As part of Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, the Federal Police of Brazil (Polícia Federal) is an enforcement agency tasked with tackling a range of crimes.

In addition to drug trafficking and terrorism, the unit is responsible for disrupting organized crime, white-collar crime, and money laundering.

This week the agency announced the launch of ‘Operation Copyright’, an initiative designed to disrupt the sharing of pirated content in Brazil using BitTorrent.

Following a complaint from local anti-piracy group APDIF (Association for the Protection of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Phonographic Industry), in 2017 police launched an investigation into a US-hosted torrent site with an estimated 140,000 users and 9 million visits per year.

Local reports have not yet formally identified the site but sources indicate that a private tracker called Speed-Share, which is currently down, was the main target of the operation.

A video clip shared by the authorities shows a site with its branding blurred out but TorrentFreak can confirm that the style matches that of Speed-Share.

The operation spanned five states, with the Federal Police executing search and seizure warrants in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Espírito Santo and Goiás. Globo reports that police initially identified two people in São Paulo (the alleged founders and operators of the site) and from there an additional six people were interviewed.

“Each had a function. There are the operators, there are the moderators, there are the designers, there are the DJs. There is a whole hierarchy inside the site,” a police spokesperson said.

“Because of this, we are evaluating the effective participation of each and even to impute the crime of association or criminal organization, which are different crimes.”

While APDIF estimates that music sharing on the site cost their members more than US$10 million in lost revenues over the past nine years, that doesn’t account for other content indexed by the tracker including movies, TV shows, and games.

Despite the scale of the operation, it appears that none of the suspects were immediately arrested. They will be expected to answer to copyright infringement charges, however.

While it appears that Speed-Share was the main target, several other ‘pirate’ sites are also reported as being offline. It is not yet clear whether these were also targeted by the authorities or whether they have been taken offline as a precaution.

The Federal Police say they are working with authorities in the United States but it’s not yet clear whether any warrants have been carried out internationally.

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

Five years ago, Popcorn Time was widely embraced by pirates, thanks to its ability to stream torrent files through a user-friendly interface.

This rapid rise raised concern among many movie industry companies, who worked hard to contain the threat by going after several forks and their developers.

This resulted in the shutdown of several projects. Those that remained online were targeted by website blockades in several countries, including the UK and Denmark.

Popcorn-Time.no was also targeted in this crackdown. The Economic Crimes unit (Økokrim) of Norway’s police seized the domain name after it was branded an illegal site by rightsholders.

This was highly unusual because the domain in question didn’t host the Popcorn Time software. Instead, the site posted news articles, as well as links to sites that offered the application.

In most cases, this issue would have blown over, as the site had a relatively small number of users. However, in Norway, this wasn’t the case. Electronic Frontier Norway (EFN) and the Norwegian Unix User Group (NUUG) took an interest in the case and went to court.

This was “revenge of the nerds,” as the groups’ lawyer previously put it. They felt that taking down a domain name without proper judicial review went a step too far.

After several rounds in court, the registrar IMCASREG8 (IMC) got involved, as it would lose its rights to the popcorn-time.no domain. IMC chose to contest this claim to hold the authorities accountable and was joined by EFN and NUUG.

The owner of the original domain is not involved and was never charged. Instead, EFN, NUUG, and IMC hope to protect their rights in the bigger picture.

NUUG is standing up to defend multi-use Open Source Technology, for example, while IMC hopes to prevent the commercial chilling effect these broad domain seizures may have.

Last week they presented their arguments in court where EFN argued that the seized the Popcorn-time.no site was merely exercising its right to free speech.

To do so, the group published a book titled “En ulovlig bok?” which translates to “An Illegal book?” The paperback version, for sale here, is a printout of the site on paper.

If Popcorn-Time.no was illegal, then this book would be too, EFN argued in court.

“The goal is to put the focus on whether freedom of expression is protected
on the Internet. For EFN it is critical that expressions on the Internet should be no less protected than expressions in a book,” EFN’s managing director Tom Fredrik Blenning tells TorrentFreak.

“EFN is thus of the opinion that there are only two possible options. Ban
the book or allow the website. Of course, the latter is the only one which makes sense.”

While the contents of the site and the book are the same, the paper version has no hyperlinks of course. Whether that makes a difference has yet to be seen.

The rights group also presented witnesses to substantiate their claims and to counter the opposition. Among other things, it was argued that there is more legal content available (~5%) on Popcorn Time than the prosecution claimed (<1%), although most of it is infringing.

It was also stressed that Popcorn-time.no made no infringing content available. There is no direct link between the alleged pirates and the site.  It only pointed to sites where the application could be downloaded, something Wikipedia does as well.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that such a link isn’t necessary. It clearly brands Popcorn-time.no as an infringing site which harms copyright holders, and it believed that the seizure was justified.

