Last year, a group of prominent record labels filed a piracy lawsuit against the Russian operator of YouTube-ripping sites FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com.

The labels hoped to shut the sites down, but this effort backfired.

In January, US District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court carefully reviewed how the sites operate and found no evidence that they purposefully targeted either Virginia or the United States.

The sites are not seen as highly interactive and their interaction with users could not be classified as commercial, the Court concluded.

The record labels didn’t agree with this conclusion and took the case to the Fourth Circuit appeals court. If the verdict stands, the companies believe that Internet pirates will have “carte blanche” to facilitate copyright infringement, as they would be untouchable by U.S. courts.

Tofig Kurbanov, the Russian operator of the two stream-rippers, argued against this last week, hoping to keep the current dismissal in place. Yesterday he received support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) which submitted an amicus curiae brief.

The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, in particular when they get in the way of people’s ability to freely use technology. In this instance, EFF points out that the stream-rippers provide a neutral technology, that has plenty of legal uses.

“Like a web browser, photocopy machine, or video recorder, the converters at issue in this case are neutral technologies, equally capable of lawful and infringing uses. And lawful uses abound, from saving a copy of a family member’s home video to downloading clips from a TV show as raw material for a critical commentary,” EFF writes.

The digital rights group points out that companies such as the record labels in this suit, seek to control the use and availability of copying. To this end, they file lawsuits against foreign site operators who often don’t put up a defense.

This then allows them to apply for default judgments and broad preliminary injunctions which compel third-party intermediaries such as domain registrars, or CDN providers, to take action. That can be dangerous, EFF notes, as the merits of the case are not thoroughly considered.

“These injunctions, which can be legally problematic, are often granted
without challenge. Through this process, difficult questions about the scope of such injunctions go unanswered,” EFF notes. 

While there have indeed been several default judgments in the past, that was not an issue in the present case. In fact, at this point, it’s irrelevant whether the sites at issue are infringing at all. The case was dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction, after all.

According to EFF, the District Court made the right choice in doing so and it encourages the Court of Appeals to uphold this decision. Looking at the broader picture, this may act as a safeguard against default judgments in future cases, the group explains.

“Preserving the limits of personal jurisdiction to uphold due process, as the district court did in this case, also avoids default judgments against foreign defendants, and promotes the resolution of complex legal issues on a full record,” EFF writes. 

Focusing on the jurisdiction issue in the case at hand, EFF notes that the court made the right decision. The sites’ terms of use do not constitute a commercial relationship and geo-targeted ads are not enough to establish jurisdiction, the group argues.

On top of that, the websites in question are not “interactive,” as the District Court also pointed out.

“Here, the websites at issue here are semi-interactive; as explained by the
district court, there is no evidence that users exchanged multiple files with the websites, and users do not need to create an account, sign in, or even register in order to use the websites,” EFF writes.

EFF is not the only outside party that has taken an interest in the case. The record labels’ previously attracted support from other major copyright holders. Through amicus briefs,  Hollywood’s MPAA, The Association of American Publishers, and the Copyright Alliance, all argued that the verdict should be overturned.

It is now up to the Fourth Circuit appeals court, to weigh all arguments and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of EFF’s Amicus Curiae brief in support of FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com and its operator is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Earlier this month we reported on the plight of Rapidvideo, a popular file-hosting site that specializes in hosting videos.

The site previously allowed visitors to view content uploaded by other users for free, with the system funded by advertising. However, interesting market conditions forced the platform into a surprise announcement.

“We can’t finance ourselves from internet ads any longer,” the company said while revealing plans for a $5 per month subscription plan.

One of the main problems, it transpired, was the massive influx of Kodi users, whose ‘pirate’ add-ons access the site’s content, bypassing its advertising.

“We have around 650 Gbit/s of bandwidth in use, while 320 Gbit/s is for KODI, download tools, etc and for that we don’t get paid by the ads,” the site explained.

In comments to TF, Rapidvideo said that the add-ons in question are able to use the URL from the site’s HTML5 player, resulting in huge amounts of unmonetized video traffic. The need for a subscription package would help to mitigate that issue, the site added.

Of course, Rapidvideo isn’t the only site to suffer from this and similar problems. This week, another file-sharing giant changed its business model, again citing unsustainable ad revenues as the cause.

Openload is currently one of the top 250 most-visited sites on the entire Internet. Last year we reported how it generates more traffic than Hulu or HBO Go. However, similar pressures to those being experienced by Rapidvideo have forced the platform towards change.

The big immediate difference is that users who upload content to the site will no longer get paid based on the number of views their videos get. That’s a bit like YouTube de-monetizing all of its most popular contributors.

“We are closing our Affiliate Program from 15/04/2019. Balances which exceed the minimum withdraw amount of 20$ can be withdrawn until 30/04/2019!” the site said in a statement to its many affiliates.

“Unfortunately we had to do this step due to recent events and ongoing weakness in generating revenue from advertising. In order to keep the service alive and stable we have to go this way.”

Only the operators of the site know how many of these uploading affiliates it has but there was certainly no shortage of criticism online when the program was withdrawn. That being said, all businesses are affected by changes in the market and if the revenue doesn’t pay the bills, then that’s life.

Affiliates aren’t paid a lot. The image above (redacted for privacy reasons) shows the Openload affiliate panel. The user had made less than $9 but of course, he won’t be getting any money because he didn’t accumulate at least $20. Others, however, report being paid out, as promised.

The other key issue is that affiliate programs incentivize users to upload content to a particular service, with YouTube operating the most famous program of all. It’s easy to see how the removal of the Openload program could result in less content being uploaded there. However, the operators of the site say they are fully aware of what might happen.

“All our decisions are final. We are aware of the consequences,” a representative said.

For now, it appears that a handful of other services are rallying round in an attempt to attract former Openload affiliates to their sites. Whether that will be successful will remain to be seen, but there certainly appears to be a connection between the size of these sites and their ability to earn revenue from ads.

The bigger they are the harder it is, apparently. Which means that successful sites might eventually start suffering from the same issues as both Rapidvideo and Openload.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

This week Canadian news outlets are reporting about a supposed new legal campaign against people who pirate movies and TV-shows via BitTorrent. 

This includes an article from CBC, which featured a still from Game of Thrones, suggesting that downloaders of the popular HBO series are at risk too. 

The coverage comes a bit as a surprise, because there is nothing new to these lawsuits. “Reverse class-action” suits have been ongoing for a few years in Canada now. Also, HBO or ‘Game of Thrones’ are not part of it. 

The lawsuits in question are a variant of what is commonly known as “copyright trolling.” This practice is limited to a few movie production companies that have targeted hundreds of thousands of alleged pirates all over the world. 

In Canada, we are aware of 18 of these lawsuits which target thousands of alleged pirates in total. These cases were filed by the rightsholders of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal, London Has Fallen, and Dallas Buyers Club,

The defendants are listed as “John Does,” who are initially only known by their IP-addresses. After the movie companies obtain a Norwich order from the court, they obtain the contact details of these people, who they can then approach with a settlement demand.

This has led to settlements of thousands of dollars in some cases, where the maximum damages for non-commercial infringement is CAD$ 5,000. 

As said before, this isn’t new. However, the news started rolling again following a tweet from Nova Scotia-based lawyer David Fraser, who posted a copy of a “statement of claim” online. The lawyer also pointed to an article, where the law firm offered help, suggesting that this is a ‘novel’ procedure.

“Using a novel legal procedure called a ‘reverse class-action’ Hollywood studios are consolidating what would otherwise be hundreds of lawsuits into just a handful of lawsuits,” the article reads.

This then led to a report on Mobilesyrup, where it was again suggested that this is a new phenomenon.

Interestingly, the date of the statement of claim is almost a year old now, which is a clear hint that this isn’t as fresh as some people think. Indeed, a reverse class-action lawsuit against alleged BitTorrent pirates was already filed in 2016, and many have followed since.

This week’s reporting shows that the cases have progressed quietly in the courts. That’s not a complete surprise, as they generally don’t go to trial. The goal of the movie outfits is to settle the matter out of court. 

That brings us to a final point of confusion. These settlement requests are entirely different from the automated settlements that ISPs forward via email. The latter practice is part of the notice-and-notice system. While these automated settlement requests were outlawed last year, they’re still coming in. 

The letters that are part of a reverse class-action, which are delivered through the postal system, are entirely different. They are part of a legal proceeding and people who receive a statement of claim should not ignore it. Those who do face a default judgment, which is generally higher than a settlement.

Attorney James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley previously informed us that it’s wise to consult an attorney instead.

“Get competent legal advice. It is important to understand the legal playing field. Defendants are not helpless in these actions, so ignoring the claim and allowing the plaintiff to proceed in obtaining a default judgment is probably not the best option for most people,” he said.

That is the type of advice one would expect from an attorney. However, in this case, it is certainly warranted. And the outcome could be positive as well, as Plotkin has already helped one defendant to get rid of the claim, without a settlement.

Summarizing, we can conclude that lawsuits continue to target alleged BitTorrent pirates in Canada. The cases are filed by a small number of movie production companies and have nothing to do with Game of Thrones. 

Those who are unfortunate enough to get caught up in this should carefully research their options. Unlike the “notice-and-notice” emails, ignoring the legal paperwork is generally not a good option.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Before the dawn of the mainstream Internet, underage access to pornographic content meant trying to sneak a glance over someone’s shoulder at a well-thumbed adult magazine.

Or, if you were ‘lucky’, finding a VHS cassette in a friend’s dad’s cupboard, behind the coats and shoes, in a box, inside another box, in an envelope marked “holiday video”. Such things apparently happened.

With the dawn of the Internet, things have certainly changed. With just a few clicks, one can find pornographic material, with ‘graphic’ often being the operative word. What adults choose to watch is their business, but children being able to access much of the content on today’s platforms is probably not what most parents want.

So in the absence of traditional parental controls, the UK government has stepped in to prevent youngsters from inadvertently stumbling across adult content. From July 15, the country will adopt a checking scheme that will require profit-making sites with more than a third of their content pornographic in nature to verify visitors’ ages.

It’s believed that the AgeID system, operated by major porn site owner Mindgeek, will one of the key facilitators of that. People who want to access porn sites will be required to provide scans of their driving licenses or passports, provide credit card details, or activate via SMS. Users’ details will then be verified by a third-party.

There will be other ways to obtain verification too, since some shops will be selling special cards containing a code that people can use to access sites like Pornhub and YouPorn. However, eligible sites that refuse to play by the verification rules will be blocked by local ISPs, preventing them from doing any business in the UK.

In theory, at least.

While the aims are noble, circumvention of this entire scheme (for adults and children alike) lies just a few key presses away. Subscribing to a VPN will effectively drive a coach and horses through the legislation, providing no-fuss and instant access to all age-compliant websites, and those that refuse to comply too.

The government acknowledges that this could happen, but it wants to be seen to be doing something. Indeed, as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the UK will become the first country in the world to proudly deploy such a system. However, thanks to many years of website blocking on the piracy front, large numbers of people will already have the tools at hand to make July 15 seem like life on the 14th.

Herein lies the problem. As website blocking increases – whether that’s via direct ISP action or the verification scheme detailed above – people have more and more reasons to learn how to evade those blocks. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s adults or even teenagers spreading the knowledge, on July 15 (if not sooner) circumvention methods will spread like wildfire.

And this can only mean bad news for those who have worked incredibly hard to have many hundreds of pirate sites blocked in the UK over the past nine years or so.

Once those VPNs get fired up to access XVideos or whatever other sites tickle people’s fancies, it will soon become apparent that every single one of those previously blocked torrent and streaming portals will become accessible again too.

Good VPNs do not discriminate and they don’t care what people are looking at. Their aim is to protect their users’ privacy and make web censorship a thing of the past. The only saving grace in respect of the verification scheme is that decent ones also cost money, so teenagers may not always have the means to pay for one.

That raises the possibility – or even likelihood – that many people will take the easy option of downloading a ‘free’ VPN from Google Play or Apple’s variant. Many of these have a questionable track history, especially when it comes to privacy, so people flocking in this direction won’t be doing themselves any favors.

All that being said, the architects of the scheme say that the potential for circumvention of the verification scheme is low. Perhaps today’s teenagers are less interested in seeing forbidden content than those that went before and will embrace the scheme with open arms. We shall see.

For most adults, however, it seems likely that handing over passports, driving licenses, and credit cards will only add to the already considerable but relatively straightforward pressure of remembering browser history wiping and incognito tabs.

In the meantime, there’s always The Pirate Bay, RARBG and all the other ‘pirate’ sites offering adult material. None of them will be included in the verification scheme but could see a small surge in traffic, if ‘porn-pass panic’ sweeps the country. And if it does, they’ll be easier to access than ever before.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

The vast majority of filmmakers are not happy with online piracy. They would rather see people using paid platforms or services.

This is also true for German Director Werner Herzog, who has won many prestigious awards during his more than 50-year career.

A few days ago, the director received a lifetime achievement award at the Visions du Réel Film Festival in Nyon. During a masterclass, the topic of piracy came up, which prompted Herzog to share some interesting thoughts.

When Herzog released his first film in 1962, movie piracy wasn’t an issue. However, that clearly changed in recent years.

During the discussion, Ukrainian producer Illia Gladshtein said that the legal availability of Herzog’s films is far from optimal. Often the only way to see them is through torrent sites. While piracy is a sensitive topic among filmmakers, the German director certainly realizes its potential.

“Piracy has been the most successful form of distribution worldwide,” Herzog told the audience.

While the 76-year old director doesn’t like piracy or seeks to promote it, he’s fine with people downloading his films without permission, if there are no legal alternatives available.

“If you don’t get [films] through Netflix or state-sponsored television in your country, then you go and access it as a pirate,” Herzog noted, quoted by Screen.

“I don’t like it because I would like to earn some money with my films. But if someone like you steals my films through the internet or whatever, fine, you have my blessing,” the director added.

Availability remains an important talking point. Most of the questions the director receives nowadays are from teenagers who ask him where they can find his films.

Luckily, his back catalog is now easier to access through legal streaming platforms, Blu-Rays or DVDs. That’s probably a good thing, since 15-year olds generally know their way around pirate sites.

Herzog’s comments show that even some of the most respected filmmakers see some benefit in piracy. For them, it’s often more important that their films can be seen by a wide audience.

This means that ‘defeating’ piracy ultimately starts with making sure that legal availability is in order.

–

^{Werner Herzog photo by Nicolas Genin}

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.