Tuesday, November 28, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Google Bans 'Downloader' Again Following Markscan DMCA Notice
Andy Maxwell, 28 Nov 11:01 AM

downloader-logoCreated by software developer Elias Saba and released on the Amazon Appstore in November 2016, 'Downloader' offered two things; an empty URL field and a download button.

Downloader was intentionally basic but as a former Fire TV Product Manager at Amazon, Saba knew that a simple tool to transfer files would solve a fundamental shortcoming. Over 50 million installs of Downloader to date speak for the software's popularity but in May 2023, progress came to a screeching halt.

Several Israeli TV companies filed a DMCA complaint at Google Play alleging that Downloader offered copyrighted content. The companies supplied no details of the content allegedly infringed and said nothing about how 'Downloader' somehow managed to violate copyright law.

Google suspended Downloader leaving Saba no other option than to file a DMCA counternotice. The developer was forced to wait 10 business days for the complainants to respond and a total of 20 days for Downloader to be restored. After almost three weeks offline, Downloader had lost 47% of its active users.

Just six months later and it's happening all over again.

Another Baseless Copyright Complaint

Speaking with TorrentFreak last evening, Saba calmly explained that a new DMCA takedown notice, filed by India-based anti-piracy outfit Markscan, had resulted in Google suspending Downloader once again. The news was delivered by Google on Sunday evening via the notice below.

Google Play DMCA Downloader

Deficient DMCA Notice, Entirely Deficient Claims

Given Downloader's limited capabilities, even a sensible discussion on the merits would've required Markscan to come up with something special. In the event, the DMCA notice filed at Google Play falls substantially short of the established minimum standard for removing a single URL, let alone an app boasting 50 million downloads.

Markscan-GooglePlay-DMCA-Downloader

In response to a request to 'Identify and describe the copyrighted work' allegedly infringed, the response 'Properties of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.' is especially unhelpful.

In 2022, Warner revealed that its library consists of more than 145,000 hours of programming, including 12,500 feature films and 2,400 television series comprised of more than 150,000 individual episodes.

Alleging infringement of just one of these copyrighted works would've been trivial, had the DMCA notice stated a valid claim against an app that carries and indexes zero content, and is substantially less functional than a web browser.

Google says that it was notified that Downloader "allegedly infringes upon the copyright of others, and violates applicable copyright laws in the relevant country/jurisdiction." Logic suggests that any alleged infringement would indicate a violation of United States copyright law. However, if we take Markscan's home turf as an example, are vague allegations acceptable in India?

Just two examples picked at random (1,2, pdf) show that takedown notices filed by the same team offer a level of detail likely to meet standards almost anywhere. Why this wasn't replicated in the complaint against Downloader raises serious questions.

Another DMCA Counternotice, More Time Offline

On Monday evening, Saba filed an appeal at Google Play and 24 minutes later received notification that it had been rejected.

downloader appeal rejected

As a result the developer followed up with a DMCA counternotice. No response had been received at the time of writing.

Shortly after, Saba was contact by Google AdMob who informed him that ads in the Downloader app will stop being served if it isn't restored by Tuesday (today). The background to this message is interesting, as Saba explains.

"You see, I never had ads in my app and relied solely on donation buttons in the app. But when the app was suspended last time, I learned those donation buttons stop working, even for people that already had the app installed," he informs TorrentFreak.

"As a backup plan, in case the app was suspended again, I added ads to the app for the first time. Now I know it was a mistake going with Google for the ads since, evidently, they break those as well when the app is suspended. I just can't catch a break."

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

Court: Cloudflare is Liable for Pirate Site, But Not as a DNS Provider
Ernesto Van der Sar, 27 Nov 06:07 PM

cloudflare logoPopular Internet infrastructure service Cloudflare has come under a lot of pressure from copyright holders in recent years.

The company offers its services to millions of customers including multinationals, governments, but also some of the world's leading pirate sites.

Cloudflare Must Stop Pirate Site

Pirate sites have proven to be quite a headache for Cloudflare and have landed the San Francisco-based tech company in court on several occasions. This includes a case in Germany, where the local branch of Universal Music sued Cloudflare for offering its services to pirate site DDL-Music.

The lawsuit initially didn't make any headlines, but when Cloudflare displayed an 'Error 451' to DDL-Music users in early 2020, it was clear that something was up. The 451 error code is rare and typically reserved for cases where content has been made inaccessible for legal reasons.

In this case, Universal obtained a preliminary injunction against Cloudflare that required the company to stop providing its services to the pirate site. Failure to comply could've invoked a fine of up to 250,000 euros ($274,000) or, even worse, Cloudflare's managing director could've been sent to prison for up to six months.

Cloudflare complied with the order but took the case to appeal. The case eventually made its way to the Cologne Higher Regional Court, which handed down a mixed decision earlier this month.

Mixed Decision from Higher Court

In its decision, the Court confirmed that Cloudflare must take action against the blatantly-infringing pirate site, dismissing Cloudflare's concerns that this could lead to overblocking. According to the ruling, DDL-Music has no other purpose than to share pirated music and Cloudflare plays a central role in making the site available.

The ruling will come as a disappointment to the Internet infrastructure company, but there's a positive note as well. In addition to stopping its services to DDL-Music as a customer, Universal also wanted Cloudflare to block the site on its public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1.

The Cologne court concluded that a DNS blockade would be a step too far, as Cloudflare's DNS doesn't play a central role in making the site accessible. There are other DNS providers that do the same.

"[D]efendant's DNS resolver does not play a 'central role' in ensuring that the disputed music album could be freely shared on the Internet. The use of the defendant's DNS resolver was neither necessary to find the IP address via the domain name, nor does it make access easier," the court writes.

"The domain name could be resolved into the IP address just as easily using any other DNS resolver. The defendant's public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 is just one of many freely accessible DNS resolvers, the best known and most used of which is the Google public DNS resolver 8.8.8.8. The defendant's DNS resolver therefore had no significant relevance to the accessibility of the infringing content of the disputed domain."

According to the verdict, a DNS provider operates in a purely passive, automatic and neutral manner. This sets it apart from hosting providers or CDN services, which can invoke liability under Germany's Telemedia Act (TMG) and EU law.

The DNS Blocking Frontier

The Cologne Higher Regional Court's ruling is significant, and not just for Cloudflare. After many countries established that pirate sites can be blocked by Internet providers, copyright holders are trying to expand similar obligations further up the intermediary chain.

In this case, the Court established that CDN services can be liable but drew the line at DNS resolvers. That could prove to be important for DNS resolver Quad9, which faces a similar legal battle in Germany.

The issue isn't limited to Germany either. A similar court order in Italy requires Cloudflare to block access to three pirate sites through its public DNS resolver.

These and other court orders will ultimately lead to important precedents going forward. However, the direct effect of the recent German ruling is rather limited. As Tarnkappe rightfully notes, DDL-Music has been offline since 2021, so there's no need to block it at all.

Heise reports that the German Federal Music Industry Association (BVMI) is nonetheless pleased with the outcome, as it shows that Cloudflare plays a "central role in making illegal content accessible."

According to the music group's Managing Director of Legal & Politics, René Houareau, the decision sends "a further signal against the illegal use of music recordings by tightening liability as real perpetrator liability".

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: