Until the turn of the decade, obtaining online pirate content was almost exclusively achieved by individuals with desktop and laptop computers. With the rise of streaming, set-top devices are now the major entry point.

With Kodi-enabled Android devices grabbing much of the attention (and criticism), other platforms have also been feeling the heat.

Despite offering plenty of legitimate content such as HBO Go, Hulu, and Netflix and playing no active role in the provision of unlicensed media, Roku is one of those enduring a bumpy ride.

Last year following a complaint from Cablevision, the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico handed down a ban, prohibiting stores like Amazon from importing and selling Roku devices due to third parties offering unlicensed content via the platform.

It didn’t take long for Roku to react. Last August the company began displaying warnings to users who added channels to their device that weren’t obtained via the official Roku store. Then just a month later, it was revealed that Roku was assembling its own anti-piracy team.

In the background the legal wheels turned, with Roku trying everything in its power to have the Mexico ban overturned. As of today the ban remains with no clear end in sight but that doesn’t mean that Roku has been standing still.

It appears that on May 23, a group of Mexican journalists was welcomed to Roku’s Silicon Valley headquarters. Just days later, Roku CEO Anthony Wood and Marketing Director Matthew Anderson visited Mexico City. While these events were no doubt designed to build bridges, Mexico’s Telecommunications Law Institute (IDET) painted the efforts in a rather different light.

According to El Economista, IDET said the moves were designed to exert pressure on the judiciary and to sway public opinion in favor of Roku.

“[Roku’s] intention is to influence the judges who are reviewing this case, which formally has not begun,” said IDET member Gonzalo Rojón.

“We feel they are doing that because they want to influence the judges, but the truth is that intellectual property rights are still not respected and the truth is that this is a very strong problem for Mexico.”

In a response, Roku denied this interpretation, stating that their aim is to introduce Mexico to its business and to demonstrate the measures it takes to counter copyright-infringing content.

“On May 23, we invited a group of Mexican journalists to the Roku headquarters in Silicon Valley to introduce them to the company and our history in the streaming market and also to explain the strong anti-piracy measures we have implemented in Mexico and around the world,” Marketing Director Matthew Anderson explained.

“Right now, we feel it is very important to help journalists and the public understand more about Roku and our history, that we are a reliable company, particularly for the leading content generation companies in the world that distribute their content on the platform. We want to explain the anti-piracy measures we are taking.”

While both IDET and Roku agree that piracy is a problem, there is a difference of opinion on where the bounds of responsibility lie. IDET holds Roku to blame when unlicensed content appears via its service but Roku insists that piracy is an Internet-wide issue that has spread to platforms everywhere.

IDET has been extremely vocal on the topic and has published three press releases on the subject of Roku during the last couple of weeks. They say that Roku needs to do more, holding up competitors such as Apple TV and Google Chromecast as examples of set-top devices that tackle piracy well.

“Roku seeks to become the most economical, simple and accessible device in the streaming market. Its competitors in this segment are Apple TV and the giant Google that have similar devices which, however, do not face legal conflicts similar to those of Roku,” IDET writes.

“It is a cheap and accessible technology but it allows the streaming of stolen signals directly to the television screen. [Roku’s] Matthew Anderson, who comes from the legitimate content generation industry, assures that Roku strives to bring to the market a ‘legal’ means of downloading content. But with a presence in 23 countries, more than 45,000 associated channels, and more than 21 million accounts, Roku – unlike Apple TV and Google – is still vulnerable.”

There is no dispute that Roku wants to reduce piracy and IDET agrees that Roku in no way advertises or encourages any means to infringe and it is third-parties abusing Roku that are to blame. However, Roku and IDET seem to have a difference of opinion as to how this should be tackled.

For its part, Roku says that once it’s advised that infringing content is being made available via its platform, it takes steps to eliminate it. It’s a system employed by Internet platforms all over the world and recognized as being at the core of the DMCA, for example.

IDET, however, wants Roku to be more proactive. It says that once the content has been made available via Roku the damage has already been done and it appears that unlike some of its competitors, Roku has not found a solution to that problem.

“Why can Apple or Google prevent this situation? Because their devices eliminate the possibility of distributing stolen material in advance. It’s just a technology issue. It is not understood why an important streaming platform, such as Roku, has not been able to turn this problem around,” IDET says.

