According to statistics provided by the MPAA late 2017, around 70% of 38 million Kodi users were using the platform to pirate content.

Newer figures haven’t yet been provided but at the time, around 26 million were said to be using the platform with ‘pirate’ add-ons installed. Many of these will be accessing movies and TV shows, without permission.

For Kodi add-on users to access content, it has to be stored somewhere online. That is usually one of the dozens of online storage providers available today, which are often called cyberlockers or simply file-hosting sites.

While the appearance of links to content in Kodi add-ons seems to suggest a level of cooperation between the platforms, file-hosting platforms are generally unhappy with their links appearing in this manner.

As reported back in 2016, cyberlockers often generate revenue via advertising. However, many third-party Kodi add-ons prevent these from appearing in front of the viewer, which means that the hosting sites themselves aren’t able to generate revenue from them.

One of the affected sites is RapidVideo, a popular file-hosting site that officially markets itself as a “CDN Video Hosting Service”. The platform has been suffering the effects of ‘freeloading’ Kodi add-on users and other related market challenges for some time. Now the problem appears to have come to a head.

In a posting to webmaster forum WJunction, RapidVideo revealed that it will be changing its business model.

“We can’t finance ourselves from internet ads any longer,” the company wrote.

Over the past three years, RapidVideo says it has suffered from abuse of its service, much of it at the hands of Kodi add-ons and similar tools that are able to bypass the displaying of ads. In fact, these appear to be sucking up around half of the company’s bandwidth.

“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 said.

Other problems exist too, including advertising scams and the unauthorized hotlinking of files, but RapidVideo feels it can bring things under control by taking several measures, including implementing a $5 per month subscription.

“With help of Premium accounts, it will efficiently stop all these scams and we can run ad-free like uploaded.net, uptobox.com and others,” the company added.

The company says it is also bringing its pay-per-view rewards program to an end, meaning that people hoping to earn commissions when people view their uploaded content will no longer get paid. While users of the service won’t be delighted by the news, it does address a complaint raised by Hollywood last year.

In 2018, the MPAA, together with several other trade groups, submitted its annual list of ‘notorious markets’ to the US Trade Representative (USTR). Among them was RapidVideo, which among other things was called out over its affiliate program.

“The site incentivizes users to upload content with an affiliate program. The site pays from $7.50 to $60 USD per 10,000 views depending on the country in which the viewer is located,” the MPAA wrote.

The MPAA had other criticisms too but RapidVideo later fought back, claiming that it processes takedown requests, has a designated DMCA agent, a repeat infringer policy, and even has a filter system to ensure that removed files are not re-uploaded.

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

ISP blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industry to target pirate sites on the Internet.

The practice has been around for over a decade and has gradually expanded to more than 30 countries around the world.

Last year Greece stepped in. Following a request from EPOE, a local anti-piracy group which represents the interests of major Greek copyright holders, more than three dozen sites were blocked, including The Pirate Bay.

That was only the start, it appears, as Greek music rights organization Grammo has now joined in as well. The group filed a blocking application with the Hellenic Copyright Organization (OPI), a special commission that falls under the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports.

The targeted sites include the popular torrent sites RARBG.to, Torrentz2.eu, LimeTorrents, and TorrentDownloads. The list is further made up of various pirate linking sites, such as Ellinomania.eu, Warez‐bb.org, Newalbumreleases.net, Boerse.to, Greekddl.net, and Music‐bazaar.com.

Hellenic Copyright Organization reviewed the request and concluded that it meets all requirements.

Grammo, for example, said that it contacted the sites in question, but only received a response from Torrentz2. The torrent site did indeed remove the links, as requested, however, new links pointing to similar content appeared soon after.

According to the Government-affiliated commission, the music group has made it clear that the targeted sites are involved in copyright infringement. This means that ISPs will soon be asked to expand their blocklists with the new domain names.

Before the blockades go live, the respective site owners were informed about the decision. There were given the opportunity to obtain proper licenses within ten days, or alternatively, appeal the decision.

“You may voluntarily comply with the applicant’s request or obtain from the applicant a relevant license within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notification,” Hellenic Copyright Organization writes.

“Alternatively, you may raise your objections to the Committee within five (5) working days from the date of receipt of the notification, sending, at the same time, all the evidence showing, in particular, that there is no infringement,” the letter adds.

The Greek system is different from that of many other countries because it doesn’t involve a court.  It’s an administrative procedure which allows copyright holders to swiftly request pirate site blockades, without the need for lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

Whether the current blockades will help to deter piracy in a meaningful way has yet to be seen. As usual, there are several options to bypass ISP blockades, and the targeted sites themselves often offer alternative domains.

Following the previous blocking request, several popular Greece pirate sites, including Xrysoi, Gamatotv, Tenies-Online, Oipeirates, and Tainio-mania, swiftly moved to new domain names. These remain available today and are among the most-visited sites in the country.

—

A copy of the blocking notification sent to the respective site operators 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.

