The ever-present threat of online piracy remains a hot topic in Hollywood.

A lot has changed over the years. Piracy is arguably more mainstream now with easy to use streaming sites and tools, and site owners have become more skilled at evading various enforcement efforts.

Most sites have multiple domain names at their disposal, for example, as well as access to hosting facilities that are more responsive to complaints from rightsholders.

According to Hollywood’s MPAA, cross-border cooperation with various third-party intermediaries is required to curb piracy. The group has promoted this agenda for a while and is now reemphasizing the need for governments to facilitate these kinds of deals.

In a statement prepared for an upcoming meeting of WIPO’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement, MPAA’s Global Content Protection chief Dean Marks states that voluntary agreements are essential in their fight against piracy.

These agreements will help to adapt to the evolving piracy landscape, much quicker than copyright legislation can.

“Unlike laws and regulations, voluntary measures can quickly be adapted to address changing forms of online piracy. Such measures benefit not only rightsholders, but also internet intermediaries, service providers, governments and individual users of the internet,” Marks notes.

“Voluntary measures should therefore be encouraged by governments as an important means of addressing online copyright piracy,” he adds (pdf).

One of the problems, according to the Hollywood group, is that piracy sites are spreading their infrastructure all over the world. They may use a domain name in one country, hosting in a few others, and a CDN on top of all that.

This cross-border threat can often not be dealt with in a single country or by a single company. It requires cooperation from a wide variety of third-party intermediaries, including search engines and hosting providers.

“Clearly this new paradigm of infringement strains the foundational notion of territoriality of copyright law and increases the difficulty of effectively enforcing copyrights,” Marks writes.

“Hosting providers, domain name registries and registrars, CDNs, cloud storage services and even internet access providers and search engines all can serve a constructive role by adopting measures to prevent their platforms and services from being abused for copyright infringement.”

The MPAA has thus far struck two voluntary deals with the domain name registries Donuts and Radix. This allows the anti-piracy group to report infringing domain names, which may then be removed. Thus far this has resulted in 25 domain name suspensions, but the MPAA would like to broaden its scope and partner with more registries.

Hosting companies, CDNs such as Cloudflare, and search engines can also do more to curb copyright infringements. Ultimately this will be in their own interest, the MPAA says. These companies do not want to be associated with piracy or face tougher legislation when governments step in.

“…many companies do not wish to be associated with those engaged in illegal activities, including copyright pirates. Moreover, turning a blind eye to doing business with pirate websites can result in damaging repercussions.

“In the United States of America (USA), for example, intermediaries have been named as unindicted co-conspirators in criminal copyright prosecutions,” Marks notes.

MPAA’s Global Content Protection chief suggests a few ways governments can intervene. They could host hearings to facilitate cooperation, for example. Another option is to adopt laws or regulations that foster cooperation.

Finally, Marks notes that authorities can instruct law enforcement agencies to “work with” internet intermediaries and service providers to adopt voluntary anti-piracy measures, similar to the ones in place with City of London Police and its piracy watch list for advertisers.

Previously the MPAA has offered similar suggestions to the US Government. While this may have had some effect, many companies are still reluctant to jump on board.

Companies such as Google, CloudFlare and ICANN don’t believe they are required to proactively enforce against piracy on a broad scale, and it likely requires a massive push to change their perspective.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Being a fan of top-flight football in the UK is an expensive proposition. In 2016, the average price of a season ticket was just shy of £500 a season while watching on TV can cost more than £60 per month.

Of course, there are good reasons for these high prices. Premier League footballers are notoriously highly-paid and with TV rights recently changing hands for more than £5.3bn, money has to be recouped in the most basic of ways – from the fans’ pocket.

While this is a success up to a point, there’s a growing factor upsetting the money men. The rise of online streaming is a thorn in the side of English Premier League, who are having to deal with large numbers of fans obtaining live matches for free via the Internet. But just how many fans are going down this route?

The results of a new survey carried out by the BBC reveal some shocking but perhaps not entirely unexpected results. Carried out online by ComRes between 7 and 15 March among 1,000 fans, it shows that large numbers of fans prefer the free option.

The headline figure is that 36% of football supporters stream Premier League matches online illegally at least once every month, a figure that reduces to just under a quarter (22%) when the frequency is once a week.

However, when fans were asked whether they had ever watched a match through an unofficial online provider, close to half (47%) said they had done so. That’s certainly a worryingly high number for the Premier League.

And if one removes older fans from the equation, things only get worse.

Almost two-thirds (65%) of younger fans aged 18 to 34 say they illegally stream live football matches online at least once a month. Among older fans aged 34 to 54 the figure improves to 33%, dropping to just 13% for the over 55s.

With 29%, the top reason fans gave for streaming content illegally was because “a friend/family member does it and they just watch.” Whether this is fans simply being coy is unclear, but it does suggest that watching football illegally has become a communal pastime, something which can likely be attributed to the rise of set-top boxes running software like Kodi.

Almost a quarter (24%) believe that TV sports packages do not represent good value for money but the only shock here is that the number isn’t higher. It’s certainly possible that many ‘streaming’ fans would never have paid in the first place, so pricing might be less of a factor for them.

Interestingly, 25% of respondents say they stream matches illegally because the quality is good. This is interesting since while illicit streams are both cheap and convenient, quality and reliability isn’t usually high up the checklist. That being said, the BBC research doesn’t differentiate between free streams and cheap IPTV streams, and the latter can indeed rival an official service.

There are also a few interesting revelations when it comes to fans’ opinions on the legality of illicit streaming.

A small 12% of fans think the practice is legal, almost three times less than the number who say it is illegal (34%). Almost three-quarters (32%) don’t know the legal status of streaming from an illicit source.

Following a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice, it is now clear that streaming from an unlicensed source amounts to copyright infringement.

However, enforcing that legislation against people in their own homes would provide similar challenges to prosecuting people who ‘tape’ a friend’s record collection or watch pirate DVDs. It’s just not realistic.

Interestingly, 10% believe it is legal to watch but illegal to upload a stream. That was believed to be the case before the ECJ ruling, but the former has now been clarified.

Uploading streams is very, very much illegal (as is supplying ‘pirate’ boxes) and in the right circumstances could lead to a custodial sentence. However, no regular consumer does this through conventional streaming (through a Kodi-powered device, for example), so it’s a moot point.

A tiny 4% of people believe that unauthorized streaming is not breaking the law but that Sky or BT could still fine them if they found out, which is technically wrong on both counts.

That being said, proving someone watched a stream is extremely difficult and since copyright law in the UK requires that infringers compensate for the losses they’ve caused, any ‘fine’ imposed might only amount to the cost of a match, for example.

Again, the chances of this happening in any way are very unlikely and have certainly never happened to date, even though millions are watching streams via their computers and set-top boxes loaded with Kodi. This is something the Premier League wants to change.

“Fans should know that these pre-loaded boxes enable pirate broadcasts of Premier League football, and other popular content, and are illegal. People who supply them have been jailed or ordered to pay significant financial penalties,” a spokesman told the BBC.

“We are increasingly seeing prominent apps and add-ons being closed down as the law catches up with them, leading to consumers being out of pocket.

“The Premier League will continue to protect its copyright, and the legitimate investment made by its broadcasting partners. Their contribution allows our clubs to develop and acquire players, invest in facilities and support the wider football pyramid and communities – all things that fans enjoy and society benefits from.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

^{If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!}

In this episode, we meet Ryan Shea, co-founder of Blockstack. This ambitious project aims to create a new, decentralized Internet in which users, not Big Content, own their data and keep control of how their apps run.

We discuss why the internet needs re-decentralising, if and how to pull users away from reliance on monopoly platforms like Facebook and Google, and much more. Plus, Ryan and Jamie come up with a scheme for a blockchain-powered meme market!

Blockstack, which integrates with the IPFS distributed storage system, could have significant upsides in the filesharing world. It would provide, for example, an entirely new DNS, meaning no more domain attacks for filesharing sites. Combined with the fact that they permanence of distributed filesystems makes takedown notices almost impossible to enforce, and it’s easy to see one key reason this has the potential to be a very disruptive development.

—

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing copyright and file-sharing news. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

The guests for our news discussions will vary, and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Ryan Shea

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Riley Byrne
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Siraje Amarniss

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

One of the main goals of the International Trade Administration is to strengthen the interests of U.S. industries around the globe.

The agency, which falls under the Department of Commerce, is committed to ensure fair trade through the “rigorous enforcement” of trade laws and agreements.

Despite its efforts, many challenges remain. In its newly released overview of top markets in the Media and Entertainment (M&E) sector, piracy is highlighted as one of the prime threats.

“Digital trade has brought attention to widespread piracy and the importance of having solid copyright laws and enforcement actions, along with educational campaigns to encourage legal consumption of M&E,” the International Trade Administration (ITA) writes.

The agency points out that it’s hard to measure exactly how much piracy is hurting sales, but states that this number is in the millions. The problem also prompted copyright holders to increase their takedown efforts.

“Piracy and illegal file sharing continue to plague the M&E sectors. It is difficult to quantify losses from piracy and to calculate piracy rates accurately. Therefore many industry groups and businesses track piracy around the clock, and online takedown notices are rising dramatically as a result,” ITA writes.

The piracy threat is a global problem and also affects business in the top export countries for media and entertainment products and services. This includes Canada, India and Brazil, where legislation or enforcement are currently lacking, according to the agency.

In India, for example, various forms of online and physical piracy are booming, despite the fact that legal sales are growing as well.

“[India] is a very challenging marketplace, with barriers, to trade such as high piracy threats to both physical and digital M&E sectors, and uncertain implementation of laws governing the M&E sectors. The IIPA reports online and mobile piracy, illegal file sharing of music, cam cording in theaters, and rampant signal piracy of pay TV content,” ITA writes (pdf).

Another large export market is Canada. While the US and Canada are much alike in many aspects, the northern neighbor’s enforcement against online piracy is lacking, according to the ITA.

“Canada has a well-developed professional sector that makes trading easier and efficient for U.S. exporters. However, there are copyright and other trade barriers for American businesses in Canada. Online infringement is high and enforcement weaker than expected.”

Brazil is the third top expert market where the US media and entertainment sector faces severe challenges. There are various trade barriers, including high taxation of foreign products and services, and piracy is also widespread.

“Copyright industries doing business in Brazil face significant Internet piracy, as do products in the entertainment sector, such as CDs; DVDs; and other media carrying pirated music, movies, TV programming and video games,” ITA writes.

While revenues are growing in Brazil, more work can be done to limit piracy. The Brazilian Government could lower taxes, for example, but the industry itself could also do more to increase the availability of its products.

“Circumvention devices that allow access to video game consoles are a problem for all copyright sectors. The activity is driven by high costs and taxes on entertainment and lack of a full catalogue offering to the public, some of which is a governmental problem, and some of which is caused by the industry.”

The ITA sees robust copyright laws, increased enforcement and campaigns to highlight legal alternatives, as possible solutions to these problems.

In Brazil change may come shortly, as there’s a new copyright law pending. However, not all countries are receptive to the US complaints. Canada previously responded to a similar US report, labeling it as flawed and one-sided.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

In the UK there are two broad views on copyright infringement, one covering a type that’s usually small and personal and another of varying scales done in the course of a business.

For the purpose of punishments, the latter is much more serious and copyright holders often warn that commercial scale pirates risk significant custodial sentences. Indeed, over the years that has often been the case.

However, a case being reported in Wales this morning is of interest in a number of ways, not least since it involves the current piracy hot topic – set-top devices loaded with Kodi and infriging third-party addons – and large sums of money.

Between June 2014 and March 2016 a man called Daniel Brown was involved in selling piracy-configured set-top devices to the public. He brought the base Android units in from China and filled them with this own ‘pirate’ Kodi build. However, according to Wales Online, this attracted the attention of BSkyB who complained to local police.

Meanwhile, Brown continued selling his devices via his legitimate company, Maiz Limited, which is still active today. Searches of Companies House reveals that Brown is still a director of the company, whose nature of business is listed as “Ready-made interactive leisure and entertainment software development.”

For many in the Kodi scene, the name MAiZ name may ring a bell. For some time, the so-called MAiZ BOX was a device often discussed on forums and Facebook as doing a good job of receiving free TV. However, that was also accompanied by criticizm of its steep £125 price tag.

MAiZ Box sales information

While success in shifting large numbers of units isn’t referenced in the small company accounts filed by Maiz Limited, it was clearly doing well. Swansea Crown Court heard that between 2014 and 2016 the company generated £371,000, which is a lot even when divided by unit sales of £125 each.

At his trial, Judge Peter Heywood said Brown was “industrious but misguided in some ways” and was “clearly skilled in the use of computer technology”. But despite the large sums of money involved, no custodial sentence was handed down.

Brown was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work. This means that Brown will spend no time in jail provided he meets the terms of his sentencing.

The entrepreneur won’t get away completely though. Brown agreeed to pay almost £20,000 towards his prosecution, at a repayment rate of £800 per month. But somewhat unusually in such cases, no Proceeds of Crime Act orders were made, which suggests that there will be no attempt to recover money made through the business.

Brown’s lenient sentence further undermines the ridiculous claims still circulating in the UK press that Kodi users face up to 10 years in jail for using the devices to stream content in their own homes.

Brown did not immediately respond to TorrentFreak’s requests for comment.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.