Along with the MPAA and RIAA the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) submitted its overview of “notorious markets” to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) this week.

These submissions help to guide the U.S. Government’s position toward foreign countries when it comes to copyright enforcement.

The ESA represents video game companies including Blizzard, EA, Nintendo, Playstation and Ubisoft. In its report the group lists various pirate sites which allow the public to download games for free.

Torrent sites are one of the most significant threats according to the ESA, with KickassTorrents being the major player.

“The ‘Kickass Torrents’ torrent indexing site (kickass.to) has changed domains repeatedly in the recent past in response to enforcement efforts, and is currently accessible at the domain ‘kat.cr’,” the ESA writes.

“It is the most well-trafficked torrent indexing site in the world, and as its Alexa ranking indicates, one of the most popular websites of any kind on the Internet,” the group adds (pdf).

Additional torrent sites referenced by the game companies are TorrentHound and Isohunt.to. Interestingly, other big players such as The Pirate Bay are not mentioned in the report.

The ESA also sees cyberlockers as piracy havens, with Rapidgator.net being the most trafficked site in this category.

“This site is notable for its extremely low global Alexa score, indicating a high volume of traffic. In August 2015, the site was responsible for hosting more than 43,000 infringing game-related files available for download by third parties,” the ESA notes.

The game companies welcome the assistance of the U.S. Government but point out that taking a website down doesn’t always have the desired effect. Last year the popular German language linking site Boerse.bz was raided but today its successor Boerse.to is even more active than the previous version.

Finally, the ESA also highlights a relatively new trend in which “pirate servers” target subscription-based game services. These cloud-based games are less vulnerable to traditional forms of piracy but “rogue” servers emerged, which allow users to play the game for free.

“When users are diverted to play on such servers, game publishers are not able to monetize their online games as described above and thus face reduced opportunities to recoup their investment in creating the online game,” the ESA notes.

As an example the ESA lists Warmane.com, which allows 10,000 to 20,000 people per day to play World of Warcraft without paying the monthly subscription fee Blizzard requires.

Later this year the US Trade Representative will use the submissions of the MPAA and other parties to compile its final list of piracy havens. The U.S. Government will then alert the countries where ‘rogue’ sites operate in the hope that local authorities take action.

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

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multinational trade agreement aimed at strengthening economic ties between the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and eight other countries.

Earlier this week the participating countries agreed on the final text, and a few days later Wikileaks published a leaked copy of the intellectual property chapter, which has yet to be officially revealed.

The final version removes the uncertainties that were present in previous drafts and raises serious concerns among many copyright experts and activists.

If the agreement is ratified the copyright term will be set to the life of the author plus 70 years. This is already the case in the United States, but Canada will have to extend the current term by 20 years.

This is a step backward according to Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who says that the change might cost the Canadian public more than $100 million per year.

“Hundreds of well known Canadian authors and composers who died years ago will not have their work enter the public domain for decades,” Geist notes.

The TPP chapter also outlines how Internet services should deal with copyright infringement. It includes an ISP liability section which mimics the DMCA, but it leaves room for the Canadian notice-and-notice scheme to stay intact.

A more vague provision suggests that countries should encourage ISPs (including search engines and hosting services) to remove or disable content, if a court deems it to be copyright infringing. This means that foreign court orders could be applied to block content in other countries.

The above is worrisome, but the actual text specifies that countries should “induce” ISPs, not force them.

In a similar vein, the agreement specifies that countries should offer ISPs “legal incentives” to “cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials…”

Again, this doesn’t mean that all ISPs have to monitor for copyright infringements, but it will ‘reward’ those who do.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who released a detailed analysis, this effectively means that ISPs “are roped in as copyright enforcers.”

Another point of interest are the criminal sanctions for non-commercial copyright infringement TPP proposes, which currently don’t exist in many countries. This means that people may face jail time for copyright infringements without financial gain, as long as those infringements significantly impact copyright holders.

Finally, if TPP is ratified the circumvention of DRM will be banned as well. In addition, manufacturers will not be allowed to sell circumvention tools such as DVD or Blu-Ray rippers.

This means that Canada’s proposal to classify DRM-circumvention as fair use has failed, although the TPP allows countries to pass exceptions to allow non-infringing DRM circumvention.

While the TPP won’t end file-sharing or kill the Internet, as some suggest, it certainly puts the interests of large multinationals before those of the average citizen. As such, we can expect plenty of opposition leading up to the final votes.

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

Browser-based copies of popular games, both new and old, have become quite popular over the years.

With Javascript and HTML5 it’s possible for “hobbyist” developers to mimic the look and gameplay of their favorite games and share them among friends and other enthusiasts.

The problem is that the use of trademarked names and copyrighted images generally isn’t accepted by large game companies such as Nintendo and Blizzard, who see it as direct competition.

Developer “Ryuta” has just learned this the hard way after his HTML5 version of StarCraft was pulled offline. Ryuta hosted the game on GitHub and actively promoted it on Hacker News last month.

While his work was praised, several commenters pointed out that its success would be short-lived because of the apparent copyright issues.

“The Blizzard legal team will come knocking on your door very soon. If I were you and if you’re serious about continuing working on this, I would take this down immediately..,” one warned.

“I recommend you to remove all proprietary Blizzard graphics from GitHub and possibly just recreate the repository without it,” said another.

The warnings were not in vain. A few days ago Blizzard’s copyright protection partner Irdeto urged GitHub to remove the repository, as well as the 50 forks that were created from it.

“This repository is a blatant, direct, literal copy of the StarCraft software and is disturbing [sic] source code and artwork assets owned by Blizzard without permission,” they write.

Fast forward and Blizzard indeed managed to take down the repository.

TF reached out to “Ryuta” who is disappointed that GitHub decided to take down the entire project, even the JavaScript files he spent hours on coding.

“Removing just the copyrighted assets is acceptable, but they shouldn’t have removed the whole project. The JavaScript code is written by me, they have no right to remove these files too,” Ryuta says.

The developer doesn’t think he’ll be able to get the files back on GitHub, but he is not giving up on the game just yet.

“It will be difficult to get my files back on GitHub, but I plan to continue developing the project and host it on my own site,” he explains.

Ryuta has no plans to monetize the browser game. He’s just a fan and simply created it because he loves Blizzard and StarCraft, and wanted to play it in the browser.

For now, however, play time has ended until the project is revived somewhere else.

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

It was with interest that I read an article published this week by filmmaker and author Dan Mirvish. Best known as the co-founder of the Slamdance Film Festival, Mirvish’s piece in the Filmmaker Magazine begins with a level of honesty rarely seen in the piracy debate.

“If you’re like most young-ish filmmakers, you grew up and matured in an open source world of Napster, YouTube and BitTorrent,” Mirvish told his fellow filmmakers.

“Whether it was making mixtapes for your college girlfriend, or ripping CDs and DVDs with your film school pals, ‘appropriating media’ might have been a way of life for you to consume and share your favorite songs, films and TV.”

Mirvish appears to understand his audience and by not demonizing the ‘enemy’ too much, he also opens the door to more creative anti-piracy thinking.

“As independent filmmakers, we have a more nuanced relationship with the pirates. As ‘gifted and misunderstood artists,’ we want to share our art with the world. So, the more people who see it, the merrier! And, as ‘content creators,’ we want to expand our personal branding and rack up our hits, clicks, tweets and swipes,” Mirvish continued.

The article, which is dedicated to ways of dealing with piracy, is certainly interesting. At no point are Mirvish’s readers advised to hire a lawyer. Instead, the filmmaker focuses on how creators can try to make piracy work for them.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mirvish says that for years indie filmmakers have not only had to deal with getting screwed over by their distributors, but also having to contend with fans obtaining their content for free. But all is not lost.

Another way

“It gets very hard for indie filmmakers to raise money from investors if we can’t say with a straight face that there’s any hope of recouping that money,” Mirvish says.

“That’s why I’ve advocated more of a non-profit model for filmmaking that’s more in line with how society funds things like opera, symphony, community theater or public radio. You don’t see Terry Gross complaining that her Fresh Air radio show is getting pirated!”

Mirvish says that public radio has found ways of raising money via pledge drive, corporate sponsorship and limited government support. As a result, nobody expects a “return” on that investment.

“So, with the advent of crowd-funding and non-profit fiscal sponsorship, that paradigm is starting to work its way into independent filmmaking. Once that happens, then piracy will simply become part of the distribution model, and the more of it, the better.”

Look back to move forward

While still frustrated by seeing his movies pirated on a daily basis, many of Mirvish’s comments will sit nicely with pro-piracy advocates. Recalling business models of yesterday, Mirvish believes that solutions can be found to make the most of the current situation.

“Remember, for 65 years even TV shows were given away for free, over the airwaves, and the networks figured out how to make money through commercial time. Nobody called that piracy!” he says.

“So, another solution is just to build in more product integration and product placement into our films, no matter how ‘artsy’ we’d like them to be. In that regard, the more a film is pirated, the better it is for the corporate sponsors.

“Every time someone watches “Between Us” and sees my characters drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon or driving a BMW, those companies are getting free advertising – regardless of whether the film is seen on a pirated site or through legitimate means. The challenge for me and other indie filmmakers is to quantify those eyeballs and charge appropriately for them on our next films.”

While the above strategies are certainly food for thought, Mirvish also has interesting views on how piracy can work for creators in other ways.

It leaked already, make the most of it

“My pal Richard Schenkman made a terrific film a few years ago called The Man from Earth that succeeded in getting a U.S. distribution deal from Starz/Anchor Bay. But a DVD screener got ripped and posted on torrent sites a couple weeks before the official release date,” he explains.

“From out of nowhere, the film jumped over 7,000 percent on IMDb’s MOVIEMeter, garnered an 8.8 rating and became a bona fide viral hit. Eventually, his film broke even financially, and he used its widespread fan base to finance a Kickstarter campaign for a TV series pilot.”

Other ideas from the filmmaker don’t involve taking content down, but leveraging the success of ‘pirate’ versions of content to make money in other areas.

“Use the model that musicians have had to deal with since the age of Napster: If you can’t make money selling your music, then commodify your performances and pimp your merch,” he explains.

“And if the pirates are showing your movie, then place your own ads for film-related T-shirts, DVDs and other fun extras. You can use Google ads as easily as Procter & Gamble, so keyword and tag your ads so they’ll show up on piracy sites, and start pimpin’ your own merch. Ahoy, mateys, it’s the wave of the future!”

Advertising can be useful in other ways too. Instead of taking down unauthorized content from YouTube, for example, creators should consider monetizing it. He cites a company called Zefr which scours YouTube for infringing clips and instead of taking them down requests a portion of the advertising revenue.

“Tubers keep their fun mashups, the studios and YouTube make money,” Mirvish notes.

While the approaches suggested by Mirvish aren’t going to be a good fit for all content creators, it certainly helps to turn some anti-piracy frustrations on their head.

In many respects if the pirates are doing well, then those following Mirvish’s suggestions have the potential to do well too. But only time will tell if these uneasy bedfellows can work together.

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

Starting a few hours ago Chrome and Firefox users are unable to access KickassTorrents (KAT) directly.

Instead of a page filled with the latest torrents, visitors now see an ominous red warning banner when they visit Kat.cr.

“The site ahead contains harmful programs,” Google Chrome informs its users.

“Attackers on kat.cr might attempt to trick you into installing programs that harm your browsing experience (for example, by changing your homepage or showing extra ads on sites you visit),” the warning adds.

Mozilla’s Firefox browser displays a similar message

The warning messages are triggered by Google’s “Unwanted Software” scanner which flags websites that pose a potential danger to visitors. Chrome and Firefox both use the service to prevent users from running into malicious software.

The policy applies to all websites but torrent sites are common targets of ‘unwanted software’ distributors, according to Google.

The company further stresses that the warnings will automatically disappear when the flagged sites no longer violate Google’s policy.

Kat.cr’s Safe Browsing diagnostics page

This is not the first time that the red warning banner has shown up at Kat.cr. The same happened a few months ago and at the time several other large torrent sites were also affected.

Coincidentally, KAT’s operators just issued a warning to avoid malicious copycat sites, which only adds to the confusion. This warning is unrelated to the alert triggered by Google.

Previously, the Chrome and Firefox warnings did indeed disappear after the affected websites disabled certain advertisements, so it’s likely that the current issue will also be resolved in due time.

Impatient or adventurous users who want to bypass the warning can do so by clicking the details link, or disable their browser’s malware warnings altogether, at their own risk.

Update: The KAT team informs us that the bad advertiser has been removed, so the warning should disappear after Google reviews it.

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