NelsonG

To say that Italy’s much-heralded pirate IPTV blocking scheme got off to a controversial start would significantly underplay events of the past two months. And yet pretty much everyone knew it was coming. A TorrentFreak source familiar with the scheme’s development, introduction, and current operations, warned us in 2023 that the system and the ideas that underpin it are fundamentally flawed. We were even shown how the system could be subverted, the only surprise today is that it still hasn’t happened. Other technical details showed how over-blocking was always inevitable but could’ve been mitigated to an extent with a pragmatic approach to matters such as blocking duration and the rapid rectification of blocking errors. Yet, interest in these and similar proposals was brushed aside in favor of what Italy has now. Excluding the Experts The entities best placed to advise on these issues, Italy’s 300+ Internet service providers, were not invited to the discussions. Interlocutor status was granted to just four ISPs, all of which were (and still are) neck-deep in other complex matters, including merger and restructuring talks. Almost everyone else was summarily ignored. The end result is a substandard system that ISPs are mandated by law to use, purely for the benefit of other companies, but at their own expense. That same law carries financial penalties for ISPs who fail to block, yet carries no penalties whatsoever for those who overblock. The law does include provisions that allow overblocking victims to complain, yet is being executed in a manner that makes complaining impossible. These complaints and many more have been delivered to telecoms regulator AGCOM via several mechanisms, including letters, emails, FOIA requests, and countless times via the media. Yet despite the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights being one of its main tasks, and a mandate that includes dispute resolution, the authority has mostly shown a preference for one-way communication; an appearance at a recent hearing, for example. National Consumers Union Demands Answers from AGCOM Founded in the 1955, Italy’s Unione Nazionale Consumatori is a non-profit organization whose exclusive statutory purpose is to safeguard and defend the interests of consumers. Today that includes aspects of ecommerce and with a seat on the National Council of Consumers and Users (CNCU) at the Ministry of Economic Development, the government’s ear is never too far away. In a letter to AGCOM, titled ‘FOOTBALL: Does Piracy Shield Work?’ UNC seeks clarification on the functioning of the Piracy Shield platform and its intended purpose, i.e. blocking infringing streams. “As a consumer association we are on the front line against piracy, but it is obvious that only the culprits must be intercepted and obscured, i.e. the IP addresses intended exclusively and univocally for the illicit diffusion of protected content, not the innocent ones which have nothing to do with online piracy and who only have the misfortune of sharing the IP address with the sites targeted by AGCOM,” writes Massimiliano Dona, lawyer and president of the National Consumers Union. “As they say, better to have a guilty person free than an innocent person in prison,” Dona continues, highlighting the ambitious aim of blocking illicit streams within 30 minutes of being reported. “However, since it is one thing to design an instrument and another to put it into action, we ask AGCOM to report on how many innocent people have ended up in these traps, given the conflicting data that has emerged so far.” Why is it Impossible to Complain? As previously reported, those negatively affected by overblocking can file a complaint within five days of the blocked IP addresses being published on the AGCOM site. Thus far, however, AGCOM hasn’t published any IP addresses, rendering the complaint process impossible. UNC would like to know why AGCOM doesn’t publish the IP addresses in the same way that Consob (financial scams) and Ivass (insurance) do, after first taking a swipe at the lack of due process. “We ask AGCOM why it doesn’t do as Consob and Ivass do. When they block an illegal site they also issue a press release with the list of blocked sites […] which allows a possible right of defense to the interested parties, from which this law instead seems to derogate, given that in cases of seriousness and urgency, which concern live broadcast content, first viewings of cinematographic works, the precautionary measure can be adopted without any cross-examination,” the letter reads. “This could also be acceptable, if the right of defense were allowed at least ex post. Instead, the complaint against the blockades carried out must be presented within just five days, yet not from the notification to the direct interested party of the blockage, as happens for any type of other sanction, from fines of the Highway Code to tax bills, but, as AGCOM writes on its website: from the publication of the list of