members include some piracy investigators too, it appears.

Watchdog Fines LinkoManija Users

This week, media watchdog LRTK announced that it had fined three LinkoManija users. The people in question were tracked down on July 27, presumably by their IP-addresses. All three shared a copy of the locally produced film "Tu Mano Deimantas".

LRTK says this is the first time it has issued administrative fines for copyright violations carried out by individual pirates. These fines are presumably directed at the Internet subscribers associated with the pirating IP addresses.

Under the updated law, the consumer watchdog can fine online pirates up to 600 euros per offense. In this case, the three LinkoManija users were fined 140 euros each.

The scale of the fines is relatively mild and may not stop the most determined pirates. However, the authorities likely hope that by showing that people can indeed get caught, that will act as a deterrent. Meanwhile, the LinkoManija website remains up and running, as it has done since 2003.

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

Google Removes 'Pirate' URLs from Users' Privately Saved Links
Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Aug 09:12 PM

googlesavedFor many people, Google is the go-to starting point when they need to find something on the web. With just a few keystrokes, the search engine can find virtually anything.

The company also has many other tools to browse and organize the web, including the Chrome browser and YouTube.

All these products and services fall under the umbrella of the company Alphabet. While the various departments are largely run separately, there is plenty of overlap too. This week, we stumbled upon information suggesting that DMCA notices, received for the search engine, directly impact people's privately saved links.

As reported earlier this month, Google's search index is a prime target for copyright holders. Over the past several years, more than seven billion 'infringing' URLs have been flagged, with the majority removed. This makes sense, as Google is legally required to process DMCA takedown requests.

What comes as a surprise, however, is that the search takedown requests also impact other Google services.

Search Takedowns Affect Saved URLs

A few hours ago, Eddie Roosenmaallen shared an email from Google, notifying him that a link had been removed from his Google Saved collection because it violates Google's policy.

The reason cited for the removal is the "downstream impact", as the URL in question is "blocked by Google Search".

"The following saved item in one of your collections was determined to violate Google's policy. As a result, the item will be moderated..," Google writes, pointing out a defunct KickassTorrents domain as the problem.

Initially, it was suggested that this removal impacted Google's synched Chrome bookmarks but further research reveals that's not the case. Instead, the removals apply to Google's saved feature.

This Google service allows users to save and organize links, similar to what Pinterest does. These link collections can be private or shared with third parties.

Bookmarks?

The initial bookmark confusion is likely caused by the fact that, in Google's app, the saved icon (shown below) appears by default. When clicked, the page in question is added to a "favorite pages" collection, which some people see as a bookmark.

google saved

Confusing terminology aside, what stands out here is that Google's search content policy also applies to these saved links. As a result, URLs for which Google receives a search takedown, disappear from saved collections as well. This applies to both public and private collections.

DMCA'd URLS can't be Saved

TorrentFreak was able to replicate this issue. Google doesn't allow us to 'save' URLs that are removed from Google search, such as YouTube ripper "Yout.com", torrent site "1337x.to", or the earlier mentioned "Katcr.com."

These blockades apply to single URLs, not entire domains. For example, thepiratebay.org is still visible in Google searches and can be added to a collection. However, Pirate Bay links that are deindexed, such as this one, can't be saved.

The same applies to other sites. The old homepage of YouTube ripper 2conv.com can't be saved since it's been removed from Google search, but the latest homepage URL (2conv.com/neshq) can still be added.

It's not clear why Google enforces the search policy for saved links or whether preventing copyright infringement is the main goal. The company didn't immediately respond to our request for comment. If we hear back, this article will be updated accordingly.

For now, the impact is relatively limited as the saved feature isn't widely used. However, if Google decides to "moderate" users' Chrome bookmarks, or its DNS resolver, things could get interesting.

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Putin's Cinema Fund Rejects Movie Piracy, Fuming Cinema Boss Demands Barbie
Andy Maxwell, 30 Aug 10:06 AM

confusingIf piracy had its own Olympics, Russian competitors would be among the favorites to bring home the gold, or so the stereotype dictates.

Yet for the last 18 months, multiple threats to legalize piracy of Western movies have not only faltered, but have thus far reached no obvious conclusion. From former president Dimitry Medvedev who called for mass piracy out of spite, to reluctant cinema workers with no movies to screen but families to feed, the value of Hollywood's movies was there for the taking.

At what point the conversation changed isn't clear, but at least in the media there appears to be momentum building against the idea that piracy of Western content would be good for Russia. It seemed to take much longer than it should have, but the realization that a Western content free-for-all would hurt demand for local content arrived eventually, right in the middle of nothing out of the ordinary on the piracy front.

Piracy Plan Receives Little Support

Among those in favor of state-sanctioned piracy of Western content is Alexei Sinitsyn, the First Deputy Head of the Federation Council Committee on Economic Policy.

After being hit by Western sanctions, Sinitsyn and department head Andrei Kutepov prepared a bill that would deny foreign rightsholders protection under the Civil Code, if they refused to grant licenses for their movies to be shown legally in Russia.

The proposals included shipping unlicensed foreign films in via Belarus and issuing them with a Russian distribution certificate, regardless of paperwork. The Ministry of Culture didn't like the idea, ostensibly because that would violate foreign rightsholders' exclusive rights.

According to a report published Tuesday, these piracy proposals face new objections on both legal and moral grounds.

Cinema Fund: We Oppose the Plan

Cinema Fund (Фонд Кино) is a body through which the Russian government funds movies and TV shows that benefit the state. The official line is that Cinema Fund supports local filmmaking and "provides conditions" for creating high-quality films "that meet national interests."

Interestingly, Cinema Fund's position on Sinitsyn's failing piracy plan, outlined in a letter seen by Izvestia, suggests that overt piracy of Western movies isn't viewed as acceptable.

"The implementation of any mechanisms for legalizing the display of audiovisual content without the consent of the copyright holders ('piracy') creates additional legal and reputational risks, [and] currently seems inappropriate," writes Cinema Fund Executive Director, Fedor Sosnov.

Moral Values vs. Good Movies

It transpires that copyright is just one of the reasons behind Cinema Fund's decision to oppose piracy of foreign content.

Sosnov's letter states that allowing distribution of foreign films risks "providing access to content on the territory of the Russian Federation that is contrary to the fundamentals of state policy to preserve and strengthen traditional Russian spiritual and moral values."

Given that escapism is why people love movies in the West (and perhaps why just one film supported by Cinema Fund turned a profit in 2022), Roman Isaev of the Council of the Association of Cinema Owners is clear: Russians want blockbuster foreign films and if local cinemas can't offer them, they won't survive.

"The Cinema Fund and the Ministry of Culture have a well-established, formulated position of protecting the interests of Western copyright holders, following in line with the Geneva and Vienna conventions for the protection of copyright," Isaev says.

"For some reason, they believe that in the current geopolitical situation and pressure on Russia, our country must sacredly support and comply with all requirements for copyright protection."

Russian Cinema Industry on the Brink

In comments published by NSN, AVK member Comscore said that if Russia's film industry is to survive, it needs an injection of at least 40 billion rubles. To get properly back on track, around 60 billion rubles (around $629 million)

"The viewer determines the success or failure of a particular film and the state of the industry as a whole. He wants to watch world blockbusters, as they are shown in the cinemas of the CIS countries, appear on the news agenda, in particular, the sensational 'Barbie' and 'Oppenheimer'," Isaev adds.

"Russian cinemas cannot offer them. Some of the viewers will go to see a Russian film or foreign films that are legally available, but most will watch a pirated copy on the Internet."

Copyright disputes have a tendency to become more complicated as the stakes increase, but nobody in Russia feels confident enough to address the elephant in the room. Cinema wasn't collapsing in the hours preceding Thursday, Feb 24, 2022, and answers to the "geopolitical situation" won't be found during the closing credits of Barbie, paid for or not.

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

OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Authors' Copyright Infringement Claims
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Aug 09:21 PM

openaiArtificial intelligence has the potential to make our lives more efficient, entertaining, and productive. There are potential downsides as well.

From a copyright perspective, AI brings up some interesting questions. For example, can content created by an AI be copyrighted? And can an AI be trained on copyrighted works without limitation?

Authors Sue OpenAI

According to several authors, large language model training sets shouldn't be permitted to use every piece of text they come across online. In their lawsuit filed in June, book authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad accused OpenAI of direct and vicarious copyright infringement, among other things.

Soon after, writer/comedian Sarah Silverman was joined by authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey in an identical suit which also accused OpenAI of using books as training data. This happened without permission, using datasets that were sourced from pirate sites, the complaint alleged.

The complaints mention the controversial Books2 and Books3 datasets that are believed to be sourced from shadow libraries such as LibGen, Z-Library, Sci-Hub, and Bibliotik.

"The books aggregated by these websites have also been available in bulk via torrent systems. These flagrantly illegal shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community..," the authors wrote.

OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Claims

This week, OpenAI responded to these accusations with a request for the bulk of the claims to be dismissed. They include vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violation, unfair competition, "negligence," and unjust enrichment allegations.

"None of these causes of action states a viable claim for relief because none of the legal theories challenged here actually condemns the conduct alleged with respect to ChatGPT, the language models that power it, or the process used to create them," OpenAI informed the court.

