Friday, January 12, 2024

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Domain & IP Seizures in UK's Criminal Justice Bill Could Apply to Pirate Sites
Andy Maxwell, 12 Jan 09:28 AM

domainseizedThe UK government's Criminal Justice Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on November 14, 2023, followed by its second reading on November 28.

A Public Bill Committee is now in the process of scrutinizing the Bill "line by line" and if all goes to plan, the Committee will report back to the House by January 30, in advance of the Bill's third reading.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend criminal law and, in many respects, it signals positive change. New criminal offenses to prohibit devices used in serious crime, theft, and fraud, such as 3D printer firearms templates, tablet presses, encapsulators, and vehicle concealment compartments, have been reasonably well-received.

Measures against universally despised, SMS spam-and-fraud-enabling SIM farm devices are long overdue, but some believe that criminalizing the homeless for "nuisance" rough sleeping isn't the type of change Britain needs right now. However, with prison sentences of up to a month on the table, such nuisances can be completely eliminated, in theory for up to a month.

Preventing Online Crime

During the debate on November 28, Home Secretary James Cleverly spoke about the need to tackle fraud in its various forms. Published in June 2023, the government's fraud strategy revealed that fraud now accounts for over 40% of all reported crime in the UK, with police dedicating just 1% of overall resources to tackle the problem.

"The Criminal Justice Bill contains several new measures to tackle fraudsters and the perpetrators of other serious crimes. We are prohibiting the possession and supply of SIM farms that have no legitimate purpose," Cleverly said.

On the disparity between police resources deployed and the sheer scale of the fraud problem, Cleverly responded that it's "not quite as simple as mapping the proportion of crime to the proportion of police officers," since there's a need to "upskill investigators so that they can focus on those crime types."

The Home Secretary added that new tools to fight fraud are also part of the Bill.

"Law enforcement agencies will have extended powers to suspend domain names and IP addresses used for fraudulent purposes or other serious crimes," Cleverly said.

Are Pirate Sites Among the Targets?

The Bill sees domain and IP suspensions as a mechanism to fight fraud and other crime that has an online component. Pirate sites aren't mentioned specifically, but the same also applies to many other illegal operations that currently exist, or might exist in the future.

According to the Bill, investigative agencies would be given new power to apply to the court for a suspension order. These would compel third-party entities, involved in the provision of IP addresses or domain names, to suspend or deny access to them for up to a year.

According to the Bill's explanatory notes, law enforcement agencies and entities responsible for assigning domain names or IP addresses currently operate under voluntary agreements. These rely on alleged fraudsters violating the terms of service laid down by their providers, at which point domains and/or IP addresses can be suspended for those breaches.

While that works in the UK, overseas providers "do not always recognize" informal requests and demand court orders before any suspensions can take place. The Bill addresses this with the introduction of two new orders, one to suspend IP addresses and one to suspend domain names, to be served against "Regional Internet Registries, Local Internet Registries, or Internet Service Providers."

According to the government, these orders "can be served internationally, to ensure that any threat originating from outside the UK can be effectively tackled."

Suspension Orders Target 'Serious Crime'

The Bill says that an "appropriate officer" may apply for an IP address suspension order. The definition covers police officers, NCA officers, HM Revenue and Customs officers, members of staff of the Financial Conduct Authority, and enforcement officers in the Gambling Commission.

Before a court issues an IP address suspension order, certain conditions must be met. For example, an IP address can only be suspended when it is being used for serious crime.

Crime is defined as conduct which constitutes one or more criminal offenses, or corresponds to conduct which, if it all took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more criminal offenses. The threshold for serious crime is when the offense(s), committed by a person over 18 (or 21 in Scotland and Northern Ireland) with no previous convictions, could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to prison for three years or more.

The majority of the defendants in the recent prosecution of Flawless IPTV had no previous convictions. In 2023, five defendants were sentenced to over 30 years in prison for offenses including conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. Over the last ten years, City of London Police has sent letters to pirate site operators ordering them to shut down or face potential prosecution under the Fraud Act and Serious Crime Act.

Relationship Between IP Address and UK

To show a relationship between the alleged serious crime, an IP address, and the UK, one of several conditions must apply. Most center on the definition of a 'UK Person' which broadly covers a person with British citizenship, a person living in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law, or an unincorporated association formed under UK law.

A relationship to the UK is established when a UK Person uses an IP address to commit serious crime, or becomes a victim of serious crime for which the IP address has been used. A relationship can also be established when an IP address is used for crime in connection with unlicensed gambling, or when an IP address is allocated to a device located in the UK.

Using the Flawless case as an example, more than one person used an IP address to commit serious crime, while a UK Person (Premier League) was the victim. Even if the defendants had been located overseas, a relationship could still be established due to the victim's status as a UK Person.

