Monday, August 14, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

BREIN Wraps Up IPTV Piracy Battle by Seizing .EU Domain Names
Ernesto Van der Sar, 14 Aug 11:00 AM

breinThe Internet is littered with shady IPTV services that offer a lot, for very little money.

These deals often seem too good to be true and in most cases they are; at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

Chasing IPTV Pirates

Anti-piracy groups around the world are actively trying to shut down these illicit operations. In Europe, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is at the forefront of the battle.

In 2017, BREIN booked a prominent victory at the European Court of Justice, which ruled that it's illegal to sell devices that are pre-configured to access copyright-infringing content. The "Filmspeler" decision was the death knell for sellers of pirate streaming boxes.

Paired with the earlier GS Media ruling, which held that companies with a for-profit motive can't knowingly link to copyright-infringing material, rightsholders could rely on a powerful enforcement tool.

Target: GoFastIPTV.eu

With these high-profile court rulings in hand, BREIN went after hundreds of pirate streaming tools and operators of IPTV services. One of its main targets was GoFastIPTV.eu, which offered unauthorized access to movies, TV shows and pay TV channels, plus more than 85,000 on-demand titles.

BREIN was initially unable to track down the operator through its regular private enforcement options. The paper trail went all over the world through companies in the UK and Brazil, eventually running dead at a hotel in Lisbon, Portugal.

There was one significant lead left, however, as the IPTV service used the Dutch Rabobank to process payments. The bank wasn't willing to hand over data voluntarily, so BREIN decided to take the matter to court instead, where Rabobank was eventually ordered to cooperate.

Operator Located, Case Settled

The bank's information led to a breakthrough that allowed BREIN to track down the IPTV operator in South America. The person initially failed to respond to communications but that changed when BREIN went back to court once more.

Through the renewed legal pressure, the anti-piracy group negotiated a conditional €70,000 settlement with the operator of the now-defunct GoFastIPTV.eu service. In addition, the operator faced a fine of €25,000 per day should the service be restored, plus a €10,000 fine for each future infringement.

go fast

This settlement was a major victory against the once-largest IPTV broker in the Netherlands and although the ink dried for a while, there was still one loose end to tie up. BREIN also wanted to seize the associated gofastiptv.eu, acs-hosting.eu, and iptvgo.eu domains, which were registered in the name of a fall guy.

Final Ruling to Seize EU Domains

This final kink couldn't be sorted out as part of the settlement, as the operator didn't control the domain names directly. This meant that BREIN had to go to court once again to secure the domain names.

In an announcement this week, BREIN reported that this final obstacle has been overcome. The anti-piracy group obtained a court order that required the 'fall guy' to hand over the domain names and while that person failed to do so, the EU registry did eventually cooperate.

The IPTV domains weren't actively being used anymore but BREIN is pleased to see that the registry handed them over, meaning they can't be used for piracy services in the future.

That said, the anti-piracy group would have preferred if the online intermediaries had been more cooperative from the get-go. That would have saved time, money, and multiple trips to court.

"The intermediaries involved could have cooperated faster and on a voluntary basis in ending this illegal trade and identifying the anonymous trader. That often happens but, in this case, the practice turned out to be unruly," says BREIN director Tim Kuik.

"But perseverance wins. We persevered and in the end, all our claims were met."

Seizures Can Work, Sometimes

After years of legal action, BREIN now has pretty much everything it wants from GoFastIPTV's operator. The settlement amount hasn't been paid in full yet, but there's a payment arrangement that's still ongoing.

Meanwhile, the group is redirecting the newly seized domain names to a page that informs people about the illegal nature of pirate IPTV services.

"Creating and offering great content costs money. Support that creativity and don't let money disappear into the pockets of criminals and profiteers," the notice reads, warning that users of these IPTV services also break the law.

Interestingly, that page displays an animated gif of The Pirate Bay logo that sinks after running into an iceberg.

sink

The message BREIN is trying to send is clear, but The Pirate Bay example may not be the best. While some Pirate Bay domains were seized or suspended in the past, the main thepiratebay.org domain remains online to this day.

When asked about this, BREIN's director admits that domain seizures don't work that well for The Pirate Bay.

"There were attempts to seize TPB domain names, but these had no effect because new ones were immediately taken into use," Kuik says.

Kuik notes that legal actions in several jurisdictions would be required for these seizures to work. But since The Pirate Bay actively evaded attacks on its domains, domain blocking is a better option.

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

Internet Archive's Copyright Battle with Publishers Leads to Lending Restrictions
Ernesto Van der Sar, 13 Aug 09:11 PM

IAIn 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 a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying.

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the Covid epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library.

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

Patrons happily use the library but not all rightsholders are happy with IA's scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but 'authorized' libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no such license.

As such, the publishers see IA's library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it permanently taken down.

"Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites," their complaint reads.

The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations. Stressing that the library offers a vital service, Internet Archive's defense centered on the legal concept of transformative fair use.

Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment

After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

The court instructed both sides to come up with a consent judgment to determine how the ruling would be reflected in IA's lending program. After several weeks of negotiations, a proposed agreement was submitted to the court last Friday.

The judgment comes with a permanent injunction that effectively bars the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the 'covered books' without permission from rightsholders.

These restrictions are subject to appeal, which means that the agreement could be rendered moot if IA wins its appeal, which is currently pending.

Covered Books?

The book publishers and IA agree on nearly all aspects of the proposed judgment except one. The parties still disagree on the term 'covered books' and leave this question open for the court.

The publishers would like all of their copyrighted works to be covered by the injunction, including those that are not available in ebook format. IA, on the other hand, believes that digitizing physical books is fair game if the publishers don't offer a digital version.

"This case involved only works that the Publishers make available as ebooks and so the scope of any injunction should be limited accordingly," IA explains.

The publishers disagree and stress that the court has already made it clear that IA is not allowed to digitize and distribute print books en masse without permission. Publishers should also have the right not to release ebooks, if they prefer.

"Of key significance, the law is clear that the right to decide whether or not to publish a book in electronic format belongs to its authors and publishers, not IA," the publishers write.

Next Chapter

The court will now have to decide how broad the definition "covered books" should be. In their proposed judgment, the parties leave this question open, as shown below.

covered book

What's clear, however, is that IA must make changes to its lending program. The organization says that it will communicate these to its patrons, once the judgment is approved.

At the same time, the library also made clear that it will fight the underlying order, as it believes that libraries should be able to digitize and lend books outside the strict licensing ecosystem.

"Libraries are under attack at unprecedented scale today, from book bans to defunding to overzealous lawsuits like the one brought against our library," Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle says.

"These efforts are cutting off the public's access to truth at a key time in our democracy. We must have strong libraries, which is why we are appealing this decision," Kahle concludes.

Meanwhile, IA has a new legal battle on its hands as the non-profit was sued by several prominent record labels on Friday. The companies accuse it of blatantly infringing copyrights in hundreds of thousands of sound recordings.

A copy of the proposed consent judgment submitted to the court on Friday is available here

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: