YouTube is one of the most popular sites on the Internet so when owners Google make an announcement about revenues, people tend to sit up and listen.

Yesterday, via its official YouTube blog, Google said that there were “a billion reasons to celebrate music” on YouTube.

“Last year was a bright one for music — after several tough years of declining revenues, the industry started growing again, spurred in large part by the growth of music streaming subscriptions,” YouTube Chief Business Officer Robert Kyncl wrote.

“This year, the industry has even more reasons to be optimistic. Even as music subscriptions have been growing faster than any other subscription type, advertising is another powerful driver of revenue. In fact, in the last 12 months, YouTube has paid out over $1 billion to the music industry from advertising alone, demonstrating that multiple experiences and models are succeeding alongside each other.”

In ordinary circumstances a company paying a trading partner a billion dollars worth of spoils would definitely be a reason for celebration. However, the relationship between YouTube and the labels is both uneasy and fractured, so IFPI openly poured cold water all over the hosting platform’s party instead.

“Google has today issued more unexplained numbers on what it claims YouTube pays the music industry. The announcement gives little reason to celebrate, however,” IFPI began.

“With 800 million music users worldwide, YouTube is generating revenues of just over US$1 per user for the entire year. This pales in comparison to the revenue generated by other services, ranging from Apple to Deezer to Spotify. For example, in 2015 Spotify alone paid record labels some US$2 billion, equivalent to an estimated US$18 per user.”

While on the surface this appears to be a business problem, IFPI and its member labels see things differently. They believe this is a legislative issue, one borne out of YouTube’s apparent exploitation of the DMCA and similar frameworks which offer the platform safe harbor when users upload infringing content.

While Apple, Deezer and Spotify must pay out huge sums to license and distribute music (Spotify is said to part with 85 cents for every dollar in revenue), YouTube can sit back and allow its users to upload ‘pirate’ music instead. It pays nothing for this content but still places ads alongside to generate revenue, the labels say.

YouTube correctly argues that the DMCA protects it under these circumstances and when copyright holders ask for content to be taken down, it acts quickly. YouTube also correctly notes that its Content ID fingerprinting system already goes above and beyond what is required of it under the law and is in itself a great system to help copyright holders generate revenue.

The labels, however, see this whole setup as a protection racket, one in which YouTube gets the content for nothing and as a result is free to offer poor rates when the industry comes begging for licensing fees.

“YouTube, the world’s largest on-demand music service, is not paying artists and producers anything like a fair rate for music,” IFPI said last night.

“This highlights more than ever the need for legislative action to address the ‘value gap’ that is denying music rights holders a fair return for their work.”

What IFPI and its recording label members want are changes in the law which will effectively force YouTube to pay a fair price for the content from which it generates revenue.

In the United States, the labels want the DMCA tightened. In Europe, all eyes are on Article 13 (1,2)of the proposed Copyright Directive which would require online services to monitor and filter pirated content.

Whether the labels will get their way will remain to be seen, but this kind of legislative change has the potential to shake up the entire Internet, with far-reaching effects that go way beyond music. Expect more battles – and mudslinging – as the months and years unfold.

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

In 2009, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, representing the movie and music industries, took News-Service Europe (NSE) – one of Europe’s largest Usenet providers at the time – to court.

BREIN argued that NSE must delete all infringing content from its servers, and in 2011 the Court of Amsterdam sided with the copyright holders.

In its initial verdict, the Court concluded that NSE willingly facilitated copyright infringement through its services. As a result, the company was ordered to remove all copyrighted content and filter future posts for possible copyright infringements.

According to the Usenet provider, this filtering requirement would be too costly to operate. It therefore saw no other option than to shut down its services while the appeal was pending.

After several years of litigation and two interim decisions, the Amsterdam appeals court reached a final decision in the case this week.

The overall conclusion is that NSE is not directly or indirectly liable for copyright infringements that take place through its service. However, the Usenet provider is required to offer a fast and effective notice and takedown procedure (NTD), possibly with additional measures.

NSE is happy with the verdict which it characterizes as a big win.

“We see the outcome as a total victory. The court of appeal completely destroys the earlier verdict. NSE did not infringe copyright and is not liable for copyright infringement,” NSE CEO Patrick Schreurs informs TorrentFreak.

The takedown requirement is a moot point, according to NSE, which states that they already had this in place before they shut down.

“The fact that we do need to implement a NTD is void. Even before the lawsuit started, NSE already offered an effective NTD-procedure. The Court of Appeal even considered in an earlier interim judgment that NSE’s NTD-procedure is sufficient,” Schreurs notes.

BREIN had hoped for a better outcome but is happy with the takedown requirements the court included. The anti-piracy group also highlights that the judgment allows for possible additional measures, which could include a filter.

“We are disappointed that NSE is not deemed to infringe but we feel vindicated because of the recognition of this objective,” BREIN Director Tim Kuik told TorrentFreak.

“Let’s face it: People take subscriptions to download from Usenet because of the availability of infringing content. If that availability is lacking then the viability of this business model built on illegal use disappears,” he added.

An earlier court decision found that a proactive piracy filter would go against the ban on general monitoring requirements. However, new copyright proposals put forward by the European Commission could change this position.

While the verdict offers reassurance for the Usenet industry, it also provides rightsholders with a clear precedent to demand a proper takedown procedure. BREIN intends to keep a close eye on other Usenet providers, and won’t rule out future legal action.

“We will work with rights holders and vendors to determine whether Usenet providers are up to par. As in the case at hand, we are always willing to look for cooperation. However, if we find providers that are unwilling to come to an understanding and live up to their responsibilities then we will take them to court,” Kuik says.

Both parties still have the option to take the case to the Supreme Court, but this hasn’t been decided yet.

NSE itself did clearly state that it’s not relaunching its Usenet service. It could, however, start a separate case to ask for compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the shutdown, something BREIN also mentioned in court.

NSE CEO Patrick Schreurs couldn’t confirm or deny this but noted that the case isn’t over just yet.

“All I can say right now is that this isn’t the end,” he told us.

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.

While new lawsuits are still being filed on a weekly basis, there are signs that some judges are growing tired of the practice and becoming increasingly skeptical of the claims made by copyright holders.

In Oregon, a federal recently dismissed a complaint 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 and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film.

Still, the filmmakers decided to move their case ahead, and for this decision they may now have to pay. After the case was dismissed, the wrongfully accused ‘pirate’ asked to be compensated for the fees he incurred during his defense.

In a findings and recommendations filing published last Friday (pdf), Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman concludes that the filmmakers went too far.

“The Court finds that once Plaintiff learned that the alleged infringement was taking place at an adult group care home at which Gonzales did not reside, Plaintiff’s continued pursuit of Gonzales for copyright infringement was objectively unreasonable,” Judge Beckerman writes.

Gonzales argued that the filmmakers are using these lawsuits to pressure people into expensive settlements. While the plaintiffs deny that money is a goal for them, the court shares the defendant’s view.

The “overaggressive” tactics of the filmmakers warrant a fees award, Judge Beckerman writes in her recommendation.

“The Court shares Gonzales’ concern that Plaintiff is motivated, at least in large part, by extracting large settlements from individual consumers prior to any meaningful litigation.

“On balance, the Court has concerns about the motivation behind Plaintiff’s overaggressive litigation of this case and other cases, and that factor weighs in favor of fee shifting.”

Copyright holders often argue that damages awards are needed to deter the defendant and other pirates from infringing. In this case, however, the tables are turned.

The Court states that a fees award in favor or the wrongfully accused defendant should deter the filmmakers and other ‘copyright trolls’ from dragging people into copyright lawsuits without any factual evidence.

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

“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.”

All in all the Magistrate Judge concludes that Gonzales deserves compensation. She recommends that the court awards $17,222 in attorney fees as well as $255 in other expenses.

The filmmakers now have two weeks to object to the recommendations and findings, which means that the damages are not final yet. However, as DieTrollDie notes, such an objection could also mean that they would end up paying more.

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

Of all websites in the piracy landscape, few can claim to be as hounded as The Pirate Bay (TPB). Due to its resilience and refusal to step into line, the site has been at the core of dozens of direct and indirect court cases for more than a decade.

Today, another process gets underway, with yet another Internet service provider arguing that it should not be held responsible for the actions of The Pirate Bay, or its pirating users.

