Pirate sites come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from torrent indexes, through streaming portals, to MP3 download sites.

Since it’s not always easy to get visitors, some of these sites employ some dubious tricks to draw an audience. By using machine generated pages filled with complete nonsense, for example.

Let’s take this “ShareMP3.link” page for example. At first sight, it appears to be a regular MP3 download portal, offering music from popular artists. However, it does more than that.

In fact, the site offers a result for every search term, generating pages on the fly. Whether it’s for “TorrentFreak,” “sdfasgf56u” or “Pizzagate,” there’s always an MP3 available

This results in interesting pages such as the following, offering the latest TorrentFreak music.

Or what about this page, with some of the latest Twittergate and Pizzagate tunes ready for download?

These and many other similar sites appear to grab content from external sources such as YouTube, regardless of whether it’s actual music. In addition to confusing the public, they are also triggering bots at some takedown companies.

The Twittergate / Pizzagate page mentioned earlier was actually targeted in a recent notice sent by AudioLock for a completely unrelated artist named “靳松”.

While the odd name is likely an encoding issue, the link and many others listed in the complaint have little to do with it. Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident either as we can easily spot several other mistakes for “pizzagate” or “trump putin,” for example.

So why are these pages flagged as being ‘pirate’ then? Well, these type of sites generally list random links to other keyword searches on their download pages, which may at one point have linked to an infringing term. Still, the identified page itself is something entirely different.

In addition, takedowns may also be triggered because a keyword is similar to one used by the artist in question, such as the band “New Order” in the takedown notice below.

Making matters worse, the whole situation might be self-reinforcing at times. That is, when the DMCA bots search for something that is then automatically generated, this likely creates more pages with the same results and more takedowns.

Luckily, the public is largely kept away from this battle. They are just machines fighting each other in a perpetual and utterly useless war.

Copyright holders, however, might want to reconsider whether this is how they want to target piracy on the Internet. After all, they are the ones paying the bills for these dubious practices.

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

Yesterday an interesting discussion took place on the BBC’s Radio Five. It involved the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), who are the main driving force behind Kodi and IPTV prosecutions in the UK.

As always, it’s worth pointing out that Kodi is a neutral media platform that can be augmented with addons that provide access to infringing content. That is the problem that copyright holders are trying to address.

While broad in scope, one of the main points out of the debate was that copyright holders don’t appear to have much enthusiasm for going after people who use these devices in their own home. On the other hand, they do have an appetite for chasing down box sellers and other players further up the supply chain.

But, according to a lawyer that has successfully prosecuted big piracy cases for FACT, things aren’t always straightforward.

Speaking with Out-Law.com, lawyer Ari Alabhai of QEB Hollis Whitman says that FACT’s tendency to opt for a prosecution under the Fraud Act is partially based on the capacity of a jury to understand the charges.

Fraud can be easier for a jury to understand than the complexities of copyright law, he said, while also noting that such prosecutions have their limitations.

Alabhai, who successfully prosecuted the case against torrent release groups 26K, RemixHD, DTRG and RESiSTANCE, said that showing a conspiracy to defraud is not possible when only one person (such as a box seller) acted alone. In such cases, prosecutors have to try a different approach.

One option involves offences under section 107(2a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA).

“A person commits an offense who makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work..knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business,” the section reads.

However, Alabhai told OutLaw that such a prosecution would be very complex and would only be subject to a maximum two-year prison sentence versus the ten years available under the Fraud Act. (Note: this term will be extended to 10 years under the Digital Economy Act)

Another option is the rather intriguing proposition of a prosecution under section 296ZB of the CDPA, which attempts to deal with devices and services designed to circumvent technological measures.

“A person commits an offense if he — in the course of a business — sells or lets for hire, any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures,” the section reads.

And we may not have to wait long to discover whether this kind of approach will be successful. The prosecution of UK-based box-seller Brian ‘Tomo’ Thompson looks like it will provide the test case but it’s hardly straightforward and is already in unchartered territory.

According to OutLaw, that case is set to go to trial at Teeside Crown Court in May 2017. Definitely one to watch.

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

For more than half a decade so-called “copyright trolling” cases have been keeping the U.S. judicial system busy.

In many cases the copyright holders end up extracting a settlement from the alleged pirates, but every now and then a defendant fights back with success.

This also happened in Oregon last summer, in a case filed by the makers of the Adam Sandler movie The Cobbler. The judge dismissed a direct infringement complaint against an alleged movie pirate from the outset, as it was clear that the defendant wasn’t the infringer.

