To ensure that the Internet is able to function to the benefit of the broader public, the Government of Canada appointed an external panel to review Canada’s communications legislative framework. 

The panel is expected to release its findings next month, which will in part be based on input received from public submissions earlier this year. 

Thus far, most submissions have surprisingly been kept from public view. However, University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist filed an Access to Information Act request and will publish the responses he receives. The first one comes from Canadian telco Bell and stretches to 167 pages.

Bell’s submission deals with a wide variety of topics ranging from online video regulations to online privacy requirements. For the purposes of this article, however, we focus on the company’s suggestions when it comes to piracy and copyright infringement.

One of the Government’s prime policy priorities, according to Bell, should be to combat content piracy.  

“Canadian creators, the Canadian broadcasting system, and the Canadian
telecommunications system do not have effective tools to protect the content that is central to the creative and digital economy against the rampant growth of digital piracy,” Bell writes.

The submission goes on to cite various piracy studies that support this claim. It reports, for example, that 26% of all Canadians admit to having accessed pirated content online. In addition, it mentions that 15.3% of all Canadian households use set-top-boxes with piracy add-ons or access piracy subscription services. 

According to Bell, now is the time to address the online piracy issue and it provides two concrete proposals. The first one is aimed at tackling pirate online streaming services, including the previously mentioned streaming sites and set-top boxes. 

Bell equates this relatively new type of piracy to the boom in black market satellite piracy roughly three decades ago. At the time, lawmakers responded by updating the Radiocommunication Act to criminalize the decoding of encrypted signals and the possession and sale of devices intended for that purpose.

“This stimulated law enforcement activity in the area of satellite piracy, which contributed to the investigation and shutting down of piracy operations and also had a significant deterrent effect,” Bell notes.

The telco stresses that a similar response is now required to deal with the online streaming epidemic. Most pirate streaming services no longer rely on encryption but are based on rebroadcasting content over the Internet instead. 

This type of streaming activity should be criminalized in the Broadcasting Act, Bell recommends. Not just the services and sites that do the ‘broadcasting,’ but also people who advertise or sell related products.  

“Accordingly, we recommend that a provision be added to the Broadcasting Act making it a criminal offense for anyone subject to an exemption from the requirement to hold a license to knowingly operate, advertise, supply, or sell or offer to sell access to a distribution undertaking that retransmits broadcasting without lawful authorization from a programming undertaking.”

“Such an approach would concentrate criminal liability on commercially-motivated operators engaged in organized crime and would stimulate additional law enforcement activity to address this pressing threat,” Bell adds.

This measure doesn’t appear to be aimed at end-users but will certainly affect pirate streaming sites, vendors of pirate set-top boxes, as well as those who promote them.

The second anti-piracy proposal put forward by Bell is to make it possible for ISPs to block pirate sites more easily. This is the same plan proposed by Fairplay Canada Coalition last year, but with a twist. 

“By far the most important tool that modernized legislation should adopt is the ability for an independent authority to grant orders requiring all Internet service providers (ISPs) to disable access to sites that are blatantly, structurally, or overwhelmingly engaged in piracy,” Bell writes.

This Fairplay blocking proposal was denied by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) last fall, which noted that it lacks jurisdiction. According to Bell, this is something the Government could change through an update of the Telecommunications Act.

Specifically, it wants the Government to amend current legislation to authorize the CRTC to approve and require Internet providers to disable access to sites that are blatantly, overwhelmingly, or structurally engaged in piracy. 

That blocking is not a perfect solution, shouldn’t matter. Even a partial reduction in traffic to pirate sites, as has happened in other countries, should already be rather effective, Bell argues.

“A policy that reduces the total level of piracy by up to 40% from the level that would otherwise have prevailed, and that substantially increases the legal consumption of content, can only be considered incredibly effective. The fact that it does not eliminate 100% of piracy is not a justification for inaction,” the telco writes.

Website blocking also finds support in a separate submission from Shaw Communications, another major Canadian telco.  Similar to Bell, Shaw believes that an update to the Copyright Act is required to achieve that. The company, however, rejects a proposal to tax ISP subscriptions to support copyright holders.

By criminalizing pirate streaming services and blocking pirate sites, Bell hopes to make a significant dent in Canada’s piracy rates. Whether the government’s expert panel will adopt these recommendations has yet to be seen. 

Many copyright holders are likely to side with Bell,  but there is plenty of opposition as well. Michael Geist, for example, characterizes Bell’s submission as “self-serving in the extreme,” noting that it poses shocking risks to many stakeholders in Canada’s communication industry.

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

Last November, major media and tech companies in Russia signed a landmark memorandum in order to tackle the rise of pirated content on the Internet.

Central to the agreement was the creation of a database populated with links to material deemed copyright-infringing by entertainment industry groups

Operators of search platforms agreed to query the database every five minutes and then, within six hours, remove links to the content from their search results. The same applies to sites that actually host content, such as Yandex.video and RuTube, for example.