The case has its roots back in 2014, when Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry teamed up in a lawsuit designed to force Swedish ISP Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company) to block the site.

The rightsholders argued that Bredbandsbolaget should be held liable unless it blocked TPB, but the ISP refused to comply. It stated that its only role is to provide customers with Internet access while facilitating the free flow of information.

The case originally went to trial at the Stockholm District Court last October. In line with several other similar rulings elsewhere in Europe, the ISP was expected to lose its case. Instead, it prevailed, with the District Court concluding that Bredbandsbolaget’s actions in facilitating access to the site did not amount to participation in a crime under Swedish law.

Of course, the rightsholders inevitably filed an appeal and today, almost exactly a year later, the parties are set to face off again in a brand new, dedicated venue.

Since September 2016, Sweden has had two new courts. The Patent and Market Court and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal are specialist courts dedicated to tackling intellectual property, competition, and marketing law matters.

The Patent and Market Court is a division of Stockholm District Court while the Patent and Market Court of Appeal is a division of the Svea Court of Appeal. Today’s Pirate Bay case will be heard at the latter.

Bredbandsbolaget’s position remains unchanged. The ISP wants to remain a neutral supplier of Internet connectivity and is alarmed at the prospect of being held liable for any content passing through its infrastructure. While today the discussion is about copyrighted movies, TV shows and music, tomorrow it could be about other offenses allegedly carried out online. The scope is enormous.

Per Strömbäck, representing the copyright holders, told IDG that ISPs like Bredbandsbolaget have knowledge of infringing acts but choose to do nothing about them. This is something the content companies want to change.

“We want to get to a point where a court can order an Internet service provider to block subscribers from accessing an illegal site. The telecom companies will not make that decision themselves,” he says.

A defeat for Bredbandsbolaget in this appeal could have far-reaching consequences. As seen in other countries around Europe, once rightsholders succeed in getting one site blocked, the floodgates open with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of similar requests to block additional domains.

The case begins today and is expected to conclude on Thursday.

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

With millions of regular visitors, both via the web and through mobile apps, 4shared is one of the largest file-sharing services.

As with many other sites in this niche, copyright holders often complain about the pirated files that are available on the site. Interestingly, however, most complaints are sent to Google.

Over the past several years the search engine has received a massive 50 million takedown requests for 4shared URLs alone. 4shared itself, which has a DMCA takedown procedure in place, receives only a fraction of this number.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, 4shared says that it is trying to do its best to keep rightsholders happy. They have provided several with a direct-delete account, so they can take infringing files offline as quickly as possible.

In addition, 4shared is using the fingerprinting software Echoprint to detect and remove pirated files from its service. This helped the file-hosting site to reduce the number of takedown requests they receive significantly.

“This is our latest and the most efficient system for taking down copyrighted audio files,” 4shared’s Mike tells us.

“We can see that the volume of removal requests keeps reducing from month to month. It has already reached approximately 6,000 per month, which is fifteen times less that the 90,000 monthly requests we received at the beginning of 2015.”

Takedown requests 4shared received

While 4shared has been using the content recognition software for quite a while already, not all copyright holders are eager to use it. Several large industry groups such as IFPI refuse to provide 4shared with fingerprint data.

As a result, the file-hosting service decided to build its own database based on the takedown notices they receive.

“We are gathering the data this way, because IFPI declines our request to provide ‘fingerprints’ upfront,” Mike says.

“Currently we are building the database for the audio content recognition system from direct ban link submissions and the DMCA notices that IFPI and several other major organizations send.”

When a takedown noticed arrives, 4shared “fingerprints” the audio file which is then added to the database. If someone then tries to upload the same file again, an error message occurs.

4shared doesn’t understand why rightsholders are unwilling to submit the data themselves. There is no need to share actual audio files, they stress, as the fingerprinting data can be easily extracted using a standalone software tool.

The file-hosting service hopes that copyright holders will realize the potential of the system. Not only is it more accurate than the current takedown efforts, but it can also save them a lot of time and money.

“In my opinion, the amount of effort for creating ‘fingerprints’ and uploading to 4shared’s audio recognition database is comparable, or even less, than the amount of effort and the cost of maintaining numerous agents and developing robots that collect lists of links for the direct ban requests or complaints they send,” Mike concludes.

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