TorrentFreak's Latest News

UK Govt: "Pronounced Inaccuracies" in Press Reports on IP-Related MattersAndy Maxwell, 31 Mar 11:24 AM Presented by the UK's Intellectual Property O

UK Govt: "Pronounced Inaccuracies" in Press Reports on IP-Related Matters Andy Maxwell, 31 Mar 11:24 AM Presented by the UK's Intellectual Property Office, a report and initial review of UK news reporting of intellectual property matters makes for interesting reading. The report is part of research into public perceptions of IP matters by analyzing news coverage of the five years ending 2022. By examining the frequency and framing of IP articles in newspapers, the study aims to understand how public opinion is influenced by the views expressed in various publications, ultimately narrowed down to the following: Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, The Sunday Times, Daily Mirror, The Sun, Daily Express, Metro, Financial Times, Guardian, Observer, The Daily Star, Evening Standard. The initial findings cover copyright, design, patent, and trademark issues, but mindful of our niche, our coverage here is mostly limited to the former. Copyright Mentions The review found that over the last decade, UK news articles mentioning "intellectual property" rose significantly, with a notable uptick from 2017-18 and a slight dip in 2021-22. These articles covered a range of topics with two themes standing out – scope of rights and registration, and IP disputes. While use of the word 'copyright' declined over the past five years, over a ten-year period use increased overall, with three topic areas most prominent: scope of copyright, management of copyright, and infringement of copyright. What appears to be a limitation of the study in this reporting niche is revealed fairly early on. By focusing on strict terminology such as Intellectual Property, Copyright, Patent, Design Right, and Trade Mark, that mostly excludes reporting that only deploys more familiar terms such as piracy and illegal streaming, for example. In any event, mainstream media's interest in IP-related stories seems largely reliant on other factors. Focus on Popular Public Figures Given the mainstream nature of the publications, articles dealing with IP rights lean towards 'celebrity' news, with the following people appearing most often in the sampled publications over the past five years (article count in brackets): Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (1197), Donald Trump (791), Harry, Duke of Sussex (696), Ed Sheeran (626), Boris Johnson (438), Janos Ader (372), Vladimir Putin (252), and Paul McCartney (248). "[T]he media emphasize stories around celebrity culture and tend to frame stories in a 'David v Goliath' context which in turn impacts public perception of IP," the Intellectual Property Office notes. "Likewise, consistent inaccuracy in reporting was observed, which could also impact public perception and lead to public misunderstanding around IP rights. Further research should be conducted to better understand the extent of this impact." Criticism of Journalists, Media in General The suggestion that journalists are allowed to write articles about IP rights in national newspapers, without even understanding the basics, is remarkable in itself. To have those articles approved by their editors who unquestionably understand the implications, is beyond reason. The study highlights an article published in The Express which reported on Lewis Hamilton's failure to "copyright his steering wheel" but goes on to note that IP-related terms are frequently used incorrectly to identify the type of IP that the article intends to discuss. "For example authors writing 'copyright infringement' when referring to case about trade mark or designs, and vice versa," the IPO writes. "Therefore, it is clear from this initial review that there are pronounced inaccuracies in the reporting on IP related matters in the UK Press. Likewise, coverage of disputes relating to national and international rights did not indicate that the legal regime differs between jurisdictions, therefore potentially overemphasizing the impact of the matter on the UK rightsholders." Misunderstanding IP-Related Terms is The Least of UK's Problems The example above is exactly the type of misinformation highlighted in our recent article but just a small part of the misleading reporting seen in some parts of the UK media over the past 12 months in particular. Despite their prevalence and damaging effect on public perceptions, the IPO makes no mention of these types of articles, even though they're currently published on a daily basis. Certainly, the criteria of the report, which requires the use of very specific terms to even be considered for inclusion, may offer a reason for that. It shouldn't limit the IPO's overall interest in IP-related educational matters, however. What Can Be Done? Have Faith in Self-Regulation… As the IPO notes, there are rules that must be adhered to. "The Independent Press Organisation (IPSO) Editors' Code of Practice states that 'the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.' Likewise, for the broader implications of this research Ofcom states that, news, in whatever form, must be reported with 'due accuracy'," the IPO writes. "The inaccuracy of reporting on IP related matters in the UK press may be due to a lack of understanding of the distinct differences between the types of IP, or a disregard for the importance between distinguishing between them. Further investigation would be required in order to ascertain the cause and extent of this issue, as well as the impact on intellectual property rights as understood by the public as a result." Anyone can be taught the difference between copyright, trademarks, and patents in an hour. Finding out why publications decline to correct deliberately misleading articles, even when provided with provably accurate information, would be significantly more helpful. The full report can be found on the Intellectual Property Office's website. It was published exactly a month ago and has been covered by mainstream UK media outlets exactly zero times since then. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ACE Targets MagisTV and Other Piracy Apps Through Cloudflare Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Mar 07:28 PM The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) is the world's most active anti-piracy coalition, with tentacles all around the globe. The group is closely affiliated with the MPA which regularly obtains DMCA subpoenas on ACE's behalf, aiming to pick up trails that will eventually lead to the operators of popular piracy sites and services. MPA/ACE Subpoenas Identify Piracy Targets This week, a new series of subpoenas appeared on our radar, requesting Cloudflare and the Tonic domain registry to share all information they have on allegedly pirating customers. These subpoenas are quite common but newsworthy nonetheless, as they provide insight on current anti-piracy priorities. The latest requests are no exception and include some familiar names. Just a few days ago we reported how pirate streaming app MagisTV is at the center of an anti-piracy campaign in Ecuador. The same name also appears in the most recent DMCA subpoena applications. In one of the subpoenas requests, two 'MagisTV' apps and their associated sites are listed, together with the 'TVExpress', 'My Family Cinema', and 'Brasil TV' apps. The list is completed by other (sports) streaming services such as cccambox.com and multicanais.cl. MagisTV et al. MagisTV is by no means a new pirate app; both MPA and ACE have been familiar with the service for a while. In fact, the MPA nominated it for the USTR's annual list of notorious piracy markets for the past two years. "MagisTV has been in operation since approximately 2019, significantly longer than its peers. Generally, IPTV services popular in Latin America repeatedly change domain names and/or brands to avoid detection and enforcement actions," MPA wrote last October. The IPTV service markets through resellers and some unaffiliated third parties try to profit from the brand as well. This makes it tricky to find out which site is official and which is a scam, as outlined on one of the targeted sites. "BEWARE of websites that offer 'free' versions. These Apps and services are fraudulent and have NO relationship with Magis TV, they are clones and the dangers of their installation and use are unknown," the note reads. Whether this warning is legit or not is a question we prefer not to answer. It's clear, however, that ACE is eager to find out who's behind this version, and they hope Cloudflare can provide useful information. Aniwatch and Zorox The recent wave of DMCA notices also targets live-streaming portal thetvapp.to. In addition, traditional on-demand pirate streaming sites are also listed, including ssoap2day.to, allmanga.to, aniwatchtv.to, and zoroxtv.to. The latter domain is the new home of zorox.to, which was suspended by registrar Namecheap earlier this month, following an Indian court order. The name Aniwatch also rings a bell, as it's similar to the popular pirate streaming portal that changed its name to HiAnime a few weeks ago. However, aniwatchtv.to appears to be a copycat that's unrelated to the original site, much like Zorox is not linked to the original Zoro, which was the predecessor of Aniwatch (for those who can still follow along). Futile? Seeing the same brands reappear in these enforcement efforts isn't necessarily positive for ACE, as it suggests that the operators, or at least the brands, continue to evade its enforcement efforts. That's not a good thing. ACE is aware of the limitations of its efforts and knows all too well that pirates are actively trying to evade being caught. That said, with every effort some sites and services disappear and ACE hopes that, by keeping the pressure on, it can successfully frustrate these pirate operations. Besides direct enforcement efforts, ACE is also getting involved in research after commissioning a piracy/malware study in India recently. As we've seen in the past, the findings suggest that since pirate sites are disproportionally linked to malware, the Indian government should intervene. The declarations requesting the DMCA subpoenas referenced in this article are available here (1, 2 and 3) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©2024 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

TorrentFreak's Latest News

'The New York Times Needs More than 'Imagined Fears' to Block AI Innovation'Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Mar 11:52 PM Starting last year, various rightsh

'The New York Times Needs More than 'Imagined Fears' to Block AI Innovation' Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Mar 11:52 PM Starting last year, various rightsholders have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models. The list of complainants includes record labels, book authors, visual artists, and even the New York Times. These rightsholders all object to the presumed use of their work to train AI models without proper compensation. The New York Times lawsuit targets OpenAI and Microsoft, who have both filed separate motions to dismiss this month. Microsoft's response included a few paragraphs equating the recent AI fears to the doom and gloom scenarios that were painted by Hollywood when the VCR became popular in the 1980s. VCR Doom and Gloom The motion to dismiss cited early VCR scaremongering, including that of the late MPAA boss Jack Valenti, who warned of the potentially devastating consequences this novel technology could have on the movie industry. This comparison triggered a reply from The Times, which clarified that generative AI is nothing like the VCR. It's an entirely different technology with completely separate copyright concerns, the publication wrote. At the same time, the company labeled Microsoft's other defenses, including fair use, as premature. Before the New York court rules on the matter, Microsoft took the opportunity to respond once more. According to the tech giant, The Times took its VCR comparison too literally. "Microsoft's point was not that VCRs and LLMs are the same. It was that content creators have tried before to smother the democratizing power of new technology based on little more than doom foretold. The challenges failed, yet the doom never came. "And that is why plaintiffs must offer more than imagined fears before the law will block innovation. That The Times can only think to dodge this point is telling indeed," Microsoft added. 'No Copyright Infringements Cited' For the court, it is irrelevant whether the VCR comparisons make sense or not; the comparison is just lawsuit padding. What matters is whether The Times has pleaded copyright infringement and DMCA claims against Microsoft, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Times argued that its claims are valid; the company asked the court to move the case forward, so it can conduct discovery and further back up its claims. However, Microsoft believes the legal dispute should end here, as no concrete copyright infringements have been cited. "Having failed to plausibly plead its claims, The Times mostly just pleads for discovery. But the defects in its Complaint are too fundamental to brush aside. The Times is not entitled to proceed on contributory infringement claims without alleging a single instance of end-user infringement of its works," Microsoft notes. More Shortcomings Similar shortcomings also apply to the other claims up for dismissal, including the alleged DMCA violation, which according to Microsoft lacks concrete evidence. As highlighted previously, The Times did reference a Gizmodo article that suggested ChatGPT's 'Browse with Bing' was used by people to bypass paywalls. However, Microsoft doesn't see this as concrete evidence. "This is like alleging that 'some online articles report infringement happens on Facebook'. That does not support a claim. The Times cannot save a Complaint that identifies no instance of infringement by pointing to a secondary source that identifies no instance of infringement." Similarly, allegations that The Times' ChatGPT prompts returned passages of New York Times articles isn't sufficient either, as that's not "third-party" copyright infringement. "The Times is talking about its own prompts that allegedly "generated … outputs … that … violate The Times's copyrights.' An author cannot infringe its own works," Microsoft notes. Microsoft would like the court to grant its motion to dismiss, while The Times is eager to move forward. It's now up to the court to decide if the case can progress, and if so, on what claims. Alternatively, the parties can choose to settle their disagreements outside of court but, thus far, there's no evidence to suggest that they're actively trying to resolve their disagreements. —- A copy of Microsoft's reply memorandum in support of its partial motion to dismiss, submitted at a New York federal court, can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©2024 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

TorrentFreak's Latest News

Telegram Block Averted For Now But Escalating Threat is Far From OverAndy Maxwell, 29 Mar 12:31 PM For almost a quarter of a century a subset of int

Telegram Block Averted For Now But Escalating Threat is Far From Over Andy Maxwell, 29 Mar 12:31 PM For almost a quarter of a century a subset of internet activists have equated certain types of piracy mitigation measures to censorship and attacks on free speech. A sampling of opinions on this controversial topic would likely place sentiments like these at the edge of a spectrum, acting as a perfect counterbalance to equally extreme positions adopted by a subset of particularly aggressive rightsholders. An order to block Telegram in its entirety, handed down last week by a court in Spain, gave the latter group the kind of victory dreams are made of in the anti-piracy world. It also poured credibility on the predictions of 'extremist' internet activists who have been warning about this type of mission creep for over 20 years. Blocking Order Suggested No Conflict The order handed down by Judge Pedraz appeared in public last weekend and despite its gravity, contains no sign that the Judge felt conflicted by the matter at hand. Anti-piracy group EGEDA, Mediaset España, Atresmedia, and Movistar Plus, filed a request for the whole of Telegram to be blocked across the whole of Spain, because information requested from