Banksy is without a doubt one of the most mysterious yet best-known street artists in the world.

His works are the most sought after in their genre for which collectors are happy to pay serious cash.

One of his paintings was sold at Sotheby for £1.4 million in October, which is a reasonable amount. However, as soon as the hammer went down a built-in shredder tore half of it to pieces.

Apparently, Banksy had built a shredder into the painting, carefully planning his ‘stunt,’ which carries a deeper criticism of course.

The stunt was widely covered in the media and also documented by Banksy on his own YouTube channel. The street artist rarely uploads anything so media outlets were keen to republish the video, which offered a behind-the-scenes perspective on the shredding.

Apparently, the French media giant Canal+ used the material as well. However, they went a step further and have claimed it as their own, asking YouTube to remove the original, which it did.

“Video unavailable This video contains content from Canal Plus, who has blocked it on copyright grounds,” a message now reads instead.

Removed

The issue was picked up by professional engineering YouTuber Dave Jones on Twitter. He describes YouTube’s takedown system as a joke, adding that Canal+ should love its Content ID privilege.

While it’s not entirely clear how this happened it’s likely that Canal+ used Banksy’s video in its own programming, adding it to the Content ID system. That certainly would not be the first time this has happened.

It’s impossible to summarize all mistakes, but the fact that a bird chirping and white noise videos were previously flagged as copyright-infringing content says enough.

In all honesty, mistakes are bound to happen when a company operates on a scale as large as YouTube. In a few hours or days, this mistake will likely be corrected. However, there is certainly room for improvement. Right now, YouTube users can lose their channel after three copyright strikes, but rightsholders can make mistake after mistake.

As for Banksy, we doubt that he’s seriously upset by any of this. He has seen some of his most iconic works being painted over in the past. Unlike with YouTube, these aren’t so easy to restore.

—

The header image was taken from another Banksy video, which is still online.

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

When Megaupload was shut down by United States authorities in 2012, along with the arrest of its operators in New Zealand, few people anticipated the scale of the legal battle that would ensue.

After countless legal processes and procedures, every attempt to force Kim Dotcom and colleagues Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato, and Bram van der Kolk into submission have been met with resistance.

Perhaps the most important battle – to have the quartet sent to the US to face charges including copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering – is still underway and being fiercely contested. Comments made in the Wellington Supreme Court today indicate that the process is moving at glacial pace.

David Boldt, a lawyer for the United States, told the Court that the extradition battle “might almost be at half-time”, opening up the potential for more years of struggle.

Back in July, after the case had traveled through the District Court and High Court, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal ruled that Dotcom and his former colleagues are indeed eligible for extradition to the United States.

“We are satisfied that New Zealand law permits extradition for copyright infringement in the circumstances of this case. That is so although we have held, contrary to previous authority, that double criminality is required in extradition between New Zealand and the United States. The appellants are accused of conduct that, if proved, would establish extradition offences in New Zealand law,” the ruling reads.

“A criminal offense is committed by anyone who knowingly possesses an infringing digital copy of a protected work in the course of business with a view to committing any act, such as online dissemination, that infringes the copyright.”

Dotcom and his co-accused hope the Supreme Court will come to a different conclusion but according to RNZ, Boldt told the Supreme Court today that there is no direct right of appeal in Dotcom’s criminal case, since in 2012, when the case began, there was no eligibility for a third appeal in extradition cases.

“You have said before ‘if it’s not mentioned we are simply unable to say we have jurisdiction’. That contrasts with the civil jurisdiction where there is a right of appeal,” Boldt told the Court.

Of course, lawyers for the Megaupload quartet disagree.

Grant Illingworth, appearing for co-accused Bram Van der Kolk and Matthias Ortmann, said Boldt’s position is unsupported, adding that New Zealand’s Bill of Rights states that people cannot be extradited “except on grounds prescribed by law”. Lawyers for Dotcom and Batato supported Illingworth’s submissions.

Even if the US Government gets its way and the appeal is not accepted by the Supreme Court, the so-called “surrender” phase could take years. After the District Court decides whether someone can be extradited, it’s for New Zealand’s Minister of Justice to make the final decision. That, Boldt said, could lead to yet more processes and debate.

