When a government agency produces a report urging major changes to intellectual property laws, one often expects something heavily weighted in favor of rightsholders

Documents published today by the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission contain a more balanced set of recommendations, several of which are likely to provoke an adverse reaction from both local and international rightsholders.

The Intellectual Property Arrangements draft report is a 600 page epic covering everything from copyright and patent issues through to pharmaceuticals and plant breeders’ rights. Of most interest to readers will be the agency’s comments on infringement, fair use and copyright terms.

Bring on the VPNs

For years Australians have felt that when it comes to entertainment content they’re treated as second class citizens. Aussies believe that not only do they pay over the top for content, but they also have to wait longer for it to arrive.

As a result many access overseas services by using a VPN, something which is frowned upon by rightsholders and actively blocked by companies such as Netflix. Nevertheless, the Productivity Commission wants to do everything it can to open up options for consumers.

“Geoblocking results in Australians paying higher prices (often for a lesser or later service) than consumers overseas,” the report reads.

“The Australian Government should implement the recommendation made in the House of Representatives Committee report At What Cost? to make clear that it is not an infringement for consumers to circumvent geoblocking technology.”

But the Commission doesn’t stop there. In case any foreign country wants to pressure Australia into acting otherwise, the agency advises the following.

“The Australian Government should seek to avoid any international agreements that would prevent or ban consumers from circumventing geoblocking technology,” it adds.

Dealing with piracy

The Productivity Commission notes that enforcement is a key factor in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian IP system. It also acknowledges that copyright infringement is an ongoing issue. That being said, rightsholders probably aren’t going to like the draft’s conclusions.

“Online copyright infringement remains problematic for rights holders. Evidence suggests many people infringe copyright because of the ongoing difficulty and cost in accessing content,” the report notes.

“Evidence suggests infringement declines with better content availability and most consumers prefer paid, legal consumption. As such, an effective approach to reducing infringement is the timely release of content to Australian consumers. This requires action by rights holders and their intermediaries.”

It’s not difficult to see how these statements dovetail with the recommendation on VPN use and the pressure could eventually see Aussies getting a better deal. But for rightsholders hoping for more enforcement options in the meantime, only disappointment awaits.

“Changes to the law to encourage Internet service providers to cooperate with rights holders, as well as litigation, have only had a modest impact in reducing infringement. Further legislative change is unlikely to improve compliance with the law,” the report states.

Fair Use and Copyright Terms

In keeping with the positive response to increased consumer choice, proponents of expanded fair use provisions and diminished copyright terms also have something to celebrate.

“Australia’s copyright system has expanded over time, often with no transparent, evidence-based policy analysis demonstrating the need for, or quantum of, new rights. A new system of user rights, including the introduction of a broad, principles-based fair use exception, is needed to help address this imbalance,” the report notes.

“The Australian Government should amend the Copyright Act 1968 to replace the current fair dealing exceptions with a broad exception for fair use. The new exception should contain a clause outlining that the objective of the exception is to ensure Australia’s copyright system targets only those circumstances where infringement would undermine the ordinary exploitation of a work at the time of the infringement.”

And on copyright terms, yet more consumer-friendly advice.

“The term of protection for most works is now more than 70 years and considerably longer than necessary to incentivize creation of most works (with a commercial life less than 5 years). The current duration of copyright imposes costs on the community and access to works is restricted, particularly for works not commercially available but still subject to copyright protection,” the draft reads.

“While hard to pinpoint an optimal copyright term, a more reasonable estimate would be closer to 15 to 25 years after creation; considerably less than 70 years after death. Perpetual copyright protection of unpublished works should also be removed.”

Consultation period

The report is currently in draft and written submissions are invited up until Friday 3 June 2016. The final report will be handed to the government in August and published shortly after.

The full 603-page report can be found here (pdf)

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

When it comes to the business model of turning piracy into profit, the name Voltage Pictures is never far from the action.

The Los Angeles-based movie outfit has tested the legal waters in several jurisdictions in an effort to extract cash settlements from alleged pirates, most recently in Australia with its movie Dallas Buyers Club.

In 2012, Voltage targeted Canadian ISP Teksavvy in a long drawn out battle to identify 2000 allegedly pirating users in order to force them to settle. Now, four years later, Voltage are back again with a new strategy.

This week the company filed an application in Federal Court, requesting certification of a reverse class action against an unquantified number of BitTorrent users who alleged shared five movies including The Cobbler, Pay the Ghost, Good Kill, Fathers and Daughters, and American Heist.

According to law professor Michael Geist, reverse class actions are very rare in Canada with only a few having been reported. The application of a reverse class action in a copyright case appears to be unprecedented.

“Class actions typically involve a representative plaintiff who represents many others who have suffered the same harms from the actions of the defendant. Reverse class actions feature a single plaintiff (Voltage) and multiple defendants (the alleged file sharers),” Geist explains.

According to the case documents (pdf) Voltage intends to build its case around a single and as-yet-unidentified customer of ISP Rogers. He or she is referred to as John Doe #1 and by the IP address allocated when the alleged offense took place.

“Through custom-designed software designed to track copyright infringements, and the online identities of those who commit such infringements (by way of IP address and time of infringement), the Voltage Parties have identified many thousand instances of their films (including the Works) being illegally offered for download from Individuals using the Internet,” the Voltage application reads.

“The proposed Representative Respondent, John Doe #1, as well as each member of the proposed Respondent Class….are persons whose names and identities are currently unknown to the Voltage Parties, but who have unlawfully, and without the Voltage Parties’ authorization or consent, infringed copyright in the Works, including by illegally uploading and distributing the Works for free, in full or in part, over the internet.”

Interestingly, Voltage is open about the reasons behind this new strategy, noting that widespread piracy and the high cost of litigation means it has sought a cheaper way to target large numbers of infringers at once.

“The Voltage Parties seek to certify this Application as a class proceeding as a way to address these issues and obtain reasonable compensation for the significant damages that each proposed Class Member has caused, in a cost-effective and fair manner for both the Voltage Parties and the proposed Class Members,” the application reads.

Voltage accuses the Class Members of three “Unlawful Acts” including making movies available for download via BitTorrent, advertising by way of the BitTorrent protocol that a work is available for download by each member, and failing to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that downloaders were authorized by law to do so.

But the big question remains – could such a strategy work? Professor Geist has his doubts.

“One of the biggest concerns involves questions of representation for the defendant class. Before certification [of the reverse class action], the court will want assurance that the interests of the defendants will be fairly represented. But who will represent those interests? Who will pay for the legal counsel?” Geist asks.

“Unlike a plaintiff-led class action, where lawyers are often willing to invest in the case, there is no payoff at the end of this case and finding someone to represent the class will be a challenge when the only named representative is John Doe #1.”

But the problems don’t stop there. Geist says that in a certified reverse class action defendants actually have the option to opt out of the class.

“In other words, after going through the process of trying to meet the requirements for class proceedings, all the defendants will be permitted to simply walk away,” he explains.

If they do, however, other questions are raised, including whether those who opt-out will be allowed to keep their anonymity. If they are not, this could play right into Voltage’s hands.

Copyright cases are complex in their own right but this strategy from Voltage will set in motion a vigorous scratching of heads. Definitely one to watch.

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

Following a series of High Court orders handed down in recent years, six of the UK’s major ISPs are required to block access to dozens of the world’s most popular ‘pirate’ sites.

Over time the number of blocked URLs has expanded to well over 1,000, with popular torrent, streaming and direct download sites being the main targets.

While research has shown that this approach is somewhat effective, there are plenty of options through which people can circumvent the blockades, including many reverse proxies. Similarly, pirate sites can simply switch to a new domain name to evade the court orders.

To remedy the situation the High Court permits copyright holders to expand the blocklists with new domains, provided that they are alternative ways to reach already blocked websites.

This week more than 140 pirate (sub)domains were added, including several proxies and new domain names that allow access to popular pirate sites including Popcorn Time, RARBG, EZTV, Isohunt, Primewire, TubePlus and Vodly.

TorrentFreak obtained the full list from one of the ISPs which includes mostly reverse proxies. In some cases both the www and the regular URL are listed as not all Internet providers block both by default.

One of the prime targets in this new round is the proxy site unblocked.red. This site was previously operating under the unblocked.li domain name, but switched earlier this year after this was added to the blocklist.

In an attempt to bar access to these new URLs, the Motion Picture Association’s court order now lists 16 new unblocked.red subdomains.

TorrentFreak spoke to the team behind the Unblocked proxy sites, who inform us that they already moved to a new home at Unblocked.tv. This switch took just a few minutes, and the proxy operators believe that the block expansions are much more expensive.

“The cat and mouse game will keep on going on our end, since it’s just a matter of registering a new domain name. However, I believe it is more costly and involves more paperwork on their end to block sites,” the Unblocked team says.

Despite earlier blocks, Unblocked remains very popular in the UK. In that regard the restrictions are not very effective.

“Considering the popularity of Unblocked in the UK, I don’t think their strategy is an effective way to deal with piracy. Our traffic data doesn’t show any major changes after our many domain changes. The same can be seen with our Alexa score in the UK,” the team notes.

Nevertheless, copyright holder will continue with their expansions and blocklist updates.

In addition to various proxy sites, the updated list also includes the IP-address of the private torrent tracker TorrentDay, and several new domains for sites that were previously blocked, including iwannawatch.eu, movie25.ph, popcorn-time.to and torrentcd.net.

And so the whack-a-mole continues, with copyright holders adding new domains to the blocklists, and site owners hopping from domain to domain.

– 149.202.57.94
– 7torrents.one
– ads.livetv.ru
– axxomovies.unblocked.red
– axxomovies.unblockmy.site
– axxomovies.worldproxy.eu
– batmanstream.com
– dl4all.unblockme.eu
– dl4all.unblockmy.site
– eztv.torrentlist.biz
– eztv.torrentlist.org
– eztv.unblocked.red
– eztv.unblockme.al
– eztv.unblockme.eu
– eztv.unblockmy.site
– eztv.worldproxy.eu
– icefilms.unblocked.red
– icefilms.unblockme.al
– icefilms.unblockmy.link
– icefilms.unblockmy.site
– icefilms.worldproxy.eu
– img.isoplex.isohunt.to
– img.livetv.ru
– interface.time-popcorn.info
– isohunt.unblocked.red
– isohunt.unblockme.al
– isohunt.unblockmy.link
– isohunt.unblockmy.site
– isohunt.worldproxy.eu
– iwannawatch.eu
– iwannawatch.net
– iwatchonline.ph
– iwatchonline.se
– iwatchonline.unblocked.red
– iwatchonline.unblockme.al
– iwatchonline.unblockmy.site
– livetvcdn.net
– losmovies.es.prx2.unblocksit.es
– m.livetv.ru
– movie25.ph
– movie25.ph.prx.proxyunblocker.org
– movie25.ph.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk
– movie25.ph.prx.torrentunblock.com
– movie25.ph.prx2.unblocksit.es
– movie25.unblocked.red
– movie25.unblockme.al
– movie25.unblockmy.site
– movie4k.to.prx2.unblocksit.es
– movie4k.unblocked.red
– movie4k.unblockme.al
– movie4k.unblockmy.link
– movie4k.unblockmy.site
– movie4k.worldproxy.eu
– openbay.isohunt.to
– popcorn-time.to
– popcorn-time.to.prx.torrentunblock.com
– popcorn-time.to.prx2.unblocksit.es
– popcorn-time.xyz
– primewire.unblocked.red
– primewire.unblockme.al
– primewire.unblockme.in
– primewire.worldproxy.eu
– rarbg.com.torrentprox.com
– rarbg.torrentlist.org
– rarbg.unblocked.red
– rarbg.unblockme.al
– rarbg.unblockme.eu
– rarbg.unblockmy.site
– s-s.isohunt.to.prx.torrentunblock.com
– s-s.yts.ag.prx.proxyunblocker.org
– s-s.yts.ag.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk
– saint-hosting.nl
– scenesource.unblockme.al
– scenesource.unblockme.eu
– scenesource.unblockmy.link
– scenesource.unblockmy.site
– scenesource.worldproxy.eu
– seventorrents.unblocked.red
– solarmovie.hs.vc
– solarmovie.torrentlist.org
– solarmovie.unblocked.red
– solarmovie.worldproxy.eu
– torrentbutler.eu.wwwunblocker.com
– torrentbutler.unblocked.red
– torrentbutler.unblockme.al
– torrentbutler.unblockme.eu
– torrentbutler.unblockmy.link
– torrentbutler.unblockmy.site
– torrentbutler.worldproxy.eu
– torrentcd.net
– torrentcd.net.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk
– torrentcd.net.prx.torrentunblock.com
– torrentcd.net.prx2.unblocksit.es
– torrentcd.pro
– torrentz-pro.com
– torrentz-pro.net
– torrentz-pro.net.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk
– torrentz-pro.net.prx.torrentunblock.com
– torrentz-pro.net.prx2.unblocksit.es
– tubeplus.com
– tubeplus.unblocked.red
– tubeplus.unblockme.al
– tubeplus.unblockmy.site
– tubeplus.worldproxy.eu
– ua.torrentz.sx
– ua.torrentz.to
– vodly.unblockme.al
– vodly.unblockme.eu
– vodly.unblockmy.link
– vodly.unblockmy.site
– vodly.worldproxy.eu
– watchfreemovies.unblocked.red
– watchfreemovies.unblockme.al
– watchfreemovies.unblockmy.site
– watchfreemovies.worldproxy.eu
– watchseries.unblocked.red
– watchtvseries.unblocked.red
– watchtvseries.unblockme.al
– watchtvseries.unblockme.eu
– watchtvseries.unblockmy.link
– watchtvseries.unblockmy.site
– www.batmanstream.com
– www.img.livetv.ru
– www.iwannawatch.eu
– www.iwannawatch.net
– www.iwatchonline.ph
– www.iwatchonline.se
– www.movie25.ph
– www.popcorn-time.to
– www.popcorn-time.xyz
– www.saint-hosting.nl
– www.torrentcd.net
– www.torrentcd.pro
– www.torrentz-pro.com
– www.torrentz-pro.net
– www.tubeplus.com
– www3.livetv.ru
– www5.livetv.ru
– www8.livetv.ru
– ximg.livetv.ru
– yify.unblockme.eu
– yify.worldproxy.eu
– yourbittorrent.unblockme.eu
– yts.torrentlist.org

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

Earlier this year Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement.

The dispute centers around the well-received short film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar and the planned follow-up feature film Anaxar.

Among other things, the Star Trek rightsholders claim ownership over various Star Trek related settings, characters, species, clothing, colors, shapes, words, short phrases and even the Klingon language.

The makers of the fan-spinoff responded to several of the allegations last month. Among other things, they argued that the Klingon language is not copyrightable because it’s not more than an idea or a system. They therefore asked the court to dismiss or strike the copyright claims in question.

Paramount and CBS disagreed. In their reply the rightsholders called the argument absurd and among other things, they pointed out that the language system is not very useful if there are no real Klingons to communicate with.

Considering the stakes, the lawsuit has drawn the attention of the Language Creation Society (LCS), a non-profit that aims to promote the art and craft of language creation. The group submitted their opinion to the court yesterday, siding with the makers of the fan-film.

In their amicus brief, which actually uses Klingon language, the LCS points out that it’s understandable that Paramount Pictures feels that they own the language. After all, they commissioned Linguistics professor Marc Okrand to create some of the language thirty years ago.

However, this doesn’t mean that the copyright claims hold ground.

“Feeling ownership and having ownership are not the same thing. The language has taken on a life of its own. Thousands of people began studying it, building upon it, and using it to communicate among themselves,” the LCS notes.

“As the Klingon proverb says, we succeed together in a greater whole,” the brief adds, with pro-bono attorney Marc Randazza writing in Klingon.

The brief, partially in Klingon

The Language Creation Society lists many examples of how Klingon has evolved, and it specifically disputes Paramount’s earlier claims that there are no human beings who communicate using the Klingon language.

“In fact, there are groups of people for whom Klingon is their only common language. There are friends who only speak Klingon to each other. In fact, at least one child was initially raised as a native speaker of Klingon,” LCS writes.

“Now that Klingon has become an actual living language, Paramount seeks to reach out and stake its ownership by using copyright law. But, as ‘Klingons do not surrender’, neither do those who speak Klingon,” they add.

As such, Paramount should not be allowed to claim copyright over the entire Klingon language, both in written and spoken form. The language is a tool for people to communicate and express ideas, something people should be allowed to do freely under U.S. law, LCS argues.

Klingon alphabet (image: wiki)

If Paramount is allowed to claim copyright over the language, they would be able to silence the free expression of thousands of people, many of which helped it to evolve in recent years.

“Klingon gave Star Trek characters convincing dialogue. But, it broke its chains and took on a life of its own – a life that the Copyright Act has no power to control. Klingon, like any other spoken language, provides tools and a system for expressing ideas,” LCS writes.

“No one has a monopoly over these things, effectively prohibiting anyone from communicating in a language without the creator’s permission. This is not permitted by the law, and it is not why the Constitution allows Congress to provide copyright protection,” they add.

Summing up, the Language Creation Society sides with the makers of the Star Trek spin-off, asking the court to dismiss the copyright claims over the Klingon language, so it can be used freely and continue to evolve.

It is not up to the California federal court to decide whether the ‘Klingons’ can prevail or not.

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

Every year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes its Special 301 Report highlighting countries that aren’t doing enough to protect U.S. intellectual property rights.

In 2016 the report sticks to a tried and tested format, with countries such as China, Russia, India and Ukraine all making the Priority List once again. However, just as the USTR wasn’t afraid to place Canada on the Watch List several years ago, this year it has added another ally.

Situated in the heart of Europe (although not part of the Union), Switzerland has long-standing ties with the United States and has acted as the protecting power between the U.S. and former foes Iran and Cuba. Nevertheless, when it comes to protecting copyright the USTR didn’t hesitate to add Switzerland to the Watch List in 2016.

“Generally speaking, Switzerland broadly provides high-levels of IPR protection and enforcement in its territory. Switzerland makes important contributions to promoting such protection and enforcement internationally, including in bilateral and multilateral contexts, which are welcomed by the United States,” the USTR writes in its assessment.

“However, the decision to place Switzerland on the Watch List this year is premised on U.S. concerns regarding specific difficulties in Switzerland’s system of online copyright protection and enforcement.”

Although the USTR doesn’t go into much detail, the key problem that the United States has with Switzerland surrounds the so-called ‘Logistep Decision‘. Anti-piracy outfit Logistep built a reputation in the latter half of the last decade for providing tracking services for copyright trolls operating in Europe and the UK. However, things didn’t go entirely to plan.

In 2010 following several years of legal action, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ordered Logistep to stop harvesting the IP addresses of file-sharers. The Court ruled that IP addresses amount to private data, a decision that effectively outlawed the tracking of file-sharers in privacy-conscious Switzerland.

This apparent lack of protection for rightsholders is unacceptable, the USTR says.

“Six years have elapsed since the issuance of a decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which has been implemented to essentially deprive copyright holders in Switzerland of the means to enforce their rights against online infringers; enforcement is a critical element of providing meaningful IPR protection,” the report reads.

According to the USTR, since 2010 Switzerland has also become an increasingly popular host country for many pirate sites, a position highlighted in the 2015 Notorious Markets review.

While the USTR says that it welcomes the steps being taken by Switzerland to address its concerns, the tone of the United States suggests there is somewhat of a mountain to climb before the country gets a clean bill of health.

“[M]ore remains to be done and the United States continues to encourage the Swiss government to move forward expeditiously with concrete and effective measures that address copyright piracy in an appropriate and effective manner, including through legislation, administrative action, consumer awareness, public education, and voluntary stakeholder initiatives,” the USTR writes.

Canada

After being on the Watch List for some time now, Canada did not do enough in 2015 to get back into favor with the U.S.

While welcoming Canada’s amendment to its Copyright Act which extended sound recording protection to 70 years from date of recording, the U.S. has little other praise for its northern neighbor.

“[T]he United States continues to urge Canada to fully implement its commitments pursuant to the WIPO Internet Treaties and to continue to address the challenges of copyright piracy in the digital age,” the USTR writes.

Going on to condemn Canada on everything from counterfeit goods to pharmaceuticals and patents, there was not even a passing reference in the report to the long called for notice-and-notice anti-filesharing regime implemented by Canada in 2015.

Other countries with Internet piracy issues

India is criticized on a number of fronts, with the USTR calling for the implementation of notice-and-takedown procedures, statutory damages for infringement and the introduction of effective anti-camcording legislation.

Despite noting that anti-piracy legislation is evolving in Russia, the USTR saw no reason to take the country off the Priority List in 2016. Interestingly the USTR’s report praises the fact that “a Russian court shut down Rutracker.org”, when in fact the site was only blocked and remains fully operational today. Nevertheless, it appears that court orders are not enough for the United States.

“Issuing injunctions against infringing websites does not address the root of the problem; Russia should be investigating and prosecuting the operators of such sites. The overall number of raids, criminal charges, and convictions have declined in recent years,” the report reads.

Finally, Ukraine remains on the Priority List in 2016.

“With respect to improving the government’s response to online infringement, several attempts at legislative reform appear to have stalled,” the USTR notes.

“As highlighted in the 2015 Notorious Markets List, Ukraine continues to host some of the largest pirate sites in the world serving IP infringing content to a global audience.”

The full 2016 Special 301 Report can be downloaded here (pdf)

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