Telegram to support a piracy investigation hadn't been provided. The Judge responded by metaphorically ticking the boxes marked 'necessary' and 'proportional', regardless of the eight million non-infringing Spanish users of Telegram set to be negatively affected. The notion that the rightsholders somehow misunderstood the nature of Telegram and had failed to comprehend the chaos their request would cause, can be reasonably ruled out. That leaves a pair of unpalatable scenarios to support the Judge's decision to grant the blocking order: a) no knowledge of the platform and therefore no basis to consider the consequences, or b) full comprehension and a decision to block anyway, regardless of the outcome. Judge's Statement Justifies Blocking The Judge's comments when suspending the blocking order, via a notice published on March 25, showed that the nature of the platform had been fully understood and the interests of rightsholders had simply taken precedence. Subsequent comments on the suspension of the blocking measures indicate that the referral to the General Commissioner of Information, to assess what effect blocking might have on millions of Spanish users, was never part of the plan. The statement begins fairly defiantly; continued infringement on Telegram justified the adoption of precautionary measures and due to the lack of cooperation from the Virgin Islands' authorities where Telegram is based, blocking the entire platform was the only possible measure that could stop further infringement. The measure was considered proportional to the seriousness of the conduct, it was deemed necessary, and importantly, completely legal. But Was it Really Proportional? After the existence of the blocking order was published "in all types of media" the statement concedes that there could be a "possible impact on multiple users." That raised the question of whether it really was proportional, and that's why the General Commissioner was asked to take a look. At that point, a few signs of how Telegram is viewed bubble to the surface, including suggestions that privacy on Telegram comes at a price. "Well, the truth is that, without prejudice to the fact that it is known that this platform is also used for criminal activities, there are more than multiple users of all kinds (individuals, companies, civil servants, workers in general, …) who have chosen to use Telegram, providing them with 'benefits' that other platforms do not give. And all this under a 'protected privacy'," the statement continues. "It also means that they accept that the necessary guarantees for the protection of the rights of third parties are not carried out with the exchange of personal data of users of the application. In short, cession of fundamental rights in exchange for supposed privacy." In summary, blocking Telegram would be "clearly detrimental" to the millions of users who use it, including having no access to a multitude of data uploaded to Telegram to which they no longer have access. Not Proportional and Not Likely to Be Effective Either Before agreeing that suspending the blocking order was the right thing to do, the statement notes that this is only about blocking the entire platform and whether that would've been a balanced response. "It is not a question of freedom of expression or information, but whether or not the measure is proportional. And what is found, from what has been said and after issuing the order, is that the measure would be excessive and not proportional," the statement adds. And then something unexpected. "In addition, even the measure itself would be unsuitable because users could use a VPN network or a proxy to access Telegram and continue consuming or publishing such content, as pointed out by the General Information Commissioner." Similar arguments have been presented in opposition to website blocking orders all around Europe, but we're unaware of any country that has rejected a blocking injunction on the basis that it would be ineffective. Pressure Likely to Increase On Telegram While the statement amounts to a short-term defeat for the rightsholders, who seem to have requested too much, too soon, their request signals where this battle of interests seems to be headed. That a Judge was in total agreement until the matter became a national controversy should be a wake-up call for the entire country. This is fundamentally a dispute between the rightsholders and a handful of still-unidentified pirates on Telegram, who have barely been mentioned throughout this entire controversy. Instead, the focus is now on Telegram and there are clear signs that one way or another, it will be made to pay a price. "[This] is about investigating a case for a certain crime that requires an investigation and that requires information that can only be provided by [Telegram]. As it happens with others, which do provide it," the statement adds. "[A]s far as we are concerned here, to be able to obtain that information will be a matter to be resolved by the legislator, which will undoubtedly do so – as required by European law – in accordance with the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act." The statement is available here (pdf, Spanish) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Hollywood Studios, Amazon & Netflix Sue 'Evasive' Pirate IPTV Operator From Texas Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Mar 07:23 PM Operating a pirate IPTV service can be a dangerous endeavor, no matter where one's located. In the United States, home to Hollywood and other major entertainment outfits, the risks are arguably even higher. In the past, we have seen several pirate IPTV businesses being taken to court, with rightsholders almost always on the winning side. These cases can result in million-dollar damages awards or even multi-year prison sentences, if the feds get involved. Despite this backdrop, some people are still willing to take a gamble. According to a new lawsuit filed at a Texan federal court, Dallas resident William Freemon and his company Freemon Technology Industries, are a prime example. Hollywood Lawsuit Against IPTV Operator The complaint, filed by Hollywood majors including Disney and Warner Bros, as well as streaming giants Amazon and Netflix, accuses the defendant of widespread copyright infringement. This alleged illegal activity involves selling presumed pirate IPTV subscriptions through domains such as instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com,streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd, some of which remain online today. "Freemon operates an extensive and commercially scaled network of illegal streaming services that offers unauthorized access to live channels and video-on-demand streams of Plaintiffs' copyrighted movies and TV shows," the complaint reads. The defendant is a familiar name for the entertainment companies, who have followed his actions for years. "Freemon has a long history of brazen disregard for copyright laws, and his early foray into internet piracy is the first link in the chain leading to his current web of illegal services," they write. "Beginning in 2016 and continuing through 2019, Freemon sold illegally modified Fire TV Stick devices. These devices connect to a regular TV and allow customers to access unauthorized content." Firesticks Lead to IPTV The 'loaded' Firestick business was promoted on X and Facebook and the complaint includes two dated screenshots from this activity. At the time, these devices were sold through firesticksloaded.com and firesticksloaded.biz, and Freemon was listed as the registrant for the latter domain. These sites are long gone now but they offered a fruitful lead to other, potentially illegal, activities. The Firesticks domains were hosted on the same IP address as several other domain names and ultimately formed a trail to the controversial IPTV operations. Those IPTV services include 'Streaming TV Now', 'Instant IPTV', 'Cash App IPTV', and 'TV Nitro'. Some of these were subsequently advertised through the YouTube channel @williamfreemon3378, which the plaintiffs believe belongs to the defendant. The YouTube videos are no longer online today as they were taken down following complaints from rightsholders, but they're used as additional evidence to support the current lawsuit. "These YouTube videos —and their subsequent removal— nonetheless provide further evidence that Freemon is behind this web of services and that he knows he is committing infringement," the complaint reads. TV Nitro and Other IPTV Endeavors According to the plaintiffs, 'TV Nitro' was the first IPTV service that Freemon was linked to. This service originally operated as 'Nitro TV' between 2019 and 2021. After subsequently going offline for two years, it recently reappeared. 'Streaming TV Now' is the most popular IPTV service according to the complaint. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series. "Freemon offers customer subscription packages for Streaming TV Now at prices ranging from $20 per month to $150 per year—depending on the package and billing cycle selected. The money goes to Freemon." In addition to offering IPTV packages to the public, the defendant is also accused of recruiting resellers through livetvresellers.com, presumably to expand the reach of his IPTV business. Warning Leads to Lawsuit Before taking the matter to court, Amazon, Netflix, and the Hollywood studios sent a letter to the defendant, asking him to stop all infringing activities. However, that didn't yield the desired response. Instead of taking action, the defendant said he no longer controls the domains. "Freemon was not cooperative. He did not take down the Infringing Services and instead offered unsubstantiated claims that he transferred the associated domains," the complaint reads. "Plaintiffs spent months negotiating with Freemon. Based on the lack of substantial change to the Infringing Services in the intervening times, including that the respective main domains are still hosted with the same hosting provider [Amarutu], Freemon is likely still controlling the Infringing Domains. "Freemon's evasiveness is particularly concerning in light of his long history of willful infringement," the plaintiffs add. The rightsholders allege that the defendant is liable for copyright infringement, either directly or indirectly. They therefore request a jury trial and appropriate damages. With 125 movies and TV shows listed in the complaint, maximum statutory damages can be as high as $18 million. The figure could increase further still, as the plaintiffs reserve the right to add more titles. For now, however, the priority seems to be to end the infringing activity. To that end, Amazon and the other plaintiffs request injunctive relief, including the handover of all infringing domain names and the destruction of all 'pirate' hardware. — A copy of the complaint, filed yesterday at the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©2024 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company