It’s worth mentioning that the Popcorn Time information site looked rather similar to a Danish version, of which the owner received a conditional prison sentence last year. In Norway, there was never a named suspect, however.

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

Video-hosting platforms that allow users to upload content are currently protected by so-called ‘safe harbor’ exceptions.

They are generally not responsible for infringing content when they respond appropriately to complaints from copyright holders. In a case against US-based video platform Vimeo that has just concluded in Italy, things certainly didn’t go to plan.

In a ruling handed down by the Commercial Court of Rome on January 10, 2019, Vimeo was ordered to pay €8.5 million plus court costs to RTI, a company owned by Italy-based mass media giant Mediaset.

According to the ruling, Vimeo allowed copyrighted TV content owned by the company to be published on its platform and then failed to remove them as the law requires. The Court described Vimeo as acting as a video on demand (VoD) service for RTI content, to the detriment of the company.

In addition to removing the content in question, Vimeo will also have to act proactively in the future by preventing new uploads of unauthorized content. Failure to do so will result in a fine of 1,000 euros for each offense plus an additional penalty of 500 euros for each day the content remains accessible on Vimeo.

The roots of the dispute date back to 2012 when Mediaset found that content extracted from its TV programming had been uploaded by Vimeo users without the necessary permission. Over time, the list of infringing content grew to more than 2,000 works.

Importantly, the Court determined that service providers who play an “active role” including “cataloging, indexing and commissioning” content cannot benefit from the safe harbor exemptions offered by the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC.

As a result, Vimeo “lost its neutral character, and with it the exemption of responsibility,” reports Alessandro La Rosa, a lawyer who acted for Mediaset.

Also of interest is that the Court highlighted technical capabilities that are available to Vimeo which should allow the platform to identify infringing content automatically and without being provided with specific URLs to take down.

This technology should allow the hosting provider “to identify, within the material on its digital platform, those that match certain illicit content, even without the prior knowledge of the reference URL and without having to devote personnel to individually view all the videos published and compare them with the programs of the holder of the infringed right.”

The timing of the ruling is notable. Within the next week, the European Parliament and Council will be aiming to agree on the final text of the ever-controversial Article 13, which may – or indeed may not – place content hosting platforms like YouTube and Vimeo in a less favorable position in respect of safe harbor protections.

“The sentence of the court of Rome takes on particular importance as it comes in the final stages of the approval process of the new European directive proposal having as its object the protection of copyright with respect to violations committed via the web,” Mediaset said in a statement.

“A provision that intends to harmonize copyright laws in the individual States to protect the creative industry and publishers who, like Mediaset, create content regularly remunerating the rights of all authors .”

According to La Rosa, the decision of the Court “is in full harmony” with recent decisions from the EU Court of Justice and also the assumption under some Article 13 proposals that content sharing platforms should obtain licenses for public communication of third-party works.

“[I]n the absence of such agreements, the obligation to lend due cooperation with the owners of the rights to prevent, with all the means made available by the state of the art, unauthorized uses of said works,” La Rosa says.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Enzo Mazza, CEO at the Italian Federation of the Music Industry, underlined the importance of the case in Europe.

“The decision is really important regarding the definition of active hosting limiting the safe harbor and therefore extending the liabilities of the defendant,” Mazza said.

“This allows the creative sector to better address the fight against copyright violations in the video streaming area. Also regarding compensation of damages the decision is groundbreaking in Europe. ” 

In addition to paying the rather large fine and remaining vigilant on any further uploads of infringing Mediaset content, Vimeo has been ordered to publish details of the ruling in the physical and online editions of two Italian newspapers. It is also required to publish the same information on the home page of Vimeo.com

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

Over the years we’ve written numerous times about questionable copyright claims on YouTube.

This problem is far from new but more and more stories are emerging every week. Over the past days, a claim on a Star Wars fan film has caught a lot of attention.

The video in question was created by the popular Star Wars Theory channel, which published the first episode of the “Vader” fan film just before Christmas.

The channel is operated by Toos, a dedicated Star Wars fan, who made the video for like-minded fans. Aware of the sensitive stance rightsholders have regarding fan films, he reached out to Lucasfilm beforehand.

The company, which was the original copyright holder of the Star Wars franchise before it sold to Disney, said that Toos couldn’t monetize the project, nor could he crowdfund it. However, if he stuck to the rules it could continue. This meant that Toos paid for the production himself and published it without ads.

All seemed fine for the first weeks after the episode was put up. The video was viewed millions of times and received tens of thousands of likes. However, this week things changed.

