When CD copying was all the rage in the late 1990s, many countries started to levy a tax on blank media.

This meant that consumers had to pay an extra fee on every recordable disc, because these can be used to duplicate copyrighted content.

In some countries, this model has expanded to other media, such as hard disks, MP3 players and phones. In Canada, however, this didn’t happen. Despite several attempts in the past, there is no private copying levy on smartphones, tablets or hard disks.

During recent copyright reform discussions, the matter was brought to the forefront once again. But there’s also another copyright compensation issue, one that’s potentially even more controversial.

A proposal from the Screen Composers Guild of Canada (SCGC), put forward during last week’s Government hearings, suggests to simply add a levy on Internet use above 15 gigabytes per month.

The music composers argue that this is warranted because composers miss out on public performance royalties. One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters.

The composers SCGC represents are not the big music stars. They are the people who write music for TV-shows and other broadcasts. Increasingly these are also shown on streaming services where the compensation is, apparently, much lower.

“With regard to YouTube, which is owned by the advertising company Alphabet-Google, minuscule revenue distribution is being reported by our members. Royalties from the large streaming services, like Amazon and Netflix, are 50 to 95% lower when compared to those from terrestrial broadcasters,” SCGC writes (pdf).

“Statistics like this indicate that our veteran members will soon have to seek employment elsewhere and young screen-composers will have little hope of sustaining a livelihood,” the guild adds, sounding the alarm bell.

SCGC’s solution to this problem is to make every Canadian pay an extra fee when they use over 15 gigabytes of data per month. This money would then be used to compensate composers and fix the so-called ‘value gap’.

As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don’t watch any of the programs where the music is used.

However, SCGC doesn’t see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos.

“An ISP subscription levy that would provide a minimum or provide a basic 15 gigabytes of data per Canadian household a month that would be unlevied. Lots of room for households to be able to do Internet transactions, business, share photos, download a few things, emails, no problem,” SCGC notes.

“[W]hen you’re downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you’re likely streaming Spotify. You’re likely streaming YouTube. You’re likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They’re forcing us to.”

The last comment is telling. The composers guild believes that a levy is the only option because Netflix, YouTube, and others are not paying their fair share.

That sounds like a licensing or rights issue between these services and the authors. Dragging millions of Canadians into this dispute seems questionable, especially when many people have absolutely nothing to do with it.

According to Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who highlighted the issue, it would also result in an unfair double-payment.

“[T]he SCGC proposal would represent double-payment by consumers, who would pay to access the content on services such as Spotify and Netflix and pay for the transmission of the same content with the ill-advised copyright tax on broadband data,” Geist writes.

It’s doubtful that there will be broad support for the proposal among the public. However, proposing to add a levy or tax on Internet use certainly gets people’s attention, which might have been part of the plan.

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

Four years ago, Singapore became the latest in a long line of countries to use copyright law to block access to ‘pirate’ sites. The amendments were passed during the summer of 2014 and took effect in December the same year.

After a break of almost two years, a request by the MPA(A) rendered Solarmovie.ph inaccessible in 2016. Several major ISPs were ordered by the High Court to block the streaming platform, the first such action in the country.

In April this year the MPA(A) chalked up another victory when its application to have 53 sites operating across 154 domains – including those operated by variants of The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents – was granted by the High Court. ISPs including Singtel, StarHub, M1, MyRepublic and ViewQwest blocked the sites shortly after.

The blocking process in Singapore appears to be thorough. The High Court must be satisfied that sites targeted are “flagrantly infringing”, i.e with a primary purpose of breaching copyright and generally showing a lack of respect for copyright law. Site operators are also able to defend themselves although thus far, none have done so.

With plenty of experience of sites around the world taking evasive counter-measures to avoid blocking, the injunction in Singapore allowed copyright holders to return to Court to request an amended order to block new domains and/or IP addresses. However, this model has proven cumbersome in the past so it’s no surprise the MPA(A) has now persuaded the Court to adopt a more streamlined approach.

After highlighting that several of the blocked sites changed their domains to avoid blocking, the High Court has now handed down a “dynamic injunction” which will allow the Hollywood studios to block any new methods deployed by the 53 sites covered by the earlier injunction.

“Without a continuing obligation to block additional domain names, URLs and/or IP addresses upon being informed of such sites, it is unlikely that there would be effective disabling of access to the 53 (infringing websites),” said Justice Lee Seiu Kin, as quoted by TodayOnline.

Under the terms of the new order, companies including Disney, Paramount Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox, will be able to liaise with ISPs M1, MyRepublic, Singtel, StarHub and ViewQwest to have additional domains and IP addresses blocked, if they facilitate access to the previously blocked sites.

According to Justice Lee, the new injunction “provides a practical means of ensuring the continued effectiveness of the original injunction since it provides an expedited process for the blocking of additional (piracy websites).”

The Judge added that ISPs will only have to block the new resources if they are satisfied there is enough evidence to do so but according to TodayOnline, this was highlighted as potentially problematic by local lawyers.

“It is questionable if this is a good enough safeguard when the most expeditious way for an Internet service provider to respond, upon receipt of a request to block an additional domain name, would simply be to comply with the request, rather than to incur the time and cost of disputing the matter with the copyright owner,” said representatives from the Bird & Bird law firm.

Nevertheless, the judgment was welcomed by Neil Gane, general manager of the Asia Video Industry Association’s Coalition Against Piracy.

“There is no one silver bullet to deterring online piracy,” Gane said. “What is required is a holistic solution to include enforcement; disabling access to egregious piracy websites through effective site blocking; cooperation with technology platforms and other intermediaries; and consumer outreach.”

According to a report published by the Motion Picture Association Canada earlier this year, at least 42 countries are now obligated to block infringing sites. In Europe alone, 1,800 sites and 5,300 domains have been rendered inaccessible, with Portugal, Italy, the UK, and Denmark leading the way.

In Canada this week, site-blocking efforts suffered a setback when local telecoms regulator CRTC denied FairPlay Canada’s application for a broad pirate site blocking scheme. CRTC cited a lack of jurisdiction under the Telecommunications Act.

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

At the start of this year pirate streaming site 123movies was one of the largest pirate streaming sites on the web.

The site received millions of visitors per day which prompted none other than the MPAA to label it “the most popular illegal site in the world.”

For Hollywood, the blatantly infringing activity was a thorn in their side, so behind the scenes the movie studios did all they could to take the site offline, helped by US authorities.

In 2017, the US Ambassador to Vietnam called on the local Government to criminally prosecute the site’s operators on their alleged home turf. In addition, the site was also on the radar of the office of the US Trade Representative, which featured 123movies in its latest Notorious Markets report.

March this year, the MPAA sent its own people to Vietnam to expedite the issue. The movie industry group teamed up with the local Office of the Police Investigation Agency, hoping that this would lead to the downfall of the streaming site.

A few days later, 123movies shut down.

“Now it’s time to say goodbye. Thank you for being our friends and thanks for staying with us that long,” the 123movies team wrote, asking users to “respect” filmmakers by paying for movies and TV-shows instead of pirating them.

There was never an official explanation for this radical decision but it wasn’t hard to figure out that the ground had become too hot for the operators. Movie industry pressure was mounting and Vietnam also appeared to get more strict on copyright enforcement issues.

While 123movies never elaborated on its reason to shut down, the MPAA has now provided some more insight. In its latest list of “notorious markets” sent to the US Government this week, the group links it to a criminal investigation.

“An important development in 2018 was the shuttering of a ring of piracy services that had operated under the names 123movies, 123movieshub, gostream, and gomovies following the launch of a criminal investigation in Vietnam and significant industry engagement,” MPAA writes.

MPAA on 123movies’ demise.

TorrentFreak asked the MPAA whether this investigation resulted in any arrests, charges, or if it’s still ongoing. We are yet to receive a response.

It’s clear though, that the mounting pressure resulted in 123movies being shut down. This is arguably one of the major anti-piracy successes of the year so far, but the problem isn’t over yet.

Following the demise of 123movies, several clones and copies stepped up to take its place. However, the MPAA says that it has these on its radar as well.

“Since its closure, many copycat sites have emerged. This ring of piracy services had been blocked in at least eight countries prior to its shut down and efforts are underway to shut down the copycats as well,” the MPAA notes.

This is not a veiled threat, it appears. Last month, the biggest clone 123movieshub.sc suddenly went offline as well, as the site’s domain was deactivated by the domain name registry. As expected, other 123movies clones were quick to take over the top spot.

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

With roughly two billion active users per month, Facebook is by far the largest social networking site around.

While most of the content posted to the site is relatively harmless, some people use it to share things they are not supposed to. A pirated copy of Deadpool, for example.

This is what the now 22-year-old Trevon Franklin from Fresno, California, did early 2016. Just a week after the first installment of the box-office hit Deadpool premiered in theaters, he shared a pirated copy of the movie on the social network.

To be clear, Franklin wasn’t the person who originally made the copy available. He simply downloaded it from the file-sharing site Putlocker.is and then proceeded to upload it to his Facebook account, using the screen name “Tre-Von M. King.”

This post went viral with more than six million viewers ‘tuning in.’ This also caught the attention of Twentieth Century Fox, and to make matters worse, the FBI launched a full-fledged investigation.

With all Facebook credentials readily available Franklin was an easy catch. Last summer he was indictment. Faced with a limited defense, he signed a plea agreement a few months later, admitting that he indeed uploaded the pirated film.

Yesterday, a federal court in California sentenced Franklin to a prison sentence of three weeks.

The sentence is significantly lower than the high-end sentence of six months’ prison recommended by the Government last month. The authorities argued that a higher sentence was warranted given the “brazen and public” manner in which Franklin broke the law and how he “appeared not to care” how this would affect the makers of the movie.

The Government noted that a six-month prison sentence would send a strong message to Facebook users and the public at large, to show that there are real consequences for such a crime.

It appears, however, that the Court was receptive to the defense counsel’s argument that Franklin has no prior criminal record and regrets the mistakes that were made.

It’s unclear why the US Government decided to pursue this case to begin with. Copyright infringement isn’t exactly rare on Facebook. However, it may be that the media attention and the high number of views may have prompted the authorities to set an example.

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

Back in February, uTorrent owner BitTorrent Inc. quietly rolled out a brand new product. Leveraging the hugely popular brand identity of its flagship product, uTorrent Web provided new ways to consume torrents online.

The premise is simple. Rather than rely on a completely stand-alone torrent client, uTorrent Web allows users to download and even stream torrents, directly in their web browser. A piece of software does have to be installed (Windows only currently) but the rest of the action takes place in Chrome, Firefox, or compatible browsers.

Early September, with rather more fanfare, BitTorrent Inc. announced that uTorrent Web had exited beta. The company said that the product’s focus is on simplicity and quick playability.

“With a simple download to play experience as the focal point of µTorrent Web, we see more users successfully downloading and playing torrents than with any other product in BitTorrent’s history,” the company said.

While it will be a long time before uTorrent Web eclipses the 100+ million active users of uTorrent desktop and mobile, BitTorrent Inc. says that uTorrent Web has just reached a significant milestone

Celebrating its first month out of beta, the browser-based torrent client now has one million daily active users.

“Our users have already downloaded our licensed content, which features both top-tier and emerging content creators, well over 100 million times,” says Jordy Berson, Chief Product Officer and COO at BitTorrent Inc.

“While the growth in our daily active users is a great validation of product market fit, we are equally proud to see that µTorrent Web drives dramatically more user engagement and playback than any product in BitTorrent’s history, which is a huge win for our 30,000+ licensed content creators.”

With uTorrent Web clearly on a roll, the product could be in for some additional upgrades before the year is out. A feature to stream files stored on a home computer to an Android device is the first to be announced.

uTorrent Web was first teased last year by BitTorrent inventor Bran Cohen, who said that browser-based torrenting is “just a nicer experience.” It’s also more accessible to a generation of content consumers who have grown up with the explosion of web-based streaming.

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