The defendant in question, Thomas Gonzales, operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this but decided to move their case ahead nonetheless.

For this decision they now have to pay. Following an earlier recommendation from the magistrate judge, District Judge Michael Simon this week ruled that the filmmakers should pay the legal fees of the falsely accused man.

“The Court will issue a Judgment dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claim and without prejudice Plaintiff’s direct infringement claim against Mr. Gonzales,” he writes.

In addition, the copyright holder, Cobbler Nevada, is ordered to pay Gonzales $17,222 in attorney fees as well as $255 in other expenses.

Apart from the decision being a financial success for the defendant, it also provides some great ammunition for people who end up in a similar position.

As explained in the magistrate’s recommendations, the option to shift the legal fees to the rightsholder should send a strong message to other rightsholders that dragging people to court without proper evidence is not without consequences.

“Compensating Gonzales will encourage future defendants with valid defenses to litigate those defenses, even if the litigation is expensive,” Judge Beckerman wrote.

“Conversely, and perhaps more importantly, awarding fees to Gonzales should deter Plaintiff in the future from continuing its overaggressive pursuit of alleged infringers without a reasonable factual basis,” she added.

This week’s ruling shows that falsely accused pirates shouldn’t simply cave to intimidating threats. While it is not without risk to fight these cases, it is perhaps the only way to stop the clearly abusive practices in the long run.

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

While Popcorn Time was the hot news of 2014 and 2015, 2016 was taken by storm by an old kid on the block with a new lick of paint.

For TF readers, Kodi needs little introduction. It’s an open source media player that can, given select tweaks, be augmented with third-party addons that grant access to an Aladdin’s cave of pirate content.

Unlike most other kinds of unauthorized online sharing, the way content is delivered through Kodi has exposed a whole new legal gray area. While it’s definitely illegal in Europe and the US to share copyrighted content without permission using BitTorrent, no one is really clear whether streaming content via Kodi has the same status.

In recent weeks, this has led to the publication of dozens of articles which claim to answer that question. Upon review, none of them actually do, so the topic remains hot in the UK.

To that end, BBC Radio Five ran a pretty long feature this morning which had host Adrian Chiles discussing the topic with FACT chief Kieron Sharp, intellectual property lawyer Steve (whose surname wasn’t clear from the broadcast) and technical guy Tom Cheesewright who really knew what he was talking about.

The start of the interview was marked by Chiles noting that when he found out what a Kodi device could do, he immediately wanted one.

“I’d never heard of them,” he said. “I heard what they were and then I wanted one. And then someone told me that they’re probably illegal, so I better not get one.”

Chiles’ reaction is probably held in common with millions of others who’ve learned about what Kodi devices can do. There’s a clear and totally understandable attraction, and it was helpful for the broadcaster to acknowledge that.

After a brief technological description from Cheesewright, Chiles turned to IP lawyer Steve, who was asked where the law stands. His response was fairly lengthy but clearly focused on the people supplying the devices.

“You’ve got big content producers like HBO that are used to producing premium content that people pay for,” Steve said.

“Where they are directing their attention is on the people who sell these boxes loaded with software that lets you get around paying a subscription.”

The lawyer acknowledged that there are some ongoing cases in the UK which involve suppliers of devices which effectively allow users to get around copyright protection.

“That’s been the focus of the strategy and it’s a big, big, big issue,” he said.

But for those who know Chiles’ down-to-earth style, it was always obvious that he would want to know how the law views the man in the street.

“From the punter’s point of view, if you’re watching something made by HBO that Netflix would hope that you’d be paying them to watch, but you’re watching it for free via your Kodi stick, then are you going to get a knock on the door?” Chiles asked.

Chiles didn’t get a straight answer about the law, but after a breath, Steve offered the reality.

“In all likelihood, no,” the lawyer responded.

Noting that there have been cases against file-sharers, the IP expert said that there is a difference – a legal gray area – when it comes to streaming versus file-sharing.

“What tends to happen is that the content providers go after the ISPs, they go after platforms [offering pirate content], not the individual people,” he said, adding that getting a knock on the door at home would be fairly unlikely.

Interestingly, Chiles’ then admitted that in the past he also tried to get Premier League football on his laptop for free, but was unsuccessful in getting any content. The suggestion was that Chiles’ failure could be put down to anti-piracy crackdowns against sites, including site-blocking, a point on which the lawyer agreed.

“[Rightsholders] have been choking off access [to free content] rather than going to war with their own fans, which is never going to be good for publicity, which is only going to cause them a bigger problem,” the lawyer said.

At this point, FACT chief Keiron Sharp entered the conversation and immediately acknowledged that piracy is an ongoing problem that isn’t going to be solved overnight. However, he also revealed a little about their Kodi strategy.

“This will still keep coming up no matter which actions we take, but there is still a deterrent effect on people when they see that sellers and providers and distributors of these boxes are going to prison. Which they will do,” Sharp said.

The FACT chief said that people will make a connection between people being locked up for selling boxes and the use of these boxes at home, something which he hopes will result in less uptake.

“There will be a deterrent effect [from cases going through the court now] and I think your average punter, as you put it, are the ones who will see that deterrent effect and we will be able to move some people away,” he said.

Interestingly, Sharp then referred to pirates as “fans” who want access to a product and that content providers were trying to fulfill that demand. Lawyer Steve, who also used the word “fans,” added that people who pirate aren’t necessarily cheapskates either.

“The biggest problem the industry has is that it’s always been behind on design and user experience,” he said.

“People buy these boxes not necessarily because they’re cheapskates or want to break the law, but probably because it’s the only place they can get access to all the content they want in one place, in a good user experience, without buying separate subscriptions for Sky, for Netflix, for Amazon, for Hulu, for all of these different services,” he said.

This conclusion is an important one. While at some point the courts may decide (there’s a case in Europe) that knowingly watching pirate streams is indeed illegal, there is no way that a user that ONLY STREAMS content can be monitored by groups that would like to prosecute them.

So, to answer the million dollar question. Watching pirate Kodi streams may be deemed illegal sometime in the future but right now, no one is 100% sure. In any event, it’s impossible in any sensible scenario for anyone to get caught doing so.

With that in mind, content providers need to keep upping their game, or the Kodi content free-for-all (or whatever else comes along next) will continue.

A replay of the show might be made available by the BBC on the iPlayer at a later point.

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

Last year, Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement.

The dispute centers around the well-received short film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar and the planned follow-up feature film Axanar.

Among other things, the Star Trek rightsholders claim ownership over various Star Trek related settings, characters, species, clothing, colors, shapes, words, short phrases and even the Klingon language.

The case is now heading towards a trial, which means that the ultimate decision may sit in the hands of a jury. However, this week the court shared its opinion on some crucial issues, responding to motions for summary judgment submitted by both parties earlier.

The Axanar team, for example, informed the court that their films do not infringe Star Trek copyrights. One of the main reasons, according to the makers, is that it clearly falls under fair use. However, the court sees the situation differently.

After weighing the four crucial factors for determining fair use, District Court Judge Robert Klausner concludes that the fan-film is not entitled to a fair use defense.

In an order published this week he explains that even though the film will be distributed for free, it has a commercial nature because the makers profit in other ways. For example, through other job benefits that flow out of it.

Another crucial factor is the amount and substantiality of the infringing elements that appear in the film. Here, the court also concludes that Axanar went beyond fair use by including many details of the Star Trek canon which are important to Star Trek fans.

The other two factors, the nature of the original copyrighted work, and the effect on the market value of the Star Trek franchise, didn’t warrant a fair use qualification either.

“The Court thus finds that all four fair use factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. If the jury does not find subjective substantial similarity, Defendants did not infringe and fair use defense is moot,” the order reads.

“Rejection of Defendants’ fair use defense is consistent with copyright’s very purpose because derivatives are ‘an important economic incentive to the creation of originals’,” it adds.

Responding to the motion of the movie studios, the court separately concluded that there is an objective substantial similarity between the fan-film and the original Star Trek works.

While no ruling was made on individual items such as the Klingon language, costumes, characters or species, as a whole the overall “look and feel” was found to be similar.

That said, the court leaves a ruling on subjective substantial similarity up to the jury.

This means that one of the main questions during trial will be whether an ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the fan-film to be substantially similar to the original Star Trek works. This will to a large degree determine the outcome of the case.

While it’s still too early to draw any conclusions, the court’s opinion is a clear setback for the Axanar makers. With fair use out of the way, and a court that sees substantial similarity with the original works, their fate now lies in the hands of the jury.

—

The court’s full opinion on the motions for summary judgement is available here (pdf).

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