Without prior notice, Warner/Chappell – which controls the rights to Star Wars’ music – moved in and claimed the video. While the fan film remains online, it’s now showing ads with the revenue going directly to the music publisher.

“They have claimed the whole movie because there is a piece in there that uses the rendition of The Imperial March,” Toos says.

This isn’t the original sound recording that was used in Star Wars, as Toos hired a composer to write a remake of the original theme music. However, according to Warner/Chappell, it’s a cover which they, apparently, want to be paid for.

Responding to the issue in a YouTube video, Toos says he’s disappointed. After being told that he can’t monetize the film, one of the rightsholders has moved in and monetized it instead.

“It’s not about the money, it’s the principle,” Toos says. “Someone from one of those companies went in there and manually claimed it. To me, that’s just very vindictive. It’s very rude.”

Soon after Toos published his response on the “Star Wars Theory” channel, it blew up. People directed much of their anger at Disney and characterized the copyright claim as clearly false.

False in this case is a matter of perspective. While non-commercial fan films are often allowed, the rightsholders can still claim it. Whether this claim is rightful or if it’s a fair use ultimately has to be decided in court.

Toos doesn’t want to take it that far. Following the public outrage, Warner/Chappell reached out to his network to indicate that it wouldn’t back down. This puts him in a tough spot.

Toos can easily dispute the claim. If Warner/Chappell uphold it, he can appeal again after which the music publisher has to file an official DMCA notice. This will then result in a strike on the channel and the video will be removed as well.

At that point, Toos can file a counter-notice. YouTube will then restore the video after ten days unless Warner/Chappel takes the matter to federal court. Not a very pleasant outlook, to say the least.

Warner/Chappel could easily win a potential lawsuit. They argue that the film’s music is based on the original composition of Star Wars themes, which is indeed the case. That the film is non-commercial doesn’t mean any use is fair use, there are other factors that play a role as well.

Toos prefers to let the issue go. He still plans to continue with the second episode, although he won’t use any Star Wars themed music for that.

The good news is that the copyright claim and response brought a lot of attention to the Star Wars Theory channel and the “Vader” fan film. That doesn’t hurt the support he receives through Patreon and other avenues, which comes in handy as Newsweek notes that the film cost around $150,000 to shoot.

As for Warner/Chappell, they will likely continue to claim videos which they believe infringe their rights. This is not the first fan-made project they have gone after and it likely won’t be the last.

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

After years of discussions and negotiations, the EU’s copyright reform proposals are nearing the finish line.

In recent months concerns have been voiced about the plans from various sides.  Article 13, in particular, proved to be controversial.

Among the public, the main concern is that this could open the door to increased upload filtering. However, not all copyright holders are pleased with it either.

Last month a coalition of major representatives from the audiovisual and sports sectors, including the Motion Picture Association, the International Union of Cinemas, the Premier League, and La Liga, shared their concerns in a letter to members of the EU Parliament.

The companies are extremely worried about the current version of Article 13. They fear that it will do more harm than good for their industries, as it may strengthen the position of major online content sharing service providers.

At the time, the companies said that they would rather be excluded from Article 13 if their concerns are not addressed.

In response, legislators assured that the companies wouldn’t be worse off under Article 13 than they currently are but the rightsholders in question are not convinced.

With the negotiations nearing the finish line, the companies have now sent a more strongly worded letter to EU lawmakers urging them to halt all Article 13 negotiations for the time being.

According to the companies, the current proposals may actually be a step backward. They specifically warn that “the solutions that are under discussion are worse than the current legal framework.”

“[R]ather than rushing the highly controversial Art. 13 and seeking conclusion of this provision, no matter the jeopardy to the European copyright framework and no matter the prejudice and damage to the creative sectors before the end of this legislative period, we urge EU co-legislators to suspend negotiations with respect to this article,” the companies write.

The rightsholders specifically mention a pending German case in which YouTube stands accused of being liable for the video uploads of its users.

The German Federal Court referred several liability-related questions to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) last summer, and the rightsholders hope this will turn out in their favor.

“The Commission should continue to monitor the developments on CJEU level, in particular in case C-682/18, and decide, following this judgment, whether legislative intervention might be necessary in the future,” the companies state in their letter.

Whether highlighting one pending case which may or may not change anything warrants suspending all negotiations is up for lawmakers to decide. In any case, all those who are against Article 13 are not going to complain.

At the same time, it also creates tension between various rightsholder groups. The recommendation clearly goes against the wishes of many major music industry companies, which hope that Article 13 will fix the ‘Value Gap’.

—

A copy of the letter sent by representatives of the audio-visual and sports sectors 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.