TorrentFreak's Latest News

'X' Denies Music Companies' Remaining Piracy Liability Claims in CourtErnesto Van der Sar, 10 Apr 12:41 PM In a complaint filed at a Nashville feder

'X' Denies Music Companies' Remaining Piracy Liability Claims in Court Ernesto Van der Sar, 10 Apr 12:41 PM In a complaint filed at a Nashville federal court last spring, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others, accused X Corp of "breeding" mass copyright infringement. The social media company allegedly failed to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacks a proper termination policy. "Twitter routinely ignores known repeat infringers and known infringements, refusing to take simple steps that are available to Twitter to stop these specific instances of infringement of which it is aware," the complaint alleged. Motion to Dismiss X vehemently disagreed and filed a motion to dismiss the case, hoping to shut down the legal battle at an early stage. The attempt was partially successful; last month, the court dismissed the music companies' direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims. The labels' contributory infringement claims were partially dismissed. Judge Trauger concluded that X can't be held liable for making it very easy to upload infringing material or for monetizing pirated content. These characteristics are not exclusive to infringing material and apply to legitimate content too, she argued. However, some elements of the contributory infringement remain intact and the lawsuit will continue on those grounds. Among other things, this includes claims that X's repeat infringer policy was inadequate and that it willingly turned a blind eye to pirating users, especially those who have a blue checkmark. "Particularly striking is the allegation that X Corp. enforces its copyright policies less stringently against individuals willing to pay for its 'verified' service," Judge Trauger wrote in her order. X Answers Complaint With the case moving forward, X was required to formally answer the complaint, which it did yesterday. In a 29-page response, X denies any wrongdoing, including allegations that its repeat infringer policy is inadequate. The music companies' claim and the concise reply from X shown below are exemplary. Claim: "Twitter has not adopted, reasonably implemented, nor informed subscribers or account holders of, a policy to terminate users engaging in repeated acts of copyright infringement." X's Response: "Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 154 of the Complaint" In response to other allegations, X notes that the music companies are quoting and paraphrasing out of context. This includes a statement from X owner Elon Musk, who previously criticized copyright law and stated that an overzealous DMCA is a "plague on humanity". This is how that statement was used by the music companies in their complaint. From the complaint X notes that this was taken out of context. The company doesn't mention how, but the music companies didn't mention that Musk was responding to a news article about a bill that would limit the copyright protection term for rightsholders including Disney. "Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to characterize, paraphrase and quote, selectively and out of context, a post by Elon Musk, and that the content of any such post, considered fully and in context, would speak for itself. Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 of the Complaint," X writes in its answer. Affirmative Defenses Aside from denying the copyright infringement allegations point-by-point, X's formal answer to the complaint doesn't respond in detail. This is typical for this stage of the proceeding. The answer does, however, raise a series of affirmative defenses. For example, it counters that the remaining contributory liability claim is barred because any copyright infringement was "innocent and not willful." In addition, X describes the requested damages, which in theory could reach $250 million, as "unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate". Some of the Affirmative Defenses X's response to the complaint isn't the endpoint, it kicks off the rest of the proceeding where both sides will have to argue their positions on the merits. There is a case management conference scheduled for next month, where the court will likely set a trial date. — A copy of X's answer to the music companies' complaint is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Rightsholders Seek Broad and Flexible Sports Piracy Blockades in Canada Ernesto Van der Sar, 09 Apr 09:41 PM Three years ago, Canada's Federal Court of Appeal upheld the first pirate site-blocking order in the country. The landmark decision opened the door to additional and more advanced blocking requests. Indeed, it didn't take long before NHL broadcasters asked the court for a pirate streaming blocking order of their own. This NHL blocking action was followed by a FIFA World Cup blocking order, which was also granted without further hassle. Following up on these successes, sports rightsholders added MLB among their targets. These blocking injunctions were not filed in isolation. Instead, the interlocutory orders are part of lawsuits against the operators of the pirate streaming servers. On paper, the goal of the lawsuits is to pursue claims against these defendants and the blockades are a temporary measure to limit the damage these services cause. This approach made sense, as filing a lawsuit simply for blocking purposes wasn't common. However, after several injunctions were granted over the past three years, change is on the horizon. NHL, NBA and Premier League Piracy Blockade Last Friday, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network, filed a notice of application at Canada's Federal Court. This time, they seek an order requiring Internet providers to block live streams of NHL, NBA, and Premier League games. This is a notable change compared to earlier blocking requests, which all focused on single sports. Combining multiple sports leagues and events makes sense, the rightsholders argue, as the targeted piracy servers typically offer a broad selection of sports as well. "This process is also more efficient for the parties and the Court than initiating separate proceedings for each professional sports league and every time new content is broadcast…," the rightsholders write in their application. This isn't the only change in this blocking proceeding. The defendants, the protected content, and the procedural blocking approach are also subject to change. Defendants Unlimited? None of the blocking targets listed in the application includes a name. Instead, it targets three "John Doe" defendants who are identified by their IP addresses. These addresses were offering pirated sports streams in the past. Does 1-3 The IP addresses are not linked to a single service. They appear to be used by several piracy operations, including publicly available pirate streaming site 'epllive.net' and paid subscription platforms including 'TVSmarters' which are mentioned by name. Pirate streaming example Before requesting this blockade, the rightsholders identified thousands of illicit streaming instances. They subsequently alerted the associated hosting providers, asking them to forward the notices to their customers, but that didn't yield the desired response. With seemingly no other viable option to target the problem, the rightsholders believe that a blocking order is warranted. Notably, this applies to the three "John Doe" defendants, but also "Other John Doe Respondents" who are linked to streaming servers for which the IP addresses are not mentioned. "The other John Doe Respondents are other unidentified persons unknown to the Applicants who operate Unauthorized Streaming Servers providing unauthorized access in Canada to Protected Live Content, and that are located at a large number of IP addresses that change continuously," the rightsholders write. This means that there could, in theory, be thousands of IP addresses that are subject to the request. Not just that, the list can change over time because rightsholders are seeking a "dynamic" injunction. New 'Streamlined' Blocking Approach Thus far, all Canadian site-blocking measures have come in the form of interlocutory injunctions as part of ongoing legal procedures against the alleged pirate operators. That's about to change as well, if the recent request is granted. The court previously noted that the lawsuits against the operators lingered on while the blocking orders were in place. To address this, and streamline the blocking procedure, the rightsholders now request a permanent and final injunction. "The Applicants seek a permanent injunction in order to bring finality to the proceedings and propose to proceed by way of application instead of by action, as it is a more streamlined process," they write. 'Flexible' Blockades Covering 'Future' Content This procedural "streamlining" and the fact that multiple sports leagues are covered in the application are clear deviations from earlier blocking requests. However, it doesn't end there. Other tweaks could have broad implications too. For example, the proposed order doesn't only apply to content that's listed in the application. If the rightsholders acquire new content in the future, that may be added in as well, expanding the blocking scope. A broad injunction would make it possible to add new seasons for existing sports leagues, but also completely new sports, or other content for which they obtain the rights in the coming two years. "This process is also more efficient for the parties and the Court than initiating separate proceedings for each professional sports league and every time new content is broadcast and/or when the Applicants secure new rights," the rightsholders add. One Universal IP-address Blocklist If granted, the blockades will only be active for specified time windows surrounding the live sports events. This is similar to earlier injunctions and in part put in place to prevent overblocking. However, another key change is that the rightsholders now ask for a single IP-address blocklist during all 'live' windows, regardless of whether that server was previously used to stream pirated broadcasts of the specific event. "Given that the same IP addresses are associated with the infringement of multiple sporting leagues and events, the use of a common IP address list for blocking would be more efficient in implementing the Order sought," they write. Universal Blocklist The above logically means that an IP address that streamed pirated copies of an NBA game will also be blocked during Premier League matches. Overall, it is clear that the rightsholders are trying to make the blocking process more streamlined and efficient, while also expanding the scope of the process. The application has yet to be approved by the Federal Court. The rightsholders hope that, by abridging the deadlines, an order will be issued before the current sports seasons end. Several ISPs have indicated that they don't plan to object, but others still have room to do so, which could slow down the proceeding. — A copy of the Application filed at the Federal Court by Rogers, Bell, Fubo, et al. is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. '10K Pirate Sites Blocked in 60 Days': Piracy Shield Triggers Kool-Aid Crisis Andy Maxwell, 09 Apr 03:40 PM Since its official launch at the start of February 1, 2024, much has been said and written about Italy's 'Piracy Shield' IPTV blocking system. Yet, by volume, telecoms regulator AGCOM and key beneficiary Serie A, Italy's top-tier football league, haven't said very much at all. In separate articles published in Italian media last weekend, a reason for the lack of participation is made clear; few articles published online offer credible information and most don't focus on the right issues. In a piece written by AGCOM commissioner Massimiliano Capitanio himself, we learn that articles published about Piracy Shield demonstrate "very little discernment" and prefer to use 'anonymous web users' as sources rather than information provided officially. It's the "classic reasoning that fuels fake news," Capitanio explains. Serie A CEO Luigi De Siervo believes that the overblocking of Cloudflare was blown out of all proportion; an event that, according to official sources of information, didn't happen at all but then, after reconsideration weeks later, did happen, but on such a small scale it was hardly worth mentioning. "Journalists Have Overlooked a Fundamental Fact" Something on which Capitanio and De Siervo both agree is the importance of reporting the numbers. Not those related to increased interest in subscription TV packages available from local broadcasters, but those related to the number of domains and IP addresses blocked by Piracy Shield. "No pirate can sleep peacefully," De Siervo told Corriere.it. "In just sixty days, more than ten thousand illegal sites have already been blocked. The system works: we frequent Telegram chats where pirates exchange information and we know that there is excitement after the advent of the platform." Capitanio believes this important "fundamental fact" regarding the scale of blocking has been overlooked by journalists; "a monstrous number that should deserve eight column headlines" because it proves the platform actually works. "Maybe for some it works too well," he adds. SCOOP: THE BIG BLOCKING NUMBERS It's important to note that Piracy Shield advocates use different, shifting terminology than their critics. So, before looking at the BIG NUMBERS everyone has overlooked, a quick reminder that comparing like-for-like is extremely important. De Siervo's claim, that 10,000 illegal sites have been blocked, is as close to official information as it gets. Unfortunately, it's completely untrue. There is a world of difference between an illegal site being blocked and an IP address or domain/subdomain being blocked. Here, De Siervo took the number of domains/subdomains blocked by Piracy Shield, which are counted individually even if they relate to the same main domain, and then added them to the number of IP addresses blocked, even though many relate to domains/subdomains, so have already been counted. These figures can be reported separately as domains and/or IP addresses blocked, but they can't be added together, scrubbed of their identity, and then be relabeled as "illegal sites." In a news article for public consumption, most people will believe that 10,000 sites have been blocked; here's why that is a dangerous assumption. Dynamically Generated Sub-Domains The 'ticket' below represents a rightsholder blocking request filed at Piracy Shield. It targets subdomains of the partially redacted main domain names megahxxxxxxx, leadcxxxxxxx, mexxxxxxxx, and mexxxxxxxx. These subdomains, such as pdvsvvp, yzzazup and zwjntqj, are generated by IPTV services at will. A unique subdomain could be generated for each subscriber of the service, or 1,000 subdomains, 100,000, or even a million subdomains, could be generated for other reasons linked to blocking circumvention. As reported in January, Sky TV in the UK faces the same issue. After obtaining a court order that targeted around half a dozen IPTV providers, subdomains/domains like those shown below became a target for blocking. In the Piracy Shield blocking ticket, the URLs contain a main domain and one subdomain. In the sample relating to Sky blocking, one main domain and two subdomains. These subdomains are almost infinitely variable and can be generated, disappeared, and regenerated at will, at zero cost to the provider. More Subdomains Coming Up By January, the number of subdomains blocked by the Premier League, relating to roughly six IPTV providers per the court order, exceeded 4,500. As far as we're able to determine, since then, another 4,600+ have been blocked, leading to a grand total of ~9,100 domain/subdomains (FQDN) blocked for roughly six IPTV providers. In Serie A success-story parlance, this would amount to the blocking of 9,100 illegal sites and a gross misrepresentation of events on the ground. Domain terminology can't be dismissed as unimportant or talk simply for geeks, it's the basis for a sensible discussion. That being said, the number of domains and IP addresses blocked proves almost nothing. A 2021 report published by the EUIPO estimated there were 5,000 sites offering live sports in Europe alone. If that number doubled since then, and it probably has, Piracy Shield would've blocked them all in two months. But blocking an illegal site is not the same as blocking IP addresses and subdomains, regardless of what official information sources claim. Not Cloned or Hacked Although AGCOM Was Hacked a Bit As noted by AGCOM, journalists have been relying on their own sources to report on Piracy Shield since February. The regulator paints these sources as unreliable and anonymous but, in the absence of official information for almost that entire period, most journalists reported to the best of their ability. The articles featuring official information from Capitanio and De Siervo both touch on a story broken here at TF; the unexpected appearance of alleged Piracy Shield source code and confidential documentation on GitHub. In comments to Corriere, De Siervo is extremely clear: "It is not true that the source code of the platform was cloned." In his article published by Agendadigitale.eu, Capitanio writes that "some confidential information was only released on Github, a site used mainly by developers, which, in any case, did not affect [Piracy Shield's] functioning at all." In case the message isn't clear, Capitanio is unequivocal: "Piracy Shield was absolutely not hacked." De Siervo, however, suggests there might have been a bit of hacking, but not really that much, and in any event, use of the word AGCOM and Piracy Shield may (or may not) be interchangeable "The hackers only breached the first level of protection of the AGCOM website. The security of the platform is not compromised at all," he told Corriere. In fact, Piracy Shield is so good, De Siervo says foreign countries want to buy it. (Note: this statement is from an official source) 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