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