The Copyright Act 1994 is the key legislation governing New Zealand’s handling of intellectual property issues, covering protection, infringement, exceptions and enforcement. It last underwent a review more than a decade ago resulting in the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008.

Like much copyright law worldwide, New Zealand’s legislation has struggled to keep pace with technological change so, during the summer, the last government announced plans for a review with several key goals:

– Assess the performance of the Copyright Act against the objectives of New Zealand’s copyright regime.

– Identify barriers to achieving the objectives of New Zealand’s copyright regime, and the level of impact that these barriers have.

– Formulate a preferred approach to addressing these issues – including amendments to the Copyright Act, and the commissioning of further work on any other regulatory or non-regulatory options that are identified.

The former government planned to initiate a public consultation in the second quarter of 2018, with a review being informed by the responses. According to an announcement Friday, the new government plans to go ahead with the overhaul, beginning in April as previously envisioned.

Many of the hot topics in the United States, Europe and closer to home in Australia are expected to come to the forefront, including site-blocking, service provider safe harbor provisions, and the thorny issue of fair use.

Speaking with RadioNZ, New Zealand Screen Association managing director Matthew Cheetham says that new legislation is required to keep pace with a rapidly moving landscape.

“In New Zealand, piracy is almost an accepted thing, because no one’s really doing anything about it, because no one actually can do anything about it,” Cheetham says.

“As new technologies have evolved, the law has struggled to keep pace with those new technologies and to make sure that the law is fit for purpose in the digital age.”

As the local representative for several Hollywood studios, it’s no surprise that NZSA will be seeking amendments that will force ISPs to block access to popular pirate sites, as they do already in the UK, Europe, and Australia.

“If the site is infringing [a court] can order internet service providers to block access to that site. Forty-two countries around the world have recognised that blocking access when it’s carefully defined is a perfectly legitimate avenue for rights holders to protect their rights,” Cheetham notes.

While there hasn’t been a major copyright overhaul in more than a decade, New Zealand is no stranger to prolonged exercises to try and stop piracy.

The country spent huge amounts of time and money late last decade in order to come up with the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011. It laid out a system under which pirates received escalating warnings culminating in eventual disconnection from the Internet. But, with escalating costs (between NZ$20 and NZ$25 per notice), the scheme was ultimately an expensive flop.

“We have an entire regime that allows copyright holders to seek and send notices to users that are committing piracy and actually have a process in a court-based system that allows remedies to be pursued,” Internet New Zealand deputy chief executive Andrew Cushen told RadioNZ.

“None of them are using it. Why would we now look at a wholly different solution that none of them are going to use as well?”

As someone who has been acutely affected by New Zealand’s approach to intellectual property rights enforcement, Kim Dotcom certainly has an interest in the development of local copyright law. The Megaupload founder was arrested in 2012 for alleged copyright offenses that he insists aren’t even a crime in New Zealand. So what advice does he have for the review?

According to the entrepreneur, the NZ Copyright Act is “mostly good”, noting that it protects both ISPs and consumers. Given the chance, however, he would remind judges about the purpose of the act.

“The NZ Copyright Act is a code. The Copyright Act creates a special property right. No other act applies to this special property right, including the crimes act,” Dotcom informs TF.

“This might be a helpful yardstick for Judges who don’t understand the Copyright Act and attempt to create new and unintended law from the bench. Just like in my case.”

Only time will tell how the public consultation will play out but it seems likely that tackling the “Value Gap” situation will be high up the agenda, especially if that can be achieved by eroding Internet companies’ safe harbors under copyright law. Expect that to receive significant push-back from the technology sector.

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

Online piracy is a global issue. Pirate sites and services tend to operate in multiple jurisdictions and are purposefully set up to evade law enforcement.

This makes it hard for police from one country to effectively crack down on a site in another. International cooperation is often required, and the US Government is one of the leaders on this front.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has quite a bit of experience in tracking down pirates and they are actively sharing this knowledge with countries that can use some help. This goes far beyond the occasional seminar.

A diplomatic cable obtained through a Freedom of Information request provides a relatively recent example of these efforts. The document gives an overview of anti-piracy training, provided and funded by the US Government, during the fall of 2015.

“On November 24 and 25, prosecutors and investigators from Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, and Turkey participated in a two-day, US. Department of Justice (USDOJ)-sponsored training program on combatting online piracy.

“The program updated participants on legal issues, including data retention legislation, surrounding the investigation and prosecution of online piracy,” the cable adds.

According to the cable, piracy has become a very significant problem in Eastern Europe, costing rightsholders and governments millions of dollars in revenues. After the training, local law enforcement officers in these countries should be better equipped to deal with the problem.

Pirates Beware

The event was put together with help from various embassies and among the presenters were law enforcement professionals from around the world.