Reactive and Proactive Suspensions

In respect of domain names, the measures are similar but also include a significant proactive element.

"The domain name conditions also cover instances in which domain names could be used for criminality in the future," the Bill's explanatory notes read.

"This is due to the criminal use of domain generation algorithms (DGA) to aid their operations. Once the relevant law enforcement agencies understand the DGA, they can identify domains which could be associated with criminal activity in the future and suspend them before they can be used."

As previously reported, UK broadcaster Sky is fighting DGAs deployed by IPTV providers who are attempting to circumvent a High Court blocking injunction. While that is a matter under civil law, case law establishes that Sky is a victim of fraud, and a UK Person as defined by the Criminal Justice Bill.

Whether companies like Sky and the Premier League will make use of the provisions in the Bill when it enters into law is unknown. What isn't in doubt is their determination to use any tool that has the potential to reduce the piracy problem.

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

Film Companies and Reddit Clash Again in Court over Anonymous Piracy Comments
Ernesto Van der Sar, 11 Jan 10:45 PM

reddit-logoMillions of people regularly pirate movies and music. While this is against the law, most don't get into trouble.

Some people feel so comfortable about their piracy habits that they openly discuss them online. On Reddit, for example, where most people use a semi-anonymous handle.

Admissions of anonymous Redditors typically go unnoticed by copyright holders and, even when observed, it's rare for companies to take matters further or ask any questions. A group of independent film companies in the United States set out to buck that trend last year.

The film companies and their attorney Kerry Culpepper say they're not planning to take Reddit users to court. However, they do want to use public piracy-related comments as evidence in a lawsuit against their Internet provider.

These lawsuits don't target individual pirates. Instead, the film companies have sued Internet providers including RCN, Grande, and Frontier, for failing to disconnect 'repeat infringer' customers.

Trying Once, Twice….

The independent film companies first reached out to Reddit roughly a year ago, asking the company to disclose names, IP addresses, and emails of various users. These people all made piracy-related claims in comments on Reddit, with several indicating that their ISP did little to stop this activity.

Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena, characterizing it as overbroad and more akin to a fishing expedition than regular evidence gathering. Reddit only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN directly, denying the rest to protect users' First Amendment right to anonymous speech.

The court eventually agreed with this defense, concluding that Redditors' First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighs the interest of rightsholders. According to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, the filmmakers have other options to obtain this type of information, including through RCN itself.

After this setback, the rightsholders filed an adjusted request in their case against ISP Grande. This second attempt wasn't successful either, as Judge Beeler again concluded that the Redditors' right to anonymous speech weighs stronger than the rightsholders' need for additional evidence.

Third Time's The Charm?

This week, attorney Kerry Culpepper returned to the California federal court with a request for Reddit to comply with another subpoena. This time, it's part of the case against Internet provider Frontier Communications.

Broadly speaking, the request looks similar to those seen before. The film companies, Voltage Holdings and Screen Media Ventures, highlight several comments from Redditors that could help to prove that the ISP didn't take proper action against repeat infringers, or that lax enforcement acted as a draw to potential pirates.

"In the Reddit 'Piracy' forum, Reddit user'Cyb3rR****' admits to using Frontier's service to pirate from the notorious piracy websites 1337x and PirateBay and that 'I've been torrenting unprotected for like a decade and never gotten [a DMCA notice]'," the companies write.

Other Redditors made similar remarks, suggesting that using the ISP to pirate movies shouldn't result in any trouble.

'This Time is Different'

In common with the earlier cases, Reddit is refusing to comply. Last week, it objected to the subpoena, arguing that the request violates its users' rights to anonymous speech. This prompted the movie companies to go to court again, with a new plan of attack.

The requested information is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, they argue before the court. Contrary to the earlier cases, the subpoena no longer seeks any names and email addresses, only the IP address logs.

"Reddit asserts that the information Movants request is not permissible under the First Amendment. However, Movants' subpoena does not request anonymous users' identities.

"Rather, the subpoena is limited to requesting the Reddit users' IP address logs. Accordingly, the analysis of Reddit I and Reddit II is not applicable," the movie companies add.

'Users Are not the Target'

According to the rightsholders, Reddit didn't identify any potential harm to the affected users. They further note that there are no plans to go after these people directly.

"Movants are not seeking to retaliate economically or officially against these Reddit users. Rather, Movants wish to use their comments as evidence that Frontier has no meaningful policy for terminating repeat infringers and this lax or no policy was a draw for using Frontier's service."

Reddit previously sent a letter to the movie companies' attorney questioning whether the IP-addresses are relevant to the copyright infringement claims. In addition, it suggested that there might be other sources of evidence available to prove the same.

The request doesn't disclose why IP addresses are needed, since the anonymous comments are public. One theory would be that the rightsholders will check these addresses for repeat infringements, which might add extra weight to their claims.

Reddit has yet to respond in court but, based on its earlier responses, it will do all it can to keep users' information private.

This results in a similar standoff as before, albeit with a twist. Since Frontier is not planning to disclose customer identification information, the filmmakers see these comments as important evidence, and this time they hope that the court agrees.

Ultimately, it will be up to the court to decide whether it's indeed different this time, or not.

A copy of the motion to compel Reddit to respond to the subpoena is available here (pdf). A copy of Reddit's letter to the attorney can be found here (pdf)

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

Meta Admits Use of 'Pirated' Book Dataset to Train AI
Ernesto Van der Sar, 11 Jan 01:13 PM

meta logoIn recent months, rightsholders of all ilks have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models.

The list includes record labels, individual authors, visual artists, and more recently the New York Times. These rightsholders all object to the presumed use of their work without proper compensation.

Several of the lawsuits filed by book authors include a piracy component as well. The cases allege that tech companies, including Meta and OpenAI, used the controversial Books3 dataset to train their models.

The Books3 dataset has a clear piracy angle. It was created by AI researcher Shawn Presser in 2020, who scraped the library of 'pirate' site Bibliotik. This book archive was publicly hosted by digital archiving collective 'The Eye' at the time, alongside various other data sources.

Bibliotik and other sources previously hosted at The Eye

the eye

The general vision was that the plaintext collection of more than 195,000 books, which is nearly 37GB in size, could help AI enthusiasts build better models, which would spur innovation.

AI Boom Triggers Copyright Troubles

Presser wasn't wrong, but the dataset didn't just help garage AI startups. Several of the world's largest tech companies discovered it too and used it to improve their own language models.

For years, Books3 continued to be freely and widely available, aiding AI researchers and enthusiasts around the world. However, when the AI boom reached the mainstream last year, book authors and publishers took notice, then took retaliatory action.

For example, Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance demanded The Eye to remove their copy of Books3, which it did. The dataset also disappeared from the website of AI company Huggingface, citing reported copyright infringement, while others considered their options.

As previously reported by Wired, Bloomberg informed Rights Alliance that it doesn't plan to train future versions of its BloombergGPT model using Books3, and other companies likely made similar decisions behind closed doors.

Meta Admits Books3 Use

These are noteworthy developments but not all complaints can be resolved with promises. Several lawsuits against OpenAI and Meta remain ongoing, accusing the companies of using the Books3 dataset to train their models.

While OpenAI and Meta are very cautious about discussing the subject in public, Meta provided more context in a California federal court this week.

Responding to a lawsuit from writer/comedian Sarah Silverman, author Richard Kadrey, and other rights holders, the tech giant admits that "portions of Books3" were used to train the Llama AI model before its public release.

"Meta admits that it used portions of the Books3 dataset, among many other materials, to train Llama 1 and Llama 2," Meta writes in its answer.

meta books3 answer

This admission doesn't come as a massive surprise as several sources, including research papers, basically reached the same conclusion. While the use of Books3 is not contested by Meta, the question remains whether the company was in the wrong when it did so.

Meta Denies Copyright Infringement

Meta's answer admits the use of Books3 but denies various other allegations and claims. For example, the authors alleged that Meta trained its AI on copyrighted works without permission. The answer doesn't directly deny this but notes that consent or compensation is not necessarily required.

"To the extent a response is deemed required, Meta denies that its use of copyrighted works to train Llama required consent, credit, or compensation," Meta writes.

The authors further stated that, as far as their books appear in the Books3 database, they are referred to as "infringed works". This prompted Meta to respond with yet another denial. "Meta denies that it infringed Plaintiffs' alleged copyrights," the company writes.

Fair Use

Meta's response doesn't provide much additional detail and the full defense will be revealed as the case progresses. It is clear, however, that the company plans to rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

"To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs' registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107," Meta notes.

The fair use angle is expected to be a key part of this and other AI lawsuits. This doesn't only apply to 'pirate' sources but also to the use of content that's published through official channels, but used without explicit permission.

These legal battles are still in their early stages, but may ultimately find their way to the Supreme Court if needed. AI companies have stressed that progress will be hampered if rules and regulations are too strict.

Earlier this week, OpenAI mentioned that fair use is both necessary and critical to building competitive AI models, noting that news organizations can opt out if they wish. Needless to say, this option didn't previously exist, certainly not for the Books3 database.

We presume that when Presser created Books3, he never envisioned the dataset to be at the center of landmark lawsuits that could define the future of AI. However, the stakes have changed, and the well-intended 'archiving' effort is now part of a major copyright clash.

A copy of Meta's response to the author's first consolidated amended complaint 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: