Legislation passed last year in Russia saw the creation of a centralized database of permanently blocked sites.

Search companies are required to connect their systems to this database (known locally as FGIS) so that such banned sites can be preemptively removed from search results. However, while most companies are acting as required, Google has thus far failed to connect to the resource.

As a result, Google was recently found to be in breach of federal law. The company was given a warning and told to connect within three days and begin filtering, but the tech giant failed to do so. It now faces an administrative fine of between 500,000 and 700,000 rubles (US$7,611 to US$10,656). On Monday, telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor confirmed it had officially opened a case against the US search giant.

While negotiations are still underway for Google to comply moving forward, it’s now clear that small fines don’t act as a deterrent to companies with huge revenue streams. It’s something the Russian government now wishes to address.

As part of reforms under consideration to tackle these types of violations, tech companies could face fines up to 1% of local revenue. In Google’s case, that’s around 450.2 million rubles (US$6.7m).

Roscomnadzor says that Google, Facebook, Telegram and other tech giants remain in breach of various local laws, including failure to hand over encryption keys to the government and neglecting to hold personal data of citizens locally in Russia.

A Reuters source told the news outlet that members of the presidential administration have already sent the proposals to representatives of several Russian and foreign Internet companies to receive feedback on the amendments.

The proposals, seen by Reuters but not published, indicate amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of Russia, which will see fines of 1% of annual revenue for repeated infringements of local law, with a minimum fine of 1.5 million rubles (US$22,400) if the company makes no money locally.

While the draft proposals appear to target large companies such as Google, Facebook and local search giant Yandex, services that provide access to blocked sites (such as VPNs and proxy services) will also be covered the legislation.

Messenger services like Telegram are also a target and even Netflix, if the company collects personal data of Russian citizens and stores it outside the country.

Additionally, companies that repeatedly breach the regulations could be subject to web-blocking themselves, something that Yandex was threatened with earlier this year in a response to a copyright complaint from several TV companies.

A source from an unnamed ‘foreign’ Internet company told Reuters that working out the precise levels of fines could be difficult for the Russian government.

“Yes, for foreign companies [the levels of fines under consideration] are already a substantial amount, but it is not clear how they will be calculated and charged,” the source said.

“Many foreign companies do not have a legal entity in Russia, while others have only a representative office that performs only marketing functions, and therefore its revenue is minimal. How much a company really earns in Russia, only the company knows.”

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

On an average day, roughly half a million hours of video are uploaded to YouTube.

As with any user-generated content site, this also includes pirated works, including full-length films.

This is not a new problem and YouTube does its best to remove infringing videos and accounts when they’re reported. However, Dutch film production company ‘Farmhouse TV & Film says that it’s not enough.

The company produced the film “Redbad” which premiered locally this summer. With one of the largest ever budgets for a Dutch film, it didn’t provide the success the makers had hoped for.

During the first month, it recouped less than €400,000 of the €8 million budget, making it one of the biggest flops in Dutch theaters.

While the film failed to draw the masses to the big screen, it did much better on YouTube. According to Farmhouse TV & Film, a full copy of the movie reached half a million views after it was uploaded. The only problem is that this copy wasn’t authorized.

The production company isn’t happy with this unlicensed consumption and is now demanding €200,000 in compensation. Producer Klaas de Jong states that YouTube should take responsibility, noting that the pirated copy was displaying advertisements as well.

“This way, YouTube has created a revenue model out of the illegal distribution of content,” De Jong says, quoted by Nu.nl.

“Enough is enough. We’re talking about an illegal and criminal offense, and YouTube is not taking responsibility,” he adds.

YouTube hasn’t commented on this individual case. However, the company explains that rightsholders can ask the video platform to take an infringing copy offline. This is what happened with the pirated copy of Redbad.

The producer believes that this is irrelevant. The harm was already done when they spotted the copy and the takedown system has its limitations, especially when infringing content swiftly reappears.

“This leads to a situation in which we as producers have to check for illegal links to our films on YouTube every week and beg to have them removed, after which they immediately reappear through another channel,” De Jong says.

Tim Kuik, director of the local anti-piracy outfit BREIN which isn’t involved in the matter, says that it’s the first time a Dutch producer takes this step. Kuik also notes that the availability of pirated films on YouTube is a known problem.

In the present matter, it’s unlikely that Farmhouse TV & Film will get anything from YouTube without going to court. Previously, Austrian television channel Puls 4 did just that, with success.

This summer a court in Vienna concluded that YouTube can indeed be held directly liable for users’ copyright infringements. The video service is not a neutral intermediary and should do more to prevent infringing uploads, the court ruled. The verdict in question is not yet final.

Ideally, Farmhouse TV & Film and other rightsholders would like YouTube to start filtering all content proactively. That sounds a lot like the EU’s Article 13 proposal, which YouTube is currently campaigning against.

Interestingly, the production company was also tied up in another YouTube brawl earlier this year. According to the producer, YouTube had asked them to remove the trailer of the film because it would be “offensive to large populations.”

No further details were given but, reportedly, YouTube took offense to the general theme which showed how Redbad and Vikings fought against the Christians who forced their faith upon the people.

The trailers were never removed though.

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

As the site-blocking movement progresses around the globe, more and more countries are being added to the list.

Entertainment companies see the practice as crucial to preventing the flow of pirated content but critics claim the process is overly-aggressive and can lead to collateral damage. Following a ruling in India yesterday, opponents of blocking will have yet more ammunition.

Following an application by Lyca Productions Private Limited, the producer of the sci-fi movie ‘2.0’, the Madras High Court handed down a super-aggressive blocking order yesterday that puts most – if not all – similar injunctions in the shade.

In order to protect the movie – which is due for release today – Justice M Sundar ordered 37 local Internet service providers to block a staggering 12,564 websites on the basis that they are likely to offer illegal copies of the movie.

While the order has not yet been published on the website of the Court, local media reports indicate that 2,000 of those websites are operated by notorious Tamil movie website TamilRockers.

Given that so many ‘sites’ are connected to one platform, the order may actually cover more than 12,000 domains instead of individuals sites, but in advance of the order itself being published, that’s hard to clarify.

Nevertheless, what we’re looking at here is a preemptive blocking order of a truly huge scale against sites that have not yet made the movie available and may never do so.

In the meantime, however, a valuable lesson about site-blocking is already upon us. Within hours of the blocks being handed down, a copy of ‘2.0’ appeared online and is now available via various torrent and streaming sites labeled as a “1080p PreDVDRip”. Forums reviewed by TF suggest users aren’t having a problem obtaining it.

With a reported budget of US$76 million, ‘2.0’ is the most expensive Indian film. The sci-fi flick is attracting huge interest and at one stage it was reported that Arnold Schwarzenegger had been approached to play a leading role in the flagship production.

“We had thought of casting Arnold. We had talked and allotted dates also. But somehow things did not work out as the contracts of Hollywood and India are contradictory,” director S. Shankar told local media.

More controversy hit the movie Tuesday when the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) filed a complaint against the movie with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. COAI claims that ‘2.0’ shows mobile phone use in a bad light, suggesting that the devices are detrimental to health.

The depiction is “defamatory to COAI and its members, endangers public order, presents anti-scientific attitudes, constitutes offenses including under various sections of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) and is in violation of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952,” the complaint reads.

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

In recent years many pirates have moved from downloading to streaming and, as a result, anti-piracy groups have amended their strategies.

Backed by the major film studios, Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been one of the frontrunners in the area.

The organization booked a promiment victory against Filmspeler last year when the European Court of Justice ruled that it’s illegal to sell devices that are pre-configured to access copyright-infringing content.

Paired with the earlier GS Media ruling, which held that companies with a for-profit motive can’t knowingly link to copyright-infringing material, this provides a powerful enforcement tool.

With both decisions in hand, BREIN has contacted dozens of vendors that sell unauthorized services, urging them to stop.

This has been rather successful. This year alone, 75 sellers of IPTV and VOD subscriptions have settled their claims, resulting in settlements, penalties, and other costs totaling roughly 300,000 euros.

BREIN director Tim Kuik informs TorrentFreak that there are also a handful of pending cases where vendors have yet to sign a cease and desist order or agree to pay a settlement. If these efforts fail, these will be taken to court.

This legal threat is not a bluff. BREIN has already won civil verdicts against two vendors, Moviestreamer and Leaper, which were both ordered to shut down.

The anti-piracy group generally approaches online vendors but brick-and-mortar stores are also at risk. Last month, the police in The Hague seized a dozen IPTV boxes that were sold together with an IPTV subscription, for example.

The police took this action on their own initiative and BREIN wasn’t involved directly. However, the group is working with police to provide training on collecting infringement related evidence.

“BREIN is agreeing with police to provide training to detect and secure evidence of infringing trade by offline stores,” Kuik tells TorrentFreak.

Following the GS Media and Filmspeler verdicts, BREIN has tracked down 275 vendors of illegal streaming boxes. Roughly 50 of these stopped their activities before the anti-piracy group reached out.

“It is still a sensible idea to stop before you get caught because the owed amounts can increase quite a bit,” Kuik notes.

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

Section 115a of Australia’s Copyright Act allows copyright holders to apply for injunctions to force ISPs to prevent subscribers from accessing ‘pirate’ sites. While rightsholders say that it’s been effective to a point, they have lobbied hard for improvements.

The resulting Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 contained proposals to close the loopholes. After receiving endorsement from the Senate earlier this week, the legislation was today approved by Parliament.

Once the legislation comes into force, proxy and mirror sites that appear after an injunction against a ‘pirate’ site has been granted can be blocked by ISPs without the parties having to return to court. Assurances have been given, however, that the court will retain some oversight.

Search engines, such as Google and Bing, will also be affected. Accused of providing “backdoor” access to sites that have already been blocked, search providers will now have to remove or demote links to overseas-based infringing sites, along with their proxies and mirrors.

Finally, “online locations” outside Australia with a “primary purpose of infringing” that are currently subject to blocking on application will be joined by sites with “the primary effect” of infringing or facilitating infringement. This opens the door for the blocking of general purpose file-hosting sites.

Announcing the adoption of the amendments by Parliament today, the Government said that the Bill will give rightsholders enhanced ability to fight copyright infringement.

Minister for Communications and the Arts Mitch Fifield noted that there will now be “less room” for pirates to circumvent Australia’s existing measures.

“The Government has zero tolerance for online piracy. It is theft, and damaging to our creative economy and local creators. We are committed to protecting Australia’s creative industries and the world-class content we produce every year,” Minister Fifield said.

“The passage of our legislation today sends a strong message to online pirates that Australia does not tolerate online theft.”

While negotiations have been underway for months, the amendments were only introduced in October, a stark contrast to proposed amendments to EU law which have moved at a glacial pace through the corridors of power in Europe.

The Australian Government will review the effectiveness of the new amendments in two years’ time.

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