“Stream ripping, which is the process of creating a downloadable file from content that is available to stream online, is now the most prevalent form of online music copyright infringement,” music group IFPI declared in 2017.

The statement was in response to the shutdown of once-leading YouTube-ripping site YouTube-MP3, which previously helped millions of visitors convert videos into downloadable MP3 tracks, to the detriment of artists, according to IFPI.

But despite the fall of this giant, stream-ripping is still very high on the music piracy agenda. Where torrent sites and file-sharing applications were once the primary targets for legal action, stream-ripping sites now appear to be more of a concern for record labels everywhere.

In 2018, a group of major record labels with assistance from the RIAA targeted two of the larger stream-rippers that remained online following YouTube-MP3’s demise.

FLVTO.biz, 2conv.com, and their owner Tofig Kurbanov were sued for copyright infringement at a Virginia District Court. The case was dismissed since there was no evidence they targeted the United States. The labels quickly appealed, so the case continues. Similar platforms collapsed more quickly.

But the big elephant in the room is why the labels aren’t (to coin a well-worn piracy phrase) trying to cut off the head of the hydra? These ‘ripping’ sites aren’t the source of the content because in most cases, YouTube is.

Equally, when people access platforms like Spotify and Deezer using readily available tools and services to rip MP3s to their own hard drives, why aren’t the leaks getting plugged by those respective companies?

This week, TorrentFreak asked all three services for their opinions on stream-ripping and why the phenomenon is still a problem, not only for the record labels but also for them. After all, everyone involved loses revenue when users don’t return to a streaming service for repeat performances of musical works.

“We are deeply committed to ensuring YouTube is not a home for copyright-infringing content and have invested significantly in teams and technology to combat this issue,” a YouTube spokesperson told TF.

“YouTube’s Terms of Service prohibit the downloading or copying of videos without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective copyright licensor, and we take technical steps to prevent this behavior.”

Given the size and relatively open nature of the YouTube platform, it’s no surprise that the Google-owned company is at the center of the stream-ripping controversy. But ripping from YouTube is only part of the problem.

Premium and ad-supported services such as Spotify and Deezer are also targeted by people ripping streams directly to their machines. In these cases, third-party platforms aren’t even necessary since readily-available user-side tools to do the work.

Both companies have taken action in the past (including using technical means and via DMCA notices (1,2,3) against circumvention tools) but we were keen to hear about the problems from the companies themselves.

Unlike YouTube, which responded extremely quickly, both Spotify and Deezer failed to respond to our requests for comment, so we remain in the dark on the companies’ policies and whether or not they intend to tighten the noose moving forward.

That being said, could stream-ripping be less of a problem than it once was?

PRS for Music is a UK organization that pays royalties to its members when their content is performed, broadcast, streamed, downloaded, reproduced, played in public, or used in film and TV.

In July 2017, PRS published a report (which in part relied on data supplied by anti-piracy firm MUSO) indicating that between January 2014 and September 2016, the use of stream-ripping services increased by 141.3%.

However, more recent data supplied by MUSO to TorrentFreak suggests that the use of stream-ripping services might be on the wane. In January 2018, the company logged 743.6 million visits to stream-ripping platforms but by January 2019, that figure had decreased to 589.4 million visits.

It should be noted some popular ‘ripping’ platforms, such as the 200 million visits per month OnlineVideoConverter, have uses other than simply ripping MP3s from YouTube videos. However, given the rest of the top 10 most-visited platforms are more tightly focused, the decline does seem genuine.

Quite why this is the case isn’t clearly defined but IFPI’s recently published Global Music Report 2019 may contain a few subtle hints. The group reported that total revenues for 2018 were US$19.1 billion, a music market growth of 9.7%. And legal streaming played a huge part.

“Streaming revenue grew by 34.0% and accounted for almost half (47%) of global revenue, driven by a 32.9% increase in paid subscription streaming,” IFPI reported.

“There were 255 million users of paid streaming services at the end of 2018 accounting for 37% of total recorded music revenue. Growth in streaming more than offset a 10.1% decline in physical revenue and a 21.2% decline in download revenue.”

Whether or not former stream-ripping users are now choosing to “go legal” will remain to be seen but in the meantime, it’s clear the record labels consider the activity to be unacceptable.

In a statement, the BPI told TorrentFreak that music fans often don’t realize that by ripping music from YouTube “they are also ripping off artists” while also helping stream-ripping services to break the law.

“Stream ripping deprives artists and the creative businesses that invest in their talent of significant income, and causes real harm – not least to up and coming musicians who rely on that revenue. Sites shouldn’t be able to so easily encourage and dupe users with such casual slogans as… ‘convert videos in one click’,” the BPI commented.

“The music industry is letting music fans know that stream rippers are illegal by taking legal action and closing down the sites – like we did with YouTube-MP3. Stream rippers also circumvent the protections put in place by YouTube and we hope that, in addition to our work, YouTube itself takes further action.”

YouTube, for its part, says it is doing all it can to prevent people from ripping content from its site.

“Once notified of an infringing tool or service that violates our Terms of Service, we take action, including disabling access to the YouTube API. In addition, we work with the music industry to identify and respond to stream ripping entities,” the company told us.

So at least for now, stream-ripping remains a problem for the music industry but with greater uptake of comprehensive and reasonably-priced legal alternatives, the decline in their use could be set to continue.

Some people argue that there’s nothing better than having permanent MP3 files on their own machine, particularly when they come for free. Those files can’t be taken away, at the whim of a label or delivery platform.

But for the most part, interaction with huge local MP3 libraries (unless downloaders put in considerable labeling and organizational effort) offers a second-rate experience, crucially lacking in advanced discovery methods.

In addition to the music, of course, perhaps it is the developing curation systems of legal services that are attracting consumers to today’s legal offerings? If so, that, in turn, will lead to a natural decline in use of ripping services because, quite frankly, they aren’t known for being particularly innovative.

So that brings us to the conclusion that whether or not technical measures are put in place to prevent their operation, stream-ripping services will continue to be out-classed by their legal rivals. They may be free but at some point, an outstanding user experience will become the irresistible draw.

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

It’s been nearly a year since the EU’s new privacy regulation, the GDPR, was implemented.

The GDPR requires many online services and tools to tighten their privacy policies. This also affects domain registrars.

Faced with this new regulation, the domain registrar oversight body ICANN implemented a temporary specification. This led to restrictions in access to personal data of site owners that would previously have been available through the WHOIS system.

The change was welcomed by privacy advocates and many domain registrants, but anti-piracy groups are not happy. Industry groups such as the MPAA use WHOIS information to investigate and go after pirate sites.

The Hollywood group has been rather adamant about its need to access WHOIS data. It previously warned the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration that a more open system will increase privacy, rather than the other way around.

Since then, little has changed. However, the MPAA remains determined. In a letter (pdf) sent to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) this week, it asks the US Government agency to help out. Ideally, it wants a system where authorized organizations get easy access.

“The MPAA requests that the FTC continue urging [ICANN] to expeditiously adopt and implement an access and accreditation model restoring the availability of WHOIS information to protect consumers and legitimate commerce, including to combat copyright infringement.

“The MPAA also asks the FTC to help ensure domain name providers diligently review and grant requests for such access until the model is implemented,” the anti-piracy group adds.

The movie industry group points out that, since the founding of the commercial Internet, WHOIS information has been the starting point to combat online crime,  including identity theft, theft of intellectual property, fraud, cyber attacks, illicit sale of opioids, and human trafficking.

The temporary solution ICANN has in place now is not a good alternative, the MPAA argues, as it unnecessarily restricts access. 

The MPAA is not the only industry group complaining about WHOIS restrictions. The Copyright Alliance, Creative Future, and the Independent Film and Television Alliance also sent a letter (pdf) to the FTC highlighting the same issue.

In addition, the US Government itself has chimed in as well. Last week David J. Redl, NTIA‘s Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, sent a letter to ICANN Chair Cherine Chalaby. In the letter, Redl urges ICANN to take “swift” action.

“The WHOIS information is a critical tool that helps to keep people accountable for what they do and put online. Law enforcement uses WHOIS to shut down criminal enterprises and malicious websites,” Redl writes.

Redl notes that he was pleased to see that, with help various stakeholders, some progress had been made. However, ICANN should continue to move forward, especially since the temporary specification expires next month.

“Now its time to deliberately and swiftly create a system that allows for third parties with legitimate interests, like law enforcement, IP rights holders, and cybersecurity experts to access non-public data critical to fulfilling their missions,” Redl notes.

The letter also comes with a sting. If ICANN fails to adopt a new policy, or at least get closer to it, US lawmakers may have to step in.

“Without clear and meaningful progress, alternative solutions such as calls for domestic legislation will only intensify and be considered,” Redl writes.

This option appears to be the subject of discussion behind closed doors, as the MPAA also brought it up in its letter to the FTC.

“In the event ICANN and domain name providers fail to do so, the U.S. Congress is well within its prerogatives to pass legislation preserving access to WHOIS information to protect its citizens and promote legitimate commerce,” the MPAA writes.

“Because of the importance of continued access to WHOIS information to the FTC and others, the MPAA asks the FTC and other agencies to support legislative efforts if such circumstances come to pass.”

It’s clear that the pressure is on.

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

With many thousands of sites now blocked in Russia following allegations of copyright infringement, piracy should – at least in theory – become harder.

Many of the most stubborn sites, such as the infamous RuTracker, are now inaccessible directly via local ISPs, meaning that users must deploy countermeasures such as proxies, VPNs (where they’re still available), and other means, in order to reach their content.

There’s little doubt that piracy is now becoming harder than it once was but pirates have a tendency to be not only persistent, but also creative – even if that means resorting to technologies that are decades old.

According to local news outlet Vedomosti, people are turning the sales of pirate eBooks into a cottage industry, while exploiting a loophole in the law to avoid criminal liability.

Many of these transactions take place on Avito, Russia’s most popular classified ads site and the second largest in the world behind Craigslist. Countless ads for pirate eBooks litter the platform, offering anything from a single book to bundles of many.