The increasing popularity of specialized “pirate boxes” has become one of the main anti-piracy priorities in recent years.

These devices often ship with the popular Kodi media player installed. While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, the devices can turn into a powerful pirate tool when they’re “fully-loaded” with third-party add-ons 

During the spring of 2016, a group of prominent Canadian rightsholders decided to take action to stop the sale of these devices. Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Videotron and others, took several retailers of such “fully-loaded” set-top boxes to court.

It didn’t take long before the Federal Court in Canada issued an interlocutory injunction against several companies, prohibiting them from selling “fully-loaded” boxes with pirate addons. A subsequent attempt by several vendors to have this ban lifted failed.

In its initial order, the court allowed the rightsholders to add similar vendors to the lawsuit, an opportunity they gladly seized. The list of defendants has since grown to more than 125, including ITVbox.net, MTLFreeTV, WaveTVBox, SOLO IPTV, and Infinity TV. 

A few days ago, the Ontario-based company Infinity TV agreed to settle the case with the rightsholders. The company admits its wrongdoing in a consent judgment signed by Federal Court Judge Denis Gascon. 

Infinity TV operated from infinitytv.ca, which no longer lists any products. It previously sold a pre-loaded streaming box called the “ITV Unit” through which it offered access to “over 300,000+ MOVIES – 20,000+ TV SHOWS – LIVE SPORTS” for a one-time price. 

According to the consent judgment, the vendor “induced and authorized users of Pre-loaded Set-top boxes to infringe the Plaintiffs’ right to reproduce the Plaintiffs Programs,” which is in violation of the Copyright Act. 

The order also states that Infinity TV sold and distributed equipment that was used to receive “encrypted subscription programming” after it was decoded, which is contrary to Canada’s Radiocommunication Act.

What stands out the most in the mutually agreed judgment is a ‘settlement’ fee of CAD$5 million, which Infinity TV must now pay to the copyright holders to cover various damages and costs. 

This is the first consent judgment in the case according to the Wire Report, which picked up the story late last week. There may have been other monetary settlements in the past, but these are not public.  

In addition to the CAD$5 million Infinity TV now owes, the consent order also includes a permanent injunction. This prohibits the company from selling any infringing fully-loaded set-top boxes, infringing IPTV subscriptions, including its “ITV Unit.”

Just a few months ago, Infinity TV’s website promised that something would be “coming soon,”  but this message has since disappeared.

—

Copies of the consent judgment (pdf) and the amended Statement of Claim (pdf) were obtained by TorrentFreak with help from attorney James Plotkin and stagiaire Fabienne Lajoie.

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

Hundreds of thousands of German citizens (and quite possibly more) have been hit with settlement notices over the past 15 years.

The country is one of the most risky places in the world to share files without the permission of copyright holders, as plenty of Internet users have found to their detriment.

One such case, dating back to 2011, saw Universal Music send a letter to a family whose Internet connection was used to share the Rihanna album ‘Loud’. However, the case wasn’t straightforward.

The parents, to whom the letter was addressed, stated that they had no interest whatsoever in the R&B star. However, one of their three children did, and the parents actually knew which one had committed the infringement.

Relying on a local law that protects family members from having to testify against each other, the parents refused to hand over the identity of their infringing offspring. However, after the case was heard by the Munich Court of First Instance, they were themselves held liable and ordered to pay almost 3,900 euros.

The case then headed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) which resulted in another win for Universal.

The BGH upheld the decision of the Munich Court in 2017 and held the parents liable for infringement, reasoning if the parents knew who had committed the offense but refused to identify them, they should pay the fine themselves. But the show wasn’t over just yet.

The case then progressed to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgerichts – BVerfG ) which handed down its decision Wednesday.

Siding with the judgments of the lower courts, the BVerfG said that if the parents don’t want to identify which of their children committed the offense, then it is they who must be held liable and face the consequences.

“The fundamental right to respect for family life under Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law does not preclude a civil-procedural obligation on Internet access holders to disclose which family member used the connection if copyright infringement was committed via the connection,” the decision reads.

“On the basis of this ruling, the 2nd Chamber of the First Senate, with a decision released today, did not accept the constitutional complaint of a parent against a conviction for damages and reimbursement of charges, who knew which of their children had made copyrighted music available to the public, but in a civil case had not revealed that.

“Family protection is not intended to escape tactical considerations of personal liability for infringement of intellectual property rights,” the Court added. “The mere fact of living with other family members does not automatically lead to a disclaimer for the subscriber.”

While this sounds very much like a defeat for the parents in question, the ruling also clarifies points of law which may prove of importance to others who might find themselves in a similar position in the future.

Knowing who committed an infringement and refusing to hand over their information leads to liability, but not knowing who did so may produce a more favorable outcome, says Cologne-based lawyer Christian Solmecke.

“The Internet subscriber is not obliged to make any specific inquiries within the family. However, if he himself determines who the perpetrator is, then he must also name them – even if they come from his family environment,” Solmecke notes.

