In recent years, there has been a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against alleged cheaters or cheat makers.

Two of the driving forces behind these cases are GTA V developer Rockstar Games and its parent company Take-Two Interactive.

In Australia, the companies filed a complaint last September, targeting several people believed to be linked to the popular ‘Infamous’ cheat.

A few months earlier, Take-Two launched a lawsuit against two men in the United States, accusing both of copyright infringement and breach of contract, among other things. They too were linked to the ‘Infamous’ cheat. 

The first defendant, Christopher Pei, admitted his wrongdoing and swiftly settled the case last summer. This week, his co-defendant, Erik Cameron followed suit. 

In a signed consent judgment, Cameron admits that he worked on the ‘Infamous’ cheat with a group of people, including Pei and unnamed persons from Europe and Australia. 

The legal paperwork, filed last week, also makes it clear that this constituted copyright infringement as well as a breach of the user agreement. As a result, GTA V’s Take-Two suffered damage, while the cheat developer reaped profits.

“Mr. Cameron’s violations of the Copyright Act and New York law have caused, and continue to cause, Take-Two great and irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or measured in money,” the judgment reads.

While the cheat developer takes the blame, it is unclear at what cost. The judgment merely mentions that there’s a “confidential settlement for an undisclosed amount of money.”

The judgment also comes with a permanent injunction which prohibits Cameron from developing or promoting any software that alters Take-Two’s software. All Infamous copies or any similar cheat tools that remain in his possession, must be destroyed. 

Although the scale of the settlement remains unknown, it is likely less than the $150,000 a fellow GTA V cheat developer was ordered to pay in a default judgment last month.

The order brings an end to these two US cases that were related to the ‘Infamous’ cheat. The Australian case against another alleged developer of the same software remains ongoing.

—

A copy of the consent judgment, signed by US District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan 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.

Last month the European Parliament and Council agreed on the final text of the EU Copyright Directive.

This includes the controversial Article 13 and Article 11, which opponents condemn as “upload filters” and “link tax” proposals respectively.

Many organizations in the creative and publishing sectors are of a different opinion. They see the copyright reform plans as a much-needed step in the right direction of an Internet that treats creators more fairly.

With the final vote just two weeks away, a massive coalition of 243 organizations representing a wide variety of rightsholders is calling on the European Parliament to adopt the plans.

“We, the undersigned organisations, representing authors, composers, writers, journalists, performers and others working in all artistic fields, news agencies, book, press, scientific and music publishers, audiovisual and independent music producers call on the European Parliament to adopt the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market,” the letter reads.

The full list of supporters includes popular names such as Thomson Reuters, The Independent, the Association of Independent Music, Getty Images, PRS for Music, SACEM, Eurocinema, and many, many others.

The different groups have a shared goal of better copyright protection but some elements of the Copyright Directive may apply more to some than others.

The music groups, for example, are likely to be the most focused on Article 13. This requires for-profit Internet platforms to license content from copyright holders or, if that is not possible, ensure that infringing content is taken down and not re-uploaded to their services.

For their part, news publishers will be more interested in Article 11. This allows these organizations to charge Internet platforms, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, for displaying snippets of their content to the public at large.

The joint letter the groups released this week mentions neither article, only the Copyright Directive in general. However, they make it very clear that the proposed changes are needed to create a fair and sustainable Internet.

“This Directive has been long sought to create a much-needed level playing field for all actors of the creative sector in the European Digital Single Market, whilst giving citizens better access to a wider array of content,” the letter reads.

“This is an historic opportunity. We need an internet that is fair and sustainable for all. This is why we urge policymakers to adopt the Directive quickly, as agreed in trilogue negotiations,” it adds.

The sheer number of organizations show that there is broad support for the Copyright Directive in the creative community.

But there is plenty of opposition as well. Earlier today we mentioned that the UN’s Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression has raised the alarm over Article 13 and its de facto filtering requirements.

In the days to come, we will likely see more calls for support while protests look set to escalate.

—-

A copy of the letter including the full list of signatories is available below. 