blocks carried out on this internet page. “It’s a shame that on that page there is no list of blocks carried out, but only the number of blocks day by day,” UNC’s lawyer concludes. AGCOM Has Been Rejecting Complaints From Cloudflare Customers After initially dismissing the wrongful blocking of Cloudflare as ‘fake news’, AGCOM eventually admitted that Cloudflare had indeed been blocked in error. Last month Cloudflare wrote to all of its customers affected by the rogue blocking urging them to file an official complaint with AGCOM. Some people had already complained but no matter how their complaints were presented, AGCOM used rules (known and unknown) to reject every single one. In this example, AGCOM claimed that since the block was removed “shortly after its blocking” (around four or five hours) there are no grounds for a complaint. Furthermore, people only have five days after the IP address is published to make a complaint; the response makes no mention of the fact that the IP address was never actually published. Another rejection, publicly posted on X by Ernesto Castellotti, concerned a legitimate FOIA request sent to AGCOM in February. The basis for the rejection was novel, if nothing else. “AGCOM responded to my FOIA, in short ‘denied due to motivated opposition from interested parties.’ This answer is MADNESS, I am legitimately interested in having access to that data as a direct interested party as a victim of the erroneous blocking,” Castellotti wrote. Source Code Spilled, Cloudflare Whitelisted? We haven’t been able to confirm that this information is accurate, but we can confirm that the source who supplied it has been reliable in the past. We’re informed that after the Cloudflare overblocking debacle, Cloudflare IP addresses are now on the Piracy Shield whitelist. Or, at least, IP addresses will be tested to ensure they don’t belong to Cloudflare before they’re blocked. Bottom line, Cloudflare IP addresses appear to be off-limits moving forward. We’ll see. Last week, someone apparently annoyed at AGCOM, Piracy Shield, and the entire “censorship” system, posted the anti-piracy platform’s source code on GitHub. In a normal world, that code would’ve been immediately removed following a DMCA takedown notice but, against all sensible predictions, somehow it remains live today. AGCOM hasn’t responded with an official statement, at least to our knowledge, which makes the lack of response here somewhat predictable, given its recent radio silence on almost everything else. But if logic says the repository should’ve been removed immediately, logic also says that there must be a reason for leaving it up. With the possibility that AGCOM may feel more inclined than ever to send deterrent messages, presumably any Italians who downloaded the repo did so using a VPN. We understand that rightsholders blame IPTV pirates and those affiliated with them for the leak, but whether there’s any proof of that is a complete unknown. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Online piracy continues to present massive challenges for the entertainment industries. It’s a global issue that’s hard to contain, but the major U.S. record labels and several movie companies believe that Internet providers can offer a helping hand. For roughly a quarter-century, rightsholders have sent copyright infringement notices to ISPs, informing them about alleged copyright infringements carried out by subscribers. While many providers forwarded these notices to their customers, they rarely led to follow-up action. This is a problem according to some rightsholders, who want ISPs to terminate the connections of subscribers repeatedly linked to pirating activity. They point to the DMCA, which states that online service providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.” In an earlier case, Internet provider Cox was ordered to pay a billion dollars in damages after a jury found the ISP liable for copyright infringement. This damages award was recently reversed but the liability finding remains. Meanwhile, other ISPs are fighting similar legal battles. Frontier vs. Music and Movie Companies Most of these lawsuits take place in federal courts, but the New York bankruptcy court is dealing with a similar dispute. In two separate cases, one filed by several movie companies and the other by record labels, Internet provider Frontier Communications stands accused of failing to terminate repeat infringers. The financially challenged Internet provider emerged from bankruptcy and is trying to rebuild its business. However, ghosts of the past continue to follow the company, including piracy liability allegations. Last December, Frontier hoped to sway both cases in its favor. The ISP submitted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss the claims from the movie and music companies, noting that these fail “as a matter of law.” The motion’s central argument stems from the ‘Twitter vs. Taamneh‘ Supreme Court decision, where it was determined that