“The ruling leads to the conclusion that parents are now better off if they theoretically entertain the possibility that their children have committed the crime, but at the same time declare that they do not know the true culprit.

“If the parents know the culprit, they must betray him or they are liable themselves. If they do not know the culprit, the parents are released from liability,” the lawyer concludes.

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

Millions of people use YouTube to share their creations with the world, as commentary, entertainment, education, or for any other purpose they see fit.

In most cases, these videos remain online without any issues. However, for some creators, YouTube’s copyright enforcement is causing a mess, one that severely affects their day-to-day activities.

We’ve repeatedly covered problems with YouTube’s Content-ID system dating as far back as seven years ago. Most of these are the result of overbroad filters, where YouTube finds a copyright match where it shouldn’t.

However, the problems go much deeper than random ‘bot’ mistakes. Outside the Content-ID system, YouTube’s regular takedown notices are causing trouble as well. They are being used by scammers to extort people, for example, and legitimate rightsholders make plenty of mistakes too.

The stream of examples is endless and the frustration among creators is growing. This was highlighted once again this week by guitarist Paul Davids, who shares educational and informative videos to an audience of over a million subscribers.

As a guitarist, Davids likes to demonstrate his skills, explain the finer details of certain techniques, and help others in the process. In some cases, this means playing a riff or chords from popular tracks. This is how guitar teachers have operated for many decades.

While it’s totally understandable that not all copyright holders want people to cover their full songs, playing a short riff or some chords in an educational context seems harmless. 

That’s what Davids assumed as well. Increasingly, however, his work is being claimed by major music distribution companies such as Universal Music Group.

In a video highlighting the problem, Davids provides several examples. Last month he had a new record with 15 new claims in an hour, apparently from “someone” who manually flagged his video.

The guitarist lists several examples of videos that were claimed after he played riffs as brief as two seconds. This includes a video about a riff from the track Neon by John Mayer, which is now demonetized, despite being a fairly obvious case of fair use.

“I never played one note from an original recording it’s just me talking about a little riff and not even the entire song. It’s just a five-second riff. I’m talking about researching it, dissecting it, explaining how it works, why it is difficult,” Davids notes.

“So we can’t analyze a song anymore on YouTube. Even if you look at the notes from the song your shit is getting claimed. Let alone try to play it for a little bit,” he adds.

<style>.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Davids notes that all of his most popular videos, some with several million views, have now been ‘claimed.’ The music companies targeting them are happily taking his money, but meanwhile, educating future generations on the art of playing guitar has become harder and harder.

“There goes an age-old tradition of learning guitar because when I’m trying to teach you a song, Universal Music Group deserves all the ***king credit and money for it. All of it,” Davids says.

In the video, Davids talks to fellow musician and teacher Adam Neely, who has experienced the stifling effect of YouTube copyright claims as well. Apparently, Universal Music Group took offense to his MIDI recording of Beyonce’s “Single Ladies.”

“I can’t show any aspect of the composition of Single Ladies. Basically what that means is, I can’t show any sheet music, I can’t do any sort of MIDI recreation of the song, because in their eyes that’s a cover of the song, which is absolutely ridiculous,” Neely says.

Like Davids, Neely was not playing a cover. He used a MIDI recreation of a part of the song, to explain what the interesting aspects are. The video is part of a larger Q&A which is clearly labeled as “educational.”

Neely believes that artists should be compensated for real covers, but the examples referenced here are far from that.

“Somebody literally just clicked my video, saw that I was talking about Single Ladies, and said no, we own all of your money. That’s how easy it is, which is crazy,” Neely notes.

Whatever the claimants’ precise reasons, it is clear that a fair use defense is pretty reasonable here. The problem, however, is that YouTube generally doesn’t take that into account.

Yes, copyright claims can be appealed. And if channel owners appeal long enough their video is eventually restored. However, that process is not without risk.

First off, a takedown notice will result in a YouTube strike which, after three warnings, may cause the owner of a channel to lose his account. Similarly, if they keep appealing they risk being sued, which isn’t a very welcome outlook either.

In the video, Davids mentions that there is “nothing you can do” against these claims. While he realizes that there are options now, he tells TorrentFreak that he’s not interested in taking the matter to court.

“The last thing I want is to get wound up in a legal process that takes up all my time,” Davids says.

In other words, on paper YouTubers can ensure that their video is reinstated, but the risk is seen as too high, so they tend to avoid the process.

The alternative, which is what many YouTubers opt for, is to avoid triggering any copyright claims. This obviously has an impact on their creativity and how they educate the public, which doesn’t seem fair.

What’s also unfair is the fact that Davids received a claim on a video of a backing track he created himself years ago. Apparently, someone copied that from him and passed it on to someone else as an original recording.  This led to a pretty bizarre confrontation, illustrated in detail in the video.

The question that remains is, how can this all be fixed? Davids suggests that YouTube could create a whitelist for channels with good standing, something we’ve also mentioned in the past. At the very least, the company could take a good look at its policies and systems to see if clear abuse can be addressed and prevented.

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