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

No comments: