Hardly a week goes by without the Russian web-blocking juggernaut rolling on to new targets. Whether they’re pirate websites, anonymity and proxy services, or sites that the government feels are inappropriate, web blocks are now a regular occurance in the region.

With thousands of domains and IP addresses blocked, the situation is serious. Just recently, however, blocks have been more problematic than usual. Telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor, which oversees blocking, claims that innocent services are rarely hit. But critics say that overbroad IP address blockades are affecting the innocent.

Earlier this month there were reports that citizens across the country couldn’t access some of the country’s largest sites, including Google.ru, Yandex.ru, local Facebook variant vKontakte, and even the Telegram messaging app.

There have been various explanations for the problems, but the situation with Google appears to have stemmed from a redirect to an unauthorized gambling site. The problem was later resolved, and Google was removed from the register of banned sites, but critics say it should never have been included in the first place.

These and other developments have proven too much for some pro-freedom activists. This week they traveled to Roskomnadzor’s headquarters in St. Petersburg to give the blocking watchdog a small taste of its own medicine.

Activists from the “Open Russia” and “Civil Petersburg” movements positioned themselves outside the entrance to the telecom watchdog’s offices and built up their own barricade constructed from boxes. Each carried a label with the text “Blocked Citizens of Russia.”

Blockading the blockaders in Russia

“Freedom of information, like freedom of expression, are the basic values of our society. Those who try to attack them, must themselves be ‘blocked’ from society,” said Open Russia coordinator Andrei Pivovarov.

Rather like Internet blockades, the image above shows Open Russia’s blockade only partially doing its job by covering just three-quarters of Roskomnadzor’s entrance.

Whether that was deliberate or not is unknown but the video embedded below clearly shows staff walking around its perimeter. The protestors were probably just being considerate, but there are suggestions that staff might have been using VPNs or Tor.

Moving forward, new advice from Roskomnadzor to ISPs is that they should think beyond IP address and domain name blocking and consider using Deep Packet Inspection. This would help ensure blocks are carried out more accurately, the watchdog says.

There’s even a suggestion that rather than doing their own website filtering, Internet service providers could buy a “ready cleaned” Internet feed from an approved supplier instead. This would remove the need for additional filtering at their end, it’s argued, but it sounds like more problems waiting to happen.

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

When Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto came up with Donkey Kong more than 35 years ago, gaming was still a niche pastime.

How different is that today, where the average household has more than a handful of devices that play computer games.

While the gaming industry has come a long way, plenty of people are still drawn to older arcade games. There’s something nostalgic about their look and feel, and thanks to emulators and remakes, they are still widely available.

Donkey Kong, for example, could be played on Roku thanks to the efforts of Marcelo Lv Cabral, who released an unofficial version of the Nintendo game using the original art and music.

The software developer, who lives in Arizona, started the project as a hobby to improve his programming skills. He previously did the same with other games such as Lode Runner and Prince of Persia.

When he finished the project he released the code on GitHub, incuding a disclaimer stating his intent.

“This source code was developed as a programming exercise, it is not being used for profit or any kind of financial gain, all assets and images belong to the original copyright owner,” it read.

Screenshot from the GitHub page

While nostalgic arcade game fans will appreciate the effort, Nintendo was not amused. This week the gaming giant instructed the developer platform GitHub to remove the repository, which it did.

“The reported repository contains a recreation of Nintendo’s Donkey Kong video game for Roku, which was created and published without Nintendo’s authorization,” Nintendo writes in its takedown notice. “Please immediately remove the repository.”

We reached out to the developer, who is disappointed to see his code taken down. While he realizes that Nintendo owns the rights to Donkey Kong, his code was unique and completely custom.

“I believe they have the rights related to the name and the assets, but not to my code. That was completely done by myself, no porting of any Nintendo code, but GitHub took down everything,” Cabral tells TorrentFreak.

“What I don`t understand is why only my project was removed, if you search Donkey Kong on the GitHub you`ll found several other remake projects,” he adds.

The developer doesn’t plan to challenge the takedown. In theory, he could re-release the code with unique artwork and a new name, but Cabral prefers to focus on other projects for the time being.

He is currently working on a remake of the game Moon Patrol for example, also for the Roku platform.

While Nintendo has every right to take the infringing Donkey Kong content offline, some might feel that the company should allow fans a little more leeway for their fan-made projects.

However, judging from recent history, this is idle hope. In recent years the company has taken several fan-projects offline, including a popular JavaScript-powered Game Boy Advance emulator

Luckily for Cabral, his Lode Runner and Prince of Persia remakes are still available, for now. These games were originally released by Brøderbund Software, which no longer exists.

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

The huge increase in popularity of piracy-configured set-top boxes has been nothing short of amazing over the past 18 months.

According to numerous reports, their use has become somewhat of an epidemic in Europe, prompting concern from anti-piracy organizations across the continent.

One group at the forefront is Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, who took a case against a seller of ‘pirate’ boxes all the way to the European Court of Justice – and won.

Handed down in April, the decision concluded that selling devices pre-configured for piracy (such as those loaded with Kodi and third-party addons) is illegal under EU law.

While news of the decision was never likely to reach all sellers of ‘pirate’ boxes, those under the impression that sales occupied some kind of gray area were quickly corrected. That resulted in some sellers exiting the market and others changing the way they operate, such as selling boxes blank and expecting users to configure them themselves.

Due to the locality of the original case, sellers in the Netherlands were always likely to feel the impact of the ECJ ruling most initially, particularly with BREIN breathing down their collective necks. That has just been effectively confirmed by the anti-piracy group, with the news that around 200 ‘pirate’ media player sellers have ceased trading since the decision.

“This is a mixture of individuals and companies,” BREIN chief Tim Kuik informs TorrentFreak.

Kuik says that the sales were taking place via dedicated websites, online stores such as Amazon and eBay, plus social platforms including Facebook.

In an indication of how much in demand the devices are, the BREIN chief says that most of the sellers sold nothing else but ‘pirate’ boxes, to sustain a business or bring in some extra cash for the entrepreneurial individual.

Kuik says that 150 out of the 200 entities were contacted directly by BREIN, who advised them to stop what they’re doing to avoid things getting out of hand.

“Typically we send an explanatory letter with a cease and desist undertaking. Everyone gets the opportunity to settle. Most take it,” Kuik says.

Of course, others choose not to comply with BREIN’s demands, so for them, things have the potential to get more expensive and complicated, given the right conditions.

“We have now entered a phase in which willful infringement is assumed and this means no more warnings. If no settlement is reached the case will go to court. We have a couple of court cases under preparation,” Kuik explains.

This could mean a contested court case, which following the ECJ ruling is likely to end badly for anyone selling boxes filled with pirate addons. That being said, settling with BREIN can be expensive too.

“Providers who settle with BREIN pay up to 10,000 euros. Those who continue can count on a multiple of that. There’s a raw deal for those who think they’ll just get a warning. That time is now over.”

For those who ignore BREIN’s overtures and threats of legal action, there’s also the possibility of a case going ahead without them even being there.

“Under certain circumstances, an ex parte court order may be applied for,” Kuik concludes.

While the legality of such devices now seems completely clear in the EU, the market is yet to settle. Given past innovations, it’s more than likely that new avenues will open up to re-test the law to a new breaking point – and beyond.

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

Founded more than 140 years ago, the American Chemical Society (ACS) is a leading source of academic publications in the field of chemistry.

The non-profit organization has around 157,000 members and researchers publish tens of thousands of articles a year in its peer-reviewed journals.

ACS derives a significant portion of its revenue from its publishing work, which is in large part behind a paywall. As such, it is not happy with websites that offer their copyrighted articles for free, such as Sci-Hub.

The deviant ‘pirate site’ believes that all scientific articles should be open to the public, as that’s in the best interest of science. While some academics are sympathetic to the goal, publishers share a different view.

Just last week Sci-Hub lost its copyright infringement case against Elsevier, and now ACS is following suit with a separate case. In a complaint filed in a Virginia District Court, the scientific society demands damages for Sci-Hub’s copyright and trademark infringements.

According to the filing, Sci-Hub has “stolen Plaintiff’s copyright-protected scientific articles and reproduced and distributed them on the Internet without permission.”

ACS points out that Sci-Hub is operating two websites that are nearly identical to the organization’s official site, located at pubs.acs.org.sci-hub.cc and acs.org.secure.sci-hub.cc. These are confusing to the public, they claim, and also an infringement of its copyrights and trademarks.

“The Pirated/Spoofed Site appears to almost completely replicate the content of Plaintiff’s website. For example, the Pirated/Spoofed Site replicates webpages on ACS’s history, purpose, news, scholarship opportunities, and budget,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

“Each of these pages on the Pirated/Spoofed Site contains ACS’s Copyrighted Works and the ACS Marks, creating the impression that the Pirated/Spoofed Site is associated with ACS.”

From the ACS complaint

By offering its articles for free and mimicking the ACS website, Sci-Hub is in direct competition with the scientific society. As a result, ACS claims to lose revenue.

“Defendants are attempting to divert users and revenues away from ACS by replicating and distributing ACS’s Copyrighted Works without authorization,” the complaint reads.

With the lawsuit, ACS hopes to recoup the money it claims to have lost. It’s likely that the total damages amount will run in the millions. However, if the defendants stay out of reach, this might be hard to collect.

Perhaps this is why the current lawsuit has included a request for a broader injunction against Sci-Hub. Not only does it ask for domain name seizures, but the scientific society also wants search engines, web hosting companies and general Internet providers to block access to the site.

“That those in privity with Defendants and those with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendants engage in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of the ACS Marks or ACS’s Copyrighted Works,” it reads.

If granted, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast would have to block users from accessing Sci-Hub. That’s a big deal since pirate site blockades are not common in the United States.

It might very well be that ACS is not expecting any compensation for the alleged copyright and trademark infringements, but that the broad injunction is their main goal. If that is the case, this case could turn out to be more crucial than it looks at first sight.

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

Back in 2014, the case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack saw two Canadian entities battle over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products.

Google had no direct links to the case, yet it became embroiled when Equustek Solutions claimed that Google’s search results helped to send visitors to websites operated by the defendants (former Equustek employees) who were selling unlawful products.

Google voluntarily removed links to the sites from its Google.ca (Canada) results, but Equustek demanded a more comprehensive response. It got one.

In a ruling handed down by a court in British Columbia, Google was ordered to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling had worldwide implications.

Google filed an appeal hoping for a better result, arguing that it does not operate servers in British Columbia, nor does it operate any local offices. It also questioned whether the injunction could be enforced outside Canada’s borders.

Ultimately, the British Columbia Court of Appeal disappointed the search giant. In a June 2015 ruling, the Court decided that Google does indeed do business in the region. It also found that a decision to restrict infringement was unlikely to offend any overseas nation.

“The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect,” Justice Groberman wrote.

Undeterred, Google took its case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping to limit the scope of the injunction by arguing that it violates freedom of expression. That effort has now failed.

In a 7-2 majority decision released Wednesday, Google was branded a “determinative player” in facilitating harm to Equustek.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders,” wrote Justice Rosalia Abella.

“We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.”

With Google now required to delist the sites on a global basis, the big question is what happens when other players attempt to apply the ruling to their particular business sector. Unsurprisingly that hasn’t taken long.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which supported Equustek’s position in the long-running case, welcomed the decision and said that Google must “take on the responsibility” to ensure it does not direct users to illegal sites.

“Canada’s highest court has handed down a decision that is very good news for rights holders both in Canada and around the world. Whilst this was not a music piracy case, search engines play a prominent role in directing users to illegal content online including illegal music sites,” said IFPI CEO, Frances Moore.

“If the digital economy is to grow to its full potential, online intermediaries, including search engines, must play their part by ensuring that their services are not used to facilitate the infringement of intellectual property rights.”

Graham Henderson, President and CEO of Music Canada, which represents Sony, Universal, Warner and others, also welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that online service providers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal activity that they facilitate; on the contrary, they have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the Internet from becoming a black market,” Henderson said.

But for every voice of approval from groups like IFPI and Music Canada, others raised concerns over the scope of the decision and its potential to create a legal and political minefield. In particular, University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist raised a number of interesting scenarios.

“What happens if a Chinese court orders [Google] to remove Taiwanese sites from the index? Or if an Iranian court orders it to remove gay and lesbian sites from the index? Since local content laws differ from country to country, there is a great likelihood of conflicts,” Geist said.

But rather than painting Google as the loser in this battle, Geist believes the decision actually grants the search giant more power.

“When it comes to Internet jurisdiction, exercising restraint and limiting the scope of court orders is likely to increase global respect for the law and the effectiveness of judicial decisions. Yet this decision demonstrates what many have feared: the temptation for courts will be to assert jurisdiction over online activities and leave it to the parties to sort out potential conflicts,” Geist says.

“In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada has lent its support to global takedowns and vested more power in Internet intermediaries, who may increasingly emerge as the arbiters of which laws to follow online.”

Only time will tell how Google will react, but it’s clear there will be plenty of entities ready to test the limits and scope of the company’s responses to the ruling.

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