As the presidential election moves towards the home straight, millions of individuals and businesses in the United States are considering how the outcome might affect them.

Unsurprisingly, powerful groups in the entertainment industry are also weighing the implications and with billions at stake, who could blame them.

Of course, just like the rest of the population, neither Hollywood nor the major recording labels have a crystal ball, so in recent months their public lobbying efforts have been mindful of the possibility that either Clinton or Trump could get into power.

This week that trend continued, with the publication of a new open letter and the launch of a petition by two influential anti-piracy groups, the Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture.

The Copyright Alliance is a true powerhouse which counts the MPAA, RIAA, Viacom, Oracle, Getty Images and many other corporations among its members. CreativeFuture is a huge coalition of some 450 companies in the film, television, music, and book publishing sectors.

In their letter addressed to “2016 Political Candidates”, the groups describe themselves as members of the creative community, who despite political differences are united in their goal of reducing piracy.

“While our political views are diverse, as creators, there are core principles on which we can all agree. And we appreciate the opportunity to share our views with our country’s current and future leaders,” the groups write.

What immediately becomes apparent in the letter are the glowing references to the Internet. With lessons learned from the SOPA debacle which was perceived by many as an attack on the world’s most important network, Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture begin by cheerfully praising its positives.

“We embrace the internet as a powerful democratizing force for our world and for creative industries. We recognize its ability to inspire positive change and improve lives,” they write.

“In our creative industries, the internet has helped to advance creativity by removing barriers to entry for newcomers, fostering a dialogue with fans, audiences, and consumers, and providing numerous additional ways to reach them. The internet holds great potential to expand creativity and free expression.”

While one might have strongly expected a ‘but’ at this juncture, the groups are careful not to set up a clash of ideals. It’s not difficult to see that their aim is to quietly assure that the successful protection of copyrighted content does not have to come at the expense of the Internet.

“We embrace a strong copyright system that rewards creativity and promotes a healthy creative economy. The incredible cultural and economic value that the internet delivers to billions of users is based in very large part on the efforts of creative content makers whose livelihoods depend on being compensated for their efforts,” they add.

“Copyright should protect creators from those who would use the internet to undermine creativity. The internet can be a great tool for creators just as it can be a tool for science, education, health care, and many other disciplines. However, when misused, it can harm creativity and stifle freedom of expression.”

And if anyone missed the hints that Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture are supporters of both creative content and the interests of the Internet, the groups quickly take the opportunity to underline that again. However, one gets the impression that their definition of online freedom might not be the same as that championed by Internet activists.

“Our current and future leaders recognize that a safe and secure internet benefits us all. And all parties recognize the importance of strong copyright protections in their technology policy platforms because protecting copyright and internet freedom are both critically important and complementary — they are not mutually exclusive,” they write.

“A truly free internet, like any truly free community, is one where people respect the rights of others and can engage in legitimate activities safely — and where those who do not are held accountable under law by their peers.”

Interestingly, the letter also warns 2016’s political candidates against “organizations and advocates” funded by “online platforms” that claim to be “pro-creators and pro-audience to mask their own self-serving agenda.”

These groups are not mentioned by name but the likes of EFF and Fight for the Future have been spoken of in similar terms and have appeared in negative articles published by the Copyright Alliance earlier this year.

“[The nameless groups] denigrate or block effective efforts to preserve and promote creative content, including enforcement of existing laws and voluntary industry initiatives,” Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture warn, adding:

“The creative community is rightfully wary of any company or organization that claims to be ‘against piracy’ when their actions do not match their words.”

And of course, even if not mentioned by name, no appeal would be complete without a subtle reference to Google and/or YouTube. Trump and Clinton are left to fill in the gaps and asked to do the right thing.

“Internet platforms are making massive profits from creative contributions to the internet’s growth. It is not too much to ask that content creators should be able to share in the value they provide,” the groups write.

With the election likely to go to the wire, Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture are keen to ensure that anti-piracy measures are seen as a universal concern, no matter where people reside on the political spectrum.

“There is no ‘left’ or ‘right’ when it comes to respecting copyright. The creative community stands united in support of a copyright system that will continue to make the United States the global leader in the creative arts and the global paradigm for free expression,” they note.

