When Netflix had just started offering online video content years ago, it didn’t consider piracy to be a major issue.

However, now that the company itself is one of the largest content producers, this outlook has changed drastically.

Like many other rightsholders, Netflix now keeps a close eye on pirate sites and services. The company has its own in-house anti-piracy team and also works with third-party companies, to issue takedown requests.

Increasingly, the streaming service is also teaming with other rightsholders to coordinate its enforcement efforts. Netflix is one of the founding members of the Alliance For Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) and earlier this year it joined the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

This week brings yet another expansion, one that takes it across borders to Italy. Local anti-piracy organization FAPAV just announced that Netflix and the Italian football league Serie A are its latest members.

“The addition of two new members, Lega Serie A and Netflix, will consolidate and further enrich the association’s membership base,” FAPAV announced at its end-of-year gathering.

The anti-piracy group has been very active in Europe over the past several years. A few months ago, it helped to bring down the pirate release group FREE/iNCOMiNG, for example, and it was also involved in the court case that brought down the famous torrent site TNTVillage.

FAPAV has also been a driving force behind local pirate site blockades. In 2019, more than 400 new sites were blocked in Italy, which is more than double compared to the year before.

With help from Netflix, FAPAV will keep its focus on various piracy sources in the coming year.

IPTV piracy will be one of its main priorities in 2020, the group says. In addition to enforcement actions, it will also continue its efforts to educate the public on the downsides of piracy through informational campaigns.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

In 2014, we reported on a lawsuit filed against Tom Kabinet, a Netherlands-based online marketplace for used eBooks.

Fearing that the sale of such content would undermine their business model, the Dutch Publishers Association (NUV) and the General Publishers Group (GAU) sought an injunction to restrain Tom Kabinet from further sales. The request was denied and went to appeal, with a succession of local courts seemingly unable to determine whether the sale of used eBooks is permissible under EU law.

So, in common with other complex copyright matters, questions were sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to determine whether the principle of exhaustion, whereby a copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted after the first sale of a product, applies to eBook content as it does software (pdf).

In September 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his non-binding opinion, advising that exhaustion under Article 4 of the InfoSoc Directive does not exist and that the provision of eBooks falls under the copyright holder’s right of communication to the public.

The CJEU has now handed down its decision which broadly concurs with the opinion of the Advocate General.

“The Court found that the supply by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is not covered by the right of ‘distribution to the public’ provided for by Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, but that it is covered by the right of ‘communication to the public’ provided for in Article 3(1) of that directive, in which case exhaustion is excluded under paragraph 3 of that article,” the CJEU release reads.

The CJEU decision references an underlying World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, noting that the EU legislature intended that the rule of exhaustion be reserved for the distribution of physical objects, such as paper-based books.

“By contrast, the application of that rule of exhaustion to e-books would be likely to affect the interests of rightholders in obtaining appropriate reward much more than in the case of books on a material medium, since dematerialized digital copies of e-books do not deteriorate with use and are, therefore, perfect substitutes for new copies on any second-hand market,” the Court notes.

In respect of whether the supply of used eBooks represents a “communication to the public”, the Court said it considered whether technical means different to those previously used were deployed, or whether the communication was made to a “new public”, i.e an audience that wasn’t taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorized the initial communication to the public.

“In the present case, since the making available of an e-book is generally accompanied by a user license authorizing the user who has downloaded the e-book concerned only to read that e-book from his or her own equipment, it must be held that a communication such as that effected by Tom Kabinet is made to a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holders and, therefore, to a new public,” the decision reads.

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) ruled as follows:

The supply to the public by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is covered by the concept of ‘communication to the public’ and, more specifically, by that of ‘making available to the public of [authors’] works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

The ruling was welcomed by publishing group GAU.

“Now that the European Court of Appeal has followed the argument of the GAU / Media Federation and the conclusion of its AG, it is clear that what Tom Kabinet has done for all these years is contrary to copyright,” a GAU statement reads.

“The decision is not only important for the book sector, but also for the music and film industry, because now also for music and film, downloaded copies may not be resold. The GAU / Media Federation is happy that after many years there is finally clarity about the application of copyright to e-books.

“The GAU / Media Federation will now investigate with authors and publishers what recoverable damage Tom Kabinet has caused,” GAU concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Manga comics and magazines are huge. Not just in Japan but all over the world.

People used to read them on paper, but digital is the standard today. While that makes these comics more accessible, they’re also easier to pirate.

For years there has been an active ‘scanlation’ community. These are fan-made translations that are shared online. Sharing can begin innocently, by posting a copy on a message board. However, there are also entire sites dedicated to this practice.

These platforms draw millions of users which is something manga publishers are not happy with. While the pirate sites certainly helped to popularize the genre around the globe, it doesn’t help the creators if fans enjoy everything for free.

Earlier this year publishers already pressed MangaRock to change its business model and go legal, and this week it appears that another major scanlation site has thrown in the towel.

Mangastream, which operated in the open for many years, has completely disappeared now. There is no official statement on the site’s homepage. Instead, it’s displaying a generic “name of resolved” error, which means that the domain’s nameservers have been stripped.

There has been no official announcement from the site’s operators. However, the domain name changes coincide with the removal of Mangastream’s official Twitter account. This makes it very plausible that the ‘disappearance’ is intentional.

The recent events are a blow to many manga fans, especially since Mangastream was the source of many scanlations. While the motivation for the shutdown it remains guesswork, several leads point to the Japanese publisher Shueisha, known for the Weekly Shōnen Jump magazine.

Following in the footsteps of Mangastream, Jaimini’s Box announced that it would stop working on Weekly Shōnen Jump, but not on other series.

“If you haven’t seen it already, Mangastream has decided to stop working on WSJ series overall. The important part is, we think it is a good place for us to end too,” the site announced.

“This is a new beginning, and end, to an era of scanlation,” Jaimini’s Box added, pointing its readers to MANGA Plus, the authorized online manga platform that’s owned by Shueisha.

After digging further into the issue TorrentFreak was able to confirm that Shueisha indeed had its eyes set on Mangastream.

Earlier this year the Japanese publisher requested a DMCA subpoena at a US federal court in Maryland, demanding that Cloudflare should hand over all details it holds on the domain name’s owner.

Shueisha hoped that identifying the operators of the site could help the company to protect its copyrights.

“The purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of alleged infringers and the information obtained therefrom will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under the Copyright Act,” the attorney informed the court.

This filing dates back to March and it’s the only DMCA subpoena Shueisha requested. It is unclear whether this effort did indeed result in any useful information, as we don’t see a signed order on the docket, but it does confirm that Mangastream had a target on its back.

Paired with Jaimini’s Box’s decision to stop Weekly Shōnen Jump scanlation, it’s likely that Mangastream’s ‘disappearance’ follows legal pressure from the company.

Whatever the reason may be, many of the site’s users are disappointed. A thread started on Reddit generated hundreds of comments and others took their frustration and dismay to Twitter.

There is no record of a federal lawsuit against Mangastream in the US. However, Shueisha did previously team up with other publishers in a legal battle against the operators of the pirate site Hoshinoromi. That case is ongoing.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Last year Cox settled its piracy liability lawsuit with music rights company BMG.

The ink on this agreement was barely dry when the ISP faced a similar and additional complaint. This time it was up against 53 music companies, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music.

The rightsholders complained that Cox categorically failed to terminate repeat copyright infringers and that it substantially profited from this ongoing ‘piracy’ activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders.

Early this month the case went to trial where the parties vigorously defended their positions. The music companies argued that Cox willingly turned a blind eye to pirates, while Cox countered that it’s not to blame for the alleged infringements of subscribers.

A few hours ago the jury reached its final conclusion at the Virginia federal court, clearly siding with the music companies.

Cox was found to be both contributorily and vicariously liable for the alleged pirating activity of its subscribers. This applies to all the 10,017 copyrighted works the music companies claim were infringed.

In addition, the jury concluded that Cox’s action was “willful.” This allows for a maximum damages amount of $150,000 per work but the jury agreed on $99,830, which puts the total damages amount at $1 billion.

The RIAA, which helped many of its members with this case, is pleased with the outcome. The music industry group hopes that it will motivate other ISPs to change their anti-piracy policies.

“The jury’s verdict sends a clear message – Cox and other ISPs that fail to meet their legal obligations to address piracy on their networks will be held accountable,” RIAA’s Kenneth Doroshow notes.

“The jury recognized these companies’ legal obligation to take meaningful steps to protect music online and made a strong statement about the value of a healthy music ecosystem for everyone – ranging from creators to fans to the available outlets for legitimate music consumption.”

Cox Communications is disappointed with the verdict. The company calls the damages amount “unjust and excessive” and is set to appeal.

“We plan to appeal the case and vigorously defend ourselves. We provide customers with a powerful tool that connects to a world full of content and information,” Cox said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, some customers have chosen to use that connection for wrongful activity. We don’t condone it, we educate on it and we do our best to help curb it, but we shouldn’t be held responsible for the bad actions of others,” Cox adds.

This means that the legal battle is likely to continue. And as noted by Variety, the present verdict isn’t final yet until all post-trial motions have been dealt with.

The $1 billion in damages the jury awarded is substantially higher than that of the earlier case against BMG. At the time, the jury awarded $25 million, based on 1,397 copyrighted works. This figure was later reduced in a settlement.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

For years, downloading movies and TV shows has been enough for many online pirates but the broad availability of illicit live streaming services is now a huge draw.

No longer limited to watching after-the-fact recorded content, streaming websites and IPTV services now offer packages that compete and even out-do traditional cable and satellite providers, with the added bonus of being delivered at almost pocket-money prices.

While consumers reap the benefits of low costs and a broader choice of content, suppliers of illicit IPTV products are lured by the proposition of making good money. In Europe alone, the market is edging towards an estimated billion euros per year and there is no shortage of people looking for a piece of the pie.

UK-based Steven Underwood was one of those streaming entrepreneurs but in January this year, things came crashing down. Following an investigation by the Federation Against Copyright Theft and Cornwall Trading Standards, the Police Regional Organised Crime Unit entered Underwood’s home with a search warrant.

An investigation revealed that the Redruth man had sold around £400,000 worth of subscriptions to his IPTV service. The platform was never named publicly named but it’s believed to have been in operation for at least two years, supplying illegal streams of Sky, BT, and Premier League content, among others.

It is relatively rare for these types of cases to go to trial and this one was no exception. In November, Underwood appeared before Truro Magistrates Court, pleading guilty to copyright and fraud offenses. All that remained was a hearing to determine his punishment.

At a sentencing hearing yesterday, the Court heard that between December 2016 and January 2019, 34-year-old Underwood admitted communicating a copyrighted work to the public for personal gain, contrary to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, and further admitted an offense under the Fraud Act 2006.

Prosecutor Harry Ahuja told the Court that Underwood “had specific skills in IT” and used them to obtain illegal streams that were uploaded to remote servers, which cost the Cornwall man between £6,000 and £8,000 a month to maintain.

“You were engaged in a highly profitable piece of completely illegal activity,” Judge Bob Linford told Underwood.

Labeling the crimes as “extremely serious”, the Judge handed Underwood a one-year prison sentence suspended for two years, a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement (to lessen the likelihood of future offending), and made him the subject of a £10 confiscation order, Falmouth Packet reports.

“We are constantly working to remove sellers of illegal streaming subscriptions from the market and bring them to justice,” said Kieron Sharp, CEO of FACT, commenting on the sentencing.

“The message is clear – if you are tempted to sell access to content that is not licensed or owned by you, you risk facing a criminal conviction.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.