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

YouTube has opened the door for millions of people to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world.

This is also true for piracy-related topics. While YouTube itself doesn’t allow users to post copyright-infringing movies or TV-shows, there are many videos on the platform that demonstrate how to get this content elsewhere.

A lot of these ‘tutorials’ center around Kodi media player. While Kodi itself is perfectly legal, there are numerous third-party add-ons that turn it into a piracy platform. To achieve this, there are dozens of high profile YouTubers who are willing to offer a helping hand.

A search for “Kodi addon guide” on YouTube reveals a treasure trove of options. Many of these feature Kodi addons that clearly display pirated movies while showing users how to access them.

This has been going on for years, but there are more and more reports of videos and YouTube accounts being flagged. Several Kodi-piracy related YouTubers have lost their videos or have found themselves demonetized.

This is also what happened to “Kodi No Limits” a few days ago. The popular channel with over 600,000 videos was removed by YouTube following multiple takedown requests from copyright holders.

“This account has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted,” a message on the channel reads now.

Kodi No Limits before it was removed

It’s unknown which videos were found to be infringing. As far as we know, the account didn’t post any pirated videos or TV-shows, so we assume that copyright holders reported several ‘tutorials’ as copyright infringement.

The Kodi No Limits website remains online. It still features several Kodi-related guides, including how to install the “No Limits Magic” build. However, none of the embedded videos are showing up as they still point to the terminated YouTube account.

There is a chance that these may be updated in due course though. While losing 600,000 subscribers is a severe blow, Kodi No Limits is not backing down. Its Twitter account and other social media are still active, including Instagram where the channel shutdown was confirmed.

Kodi No Limits’ message, via Doc Squiffy

The message also teased a new channel. And indeed, recent posts on social media now link to new video content which appears on a newly registered ‘No Limits’ YouTube account.

The question remains how long that will stay up of course. YouTuber Doc Squiffy rightfully points out that many others who operate in the same niche have had videos taken down or entire channels demonetized by YouTube recently.

That also brings us back to an article we wrote a few months ago. This suggested that YouTube won’t put up with blatant piracy tutorials forever. This appears to be the case indeed, especially when copyright holders are actively targeting them with takedown requests.

TorrentFreak reached out to “Kodi No Limits” via an associated contact address, but at the time of writing we haven’t heard back.

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

A few days ago, the undefeated WBC heavyweight champion Deontay Wilder took on Tyson Fury.

Millions of people saw the fight end in a controversial split draw, something neither side had hoped for.

In common with many of these events, plenty of money was made regardless of the outcome. In part, this was generated by people who paid to watch the fight live or through premium PPV or streaming channels.

However, there was also a large audience on not-so-official channels. According to piracy-tracking outfit MUSO, as many as 9.98 million viewers tuned into unauthorized streams.

The pirate streaming alternatives were by far most popular in the US, with 1.9 million viewers, followed at a distance by the UK where roughly 1.1 million streamers were counted.

These viewers had plenty of options to choose from according to MUSO. In total, the company tracked down 133 piracy streaming domains and 80 YouTube live links where the game was displayed.

While YouTube responds to takedown notices, these often come too late it seems. The data published by MUSO shows that YouTube was by far the top source of pirated streams (18.3%), followed by Ripple.is (12.8%), and Vipleague.lc (9.4%).

According to MUSO’s CEO Andy Chatterley, a pirate audience of this size should not be ignored. Instead, copyright holders should find ways to get these people back on board.

“This fight was always going to draw in a massive audience, and it certainly did that. In fact, our MUSO Discover data shows that, globally, nearly 10 million viewers chose unlicensed channels to watch the bout,” Chatterley says.

“This is a huge audience that is, to all intents and purposes, being ignored. Data like this offers insights that could help bring fans back to legal content, but they need to be acknowledged first,” he adds.

The question remains how this can be done effectively. Cracking down on pirate streams hasn’t worked very well in recent years. And perhaps there’s room for improvement on the supply side as well?

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

For many years, pirating of ‘live’ sports was only possible when people downloaded content after the fact via torrents and similar systems. With the dawn of fast Internet connections and more advanced streaming technologies, all that changed.

As a result, the majority of live sporting events can now be accessed in close to real-time via hundreds of streaming websites and dedicated IPTV services. This presents an unprecedented challenge to broadcasters who routinely pay out tens of millions for the right to offer such content through official channels.

While no countries can escape this situation, Italy is considered to be one of the regions where unlicensed consumption has grown particularly rapidly. New research from anti-piracy outfit FAPAV and market research company Ipsos highlights the extent of problem.

According to the study, 4.6 million Italians over the age of 15 are now viewing sports content from illegal sources, with an estimated 21 million instances of piracy in 2017 alone.

While ‘pirate’ streaming sites are reported to be providing much of the content, premium unlicensed IPTV services are taking a large slice of the action. According to Ipsos, around 35% of Italians consume live sports via such services while paying an average of 10 to 15 euros per month for the privilege.

During a recent presentation and conference, anti-piracy group FAPAV revealed that IPTV is already a serious problem for broadcasters.

“This is an issue of enormous importance and a new phenomenon in the field of audiovisual piracy, which needed to be studied in detail,” said FAPAV Secretary General, Federico Bagnoli Rossi.

“Copyright is being challenged internationally. There is a decisive confrontation on copyright and to defend it we need to make a system. The copyright directive under discussion in Europe and the new emerging issues must be tackled by working together, creating synergies.”

Rossi noted that the results of the Ipsos study indicate that the problem is not going away, affecting not only live sports but other forms of audiovisual content, all of which are available from illicit vendors at a market disrupting price.

“[T]he Ipsos data presented shows how the illegal IPTV galaxy is taking root in our country, becoming, in fact, a new form of piracy linked not only to films and TV series but also to live sporting events,” Rossi said.

“Our Federation, understanding the seriousness of the problem, wanted to bring together for the first time all the main actors operating in the production, distribution and protection of audiovisual content, to understand how to deal, in an inclusive and effective way, a behavior that not only damages the industries and the economy of our country, but also goes to feed the illicit market and the criminal organizations that run it.”

Maria Vittoria De Simone, Italy’s Deputy National Prosecutor for organized crime, agreed that IPTV is now one of the preferred methods to watch content illegally, noting that soccer matches are now the most pirated content, with an outlay of just a few euros per month enabling the public to get in on the action.

Citing a 2017 survey which found that damage to the Italian economy is now estimated to be around a billion euros in turnover affecting some 6,000 jobs, Simone said that dealing with the IPTV problem won’t be easy.

“This crime is difficult to investigate, because it is widespread on an international scale, with individuals who evade the police in an area that for too long has been underestimated and little considered,” Simone said.

“What is certain is that the phenomenon has a high impact on the market, with alarming economic dimensions,” she added, noting that this type of piracy is often tolerated by the public, since they are offered a cheap alternative to more expensive commercial offerings.

“In the absence of a concerted action at the international level, the criminal groups have emulated the commercial models of legal companies, with obvious advantages to act outside the market rules. Thus a parallel and criminal commercial context was born, with a cloned product put in circulation even in advance of normal programming.”

While calling for new tools and strategies, Simone said that the problem should be dealt with using blocking measures, restrictions on sales and advertising, plus a “follow-the-money” approach.

“I believe that there are no obstacles to the possibility of using these blocking measures not only against DNS, but also to static IP addresses, so as to prevent the repetition of illegal activities,” she added.

Stan McCoy, MPA President EMEA, praised Italy for its contribution to the audiovisual industry but noted that the problem presented locally by streaming piracy is not unique.

McCoy said that there are an estimated 1.9 million users of illegal IPTV in Germany while in the US, 6.5% of household access pirated services, with almost all of those utilizing set-top boxes to access premium TV including live sports. The UK, he said, is also suffering with the problem.

“In Britain, over the past three months, about 6.5 million people have benefited from pirated content and 10% of the British population have access to illegal devices to enjoy pirated content,” McCoy added.

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