This content is offered for prices ranging from just a few cents to a couple of dollars, which is many times cheaper than official offerings. However, little of this activity can land any of the sellers in trouble. The threshold for criminal liability in Russia for what are essentially counterfeit goods is 100,000 rubles (around $1,500). Individual sales tend not to meet those thresholds.

Making matters even more slippery for anti-piracy companies is that those who place the ads for pirate eBooks do not post the content online. Instead, the senders use email to transfer the eBooks to their customers. This means their ads cannot be easily be detected by anti-piracy bots and any infringing transactions remain private.

Furthermore, since there are no links to infringing content, the listings are effectively immune from Russia’s somewhat draconian anti-piracy laws. They cannot be targeted with legal action under the regime so platforms can’t be blocked in the way that normal pirate sites can.

Instead, copyright holders are reliant on platforms like Avito to help take content down. The company does remove listings, but only when they are reported as problematic. However, there are reportedly entire communities thriving on social media platforms dedicated to these sales, so tackling the problem could be time-consuming.

If nothing else, what this shows is that in the piracy world, where’s there’s a will to pirate content, there will probably be a way. And when that way is via email or other hidden techniques, there’s very little anyone can do about it – at least for now.

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

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 jurisdiction. The Virginia 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. Since the site owner didn’t purposefully target Virginia, the Court ruled that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over the operator.

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.

The labels’ appeal 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.

This week, the Russian operator, Tofig Kurbanov, submitted his answering brief. Through his legal team, he informs the Court that the District Court was right to dismiss the case. He has never been to the U.S. and managed the sites entirely and exclusively from Russia.

Aside from going into detail on all the legal elements of the jurisdiction issue, the response also hits back at the massive piracy claims and “xenophobia-tinged” allegations from the record labels and other rightsholders.

“Cognizant perhaps of the complete absence of a Constitutional basis for the
assertion of personal jurisdiction over Kurbanov, Plaintiffs and their amici seek to make up for this omission with a combination of xenophobia-tinged allegations and ‘the sky is falling’ arguments,” the response reads.

The scope of the alleged infringing activity should not mean that the Court can ignore Constitutional limitations, the defense argues. According to the site operator, it should also be noted that the same rightsholders have a history of targeting new technology.

“Plaintiffs and their amici have consistently opposed virtually every technological advance from the 1970s forward including the advent of cassette tapes, compact discs, digital audio tapes, and MP3s. 

“In each instance, Plaintiffs and their amici’s cries that the sky was falling
were either misplaced or entirely made-up,” the defense adds.

The Russian site operator continues that the rightsholders’ “hysteria” is ultimately irrelevant. The appeal is about whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the matter. According to the defense, it’s clear that it hasn’t.

Hysteria

The record labels placed a lot of emphasis on the site’s advertisements in their appeal brief. For example, they argued that the stream-ripping sites used geolocation-based advertisements to target specific locations, including the United States and Virginia. 

The defense counters this by stressing that all of the advertising activities were outsourced to third party companies, which make it irrelevant.

“Plaintiffs’ attempts to tie personal jurisdiction to the geolocation of ads on
the Websites is misplaced, where any such geolocation is accomplished solely by third-party advertising brokers,” the defense writes. 

The labels also argued that because the sites are generating revenue from US visitors, there is a “commercial” relationship so the Court has jurisdiction. This ‘free’ advertising model is widely used by other companies such as Facebook, ESPN, CNN, they argued. 

In its response, the defense doesn’t dispute that these other sites use advertising. However, it uses that argument to its advantage while noting that Facebook, ESPN, CNN are not automatically subject to any and all jurisdictions in the world.

While it is true that the stream-ripping sites are available in the US, that’s certainly not their most popular user base. For FLVTO.biz, more than 90% of the visitors come from other countries, and for 2conv.com this number is more than 94%, the defense informs the Appeals Court.

It is worth noting that the current issue is not about whether or not the stream-rippers are copyright-infringing in any way. The question that has to be answered first is whether a U.S. court has jurisdiction over the Russian operator of the sites.

Many of the arguments that both sides presented are similar to those put before the District Court earlier. The record labels and other rightsholders hope that the earlier dismissal will be overturned, while Kurbanov and other site owners prefer to keep it in place.

–

A copy of the full answering brief of defendant-appellee Tofig Kurbanov 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.

This is the second and final part of our interview with Enric Duran, leader of the Faircoin project and founder of Fair Coop.

We discuss the advantage of using Faircoin rather than Bitcoin or even Euros; the history of anarchism of in Spain and the use of pre-crypto ‘scrip’ currencies in and between anarchist communes; the need to build an infrastructure for the coming community of disaffected normies, and more.

We also take a long excursion into Enric’s backstory as the ‘Robin Hood’ of the antiglobalisation movement: how he stole half a million euros plus from banks and gave it all to anticapitalist projects, and his ensuing life in the underground. And finally, we come around to the big question: how to get to a global Commons without requiring big-state communism. Bonus: the mysterious link between Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin and Enric Duran’s commune Calafou.

—

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing crypto, privacy, copyright and file-sharing developments. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Enric Duran

^{If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!}

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Lucas Marston
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Eric Barch

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