With the import and sales ban stubbornly in place, IDET says that no one wants Roku devices off the market. They’re good for competition and provide consumers with more options. However, Roku will have to do more if it wants to do business in Mexico, a solution that IDET insists is merely a technical step away.

“No one is against selling Roku devices in the market. On the contrary, the promotion of competition is applauded and the consumers of audiovisual content have more and better and better options to decide,” IDET writes.

“What is unfortunate is that this high caliber competitor can not resolve the intrusion of piracy on his device. In the end it is just a matter of technology to invest in an appropriate software. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.”

Reports that 40% of all Roku users in Mexico are pirates certainly don’t help the company’s case (Roku contests the figure) but by banning services such as the popular cCloud, the company shows good intent that may eventually pave the way for the ban to be lifted in Mexico.

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 file-sharers around the world have been threatened with lawsuits, if they don’t pay a significant settlement fee.

These so-called “copyright trolling” efforts have been a common occurrence in countries such as Germany and the United States, and in recent years they have conquered Sweden as well.

Where Internet providers remain on the sidelines in most countries, Swedish ISP Bahnhof has shown to be a fierce opponent of the copyright enforcement efforts. The company uses all possible means to protect its subscribers, both in an outside of court.

In an article published a few days ago, Bahnhof Communicator Carolina Lindahl takes a closer look at the legal basis underlying the threatening letters.

Lindahl notes that the Swedish Government sees a need for strict copyright infringement penalties while keeping the barriers for creators to go to court low because they often have limited resources.

“In copyright litigation […], it is often the author himself who is a party, and usually the author has limited financial resources,” the Government’s code for Penalties for Certain Serious IP violations reads.

However, according to Bahnhof, this is far removed from reality. Lindahl sifted through the legal paperwork related to copyright infringement cases filed at the Criminal Court, to see which companies are behind them.

The research uncovered 76 cases, the majority of which formed the basis for the tens of thousands of piracy settlement letters that were sent out. Only five of these cases were filed by the creator of the work, Lindahl notes.

In other instances, the creators were represented by intermediaries or licensees, such as Copyright Management Services and Crystalis Entertainment.

While these companies may have the legal right to pursue these cases, they are not the original creators of the films they sue over.

“The government’s claim – that it is often the author himself who is a party – does not seem to be correct at all,” Lindahl writes.

In addition, the ISP rejects the notion that copyright holders have “limited financial resources.” Using public sources, Lindahl shows that several of the companies involved have millions of dollars in revenues.

So, instead of protecting individual creators with limited means, the ISP says that the Government’s policy allows major companies to “extort” money from individuals, including those with limited financial resources.

“Our legislation rests on assumptions that are badly rooted in reality,” Lindahl writes, noting that government policy only makes rich film companies richer.

“The result is an extortion operation that is profitable for already profitable media companies and costly for young people, retirees, and other individuals on the margin, without the capability to tackle sudden costs of thousands of kronor.

“The lone and economically limited authors are in fact groups of authors with great wealth. Without pure greed, they probably don’t need to send out extortion letters,” the article adds.

Lindahl tells TF that she does see a few options to deal with the issue at hand.

Sweden could follow the example of its neighbor Denmark, for example, where copyright trolling is ‘outlawed.’ Alternatively, courts could call the IP-monitoring evidence into question, which isn’t always as solid as it seems.

That said, she’s not very hopeful that anything will change soon.

“I don’t trust our government or authorities to do anything about this. I’m sure they enjoy things just as they are,” Lindahl notes.

“Either because they are stupid and really believe they’re helping the poor, because they have private engagements with copyright organizations, or because they like to chase and punish pirates every way they can. Or all of the above.”

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

Right now, life isn’t particularly pleasant for the founder of TVAddons.

As previously documented, Adam Lackman is being sued by an army of Canadian telecoms giants including Bell Canada, Bell ExpressVu, Bell Media, Videotron, Groupe TVA, Rogers Communications and Rogers Media.

With mixed results in court thus far, last week saw bailiffs for the plaintiffs revisit Lackman’s home, hoping to secure property to pay off CAD$50,000 in costs run up by the telco’s attorneys.

In the end, however, the bailiffs only earmarked a laptop and two “near worthless” prints. The goods will be sold at auction come July 31 unless Lackman can come up with the cash amount, which has now swelled to CAD$57,500.

With this latest aggressive act ringing in his ears, it appears that TVAddons have been considering what can be done to safeguard the future of the site. Lackman, perhaps understandably, is now seen as a potential Achilles’ Heel, something which has prompted a fresh announcement about his future.

“Under immense pressure, our team and I have decided that it would be best if I resigned from an administrative role in order to protect the longevity of our platform,” he informs TF.

“I will continue to remain onboard in a marketing position, also doing general community outreach like I always have.”

More information is available in a TVAddons post on the topic, which also details the rather unusual method used to select his successor.

“In selecting the individual to replace Adam in his former role as administrator, an automated script was used to randomly select his replacement from amongst our most trusted senior staff,” the report reads.

“At the time of selection, the automated script also delivered relevant passwords which the new administrator then changed so that only he would know them. Only the staff member selected knows that he is our new platform administrator.”

While unusual in its reported execution, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that given the ongoing assault on TVAddons, this latest move is designed to take the pressure off Lackman. We asked him if not being the operator of the site would be helpful moving forward.

“When we relaunched last August, it was decided amongst our team members that I would not be the owner of the new domain. The new owner was selected in a similar fashion to how the new admin was selected. I can’t say who the owner is, and actually I don’t know his identity anyway,” Lackman explained.

“I have therefore not been the owner of the new site since it was launched. And since we launched it without any of the assets of the previous website, we see it as an entirely new entity.”

Given the circumstances surrounding the resignation and the subsequent and unusual appointment of a successor, TF further asked whether the move would be viewed as credible by the telcos and their operatives. Lackman said he didn’t know but pointed out that since he’d been honest over ownership details in the past, that could stand him in good stead for the future.

“Considering I gave them the domains last year pursuant to their court order, even though they were owned overseas by a corporation in the first place, it should show them that I respect the law and the courts and would not take action to circumvent their authority,” he said.

“However, I am also not sure it matters whether the plaintiffs believe it or not, as they have demonstrated a willingness to create their own narrative in order to suit their own agenda anyway.”

In a final note, the TVAddons team says that their new administrator is likely to “surface publicly” in a few weeks’ time, something which could be followed shortly after by some upgrades to the site.

Update: Lackman informs TF that after speaking with his lawyers, they will be blocking the seizure of his laptop which falls under the seizure exemption of “work instruments needed for the exercise of your profession.”

“The bailiff would have known that the laptop was exempt, but put it down for seizure for the purpose of causing me additional grief in having to take legal measures to ensure that it is not seized,” he says.

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

As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe. This includes many pirate sites.

In recent years many copyright holders have complained about Cloudflare’s involvement with these platforms, and in 2016 adult entertainment publisher ALS Scan took it a step further by dragging the company to court.

ALS accused Cloudflare of various types of copyright infringement, noting that several of its customers used the company’s servers to distribute pirated content to the public.

During the legal battle that followed, the CDN provider managed to have several counts dismissed. However, the accusation of contributory copyright infringement remained.

Earlier this year California District Court Judge George Wu ruled that Cloudflare can substantially assist copyright infringements by hosting cached copies of files. Whether Cloudflare did this and could be held liable was something to be decided at trial.

However, according to a recent filing, there will be no trial. This week both parties filed a joint stipulation asking the court to dismiss all claims against Cloudflare.

“ALS Scan, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. hereby stipulate to dismissal without prejudice of the claims and action against Cloudflare, Inc., with each side bearing its own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses,” they write.

ALS Scan and Cloudflare have signed a settlement agreement behind closed doors. The terms of the deal have not been made public, but each party will attorney’s fees, costs, and other expenses.

While the court retains jurisdiction over the matter in case any settlement disputes arise, the lawsuit is essentially over.

Whether Cloudflare agreed to pay a settlement fee is unknown, but the agreement takes away a lot of uncertainty for the CDN provider.

If they had gone to trial, where the controversial “Daily Stormer” issue could be used as evidence, the company’s fate would be in the hands of a jury. A negative decision there could have severely impacted its future.

