Spotify is currently the most popular music streaming platform in the world with 286 million users. An impressive 130 million subscribe to the company’s premium service with the remainder using the ad-supported tier.

Somewhere in those figures are a small minority who enjoy the features of Spotify Premium but yet manage to do so without paying the subscription fees charged by the company. This is achieved by deploying various hacks and workarounds that remove the restrictions imposed on users of the ad-supported service.

In many cases this means users obtaining a hacked variant of the Spotify software, often on the Android platform. These applications don’t subject users to adverts and in some cases claim to enable other features such as unlimited track skipping and a departure from enforced shuffling.

Needless to say, Spotify views these applications as a threat to its business model. The company has previously taken action against specific tools in an effort to make them harder to find but more recently the Swedish streaming service appears to have stepped up its efforts.

Beginning back in March but increasing as the weeks have passed, Spotify AB has been sending DMCA notices to Google targeting domains that appear to be offering the types of tools highlighted above. Torrentfreak learned of the complaints from a third-party and we were able to track many of them down using the Lumen Database repository.

The majority targeted at Google’s search indexes contain similar wording, with claims that the domains in question are infringing on Spotify’s intellectual property rights. However, the company goes further still with allegations that the tools are designed for fraudulent purposes.

“This site uses Spotify intellectual property in its content without authorization and this falsely suggests Spotify sponsorship or endorsement of the website and violates Spotify exclusive rights,” many read.

“We reasonably believe that it is the intention of its owners to use it as an instrument of fraud.”

At the time of writing Spotify has targeted at least 20 domains with requests like this one to remove more than 60 URLs. Many seem to be so-called APK download sites or similar platforms giving hints and tips about how to obtain Spotify and indeed other services for free, with accompanying links.

However, when testing the domains in the numerous takedown notices our interest was piqued by at least one that triggered a Malwarebytes ‘fraud’ alert. Spotify took a particular interest in this domain by targeting 14 of its URLs, which raises the question of what type of fraud is taking place on the site.

Spotify appears to use the term in connection with using its intellectual property and accessing its platform in an unauthorized manner but it wouldn’t be a huge stretch to think that something even more nefarious might be at play with some modified APK files available online today.

In the vast majority of cases, Google has complied by delisting the requested URLs. At the time of writing there are a handful of more recent Spotify complaints marked as pending a decision (1,2,3)but it would be no surprise if they were removed during the days to come.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Many content providers and networks have their own set-top boxes that can be connected to any modern TV.

These devices are often running on Android and sometimes allow users to install third-party apps, via Google’s Play store, for example.

This opens the door to a wide range of other apps which can be problematic, especially when they offer a gateway to pirated content that directly competes with the operator’s service.

To address this potential threat, digital security company Irdeto is offering an ‘App Watch’ service. This is part of the company’s broad range of piracy tools and services which also includes the game anti-tamper software Denuvo, which recently expanded with an anti-cheat service.

App Watch is targeted at providers of streaming services who have their own set-top boxes. It’s meant to safeguard these companies against abuse and prevent consumers from using their boxes as piracy tools.

“The problem with giving consumers choice is that they may get distracted from your services, on your platform,” Irdeto writes, pointing out the worst-case scenario.

“Consumers may use your top-of-the-line STB for everything EXCEPT your services, or at most just your basic package. The potential damage ranges from losing content upsell opportunities to outright enabling piracy on your box.”

Irdeto mentions that Google has a vetting process and removes clearly infringing apps from its store. However, the system isn’t perfect, with apps remaining on set-top boxes even after deletion by Google. App Watch monitors pirate apps and can delete them from users’ devices if needed.

In addition, it tackles another major problem that software like Kodi presents. Irdeto stresses that Kodi is perfectly legal. However, it can be abused and exploited by pirate add-ons. This is something App Watch can take care of as well.

App Watch monitors all activity on set-top boxes and it can also see how apps are used. When they connect to pirate streaming sites or use pirate add-ons, the operator can take action. This includes blocking or removing Kodi add-ons, while Kodi itself remains available to users.

“Irdeto provides a range of actions you can take to stop app-based piracy on the set-top box, such as disabling add-ons or blocking URLs,” Irdeto explains, adding that its services can also be used to pursue legal action against pirate suppliers.

All the options and data can be monitored through a dedicated dashboard which reveals how many pirate apps and services are installed. This gives providers full control over their users’ devices.

These app usage data are collected anonymously, but providers can use it to reach out to users directly, and point them back toward the legal options if needed.

“By knowing the demand and methods used to bypass your offers, you can devise promotional strategies and on-screen features that entice and enable viewers to easily switch back to your content offers.”

All in all App Watch sounds like a pretty clever system. Whether consumers will appreciate the monitoring and tracking remains to be seen.

Looking at Irdeto’s Denuvo technology, an often-heard complaint is that the anti-piracy tool decreases performance. While that claim has been disputed, the company is aware of the sensitivities and stresses that App Watch users have nothing to worry about.

“The agent running on the set-top box for monitoring app usage is lightweight and has no performance impact on the viewing experience,” Irdeto concludes.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Hobbyist electronics hacker and YouTuber ‘Neutrino’ only has 10 videos on his channel but many are extremely popular.

Back in April he constructed his own interactive and contactless handwash dispenser to help people avoid the coronavirus and earlier this month published an absolute gem, transforming an old CASIO scientific calculator into something better.

After a not inconsiderable amount of work, Neutrino’s device was able to communicate with similar devices nearby and even connect to the Internet. Pretty impressive for a supposed amateur.

As standard, the CASIO calculator chosen for the project can be picked up on eBay for just a few dollars but other components are also required, as listed on Neutrino‘s YouTube channel. After desoldering the solar panel and various other steps, Neutrino managed to squeeze an OLED display into the space, along with a WiFi module and other goodies.

“Since we were in lockdown I wanted to do something really fun, which can keep me occupied for a week or two,” Neutrino informs TF.

“I did not have many components to work with so using this calculator (CASIO fx-ms991) was not a problem, because it was roughly 5+ years old and it was given by my uncle.”

Gizmodo published an article on the invention earlier this month, highlighting that it could potentially be used to cheat in exams. Neutrino says he doesn’t want that but does hope that the hack will inspire others to learn and participate in the ‘maker community’.

But now, just a couple of weeks after winning plenty of praise, the project has also attracted the attention of an anti-counterfeiting organization working for CASIO.

REACT describes itself as a not-for-profit organization with over 30 years experience in fighting counterfeit trade. “One of our main objectives is to keep the costs of anti-counterfeiting actions affordable,” its site reads. A wide range of high-profile companies are listed as members, from Apple to Yves Saint Laurent and dozens in between.

This week REACT wrote to Github, where Neutrino has his ‘Hack-Casio-Calculator‘ repository, with a demand that it should be completely taken down for infringing its client’s intellectual property rights.

“I am writing on behalf of CASIO, which is a member of REACT (also known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Network ). REACT actively fights the trade-in counterfeiting products on behalf of its members,” the complaint reads.

“It came to our attention that the below-mentioned repository is using copyrighted source code in order to modify Casio’s copyrighted program.

“The code the repository contains is proprietary and not to be publicly published. The hosted content is a direct, literal copy of our client’s work. I hereby summon you to take expeditious action: to remove or to disable access to the infringing content immediately, but in any case no later than ten days as of today.”

The full DMCA notice submitted to Github is available here and claims that the “entire repository is infringing” and that hosted content is a “direct, literal copy of [CASIO’s] work.

The repository has been disabled by Github in response to the complaint so validating the notice’s claims is not straightforward. That being said, Neutrino informs TF that the claim is nonsense and all work is his own.

“They accuse me of using copyrighted source code in order to modify CASIO’s copyrighted program. But my code has nothing to do with it,” he explains.

“The code was written completely from scratch and all the libraries included in my source file were open-source. Everything was clearly mentioned in the [now removed] readme file of my GitHub repository. They also allegedly accuse me by stating that ‘The entire repository is infringing’, but in reality whatever the original content they pointed out has nothing to do with my code.”

Neutrino informs us that he has already filed a DMCA counternotice with Github to get his project back. While he may yet be successful, this is just the type of action that has ‘freedom-to-tinker’ proponents throwing their hands up in despair wondering why big corporations have nothing better to do.

Unfortunately, these types of complaints can discourage people from being innovative or sharing their ideas and knowledge, the exact opposite of what Neutrino hoped to achieve. CASIO may somehow feel it’s in the right here but it does seem just a little bit petty.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2016, the U.S. Government launched a public consultation to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provisions.

In response, the Copyright Office received a lot of input, including more than 92,000 comments. Various rightsholders weighed in, as expected, and so did technology companies, law scholars and civil rights groups.

This week, the Copyright Office released its long-awaited report (pdf), summarizing the public input, while offering several recommendations to lawmakers on how to move forward.

The overall conclusion is that there’s a clear discrepancy between how copyright holders and online services view the DMCA. Online service providers (OSPs) are quite pleased with it, while rightsholders see it as outdated and ineffective.

This imbalance comes as no surprise. However, the task of the Copyright Office is to find a way forward. To that end, the report provides some guidance to ‘fine-tune’ a variety of issues but doesn’t propose any broad changes.

“The Office is not recommending any wholesale changes to section 512, instead electing to point out where Congress may wish to fine-tune section 512’s current operation in order to better balance the rights and responsibilities of OSPs and rightsholders in the creative industries.”

This fine-tuning also applies to the ‘repeat infringer’ issue, which has become a hot topic in recent years. Repeat infringers are at the center of several lawsuits between copyright holders and ISPs, which most recently resulted in a billion-dollar damages award against Cox.

The Copyright Office recognizes that there is quite a lot of uncertainty in this area. One problem is the lack of transparency, as ISPs are not required to have a published, or even written repeat infringer policy.

A repeat infringer policy that exists merely in someone’s head is good enough at the moment. This is not ideal, and Congress could address this.

“Given the broad scope of the safe harbors, having a clear, documented, and publicly available repeat infringer policy seems like the appropriate minimum requirement in order to comply with the statute, as well as to act as a deterrent to infringement,” the Office notes.

In addition, it also recommends Congress to provide more clarity on when a user’s account should be terminated. There is currently no clarity on when ISPs should take action and if that requires a takedown notice from a copyright holder.

Another very relevant topic addressed in the report highlights the current restrictions on DMCA subpoenas. At the moment, these suboenas are regularly used to request details of website owners from third-party intermediaries such as Cloudflare or domain name registrars.

These subpoenas are cheap and quick, as they are signed off by a court clerk and don’t require any oversight from a judge. However, they come with restrictions as well, as courts previously concluded that they can’t be used to identify pirating subscribers.

The Copyright Office wonders whether this should change. In mentions that, at the moment, the tool is rarely used, also because the current interpretation doesn’t allow it to be used against regular ISPs to identify pirating subscribers.

“This provision has proven to be little-used by rightsholders, in part because of how restrictively courts have interpreted it and in part because the information gleaned from such subpoenas is often of little use,” the Office notes.

The report recommends Congress to clarify the language of this section. While it understands that some companies might abuse a broader interpretation to extract settlements from file-sharers (i.e. copyright trolls), that shouldn’t hold back lawmakers from considering it.

[“T]he Office does not countenance stripping rightsholders from any realistic ability to enforce their rights, even if doing so may prevent some bad actors from abusing the primary mechanism by which rightsholders may vindicate those rights,” it notes.

The Copyright Office says that it favors “a legislative fix” to address ambiguity in this section of the DMCA to clarify whether this applies to regular ISPs, or not. At the same time, however, the “litigation tactics” of “certain companies” deserve a proper discussion.

“To properly address these concerns, however, the conversation should focus on the actual tactics at issue, rather than using section 512(h) as a proxy to wage those battles,” the report reads.

This is an important recommendation, as making DMCA subpoenas available to identify pirating subscribers will change piracy enforcement drastically. The RIAA tried to use this method over a decade ago and failed. However, if the DMCA language is changed, rightsholders could go after hundreds of thousands of pirates at minimal cost and without judicial oversight.

The report runs to nearly 200 pages and it’s impossible to summarize it all. What is worth mentioning, however, is that the Copyright Office is not sold on two of the top demands from copyright holders. Those are, a ‘notice and staydown’ requirement and ‘site blocking.’

The Copyright Office understands that rightsholders would like a requirement to prevent pirated content from being uploaded, as is also required in the EU by Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive. However, it’s not yet convinced that this is right for the US.

First of all, it would require a “fundamental shift of intermediary liability” in the country. In addition, it is not clear what effect a filtering requirement would have on speech and competition. Those issues would need more research for Congress to consider it at all.

“[I]t is the opinion of the Office that a general staydown requirement and/or mandatory OSP filtering should be adopted, if at all, only after significant additional study, including of the non-copyright implications they would raise,” the report reads.

The same is true for pirate site blocking. While there is some evidence on the effectiveness and implications in other countries, this is not always consistent, and more research is needed.

“While some of these studies report statistically significant reductions in piracy, other studies have shown smaller or no reductions,” the Copyright Office writes.

“Thus, it is difficult to weigh the benefit of such orders against the potential speech impacts, arguing in favor of additional, dedicated study before adopting such a proposal.”

Overall, the report includes some positive and some negative elements for both sides. This was unavoidable, as rightsholders and online service providers have opposing views on how the DMCA safe harbors should function.

The Copyright Office believes that more balance can be achieved by file-tuning the current language. While this sounds mild, the implications for the repeat infringer and DMCA subpoenas could be far-reaching.

That said, the report just provides recommendations. Whether these will be turned into amendments and new legal requirements is up to Congress.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Five years ago, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki revealed that 400 hours of video were being uploaded to the platform every minute. Today that volume has increased to a staggering 500 hours per minute, a vast amount of content by any standard.

While the majority of the video uploaded to YouTube isn’t problematic for the company or third-parties, some users breach copyright law by uploading content that infringes on the rights of others. When that content is discovered by YouTube’s Content ID system or is manually claimed by a rightsholder it can be monetized or removed, but not everything goes smoothly.

In 2018, Russia-based HR-solutions company OnTarget obtained a ruling from the Moscow City Court which compelled Google-owned YouTube to remove some of its content uploaded without permission. Among other things, the company creates personnel assessment test videos and some of these had been uploaded to YouTube by channels that reportedly assist people to obtain jobs by gaming the system.

According to a report from Kommersant, Google appealed in 2019, stating that the content was no longer on YouTube. However, the court dismissed the case, stating that the platform had “not eliminated the threat” of the plaintiff’s rights being violated in the future. It now appears that prediction has come to pass.

OnTarget has now filed another copyright infringement complaint against Google at the Moscow City Court. Founder and CEO of the company Svetlana Simonenko says that YouTube channels informing job seekers on how to “trick future employees and pass tests for them” has posted video tests developed by OnTarget to the platform in breach of copyright.

Speaking with Kommersant, Simonenko says that the lawsuit demands that YouTube should be completely blocked by local ISPs as the violations against her company continue. She claims that Google has not deleted the infringing content and this means YouTube should be considered a repeat infringer under Russia’s anti-piracy laws.

The permanent blocking of websites is a measure only usually taken against the most blatant of infringing platforms, such as massive torrent site RuTracker that despite repeated warnings, fails to remove any copyrighted content following complaints.

As written, Russia’s copyright laws require that sites that repeatedly infringe copyright should be completely blocked in the country but according to experts, demands to have a site like YouTube blocked across Russia over a few videos are likely to fail under pressure.

“It is clear that the requirement to block the whole of YouTube due to several videos is excessive, and the Moscow City Court should reject the normal course of events due to the fact that it is not proportional to the violation,” says Anatoly Semenov, Deputy Head of the IP Committee of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP).

Semenov says that due to the way the law is written the Court isn’t in a position to push aside the requirement to block the entire site and replace that with a requirement to block individual links to content. However, it could simply refuse to apply it in this case or even refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.