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

Later this month, Members of the European Parliament are set to cast their final votes on the EU Copyright Directive.

Given the almost continuous outrage online, it’s clear that both Article 11 and Article 13 remain highly controversial.

While there is some dissent, the latter is generally supported by rightsholder groups and artists. Opponents, however, fear that the proposals will lead to de facto upload filtering, the potential for abuse, and serious unintended consequences. The latest heavyweight to add an opinion in support of this stance is UN human rights experts David Kaye.

Speaking in his role as UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Kaye is now warning the European Union that the proposed amendments to the Copyright Directive will fall short of international standards on freedom of expression.

“Europe has a responsibility to modernize its copyright law to address the challenges of the digital age but this should not be done at the expense of the freedom of expression that Europeans enjoy today,” Kaye said in a statement Monday.

“Article 13 of the proposed Directive appears destined to drive internet platforms toward monitoring and restriction of user-generated content even at the point of upload.  Such sweeping pressure for pre-publication filtering is neither a necessary nor proportionate response to copyright infringement online.”

Proponents of Article 13 continue to insist that the proposed amendments create no obligation to filter. But, despite outcry from online platforms and activists, no one has yet put forward any explanation as to how such filters can be avoided. Platforms that fit the criteria could be held liable, if they host content for which they hold no license.

Indeed, less than two weeks ago, Ulrich Kelber, Germany’s Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, issued a similarly stark warning over the potential for an “oligopoly” of third-party filtering vendors having significantly increased access to huge volumes of user data.

Kelber suggested that the EU should explain how its Article 13 aims can be achieved without filtering of uploaded content but thus far, silence appears to have been the response.

While some platforms would be exempt from the requirements of Article 13 under the current proposals (platforms less than three years old, with fewer than five million unique visitors per month, and an annual turnover of less than €10 million), the limits are still too tight, the UN expert added.

“Most platforms would not qualify for the exemption and would face legal pressure to install and maintain expensive content filtering infrastructure to comply with the proposed Directive.

“In the long run, this would imperil the future of information diversity and media pluralism in Europe, since only the biggest players will be able to afford these technologies,” Kaye said.

Kaye also foresees problems with upload filtering systems’ inability to differentiate between infringing works and those that are uploaded within the parameters of existing law – when exercising the freedom to quote, criticize, review, caricature, parody, and pastiche, for example.

Computers cannot do that today and even proficient humans have difficulty, Kaye explained.

“Even the most experienced lawyers struggle to distinguish violations of copyright rules from exceptions to these rules, which vary across Member States. The lack of clear and precise language in the Directive would create even more legal uncertainty,” the UN expert warned.

But while content companies state that their support of Article 13 is based on an urgent need to protect artists and creators, Kaye believes that those individuals will be the first people to suffer, if the law is passed in its current form.

“Misplaced confidence in filtering technologies to make nuanced distinctions between copyright violations and legitimate uses of protected material would escalate the risk of error and censorship. Who would bear the brunt of this practice?

“Typically it would be creators and artists, who lack the resources to litigate such claims,” he warned.

Kaye’s opposition comes on the heels of a series of PR disasters (1,2,3) for supporters of Article 13 within the corridors of power at the EU itself. Even impartiality appears to be a problem, opponents argue.

Simultaneously, opposition among the public is continuing to build, via a record-breaking petition on Change.org (now visibly being signed every second) which is set to culminate in a series of physical protests throughout Europe later this month.

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

With Bollywood, India has a thriving movie industry that’s worth billions of dollars and is known all around the world.

At the same time, the country also has one of the highest piracy rates, which is seen as a major threat to the industry.

Pirated copies of films swiftly make their way onto the Internet and are sold on physical media around the country. In many cases, these leaks occur just hours after a movie premieres in theaters.

In an effort to curb this activity, India’s Government recently amended the Cinematograph Act, making it illegal to record or transmit movies and movie audio without permission. Those who do, face a three-year prison sentence.