The Director of the DoJ’s CCIPS Cybercrime Laboratory was among the speakers. He gave training on computer forensics and participants were provided with various tools to put this to use.

“Participants were given copies of forensic tools at the conclusion of the program so that they could put to use some of what they saw demonstrated during the training,” the cable reads.

While catching pirates can be quite hard already, getting them convicted is a challenge as well. Increasingly we’ve seen criminal complaints using non-copyright claims to have site owners prosecuted.

By using money laundering and tax offenses, pirates can receive tougher penalties. This was one of the talking points during the training as well.

“Participants were encouraged to consider the use of statutes such as money laundering and tax evasion, in addition to those protecting copyrights and trademarks, since these offenses are often punished more severely than standalone intellectual property crimes.”

The cable, written by the US Embassy in Bucharest, provides a lot of detail about the two-day training session. It’s also clear on the overall objective. The US wants to increase the likelihood that pirate sites are brought to justice. Not only in the homeland, but around the globe.

“By focusing approximately forty investigators and prosecutors from four countries on how they can more effectively attack rogue sites, and by connecting rights holders and their investigators with law enforcement, the chances of pirates being caught and held accountable have increased.”

While it’s hard to link the training to any concrete successes, Romanian law enforcement did shut down the country’s leading pirate site a few months later. As with a previous case in Romania, which involved the FBI, money laundering and tax evasion allegations were expected.

While it’s not out of the ordinary for international law enforcers to work together, it’s notable how coordinated the US efforts are. Earlier this week we wrote about the US pressure on Sweden to raid The Pirate Bay. And these are not isolated incidents.

While the US Department of Justice doesn’t reveal all details of its operations, it is very open about its global efforts to protect Intellectual Property.

Around the world..

The DoJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) has relationships with law enforcement worldwide and regularly provides training to foreign officers.

A crucial part of the Department’s international enforcement activities is the Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC) program, which started in 2006.

Through IPLECs, the department now has Attorneys stationed in Thailand, Hong Kong, Romania, Brazil, and Nigeria. These Attorneys keep an eye on local law enforcement and provide assistance and training, to protect US copyright holders.

“Our strategically placed coordinators draw upon their subject matter expertise to help ensure that property holders’ rights are enforced across the globe, and that the American people are protected from harmful products entering the marketplace,” Attorney General John Cronan of the Criminal Division said just last Friday.

Or to end with the title of the Romanian cable: ‘Pirates beware!’

—

—

The cable cited here was made available in response to a Freedom of Information request, which was submitted by Rachael Tackett and shared with TorrentFreak. It starts at page 47 of document 2.

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

In order to operate and innovate in the online space, Internet giants such as Google, YouTube, and Facebook can’t be held immediately liable for everything that appears on their platforms.

If Google indexes an objectionable website, if someone posts an infringing video to YouTube, or if abusive or violent messages appear on Facebook, that is currently and quite rightly the responsibility of the person who put the offending content there.

However, once the platforms in question are advised by an appropriate authority that content posted on their services breaks the law, they are required to take it down. If they do not, they can then be held liable under local and EU law.

While essential for tech companies, this so-called safe harbor is a thorn in the side of copyright holders. They contend that platforms like YouTube abuse their freedoms in order to monetize infringing content while gaining advantages in licensing negotiations.

The protection offered by the E-Commerce Directive is a hot topic right now, one which necessarily involves the UK. However, with the UK due to leave the EU at 11pm local time on Friday 29 March, 2019, it will then be free to make its own laws. It’s now being suggested that as soon as Brexit happens, the UK should introduce new laws that hold tech companies liable for “illegal content” that appears on their platforms.

The advice can be found in a new report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Titled “Intimidation in Public Life”, the report focuses on the online threats and intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates and others.

However, the laws that currently protect information society service providers apply to a much broader range of content, including that alleged to be copyright-infringing.

“Currently, social media companies do not have liability for the content on their sites, even where that content is illegal. This is largely due to the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000), which treats the social media companies as ‘hosts’ of online content. It is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date,” the report reads.

“Facebook, Twitter and Google are not simply platforms for the content that others post; they play a role in shaping what users see. We understand that they do not consider themselves as publishers, responsible for reviewing and editing everything that others post on their sites. But with developments in technology, the time has come for the companies to take more responsibility for illegal material that appears on their platforms.”

That responsibility should be increased immediately upon Brexit, the Committee recommends, via new legislation that won’t be hindered by the safe harbors offered by the E-Commerce Directive. Doing so will force online platforms to take more direct action to combat the appearance of illegal content, the Committee argues.

“The government should seek to legislate to shift the balance of liability for illegal content to the social media companies away from them being passive ‘platforms’ for illegal content. Given the government’s stated intention to leave the EU Single Market, legislation can be introduced to this effect without being in breach of EU law,” the report notes.

“We believe government should legislate to rebalance this liability for illegal content, and thereby drive change in the way social media companies operate in combatting illegal behavior online in the UK.”

How the process will play out from here remains to be seen but there is likely to be significant push-back from companies including the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Whether the “illegal content” they’re to be held liable for is deemed threatening, racist, or indeed copyright-infringing, matters are rarely clear-cut and there could be significant fall out if conditions are set too tightly.

Expect plenty of stakeholders to get involved when it comes to diminishing the protections of the E-Commerce Directive. To be continued…..

The full report can be found here.

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

If someone wants to obtain the latest movies for free, all they need to do is head over to the nearest torrent or streaming portal, press a few buttons, and the content appears in a matter of seconds or minutes, dependent on choice.

Indeed, for those seeking mainstream content DRM-free, this is the only way to obtain it, since studios generally don’t make their content available in this fashion. But we know an establishment that does, on a grand scale.

University College London is the third largest university in the UK. According to accounts (pdf) published this summer, it has revenues of more than £1.32 billion. Somewhat surprisingly, this educational behemoth also has a sensational multimedia trick up its considerable sleeve.

The university’s website, located at UCL.ac.uk, is a polished affair and provides all the information anyone could need. However, until one browses to the Self-Access Centre, the full glory of the platform remains largely hidden.

Located at resources.clie.ucl.ac.uk/home/sac/english/films, it looks not unlike Netflix, or indeed any one of thousands of pirate streaming sites around today. However, it appears to be intended for university and educational use only.

UCL’s Self-Access Centre

“Welcome to the Self-Access Centre materials database. Here you can find out about the English materials we have in the SAC and explore our online materials,” the site reads.

“They were designed to help you improve your English skills. Most of the video materials, including films and documentaries, are now available to be watched online. Log on with your UCL id and password to watch them!”

According to a university video tutorial, all content on the SAC can be viewed on campus or from home, as long as a proper login and password is entered. The material is provided for educational purposes and when viewed through the portal, is accompanied by questions, notes, and various exercises.

Trouble is, the entire system is open to the wider Internet, with no logins or passwords required.

A sample of the movies on offer for direct download

The above image doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. In one directory alone, TorrentFreak counted more than 700 English language movies. In another, more than 600 documentaries including all episodes of the BBC’s Blue Planet II. World Cinema produced close to 90 results, with hundreds of titles voiced in languages from Arabic to Japanese to Welsh.

Links can be pasted into VLC and streamed direct

Quite how long this massive trove of films and TV shows has been open to the public isn’t clear but a simple Google search reveals not only the content itself, but also links to movies and other material on sites in the Middle East and social networks in Russia.

Some of them date back to at least 2016 so it’s probably safe to assume that untold terabytes of data have already been liberated from the university’s servers for the pleasure of the public.

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

Sci-Hub is often referred to as the “Pirate Bay of Science,” and this description has become more and more apt in recent weeks.

Initially, the comparison was made to illustrate that Sci-Hub is used by researchers to download articles for free, much like the rest of the world uses The Pirate Bay to get free stuff.

There are more parallels though. Increasingly, Sci-Hub has trouble keeping its domain names. Following two injunctions in the US, academic publishers now have court orders to compel domain registrars and registries to suspend Sci-Hub’s addresses.

Although there is no such court order for The Pirate Bay, the notorious torrent site also has a long history of domain suspensions.

Both sites appear to tackle the problem in a similar manner. They simply ignore all enforcement efforts and bypass them with new domains and other circumvention tools. They have several backup domains in place as well as unsuspendable .onion addresses, which are accessible on the Tor network.

Since late November, a lot of Sci-Hub users have switched to Sci-Hub.bz when other domains were suspended. And, when the .bz domain was targeted a few days ago, they moved to different alternatives. It’s a continuous game of Whack-a-Mole that is hard to stop.

Suspended…

There’s another striking similarity between TPB and Sci-Hub. Unlike other pirate sites, their founders are both vocal. In the case of Sci-Hub this is Alexandra Elbakyan, a researcher born and graduated in Kazakhstan.

She recently responded to people who had trouble accessing the site. “The site is working properly, but the capitalists have started blocking Sci-Hub domains, so the site may not be accessible at the regular addresses,” she wrote on VK.

Instead of complaining, Elbakyan encouraged people to do some research of their own, as there are still plenty of alternative domains up and running. And indeed, at the time of writing Sci-hub.la, Sci-hub.tv, Sci-hub.tw, Sci-hub.hk, and others can be accessed without any hassle.

While Sci-Hub’s classification as the “Pirate Bay of Science” is certainly warranted, there are also differences. The Pirate Bay was raided several times and the founders were criminally prosecuted. That’s not the case for Sci-Hub.

But who knows what will happen next…

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