Population of the database got quickly underway and according to the Media Communication Union (MKC), which represents the interests of major media and telecoms companies, now contains around 300,000 links. However, the companies involved feel that the system can be much improved with the addition of custom software.

To that end, this week the MKC revealed that it has begun testing a new anti-piracy system that will allow content to be added to the database more quickly and efficiently. The tool not only allows URLs to be entered manually but also accepts input from “specialized search systems” that are able to identify illegal content.

“An automated solution based on specially trained neural networks is used to analyze the content of sites specified in the rights holders’ reports,” MKC announced.

MKC says that manual testing is also used in a number of cases, with the results being sent to the neural network for “additional training.” As the project develops, the aim is to require the intervention of human operators on much fewer occasions.

“A modern software solution based on self-learning systems will significantly increase the effectiveness of the fight against Internet piracy and will further increase the consumption of legal video services,” said MKS President Mikhail Demin.

An almost fully-automated anti-piracy seems like a big ask, particularly when machines are often blamed for erroneous takedowns. However, for the head of Russian telecoms watchdog Roskomndazor, removing humans from the equation where possible will make the system more effective.

“This is a significant event for both sides of the Memorandum,” Alexander Zharov says.

“An automated solution for interaction within the framework of the Memorandum will help to increase the reaction times and reduce the risks associated with the ‘human factor’.”

It is not yet clear whether the system under development represents anything drastically new in the anti-piracy space, or whether the “self-learning” component will amount to anything more than scraping allegedly-infringing URLs and then sending these to the registry.

Nevetherless, beta tests are already underway and it’s expected that the finished product will be with rightsholders before the end of July.

The memorandum and supporting technical efforts are currently in operation voluntarily until the terms of the agreement run out November 1, 2019. However, given the level of commitment being shown by the parties involved, it’s expected to continue until the terms of the memorandum can be written into local law.

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

Little over a week ago the magnet torrent search engine MagnetDL suddenly closed its doors, without prior warning.

Instead of the regular search box which served as a gateway to millions of downloads, users were welcomed by the following message. 

“MagnetDL has closed. It has been a great seven years and it’s sad to have it come to an end. Thanks to everyone who has visited over the years especially our regular visitors,” a message on the site read.

The site, which has been around since 2012, had built up a dedicated userbase which was unpleasantly surprised by the news. The shutdown triggered a wave of responses, with some calling for a comeback. 

While that kind of outreach usually doesn’t change anything, in this case, it motivated the operator to continue. Soon, the ‘goodbye’ message was replaced by a new note announcing a swift and surprising comeback.

And indeed, a few hours ago the site reappeared as if nothing had happened. Intrigued by the turn of events, we reached out MagnetDL’s operator, who was willing to shed some light at what happened. 

The initial decision to close the site was deliberate and came after facing a suspension from its former hosting provider.

“There was pressure on the web host from their ISP to suspend my account due to various copyright complaints. The choice was to either close the site or find a new server,” MagnetDL’s admin told us. 

“There wasn’t much time to decide and so I began to wonder if it was worth continuing; that’s why it closed,” he adds.

The idea was to shut the magnet search engine down permanently, but after seeing the responses from users, doubt started to set in. Not much later, the initial decision was reversed and the site’s operator set things in motion to relocate to a new host.

“The people spoke and it was clear they wanted it back,” MagnetDL’s operator says. “The site provides a good service especially for those who may not be able to afford the latest movies or subscribe to a bunch of streaming services.” 

While this almost sounds like a PR move, the motivation seems sincere. The site’s operator doesn’t plan to make any changes to the site and will just keep things the way they are.

The site is by no means a money magnet, but as long as ads pay the bills, the operator says he’s fine.

“There’s really not much revenue in a site like this but hopefully just enough to pay for the server. It’s still a relatively small site but that’s okay. There are no significant changes planned but focusing on keeping a fast, clean, user-friendly site.” 

Needless to say, the users who complained earlier, are pretty happy with this decision. 

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

While movies and TV-shows tend to be the most sought-after content among pirates, music remains popular as well. 

Thousands of album releases can be found on classic torrent sites and stream-ripping services are also widely used.

In addition, there’s a dedicated group of music fans who share their work in private forums, dedicated release sites, or through messaging tools such as Telegram and Discord.

These sites and services usually rely on third-party hosting platforms and have become renowned for hosting pre-release leaks. This includes DRB.ee.

The music industry isn’t happy with this activity and following a series of leaks last month, the RIAA took action. Among other things, the music group requested a subpoena from a Columbia federal court against Cloudflare, requiring it to hand over identifying information related to several domain names.

“We have determined that users of your system or network have infringed our member record companies’ copyrighted sound recordings. Enclosed is a subpoena compliant with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” the RIAA’s McDevitt wrote to Cloudflare.

Among the targets was the hosting site DBR.ee which, according to the RIAA, made a copy of Big Sean’s track ‘Emotional’ available, as highlighted in the subpoena request. 

While it’s not known if and what information Cloudflare handed over, DBR.ee went offline soon after. The downtime was initially shrouded in mystery, with some claiming that the site would soon return. However, it has now become clear that the site was targeted by the RIAA, IFPI, and Music Canada. 

After a domain name update, now DBR.ee links to a message from the three music groups, noting that the site is no longer available.

“This site has been shut down following legal action for copyright infringement,” the page states, featuring the logos of the three music organizations.

“Making available copyright protected music on the internet without authorisation from the copyright holder is illegal. Wilful, commercial scale copyright infringement could lead to criminal conviction. Illegal music services exploit the work of artists and pay nothing to those creating and investing in music.”

In a follow-up comment, IFPI explains to us that they identified and contacted the site operator, who agreed to stop the infringing activities. Whether the Cloudflare subpoena was instrumental wasn’t specifically confirmed, but that would make sense.

 “DBR.ee was responsible for large scale copyright infringement of music content,” an IFPI spokesperson informed TorrentFreak.

“On behalf of our member record companies, IFPI, RIAA and Music Canada identified and contacted the site operator who has now agreed to shut down the site completely and not to infringe sound recording rights in the future.”

A source familiar with the site informed TorrentFreak that DBR.ee was hosted in Canada, which may further explain in the involvement of Music Canada. The organization informed us that it sides with IFPI’s statement.

It’s worth noting that Ayefiles, which was targeted with the same subpoena, has been offline for a few days as well. Similarly, the hosting platform Nofile, the subject of another RIAA subpoena, is also offline. 

Others that were targeted, such as the unrelated Dbree.org and the music release site ‘Plus Premieres’, remain online. The latter does mention the downtime issues at DBR.ee 

“With dbr.ee and omerta.is offline a lot of links need to be reuploaded. Considering how much music we have and our limited amount of editors that will take some time,” Plus Premieres said on Twitter recently.

Now that the music industry has these platforms clearly in their sights, more reuploading may be needed in the near future.

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

Just over a decade ago this month, France adopted new legislation allowing the country to more easily crack down on Internet piracy.

The so-called Hadopi law, which also spawned a government anti-piracy agency of the same name, was initially focused on the threat posed by peer-to-peer file-sharing systems, BitTorrent in particular.

However, ten years is a long time and since then, live streaming has stormed onto the scene as a convenient way for the public to view both licensed and unlicensed content. As a result, Hadopi is now taking an increased interest in how the latter is consumed online.

The findings of a new study carried out by Hadopi in conjunction with market research company IFOP, reveals that almost a quarter of French Internet users (24%) now access live TV programming illegally.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, streaming sites are the most popular locations, with 17% of all respondents admitting to using them to access live TV. Social networks prove slightly less popular at 14%, with just 5% admitting to using a dedicated IPTV device or application.

Platforms falling into the streaming site category are web-based affairs, often with embedded players, such as RojaDirecta, StreamonSports, and FootStream.tv etc. Of those using these services, 52% say they do so more than three times per week.

The social network category is populated by services such as YouTube Live, Facebook Live, or Periscope, where Internet users share pirated streams of live content with each other. Six out of ten (61%) of these users admit to accessing streams more than three times per week.

The third category, IPTV, is defined as a service that’s accessible via devices including smart TVs, dedicated boxes, smartphones, tablets, or software. These provide users with access to often premium channels that would usually be available as part of a legal package from an official provider.

Almost three quarters (73%) of these users admit to using these services in excess of three times per week, something which is clearly bothering Hadopi, despite just 5% of respondents currently using them.

The agency says this relatively small IPTV usage figure is increasing and has a more damaging effect on legal consumption due to “cannibalization”. ‘Pirate’ IPTV services are the closest one can get to an official streaming package so people are more likely to switch.

“54% of illegal IPTV users have already unsubscribed from a legal offer,” the report notes.

Additional uptake of pirate IPTV appears to have been driven by World Cup and Champions League fans after only some of these matches were delivered unencrypted to the public.

While the study focuses on live TV, it acknowledges that IPTV services pose a broader threat, since many also offer a VOD (Video-On-Demand) service containing hundreds if not thousands of movies and TV shows to be consumed at a time and place of the user’s choosing.

It’s clear from the study that many of those using pirate IPTV devices and apps do so because of the cost. Of those who admitted using them, 66% pay less than 100 euros per year for a package, including some (9%) who pay nothing at all.

As a comparison, combined annual subscriptions to BEIN Sports, Canal+, SFR Sport and OCS amounts to more than 760 euros per year. However, even when a subscriber buys them all the offer can’t compete with the offerings of a regular IPTV provider.

“After this first phase of the study of the uses [detailed above], the Hadopi agency will continue its analysis of the ecosystem of the illegal supply of live TV programs in order to detect, anticipate and warn, against emerging illicit practices,” the agency writes.

“In connection with the rights holders, television channels, Hadopi brings its technical and legal expertise to promote the implementation of actions to ensure effective and efficient protection of sustainable creation on the Internet.”

Hadopi’s paper can be downloaded here (pdf, French)

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