As with any law, the effectiveness depends on implementation and enforcement. This is something that has yet to be fleshed out and various prominent voices from the local movie industry are calling on the Government to take strict action.

“Everything boils down to implementation. Police feel piracy is not a priority. If the government can ensure plastic ban overnight, why not show the same vigor in this issue,” movie producer G. Dhananjayan told the Times of India.

The local newspaper ran an article last week on the new anti-piracy measures. Aside from the calls for stricter enforcement, the publication also delivered a bombshell. Apparently, movie piracy is frequently facilitated by the industry itself.

According to a Tamil cinema DVD seller, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, piracy is mostly an inside job. The source explains that movie companies are leaking each other’s films, as a competitive move.

“People from rival production companies or those from the creative department secretly release the movie online or circulate it as DVDs to hit the collection at the box office,” the source said.

This sounds like a Wild West story, but the allegations don’t stop there. Another source said that the local censor board and distribution houses are also on the piracy bandwagon.

“Another industry source said insiders in the censor board and distribution houses sell these copies for up to `5 lakh. The copies are uploaded on private portals that have dedicated passkeys,” the Times of India reports.

“For a few lakhs of rupees, these copies can be downloaded and replicated on DVD,” the newspaper adds.

When it comes to recording video and audio at movie theaters, it is believed that some movie industry insiders work in tandem with theater owners to leak high profile films. As a result, some films appear online just hours after their official premiere.

At TorrentFreak, we can’t verify any of these claims independently, but it does put the various arrests of Indian movie theater owners in a different perspective.

Indian police have apprehended several theater owners in the past. Late last year the Indian Film Exhibitors Association called on the Madras High Court to put a halt to these overbroad crackdowns, stressing that the arrestees were innocent.

However, based on the sources referenced by the Times of India, there are some rogue cinema owners out there.

All in all, it is clear that Bollywood’s piracy problem is rather complex, and that shutting down a few websites is certainly not going to cut it. The new anti-camming law may help, but if the industry itself is corrupted, there’s still a long way to go.

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

Downloading movies and music is currently prohibited under Japan’s Copyright Act, meaning that anyone who does so is liable to criminal prosecution or civil suits.

Over the past several months, rightsholders and authorities have been seeking to make the downloading of any copyrighted content a crime, something that has raised alarm bells in the country of 127 million citizens.

While many can see the benefits of preventing people from unlawfully duplicating or sharing full copyright works (if that deprives creators of their income), the proposals currently on the table go way beyond what many citizens see as reasonable.

As the wording currently stands, even those making screenshots of copyrighted content would be criminalized, as would those reproducing song lyrics or snapshots of manga publications, for example. With penalties of two years in prison and fines of two million yen (US$18,000) on the table, it’s no wonder that people are concerned.

Last month more than 80 academics, researchers, lawyers, and other experts issued an ‘emergency statement‘ urging the government to reconsider the scope of new proposals. It’s not clear whether this alone prompted a review but it seems that the rush to criminalize large numbers of Internet users is causing those in power to pause for thought.

The planned copyright amendments were set to be submitted to the Diet on March 8, 2019 but according to local sources, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP or Jimintō) put the brakes on the proposals the day before they were due to be submitted.

Reports suggest that the party had such serious concerns over the scope of the law that its implementation might mean that “use of the Internet would be atrophied.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly held a telephone call with Keisya Furuya, the former National Public Safety Commissioner and chairman of the bipartisan MANGA (Manga-Animation-Game) parliamentary group on March 6, 2019. According to AnimeNewsNetwork, this led to the decision to remove the proposals from the agenda.

The bill will now be presented for further discussion during the Diet’s Ministry of Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s next meeting. However, there are no clear indications whether there will be any amendments, ones that might calm the fears of those who feel these overzealous proposals are not only several steps too far but potentially unenforceable.

Scholars and other experts are suggesting that the best route is to only criminalize actions that cause real financial damage to content owners.

The general consensus among the academics is that making infringement criminally punishable may be acceptable, but only when full copyright works – such as movies, music, manga publications, and books – are exploited in their entirety.

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