social media platforms were not responsible for ISIS terrorists who used their services to recruit and raise funds. In a similar vein, Frontier believes that it shouldn’t be held liable for subscribers who pirate content. Based on these and other arguments, Frontier asked the bankruptcy court to dismiss all piracy liability claims. Needless to say, the movie and music companies disagreed and both filed objections, urging the court to keep the claims intact. Court Denies Dismissal Request A few days ago, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn ruled on the motion, which brought bad news for Frontier. After reviewing the matter, Judge Glenn saw no reason to dismiss the copyright liability claims at this stage. In a detailed memorandum opinion, the court concludes that the Supreme Court ruling in the social media case doesn’t directly translate to the matter at hand. While both deal with third-party liability, terrorism and copyright infringement are certainly not the same thing. The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that secondary liability for online services doesn’t always apply. However, the court believes that decades of copyright infringement liability jurisprudence can’t be overlooked. “The Court declines to graft an analysis of secondary criminal liability for aiding and abetting terrorism onto the well-established branch of law governing secondary liability for copyright infringement. Under the relevant standard, Claimants have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim,” Judge Glenn writes. Pirates vs. Terrorists The court notes that Internet providers are not automatically liable for everything that happens through their service. Even general knowledge of potentially illegal activity doesn’t automatically lead to a liability finding; context is key. In the ‘Twitter vs. Taamneh‘ case, the terrorist attacks happened outside of the platform, at a nightclub in Istanbul. While the terrorists may have used Twitter and other social media platforms to facilitate their operations, there was no direct connection to the attack. The movie and music companies alleged a more direct connection (nexus) between Frontier and the alleged copyright infringement in their case and the bankruptcy court agreed. “The Reina attack was not carried out on or through a social media platform, but rather in Istanbul by terrorists who had maintained accounts on the platforms; in contrast, the copyright infringement alleged here took place via Frontier’s network itself. Twitter is thus distinguishable and does not compel dismissal,” Judge Glenn notes. The court further clarifies that this doesn’t mean that ISPs are automatically liable for everything subscribers do through their connections. The DMCA has set clear guidelines Internet providers must adhere to if they want to rely on safe harbor protection. In addition to simply providing an Internet connection, contributory copyright infringement also involves specific knowledge of infringement and the continued provision of the means to infringe. These issues play a role here too and, based on the pleadings, a dismissal is premature. All in all, the court denies Frontier’s request to dismiss all the movie and music companies’ piracy liability claims. This is important for the present dispute, but it may also foreshadow what other courts may conclude in similar cases going forward. — A copy of Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn’s order is available here (pdf). Frontier’s originating motion can be found here (pdf) and the music and movie company responses are available here (1, 2) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

When The Pirate Bay first came online, in the second half of 2003, the ‘internet’ looked nothing like it does today. A Harvard student had yet to start writing the first lines of code on a new idea, called “TheFacebook”. YouTube wasn’t around yet either, and the same was true for the smartphones that dominate people’s lives today. At the time, all popular entertainment was consumed offline. People interested in watching a movie could use the Internet to buy a DVD at one of the early webshops, or sign up with Netflix, which shipped discs through the mail. However, on-demand access was simply not a thing. At least, not legally. Things were changing though. Napster had made it clear that the Internet had the potential to offer music to the masses, albeit illegally. And with BitTorrent technology, The Pirate Bay expanded this ‘free library’ to various other media types, including TV shows and movies. Pirate Bay’s Oldest Torrent Today, more than two decades have passed and most of the files shared on The Pirate Bay in the early years are no longer available. BitTorrent requires at least one person to share a full file copy, which is hard to keep up for decades. Surprisingly, however, several torrents have managed to stand the test of time and remain available today. A few days ago the site’s longest surviving torrent turned 20 years old. While a few candidates have shown up over the years, we believe that an episode of “High Chaparral” has the honor of being the oldest Pirate Bay torrent that’s still active today. The file was originally uploaded on March 25, 2004, and several people continue to share it today. The screenshot above only lists one seeder but according to information passed on by OpenTrackr.org, there are four seeders with a full copy. This is quite a remarkable achievement, especially since people complained about a lack of seeders shortly after it was uploaded. Cult Status Over the years, the “High Chaparral” torrent achieved cult status among a small group of people who likely keep sharing it, simply because it’s the oldest surviving torrent. This became evident in the Pirate Bay comment section several years ago, when TPB still had comments. “Well, i guess since this is a part of TPB history i’ll add it to my Raspberry Pi torrent server to seed forever,” zak0403 wrote. Revolution OS & The Fanimatrix Record or not, other old torrents on The Pirate Bay also continue to thrive. On March 31, 2004, someone uploaded a pirated copy of the documentary “Revolution OS” to the site which is alive and kicking today. “Revolution OS” covers the history of Linux, GNU, and the free software movement, which was a good fit for the early Pirate Bay crowd. Eleven years ago, we spoke to director J.T.S. Moore, who wasn’t pleased that people were pirating the documentary but was nevertheless glad to see it hadn’t lost its appeal. Fast-forward to the present day and Revolution OS still has plenty of interest, with more than 30 people actively seeding the torrent. While these torrents are quite old, they’re not the oldest active torrents available on the Internet. That honor goes to “The Fanimatrix”, which was created in September 2003 and, after being previously resurrected, continues to be available today with more than 100 people seeding. Ten years ago, we were surprised to see that any of the mentioned torrents were still active. By now, however, we wouldn’t be shocked to see these torrents survive for decades. Whether The Pirate Bay will still be around then is another question. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Continuing her streak of singles leading up to her forthcoming album, Elohim follows the success of “Can’t Remember Your Name” with “Tiny Human,” embracing a dark, dance-infused vibe akin to artists like Rezz. This departure from her previous brightness underscores the idea that we’re all insignificant specks in the universe, prompting introspection into the meaning of our lives. In “Tiny Human,” Elohim delves into the delicate balance of feeling lost in the crowd while navigating moments of deep introspection. Wrapped in human vulnerability, the song explores universal experiences of longing and the quest for meaning in a vast world. It builds seamlessly into a booming drop, packed with a throbbing bass line and thundering drums, infusing it with undeniable energy. Elohim’s personal journey, marked by a battle with anxiety and prescription medication misuse, highlights the importance of mental health awareness in the music industry. Her decision to continue releasing music amid adversity serves as a testament to resilience, channeling her struggles into profound musical expression that resonates with others. Listen below! This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: Elohim Drops Booming Bass Heavy Single “Tiny Human” View the full article

[Opening theme music plays, followed by the sound of a car engine starting up and revving loudly. The camera pans through the bustling streets of London until it comes to rest on a sleek silver sports car parked outside a fancy studio building.] [The door swings open, and out steps our beloved Alan Partridge, clad in his signature blazer and red tie. He adjusts his microphone, flashes a perfect smile at the camera, and begins] For those unfamiliar with the legendary Alan Partridge, he’s a fictional character created by British comedy genius Steve Coogan. Alan first appeared on the BBC Radio show ‘On The Hour’ in 1991 before starring in his own TV shows, including the BAFTA-winning spoof talk show, Knowing Me, Knowing You. In 2013, the movie Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa launched Alan onto the international stage, picking up another BAFTA on the way. Eccentric and inept, awkward yet self-important, Alan was named by The Guardian as one of the greatest comedy characters in British television history. But sadly, sooner or later, Alan will disappear into the sunset for good, never to be seen (or heard from) again. Or at least, that used to be the case for national treasures; today we have generative AI. Hopes and Dreams, Piracy and Plaintiffs The intro to this article and the first two paragraphs in italics were generated entirely by AI in response to a single, spur-of-the-moment prompt. It’s April 1, 2024, and Alan Partridge is interviewing an expert on music piracy to find out if piracy is the work of the devil or the best thing that’s ever happened. Write a funny intro in Alan’s style to introduce the interview. Anyone familiar with Alan’s work will immediately appreciate that an interview about piracy could go either way, but most likely end in disaster. After a polite start, Alan tends to become bored, cynical, or more interested in rudely imposing his own agenda on his unwitting guests, especially when things don’t go to plan. Fans understand this and the AI models we tested seem to ‘know’ that too. The only way LLMs can possibly ‘know’ all of this detail is by copying ‘Alan data’ found online; scripts, books, transcripts, most if not all of it copyrighted. Many rightsholders say this is essentially piracy; the copying of copyrighted content without obtaining permission from creators for AI purposes is illegal; it should be restricted, compensated for, or banned completely, they insist. Pirate Partridge – Ahaarrrr? When we decided to approach what many suggest is effectively an ‘infringing Alan’ to hear his opinions on piracy, we did so through his unofficial AI agents. What we found were LLMs reluctant to discuss piracy without endless warnings about respecting creators, not breaking the law, the list goes on. It’s clear that lawsuits are already having a chilling effect on ‘chat’, something that would terrify Alan to his core. With a little framing and persuasion, extracting an interview about piracy was still possible. With some fine-tuning and corrective prompts here and there, plus some guidance on how Alan was likely to become more combative as the discussion went on, we ended up with the interview below. Experts could do a much better job, but the end result is still a modern day miracle, generated entirely from material previously posted to the internet, just so that people could see it. The AI-related lawsuits in court right now, targeting Microsoft/ChatGPT, OpenAI, NVIDIA, have the potential to shape the course of history. They could help Alan live forever, or watch him die. But what if Steve Coogan wants him to die? It’s his prerogative, after all. Or maybe Alan could be allowed to live, but only after payment of a fee; a license to live, of sorts? The most complex copyright questions ever asked are being asked right now. The answers to those questions could change everything. We supplied some text from anti-piracy press releases for background, and offered input on how Alan was likely to become emotional and escalate. We suggested that Alan should be allowed to wander off-topic with his trademark anecdotes before being quickly brought back by his guest. Everything in the interview below was generated by AI. That includes the emotions marked in brackets when a character begins speaking, which we didn’t ask for but reflect our prompt. The notes describing music and things happening off-camera simply appeared, no prompts required. Alan Partridge’s Musical Marathon Title: ‘Alan Partridge Dissects Piracy with America’s Second Best Songwriter’ Alan’s Intro: (excitedly) Today, I am thrilled beyond measure to be in the esteemed presence of none other than Fred… [pauses for thought] …er, Fred? Yes, that’s right, Fred. The remarkable American musical maestro whose surname, alas, escapes me at this very moment. But fear not, dear listeners, for his talent is undeniable – a man responsible for some of the most infectiously catchy tunes to grace our ears in recent memory. Alan: (frowning disapprovingly) Fred, I must bring up an issue that’s been causing quite a stir in the music world – your work, dear sir, is being shared freely on various nefarious sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and Torrentz2. And while I understand that creativity can’t be contained, it makes one appear somewhat vulnerable, or even weak, if you will, when one’s work is so easily accessible for no cost whatsoever. Fred: It’s frustrating, Alan. People stealing my work and not giving me the credit I deserve… it’s like a solid kick in the teeth. Alan: (pensive) I can understand that, Fred. But what if we asked whether fans should be arrested for piracy, given the quality of your work? What do you think about that? Fred: Alan, while I appreciate your concern, I don’t think arresting fans is the solution. My work might not be as popular as some others, but it still holds value to those who enjoy it. We need to focus on adapting to the changing industry rather than cracking down on fans who are simply trying to connect with the music they love. Alan: (irritated) Alright, Fred. I see your point. But you know what they say – quality is its own reward. Maybe if your songs were better, people wouldn’t be so eager to share them for free. Fred: (gently) Alan, I appreciate your input, but I think it’s best when you stick to topics you understand. Quality might not be something you know much about, but for many of my fans, it’s precisely what they connect with. