Streaming piracy is on the rise with popular media player Kodi at the center of attention.

While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, millions of people use third-party add-ons to turn it into the ultimate pirate machine.

In some cases, the pirate add-ons are put onto the devices by vendors, who sell these “fully-loaded” boxes through their own stores or marketplaces such as Amazon. While Amazon has never explicitly allowed the sale of copyright-infringing devices, they are not hard to find in its store.

This is a thorn in the side of major copyright holders, who have repeatedly complained about fully-loaded boxes.

Amazon appears to be well aware of the controversy, as it recently published an updated policy clarifying that pirate media players are not permitted on the platform. Merely ‘suggesting’ that devices can be used for infringing purposes is enough to have them delisted.

“Products offered for sale on Amazon should not promote, suggest the facilitation of, or actively enable the infringement of or unauthorized access to digital media or other protected content. Any streaming media player or other device that violates this policy is prohibited from sale on Amazon,” the company writes.

Amazon states that it is up to the vendor to determine whether their products meet these standards. Those who still cross the line are in for an unpleasant and costly surprise. Amazon states that it will destroy the devices without reimbursement.

“If you sell these products, we may immediately suspend or terminate your selling privileges and destroy inventory in our fulfillment centers without reimbursement,” Amazon writes.

In addition, if there’s proof that the vendors were engaging in illegal activity, any pending payments may be withheld or forfeited under the policy.

Amazon

While the announcement was published without fanfare, it hasn’t gone unnoticed. Anti-piracy company Irdeto, which works with several major copyright holders on pirate streaming box cases, sees the new policy as a breakthrough.

“This first of its kind preventative measure aims to minimize the pirates’ promotional reach. It’s a policy I hope the other e-Commerce sites will emulate,”‎ Mark Mulready, Senior Director Cyber Services and Investigations at Irdeto, notes.

Despite Amazon’s strong language the site still features many devices marketed as fully-loaded streaming media players. Some, including the one below, even use pirate sources such as Icefilms, Primewire and the Genesis Kodi add-on to market their products.

Amazon

According to Irdeto, the media player software itself is not at fault. In a way, they are a victim of the pirates too, much like copyright holders. The pirate sources and the rogue vendors are the ones that create and maintain the problem.

This is also reflected in the legal cases that have been launched thus far over the misuse of Kodi players. Both in the UK and the Netherlands, test cases against sellers of “fully-loaded” devices are aiming to stop the phenomenon.

In the United States, the problem is also on the radar now. MPAA boss Chris Dodd recently said that finding a solution to the illegal use of Kodi is one of the main piracy questions the industry currently faces, so it’s likely that more enforcement actions will follow.

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

Copyright trolling continues around the world in 2017, with file-sharers the prime targets. From the United States to Europe and beyond, people are still receiving letters in the mail which demand a cash settlement to make a supposed court case disappear.

No country has been harder hit than Germany. Hundreds of thousands of citizens, probably more, have received these so-called pay-up-or-else demands. And, due to strict interpretations of copyright liability, many people find themselves digging deep.

One such case dating back six years has been more complicated than most. In 2011, a family received a letter from Universal Music, demanding cash alongside claims that Rihanna’s album ‘Loud’ had been illegally shared via their Internet connection.

The parents, to whom the letter was addressed, indicated that they had no interest whatsoever in the R&B star. However, one of their three children apparently did, and the parents knew which one had committed the infringement.

Perhaps understandably, however, the parents didn’t want to throw their child to the lions. It’s a position that’s supported by a local law which protects family members from having to testify against each other.

The case ended up at the Munich Court of First Instance and the parents were held liable for copyright infringement and ordered to pay almost 3,900 euros. From there the case progressed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), which handed down its ruling Thursday.

In a big win for Universal, the BGH upheld the decision of the lower court, holding the parents liable for copyright infringement.

According to the Federal Court, if a person knows which other people in his or her residence (typically family members) shared files illegally, they should reveal the name of that person to the Court. If they do not wish to do so, they must accept liability and pay the fine themselves, no matter whether the offender is a child or an adult.

The Court did throw potential future defendants a lifeline, however. If the Internet account holder does not know the name of the infringer, he or she is not obliged to monitor the Internet usage of other family members or to examine computers for the existence of file-sharing software.

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

In common with many other Internet service providers in the United States, RCN receives its fair share of copyright infringement notices, including sizeable numbers from anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp.

These notices, sent on behalf of music rights group BMG, are paired with settlement demands which Rightscorp expects RCN customers to pay at around $30 per shot. On top, the anti-piracy outfit and its client previously warned the ISP that if it did not take appropriate action against its allegedly infringing subscribers, it could be held liable.

That claim lit a fire under RCN who responded with a lawsuit filed against BMG at a New York federal court last summer.

“The central question for this Court’s determination is whether an Internet service provider should be held liable for copyright infringement simply because it provides Internet connectivity to its customers,” RCN wrote.

“BMG’s repeated assertions that RCN is liable for copyright infringement lack merit. RCN therefore seeks a judgment from this Court declaring that it is not liable to BMG for copyright infringement.”

Last September, RCN submitted an amended complaint which revealed how BMG put it under pressure take action against subscribers while demanding compensation. The rights group said that RCN had failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, despite receiving millions of notices.

“We are hopeful that a resolution of this ongoing and damaging infringement can be reached. To that end, we suggest the parties meet to discuss a settlement that would include a means of preventing or limiting future infringement and appropriate compensation to BMG,” the letter from BMG read.

Since then the case has continued with filings back and forth. However, two weeks ago it was revealed that progress had been made, with lawyers for both RCN and BMG informing the court that an agreement had been reached in principle to settle the matter peacefully.

“We write to inform Your Honor that the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter without Court intervention and are in the process of executing the same. We expect a dismissal with prejudice of this matter to be filed shortly,” the letter dated March 16 reads.

Then, on Wednesday this week, the previously warring factions informed the court it was all over.

Neither party has indicated what the settlement entails but since the case has been dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be revived again in the future.

With the parties paying their own legal bills there’s a suggestion that things might stop there financially, but it remains unclear whether RCN has agreed to deal with its pirating subscribers in a more aggressive manner, as originally requested by BMG.

In any event, it seems likely that the BMG v Cox Communications case has hung heavy on this dispute, at least from RCN’s perspective. That case is currently going to appeal but with a $25m ruling in BMG’s favor (not to mention $8m bill in legal costs for Cox), taking big risks along similar lines was probably not high on the agenda for RCN.

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

After Megaupload was shut down more than five years ago, data from hundreds of the site’s servers were put in storage by several hosting facilities, Cogent included.

While the original machines are no longer intact, the company has backed up all data which it will keep in storage pending the various lawsuits against Megaupload and its former employees.

However, as time has dragged on, the condition of the hard drives has significantly deteriorated. Last year, Cogent first warned that sixteen of them have actually become unreadable.

Over the past months the MPAA, RIAA and Megaupload have worked on a mutual agreement to secure the data. This is important because of the pending civil and criminal lawsuits, where the information could be used as vital evidence.

Earlier this month the MPAA and RIAA submitted nearly identical filings, asking the court for a preservation order. The rightsholder groups informed the court that they had reached an agreement with Megaupload on “nearly all” terms of the restoration and backup process, to be carried out by the independent forensics company DriveSavers.

A few days ago Megaupload replied that they indeed agree to the backup and preservation procedure. However, the order proposed by the rightsholders would also prevent Megaupload from accessing its data afterward, which they see as a violation of their constitutional rights.

Megaupload, therefore, submitted a revised version of the preservation order specifying that it can access the data, but for litigation purposes only. If the MPAA or RIAA disagree, they can then share their concerns with the court on a case by case basis.

After hearing both arguments, District Court Judge Liam O’grady chose to side with the rightsholders, siging their version of the preservation order (pdf).

This means that after months of negotiating the failing drives can finally be repaired and preserved. However, when that process is complete no party will be able to access the files, Megaupload included.

“Once the drives and devices have been returned to Cogent’s custody and stored in Cogent’s facility, no person […] shall have access to those drives and devices, or to the data contained on those drives and devices, absent further order from this Court,” the order reads.

The data, and thus the evidence, can only be accessed with permission from the court. While the MPAA and RIAA will be pleased with the ruling, Megaupload is not.

“We are disappointed that the court is still preventing Megaupload from accessing its own server data to independently preserve and use in its own defense,” Megaupload’s counsel Ira Rothken tells TorrentFreak.

The good news, for Megaupload, is that they don’t have to pay for the data preservation. The MPAA and RIAA both agreed to share the cost associated with it and will pick up the full tab.

“We are pleased that the parties that contributed to the Megaupload data loss, by objecting in 2012 to Megaupload’s efforts to access and preserve its own data, are now paying for its recovery,” Megaupload’s counsel says.

“We are also pleased that the Court approved DriveSavers, a world class data recovery firm, as the vendor to handle data restoration,” Rothken adds.

As things stand now it could take years before a trial gets underway, so this is likely not the last time we hear about the data issue. In this regard, Megaupload is also disappointed in the US Government.

The authorities previously prevented the file-hosting service from accessing the files that are hosted at Carpathia. The US Government made backups of the data it wants to use as evidence, but repeatedly prevented Megaupload from doing the same.

“The US after bringing the largest criminal copyright in history is dead set on making sure that Megaupload and the other defendants cannot have access to the evidence they need to defend themselves,” Rothken tells us.

All in all, Megaupload’s counsel is still concerned that Kim Dotcom and the other defendants will not get a fair trial in the United States.

Rothken worries that other data, including the files stored at Carpathia, could become unreadable as well in the future, noting that this could have been prevented if they were allowed preserve it themselves in 2012.

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

With much at stake, one gets the impression that the debate over the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA is likely to boil over before it goes away.

In a nutshell, rightsholders believe that some Internet platforms that allow users to upload audio-visual content abuse their immunity in order to make money from copyrighted content for which they hold no licenses.

Given the recent hostility shown by Hollywood and the music industry towards Google, it’s no surprise that YouTube has become the focal point in this war of words.

In particular, the world’s leading record labels argue that YouTube draws a massive commercial benefit from infringing songs uploaded by its users since it avoids paying for the kinds of licenses ‘fairly’ negotiated with the likes of Spotify and Apple.

In its defense, YouTube says it does all it can to combat infringement, quickly taking down unlawful content when asked to and spending small fortunes on systems like Content ID, which allows creators to monetize otherwise infringing content, should they choose to do so. It also pays huge sums to the labels.

It’s a problem that may eventually be settled by a change in the law but in the meantime the entertainment industries are working hard to paint Google and YouTube as freeloaders making a fortune from other people’s hard work.

Exactly how much money is at stake is rarely quantified but a new study from the Phoenix Center in Washington claims to do just that. The numbers cited in ‘Safe Harbors and the Evolution of Music Retailing’ by authors T. Randolph Beard, PhD, George S. Ford, PhD, and Michael Stern, PhD, are frankly enormous.

“Music is vital to YouTube’s platform and advertising revenues, accounting for 40% of its views. Yet, YouTube pays the recording industry well-below market rates for this heavy and on-demand use of music by relying on those ‘safe harbor’ provisions,” the paper begins.

Citing figures from 2016 provided by IFPI, the study notes that 68 million global subscriptions to music services (priced as a result of regular licensing negotiations) generated $2 billion in revenues for artists and labels at around $0.008 per track play.

On the other hand, the 900 million users of ad-based services (like YouTube) are said to generate just $634 million in revenues, paying the recording industry just $0.001 per play.

“It’s plainly a huge price difference for close substitutes,” the paper notes.

What follows in the 20-page study is an economist-pleasing barrage of figures and theories that peak into what can only be described as an RIAA-friendly conclusion. As an on-demand music service, YouTube should be paying nearer the same kinds of royalties per spin as its subscription-based rivals do, the paper suggests.

“More rational royalty policies would significantly and positively affect the recording industry, helping it recover from the devastating consequences of the Digital Age and outdated public policies affecting the industry,” the paper notes.

“Simulating royalty rate changes for YouTube, one of the nation’s largest purveyors of digital music, we estimate, using 2015 data, that a plausible royalty rate increase could produce increased royalty revenues in the U.S. of $650 million to over one billion dollars a year.

“This is a sizeable effect, and lends credence to the recording industry’s complaints about YouTube’s use of the safe harbor,” it concludes.

Given the timely nature of this report from an industry perspective, TF asked co-author George S. Ford what motivated the study and if any music industry entity had commissioned or been involved in its financing.

“We do a lot of work in copyright and I’ve run into this type of problem in numerous settings, including the recent SDARS III case before the CRB. I’ve wanted to write on this topic for ages and finally got around to it,” Ford told TF.

“The Phoenix Center does not take money to do specific projects, except for instances where a government asks us to do something, and then we indicate funding was received for that project. As noted in the paper, we relied on the RIAA for data.”

Since that did not specifically answer our question we tried again, asking whether the RIAA, IFPI, or any of their member labels are donors to and/or supporters of The Phoenix Center. We received no reponse.

The Phoenix Center has produced a number of pro-industry reports in recent years, including a study applauded by the MPAA which attacked earlier research concerning Megaupload.

The full paper can be downloaded here (pdf)

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