In case readers missed it, copyright holders are very unhappy with YouTube. In recent months the site has developed into a battleground over the DMCA and the entertainment industries’ war with Google, with the record labels making most of the noise.

This week it was the MPAA’s turn to put more pressure on the site, this time by linking to an article published by filmmaker and anti-piracy advocate Ellen Seidler. As can be seen below, it implores YouTube to clean up its act.

"Time for YouTube to get serious about cleaning up all the junk, spam and malware files on its site" https://t.co/DsTwh3GYv7 @voxindie

— MPAA (@MPAA) July 7, 2016

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

The piece by Seidler is an interesting one, in that it criticizes YouTube for allowing people to upload fake movies that lead people to scammy sites.

In the unlikely event readers haven’t seen them, these fake movies are easily found by typing the name of almost any mainstream film into YouTube’s search box and adding the words “full movie”.

Once accessed, the videos nearly always instruct users to ‘click the link’ below the video to access the full movie. These links rarely, if ever, lead to anything good, and especially not the movie people expect.

While Seidler’s post expresses concern over the dubious sites that YouTube users are sent to, it seems likely that her post is more broadly aimed at chipping away at YouTube’s credibility and reputation. Little doubt that the MPAA’s retweet had that in mind too.

However, taking a step back reveals a much more complex picture.

Seidler correctly notes that these fakes pollute YouTube’s results but she also reports a secondary problem – it makes her anti-piracy work much harder.

“When I search for copies of my film using my Content ID account, I have to wade through dozens of these fake uploads,” Seidler complains.

“Removing them is an incredibly time-consuming task as it seems YouTube has purposely chosen to make the Content ID dashboard as inconvenient as possible for users.”

Of course, this situation is bad for people like Seidler who are trying to protect their content but consider for a moment the tremendous negative effect on pirates.

For many years people were able to type a movie title into YouTube, filter out all clips less than 20 minutes long, and more often than not come up with a decent copy of the movie in question.

Well, no more.

Today, YouTube’s search results are a horrible place to attempt ‘full movie’ piracy and that’s mostly down to the ‘full movie’ scammers.

If anything, one might think that Hollywood would be at least marginally grateful for third-parties infecting would-be pirates with malware or getting them stuck in horrible subscription traps. That’s quality piracy deterrence right there.

Instead, Seidler suggests ways that YouTube could clean up its site, perhaps by detecting and removing these fakes with ContentID. Pirates would certainly appreciate that, but YouTube isn’t likely to oblige.

Proactively removing content in that manner would only invite calls for YouTube do the same for copyrighted content. Before long, the same calls would go out to Google in general, with big implications for its search business.

So for now, both Seidler and would-be pirates are going to have to put up with these fake movie operations. Anti-piracy people will have to figure it out for themselves, but the best advice for regular users is to never click on the links in ‘fake movie’ YouTube descriptions.

Finally, Seidler raises the question of who is behind these scams. One of the outfits she names is TzarMedia.com, a site that has hundreds of negative online reviews.

The rabbit hole seems very, very deep on this one but there seems to be a recurring theme for those with an urge to investigate further. It looks messy, really messy.

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

Last year Wikileaks published a searchable database of the emails and documents that were exposed following the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack.

Journalists had already picked out the most juicy details during the months before, but Wikileaks opened it up to the public.

This also allowed search engines such as Google to index all leaked emails, which made them even more widely accessible.

At Sony they were not happy with the exposé and one of the company’s top executives recently decided to take action.

A few days ago Daniel Yankelevits, Senior Vice President Legal Affairs at Sony Pictures, sent a DMCA takedown request to Google asking the search engine to censor Wikileaks’ archive of the hacked emails.

Interestingly, this request appears to be personally motivated, as the only email highlighted is about Mr. Yankelevits himself.

Google search for Daniel Yankelevits

In the email, the human resources department informs the company’s chief counsel Leah Weil that Yankelevits’ salary will increase from $320,000 to $330,000, as his contract allows.

“Daniel’s contract provides for a discretionary annual increase on 3/1 and compensation has come back with a recommendation of 3.1% taking him from $320,000 to $330,000,” the email reads, asking Weil if she approves.

Sony Pictures’ VP of Legal Affairs is not happy that his salary details are now out in the open. Not least because it appears at the top of Google’s search results for his name.

While the desire to have this email scrubbed from the Internet is easily understood, using a copyright claim to achieve this is questionable.

First of all, the reason for the takedown request is that “it’s not right,” which is a rather meager motivation for the Senior Vice President Legal Affairs of such a large company.

“My salary is in Google due to Sony Hack wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/103755 please remove the above on your results page. It’s not right,” it reads.

Secondly, the DMCA notice itself is inaccurate and incomplete.

Technically, the takedown request asks Google to remove the homepage of the leaked email archive, claiming that the email published by Wikileaks is the original content. In other words, even if Google did comply the email discussing the salary would remain online.

What raises the most eyebrows, however, is that the request is personally motivated and has very little to do with copyright. Yankelevits is neither the sender nor the recipient of the email, so even if copyright was an issue, the fact that his salary was exposed is totally irrelevant.

While Sony Pictures Entertainment is listed as the “copyright holder” in the DMCA notice, it’s unknown whether the company is aware of the takedown attempt.

Ironically, the takedown request is only destined to make matters worse for the Sony Pictures’ legal executive. Google has refused to remove the email, so instead of covering it up, Yankelevits has put a big spotlight on his salary. A classic example of the Streisand Effect.

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

Seemingly every week there are horror stories of copyright holders abusing the DMCA in order to harass the little guy and suppress legitimate speech. It’s a problem that infuriates the masses, particularly on YouTube.

Early Friday, TorrentFreak was informed of a situation faced by a woman running Emadion, an Italy-based site dedicated to horror, the supernatural, and the bizarre.

Emadion is supported by a small YouTube channel which recently received notification that an uploaded video was infringing copyright. The details are enough to make smoke come out of any YouTuber’s ears.

The video in question features the infamous and harrowing 911 recording of a call which detailed a horrific pet chimpanzee attack that took place in the United States in 2009.

The Emadion channel operator had augmented the clip (warning: upsetting) with Italian subtitles for the benefit of local viewers. However, Emadion quickly received a copyright claim from BestMusic Digital, the representative of Romanian musician, Kazi Ploae si Specii, who claimed that the content was his.

Bemused, Emadion carried out some checks and found that the artist had uploaded a track titled ‘Valium‘. Sure enough, his track features a sample of the same 911 recording.

Believing that the copyright complaint was a mistake, Emadion filed a dispute with YouTube, but the response was not what they’d hoped for.

“After reviewing your notification, BestMusic Digital Distro has decided that the copyright infringement violation is still valid,” the notice read.

Furthermore, Emadion was advised that the 911 call video would now be monetized by the Romanian artist, alongside a warning of the implications of making a further unsuccessful appeal.

“You may appeal this decision, but if the author does not accept your appeal, you may receive a warning in your account,” YouTube advised.

Of course, any YouTube user would have a right to be worried by this notice. One dispute had already been rejected, why wouldn’t a second?

Concerned, a representative of Emadion contacted TF for advice. Could the 911 call really be copyrighted by this artist? In a word, doubtful. Connecticut, where the recording took place, treats 911 tapes as public records and makes them available online.

So, at this point the pitchforks were getting sharpened ready to deal with the aggressive copyright holder who was ‘bullying’ the little guy into submission. With a critical article already underway, TF contacted BestMusic Digital for comment. Their response was unexpectedly quick, frank, and friendly.

“We have revised the track from the artist that you mentioned, deleted the track and removed the material from YouTube. It seems that the artist used that sample in his track and uploaded it to our system for the use of Content ID,” a company spokesperson advised.

“As standard when uploading tracks to our system for Content ID, artists accept the [terms and conditions] stating that they have full rights over the uploaded content. On the other hand, there are underground artists that don’t always do things by the book and this is how things like these happen.”

Within minutes a very happy Emadion confirmed that the complaint had been withdrawn and the threat of a strike lifted. A great result. However, one thing hadn’t quite been cleared up – why was Emadion’s dispute rejected?

“It was just an error on my part. I clicked the wrong button. I resolved it when I saw your email,” TF was told.

While tales of happily solved copyright disputes aren’t the usual fodder of these pages, hopefully this one will prove helpful.

YouTube’s dispute process is somewhat clinical, and communication through it can prove frustrating for users. However, it’s worth remembering that there are real human beings at the ends of these problems and as a result there’s an opportunity for discussion and negotiation, person to person.

It might not always work, but it has to be worth a shot.

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

Earlier this year the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission released a Draft Report on Intellectual Property Arrangements, recommending various improvements to the country’s copyright policies.

The commission suggested allowing the use of VPNs to bypass geo-blocking efforts. In addition, the proposals include drastically lowering the copyright term, while also introducing fair use exceptions.

Various interested parties have since responded to the proposals. As expected, copyright holders are not happy with the plans and some are outright offended by the recommendations.

For example, a coalition of Aussie TV and movie groups point out that the language being used reflects a “slanted, superficial and under-informed approach.” Similarly, two writers’ guilds describe the draft report as an “attack on the livelihoods” of Australian creators.

From the “offending” report

Several rightsholder groups argue that strong copyright protections are essential for the survival of their businesses. This includes a long copyright term of 70 years, as well as the ability to block access to content based on the location of a consumer.

In addition, many believe that fair use exceptions will do more harm than good. For example, music group IFPI warns that fair use will threaten innovation and create legal uncertainty.

“Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements between content owners and users, including technological innovators,” IFPI writes.

Copyright is the cornerstone of the music industry, according to IFPI, while fair use will mostly benefit outsiders who want to profit from the work of others.

“The music industry exists because of copyright. Copyright drives innovation and creativity, enables record companies to invest in artists and repertoire, and gives creators an income.

“It is no coincidence that those who champion the ‘flexibility’ of fair use exceptions/defenses typically are those whose business models depend on unfettered access to copyright works.”

TV company Foxtel issues a similar warning about fair use. According to the Australian pay television company, it will directly damage the country’s creative industries.

“Fair use will introduce significant and unnecessary uncertainty into Australian law,” Foxtel writes.

“A fair use exception would be wide, vague and uncertain, while at the same time it would significantly erode the scope of copyright protection which is so critical in protecting investment in Australia‘s cultural industries.”

Foxtel also warns that third parties will exploit fair use exceptions at the expense of rightsholders. This will eventually hurt revenues and threaten the creation of new content.

“Fair use will have negative economic consequences and have a significant impact on creative output due to the associated uncertainties. Foxtel strongly believes that this type of reform will have a significant impact on creative outputs due to the uncertainties it will create,” the TV company adds.

But it’s not just major companies protesting against the proposed changes. The Australian Writers’ Guild also warns against fair use.

They believe that it will disadvantage their members, who don’t have the means to protect themselves against large corporations that could invoke fair use as a defense.

“We are particularly concerned about the uncertainty created by the introduction of fair use,” they write.

“It will contingent on scriptwriters, for example, to mount legal cases that their work has been infringed and is not subject to legitimate fair use by the respondent, who is likely to be a large corporation such as a news organization or search engine.”

While the copyright holders fiercely oppose fair use exceptions, others such as Google welcome it with open arms. According to Google, fears surrounding the uncertainty it would create are overblown.

Interestingly, Google cites none other than Hollywood’s anti-piracy group MPAA to make its case.

“Our members rely on the fair use doctrine every day when producing their movies and television shows – especially those that involve parody and news and documentary programs,” the MPAA stated previously.

The Government’s Productivity Commission will take the comments from various stakeholders into account before moving forward. The final report will be handed to the Government in August and published shortly after.

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

Following a few hints earlier this week, it is now fully confirmed. Kim Dotcom will be launching a brand new file-sharing site with a familiar name.

Megaupload 2.0 is pencilled in for a January 2017 launch, an event that will coincide with the 2012 closure of the original Megaupload and the massive police raid on its operators.

Having successfully avoided the clutches of a hungry United States government for half a decade, this five-year anniversary is an important one for Dotcom, and it’s becoming clear he hopes to celebrate it with another poke in the eye for the Obama administration.

Details are few at this stage, but here’s what we know. Megaupload 2.0 will have 100gb of free storage. It will allow users to sync all of their devices and there will be no data transfer limits. On-the-fly encryption will be baked-in.

But while site features are important, what the original Megaupload had going for it was millions of loyal users. They were all made homeless and scattered when the site was shut down but according to Dotcom, there will be a future grand reunion.

Intriguingly, the serial entrepreneur says that Megaupload 2.0 will get a fantastic start in life. Rather than simply relying on word-of-mouth advertising to get going, his new venture will launch with the original Megaupload user database intact.

How Dotcom managed to preserve a copy of this data isn’t clear, but he says that each user account held within will get a foot up.

“Most Megaupload accounts will be reinstated with Premium privileges on the new Megaupload,” Dotcom announced this morning.

If every one of those former Megaupload users hit the site on day one, that’s 100 million people needing attention. It’s unlikely that anywhere near that will come aboard, but just one or two percent would be a tremendous start.

But hosting files isn’t the only thing on Dotcom’s mind. His censorship-resistant MegaNet project is still in development and although it’s not going to be ready until 2018 at the earliest, Dotcom says that Megaupload 2.0 will be a crucial component of that network.

“Megaupload 2.0 will be the launch platform for MegaNet. Let’s make sure that we have critical mass first. #100MillionUsers,” he said this morning.

Dotcom clearly has much work to do and even flat-out will struggle to meet his January deadline. Still, he doesn’t intend to do it alone.

“To former Megaupload and current Mega employees. We welcome you with open arms. Mega App developers, we have a great deal for you. Ping me,” he wrote a few hours ago.

So how will former Megaupload users know if they can use their old credentials to access the new site?

“Expect an email,” Dotcom concludes.

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