"It is important for these claims to be trimmed from the suit at the outset, so that these cases do not proceed to discovery and beyond with legally infirm theories of liability."

bulk dismissed

The only claim that should be able to survive, for now, is direct copyright infringement, but OpenAI expects to defeat the claim at a later stage.

Fair Use

The authors' copyright infringement claims are grounded in copyright law. OpenAI doesn't dispute that copyright plays a role but notes that the complaints take a hard line, glossing over exemptions such as fair use.

"Those claims, however, misconceive the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

OpenAI notes that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, its creators saw copyright law as a tool to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In this case, AI is seen as useful progress, and its use of large amounts of copyrighted texts could be seen as 'fair'.

"Numerous courts have applied the fair use doctrine to strike that balance, recognizing that the use of copyrighted materials by innovators in transformative ways does not violate copyright," OpenAI writes.

Derivative?

The authors clearly have a different take. They argued that every output of OpenAI's language models is a copyright infringing derivative work. These derivatives are generated without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

OpenAI argues that this conclusion goes too far. The organization points out, based on the authors' theory, that all output from large language models is essentially copyright infringing. While that may be what the authors want, it would severely hamper AI innovations.

Courts have previously rejected interpretations of the term derivative that are too broad, and should do so here as well, the AI company notes.

"According to the Complaints, every single ChatGPT output —from a simple response to a question, to the name of the President of the United States, to a paragraph describing the plot, themes, and significance of Homer's The Iliad— is necessarily an infringing 'derivative work' of Plaintiffs' books.

"Worse still, each of those outputs would simultaneously be an infringing derivative of each of the millions of other individual works contained in the training corpus— regardless of whether there are any similarities between the output and the training works. That is not how copyright law works," OpenAI adds.

Based on these and a variety of arguments, OpenAI asks the court to dismiss all claims, except direct copyright infringement.

The authors have yet to respond, but they will likely counter OpenAI's motion. These cases will help to define the boundaries of copyright when it comes to AI developments, and will likely be fought tooth and nail.

The motions to dismiss in the Tremblay and Awad case can be found here (pdf), and the identical version that's filed in the Silverman, Golden, Kadrey lawsuit is available here (pdf).

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

Tuesday, August 29, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Premier League Declares War on IPTV Piracy From Behind a Paywall
Andy Maxwell, 29 Aug 12:36 PM

Pirate FireThe recent release of The Pirates vs The Premier League podcast series was a great opportunity to hear fresh voices and opinions on the Premier League's piracy problems.

The Premier League has had piracy issues since its inception, although fundamentally no different to those endured by its broadcasting partners years before the Premier League even existed.

The podcast provided a platform where fans, experts, and other interested parties, were able to present their opinions on what motivates people to consume pirated streams to the detriment of the Premier League. There was even a slim chance that discussions would lead to solutions or at least some common ground.

Premier League Disinterested in Discussion

While there were no fresh surprises, the causes of piracy in the UK were certainly underlined; expensive subscriptions spread over multiple platforms, and zero access to 3pm games. The pirate counter-offer: cheap subscriptions with zero restrictions.

Somewhere between those disparate poles lies opportunity and the non-preachy nature of the podcast seemed as good a place as any to discuss or even tiptoe round the edges of a discussion involving the Premier League.

Unfortunately, the Premier League declined to appear; presumably because it's their multi-billion pound business, and they'll run it as they see fit, within the confines of the official 375-page 2023-2024 handbook (pdf).

Premier League Owners' Charter 2023/24Premier League Charter 2023-24

With the Premier League apparently in no mood for discussion right now, it came as a surprise to see the name of its general counsel appear in news feeds as the UK enjoyed a Bank Holiday yesterday.

Deterrent Messaging – Paywalled

In an article published in the Financial Times, it was made abundantly clear that the Premier League's attitude towards piracy (and how it can be reduced) has not changed. Premier League general counsel Kevin Plumb was extremely clear; piracy will meet the world's richest football competition in the legal arena.

The Premier League's status as an iconic and powerful global business dovetails perfectly with the reporting of the prestigious Financial Times. However, the article's emphasis on deterrent anti-piracy messaging was published behind a paywall. Whether that was intentionally symbolic is unclear but football fans aren't the only audience the Premier League has to consider.

The piece begins by noting that the Premier League will take a tougher stance against illegal streaming after beefing up its legal team and launching private prosecutions. More importantly, perhaps, this is all taking place as the Premier League prepares for a "multibillion auction of domestic television rights." Given that being pummeled by pirates is imagery unlikely to increase bids, a zero-tolerance announcement to the business world makes a lot of sense.

"We don't underestimate them. They're really sophisticated now. There is always a challenge with finding people online," Plumb told the FT.

"When I first started doing this, our top line priority would have been pubs. There's a little bit of that now but piracy has evolved from peer-to-peer streaming to closed network subscriptions. You went from the pub to the teenagers in their bedrooms to families watching in their living room, and that then becomes a real priority for us," he said.

Flawless Deterrent

The most significant deterrent message ever sent by the Premier League is still relatively fresh. In May, five men behind pirate IPTV service Flawless TV were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison, the end result of a private prosecution brought by the Premier League with significant support from Trading Standards and the police.

"Would you want to carry on this sort of business if you're going to get 10 or 11 years in jail?" Plumb asked, referencing the sentence handed down to Flawless ringleader, Mark Gould.

Of course, the logical answer is no. The reality is that buying an illegal IPTV package is easier than ever and nothing changed when the sentences were handed down almost three months ago.

The Premier League understands its business better than anyone but history has shown that force alone cannot beat piracy. The Premier League is undoubtedly special but certainly not immune to having its deterrent threats ignored, even those not published behind a paywall.

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

UFC, NBA & NFL Want to Fight Live Streaming Piracy With 'Instant' DMCA Takedowns
Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Aug 10:21 PM

UFC fight nightThe UFC, NBA and NFL are without a doubt among the most recognizable sports brands in the world.

Their events attract millions of viewers and are monetized through multi-billion dollar licensing deals and expensive PPV events.

Many sports fans are willing to pay to access these broadcasts but for some the costs involved are simply too steep. This has created a black market for pirated live streams which attract millions of users.

Slow and Ineffective DMCA Takedowns

Sports leagues and promotors are not happy with these unauthorized streams and are finding it difficult to get a grip on the problem. DMCA takedown notices are the main anti-piracy tool at their disposal but for live content they say this simply isn't effective.

Last week, these concerns were shared with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to a consultation to discuss future anti-piracy and counterfeiting strategies.

In their letter, UFC, NBA, and NFL point out that, when it comes to live sports streaming, most of the value is concentrated on the live broadcast. When it takes several hours before an online service provider (OSP) responds to a DMCA notice, that's practically useless as the live event has already ended by then.

"Unfortunately, UFC, NBAP and NFLP's shared experience is that many OSPs frequently take hours or even days to remove content in response to takedown notices—thus allowing infringing live content to remain online during the most anticipated moments, or even the entirety, of a UFC event or an NBA or NFL game," they write.

ufc nba nfl

As a result of these inadequate policies, live-streaming piracy continues to flourish. For the global sports industry it's a growing problem said to be responsible for billions of dollars in lost revenues.

Expeditiously Outdated

When the DMCA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, live streaming simply didn't exist yet. However, the law did clarify that service providers should process takedown notices "expeditiously."

In reality, however, the term expeditiously is not defined. According to some, responding within a few hours is sufficient, while other services believe that taking content down within a day is still quite reasonable.

These response times may still work for static content but not for live sports, UFC, NBA and NFL stress in their letter.

"It should be no surprise that the notice-and-takedown regime established by the DMCA, which was enacted before widespread internet-based livestreaming became available, is not well-suited to address the present-day particular piracy issues surrounding the infringement of live content."

Instantaneous DMCA Takedowns

In recent years, live-streaming piracy hasn't limited itself to dedicated pirate sites. Some use legitimate social media platforms to promote their content or abuse the live streaming capabilities of these services directly.

To tackle with this issue, the sports organizations would like to see Section 512 of the DMCA updated. Instead of taking down content 'expeditiously," online services should be required to respond near-instantaneously.

"[T]he requirement to 'expeditiously' remove infringing content means that content must be removed 'instantaneously or near-instantaneously' in response to a takedown request. This would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately."

The sports organizations don't define what "near-instantaneously" means, but this should be seconds or minutes, rather than hours.

In addition to swift takedowns, social media platforms should limit the live streaming capabilities to users that meet a certain verification threshold. This should exclude new users, or users with only a handful of followers, for example.

"Certain OSPs already impose measures like these, demonstrating that the measures are feasible, practical and important tools to reduce livestream piracy. Both of these reforms are needed," UFC, NBA and NFL write.

This isn't the first time that sports rightsholders have demanded action. In Europe, shorter takedown windows have been on the political agenda for years. While the European Commission hasn't baked these into law, Italy recently adopted a 30-minute takedown window for live-streaming content.

Whether U.S. lawmakers will consider updating the DMCA has yet to be seen, but getting it on the political agenda is the first step.

A copy of the letter UFC, NBA and NFL sent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office is available here (pdf)

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