TorrentFreak requested a comment from a Cloudflare spokesperson and ALS Scan’s attorneys on the matter, but neither has responded at the time of publication.

—

A copy of Cloudflare and ALS Scan’s stipulation of dismissal can be found 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.

For as long as games consoles have existed, security to prevent people from playing pirated games has been under attack.

In the early days, the existence of a hardware cartridge was initially enough to prevent clones, but with ever more determined hackers on the job, few protections have survived the tests of time.

More recently, however, the mighty Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have proven exponentially more difficult to crack. Locked down hardware and continuously updated firmware pose unprecedented challenges to today’s hackers, with few making the progress they did in years gone by. Last December, however, some exciting news appeared on the horizon.

Hacking veterans Team-Xecutor revealed that they’d developed a kernel hack for the Nintendo Switch. That led to further revelations in January that they’d developed a hardware solution that exploits a fundamental flaw in the Switch system, one that Nintendo would be unable to stop.

“This solution will work on ANY Nintendo Switch console regardless of the currently installed firmware, and will be completely future proof,” the team explained.

With the prospect of “unstoppable” mass piracy just around the corner, a new buzz appeared around the Switch platform. Whenever consoles get cracked their popularity tends to increase, but for those thinking of jumping aboard the platform for a new swashbuckling adventure, there are some interesting caveats to consider.

In a detailed posting to Reddit titled ‘How Application Authorization works on the Nintendo Switch’, hacker SciresM single-handedly pours enormous buckets of cold water on the prospect of rampant Switch piracy – at least in the way that some consumers are envisioning it.

“After doing some research earlier today into how the Switch gains authorization to play a given game online, I learned that Nintendo has implemented some very strong anti-piracy measures in this regard — they can actually perfectly detect whether a digital copy of a game has been legitimately purchased,” SciresM explains.

Although highly technical in practice, the manner in which this verification takes place can be explained in simple terms.

When people attempt to go online with a game, their Switch first checks whether it can connect to the Internet by checking ctest.cdn.nintendo.net. Once that is established in the positive, the console checks whether it can get a device authorization token from Nintendo which allows it to go online.

If Nintendo issues a token the console can sign in, once it has authorized the Nintendo account being signed into. The console can then obtain an application authorization token for the specific title being played and the fun can begin. However, if Nintendo doesn’t like what it sees (such as pirate activity), it can prevent a console from going online, a disaster for those hoping to play with friends.

The way Nintendo detects such activity is explained in ScriesM’s technical overview but the basis of its protection centers on a unique encrypted client certificate found in the TrustZone, “an isolated security-focused CPU core” which is burned into every Switch console at the factory.

“Note that unlike the 3DS, this means that Nintendo can tell what console makes a given request. This means Nintendo can block misbehaving user’s certificates, leaving them permanently unable to use any of Nintendo’s network,” ScriesM notes.

Because all requests to Nintendo require a client certificate, Nintendo can associate blocked accounts with a console. But the Japanese gaming company has another trick up its sleeve.

“Your console obtains an application authorization token for the specific [game] title being played. This is the really interesting component — and it’s where Nintendo’s strongest security measure lies,” ScriesM reveals.

“In the gamecard case, Nintendo can detect whether or not the user connecting has data from a Nintendo-authorized gamecard for the correct title. This solves the 3DS-era issue of gamecard header data being shared between games. Sharing of certificates should be fairly detectable, for Nintendo.”

When it comes to digital games, Nintendo has an even stronger hand. An encrypted ticket inside the title holds essential information such as the console’s unique device ID and the Nintendo account used to purchase it and log in. When combined, Nintendo has all the details it needs to determine if the user is playing by the book.

“Users who pirate games definitionally cannot have well-signed tickets for their consoles, and thus cannot connect online without getting an immediate ban — this is exactly how I would have implemented authorization for digital games, if I were them,” ScriesM concludes.

The bottom line here is that people pirating games on Switch will have their consoles banned, a massive deal-breaker for many. While there will be some who will be satisfied with offline play, being banished to the single-player wilderness is effectively a punishment in today’s connected world and is unlikely to regain the popularity it once enjoyed.

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