“Our copyright system is not perfect but, like democracy, it is better than the alternatives. It works. We urge our leaders to maintain America’s commitment to the right of creators to determine when and how they share their works in the global marketplace.”

In support of their open letter, Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture have also launched a Change.org petition in an attempt to get 5,000 signatures supporting their cause.

“Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or libertarian, strong and effective copyright is not a partisan issue but rather one that benefits our entire country. We ask that you stand with us by adding your name to this letter – to show political candidates that we stand united, we stand creative,” they conclude.

Open Letter to 2016 Political Candidates

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

Last December, Quentin Tarantino cursed the existence of pirates after his latest movie Hateful Eight was leaked online.

While leaks are nothing new, Hateful Eight appeared online in DVD screener format well in advance of its Christmas Day cinema debut, causing a pirate feeding frenzy that continued for many weeks.

In March, the DVD and Blu-ray versions of Hateful Eight were released to the public, which went some way to competing with the copies available online. However, in the knowledge that Hateful Eight had been filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 and captured in 4K, many fans were still keen to obtain the three-hour epic in UHD.

Some nine months after its debut there has been no announcement of when Hateful Eight will be made available in 4K. However, developments over the past few days suggest that a copy has already been made available online and pirates have somehow obtained a copy.

Although it’s possible an earlier source was involved, it appears the release was first made available on a UltraHDclub, an invite-only private tracker specializing in ultra high-definition movies. From there it spread to other private sites, albeit at a fairly leisurely pace due to its 40GB+ size.

Details made available with the original release suggest that this 4K version of Hateful Eight was actually obtained from a legal source called Okko, something which is bound to irritate those U.S. fans waiting patiently for a home soil release.

Launched in 2014 and developed in partnership with LG Electronics, Okko is a VOD service that was designed to meet Hollywood strict content protection standards. The service has deals with most of the big studios and is even trusted to deliver some movies on the same day as they hit the silver screen.

But aside from the availability of Hateful Eight in 4K at all, what is both interesting and controversial here are the claims being made by the people who obtained the movie from the Okko VOD service.

As previously reported, it is already possible to capture 4K content and put it on torrent sites. However, details provided with the release (and echoed in the tracker screenshot above) suggest that the copy was somehow made after pirates obtained a .MXF content file from within a highly secure Digital Cinema Package (DCP).

TorrentFreak contacted Okko for their take on the unofficial release but at the time of publication the service had not responded to our request for comment. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, it seems unlikely that the company would have given much away anyway, so we also took the opportunity to speak with several sources familiar with pirate releases.

One, the operator of a large site, didn’t doubt that the content was out there but wasn’t prepared to accept it was obtained from a highly protected .MXF file. The other, a release group member, said that while a crack seems unlikely, no system is without weakness. “I want to believe,” he said.

We also spoke with HDEncode who posted the 4K version of Hateful Eight and provided a number of 4K/Blu-ray comparison screenshots. The site’s operator told us that the people behind the release on UltraHDclub maintain that they have indeed cracked DCP’s encryption.

Commenting on the release, Sebastian Haselbeck of Tarantino fansite Tarantino.info says that while he’s not a fan of piracy, he believes that a failure to serve the market is the real problem.

“I strongly condemn piracy and find it generally damaging, but it is a symptom, not the source, of market failure,” he told TF.

“I believe the biggest obstacle to great sales is the general bare bones treatment Tarantino’s movies usually get on home video. Quality is also usually not reference material. Fans would easily spend on the roadshow cut of Hateful Eight or the integral cut of Kill Bill. Both are not available to buy.”

Why a 4K edition of Hateful Eight hasn’t yet been made widely available is a question for the studio, but once again it appears that pirates are the first to recognize and then meet demand, however niche.

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

Last month many Indian Internet users noticed that their favorite torrent websites were blocked, displaying a rather ominous message.

Those who tried to access The Pirate Bay, ExtraTorrent and hundreds of other sites were informed that they could face up to three years in prison.

Apparently, simply viewing copyrighted content would already be enough to send someone to jail. This was quite an alarming prospect, to say the least.

“Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an offence under the laws of India, […] which prescribe imprisonment for 3 years and also fine of up to Rs. 3,00,000,” it read.

The blocking message triggered a torrent of news articles, bringing the scaremongering to a new level. Some reporters went as far as claiming that downloading a .torrent file or viewing a copyrighted picture could already lead to trouble.

These reports also reached the Bombay High Court, which oversees the blocking case initiated by the makers of the movie Dishoom. In a recent order, Judge Patel clears up the confusion.

Simply accessing a website or viewing copyrighted content is not the problem, but offering it to others is.

“The offence is not in viewing, but in making a prejudicial distribution, a public exhibition or letting for sale or hire without appropriate permission copyright–protected material,” Judge Patel writes.

“These error pages appear to have confused the penal provisions regarding obscenity with penalties under the Copyright Act, 1957,” the order (pdf), courtesy of SpicyIP, adds.

Judge Patel ordered Internet provider Tata Communications, which manages the blocking message, to remove the viewing part. Instead, the notice now states that “infringing or abetting infringement of copyright-protected content” is an offence under Indian law.

This means that people who distribute copyrighted content via BitTorrent can still end up in jail, technically speaking. However, this has always been the case in India and the same is true in many other countries.

Aside from the blocking language, Judge Patel raised several other concerns which may turn out to be even more important for John Doe blocking orders in the long run. Picking up on a suggestion from Professor Basheer, he calls for the introduction of a neutral ombudsman to resolve blocking disputes.

Installing an ombudsman would resolve a lot of problems which so-called “John Doe” orders have raised in recent years.

“Many John Doe orders are granted without a sufficient checking of the Plaintiffs’ claim. This results in overbroad orders and wholesale site blocking without adequate verification of the legitimacy of all content,” Judge Patel writes.

“These orders often affect innocent third parties not before the Court. The number of those affected is irrelevant. If even one innocent party is affected, the damage is incalculable. The rights being affected are cardinal and fundamental,” he adds.

The order

In addition, the Judge notes that the orders often stay in place for a long time without proper oversight and that subsequent blockade removals are slow, cumbersome and inefficient. He therefore urges ISPs and Bollywood to seriously consider the idea of an ombudsman.

The issues raised are important because the John Doe orders affect all national ISPs, which have a subscriber reach of many millions of people.

Amusingly, Judge Patel concludes his order my mentioning a claim from ISP Tata Communication, which suggests that the orders are somehow targeted at films that are expected to flop, in order to boost their revenues. However, this is something the court might possibly look into at a later date.

“In conclusion, I only note Mr. Tulzapurkar’s submission that these blocks and John Doe orders seem to be sought only for forthcoming or anticipated box office flops. Whether or not this is true, and whether or not it is a relevant consideration in law I leave for another day,” the order concludes.

That’s one to watch for sure.

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

With decades of experience and billions of software units shifted, Nintendo is one of the most enduring and popular gaming brands on the planet.

With continuous popularity of flagship character Mario and the recent revival of Pokemon as a global phenomenon, Nintendo is still making waves in 2016. In recent times, however, the company has been making gaming headlines for less popular reasons.

Just like many big technology companies, Nintendo sees its intellectual property rights as its most valuable asset. As a result, the company is cracking down on anyone using Nintendo characters without permission, from fan-made Metroid clone AM2R to Pokémon Uranium.

Most of the recent legal threats have been made by Nintendo of America attorney Brian Sniffen and before the weekend the legal hounds were at it again, this time targeting a project that by constraint was just a few hours old.

Ludum Dare (Latin “to give a game”) is a triannual game coding competition that was first held in 2002. In recent years it has become more popular after Minecraft designer Markus Persson became a semi-regular entrant. Its unique feature is that competitors are given a theme and then expected to produce a finished game in 48 to 72 hours.

One of the team entrants to Ludum Dare 36 (theme ‘Ancient Tech’) were ASMB Games (Alex McDonald, Sam Izzo, Max Cahill, Ben Porter) with their creation No Mario’s Sky, a game featuring “exploration and survival in an infinite procedurally generated universe.”

While the game’s title clearly plays on Hello Games’ No Man’s Sky, it was the Nintendo element that got ASMB in hot water with the gaming giant.

“We represent Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”) in intellectual property matters. Nintendo recently learned that content available at https://asmb.itch.io/no-marios-sky infringes copyrights owned by Nintendo. This notice is provided pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC § 512, and itch.io’s Terms of Service,” Sniffen wrote in a DMCA complaint sent to ASMB.

“This page provides access to downloadable files which violate itch.io’s Terms of Service and infringe Nintendo’s copyrights in its Super Mario video game franchise, including but not limited to the audiovisual work, images, and fictional character depictions….We would appreciate your expeditious removal of all infringing content.”

Faced with the wrath of Nintendo’s legal department in their inbox, ASMB responded by immediately taking the game down. Sadly that also had an effect on their standing at Ludum Dare.

“NO MARIO’S SKY IS NO MORE-IO!” the team announced. “Due to a copyright claim by Nintendo we’ve had to take the game down. As we’ve had to remove the game, we are voiding our entry into Ludum Dare. Thanks for playing, everyone!”

While it’s disappointing that the game had to be taken down, ASMB weren’t quite done. After addressing the issues highlighted by Nintendo of America, the team went back to work and removed all ‘infringing’ content from No Mario’s Sky. The end result is a new game cheekily titled DMCA’s Sky.

“Thanks everyone for playing and enjoying our little fan game,” ASMB said in a follow-up. “We would love to see an official Nintendo game in this style — a Mario Galaxy-style game in 2D within a procedurally-generated universe.”

Whether Nintendo will follow up on the request will remain to be seen but ASMB appear to be taking their little run-in with the gaming giant in their stride. Meanwhile, people are already swapping file-hosting links to the outlawed No Mario’s Sky, meaning that Nintendo has not only failed in its quest to kill the game but have also thrust it into the spotlight.

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

In recent years, file-sharers all across the world have been threatened with lawsuits, if they don’t pay a significant settlement fee.

The process was pioneered in Germany where it turned into an industry by itself, but copyright holders have also targeted alleged pirates in the UK, United States, Canada and elsewhere.

Earlier this year, rightsholders began targeting Sweden, with more details appearing in public last week.

One of the organizations leading the way is Spridningskollen (Distribution Check). Using data gathered by German anti-piracy outfit Excipio, they plan to start by targeting around 1,000 alleged pirates, offering them settlements of around $233 (2,000 kronor).

Spridningskollen spokesman Gordon Odenbark compared the process with speeding cameras, where torrent users risk a ‘fine’ if they get caught. This will generate revenue, but could also act as a deterrent, preventing other people from violating rightsholders’ rights.

Interestingly, however, shortly after Spridningskollen announced its plans the group itself faced allegations of intellectual property rights violations. Swedish ISP Bahnhof is accusing the group of trademark infringement, noting that they have a claim on the “spridningskollen” mark.

“Bahnhof was the first to apply for the Spridningskollen trademark rights at the Swedish Patent and Registration Office,” the ISP announced.

Earlier this year Bahnhof was the first ISP to warn the public about the looming flood of settlement requests. To help the public understand the severity of the issue the ISP launched the site Spridningskollen.org, which they say maps the “spread of extortion letters” from copyright holders.

Bahnhof’s Spridningskollen.org

Now that the anti-piracy group has ‘stolen’ their name, Bahnhof plans to take action over the apparent trademark infringement.

“It is surprising that those who claim to defend intellectual property rights don’t track it better themselves. It says a lot about the quality level of their so-called initiative,” Bahnhof CEO Jon Karlung says.

The ISP is demanding that the website of the anti-piracy group, Spridningskollen.se, is shut down.

“Our lawyers are looking into it. We see the many different ways that interfere with their operation. Extortion letters are unethical, anachronistic and counter-productive,” Karlung says.

In addition, Bahnhof is calling on the Government to reform copyright law in order to prevent excessive and overbroad enforcement tactics.

Until then, the ISP vows to protect its subscribers from the copyright trolling practice as best as they can. This means that if copyright holders demand IP-address info and user details from Bahnhof, they will fight this in court.

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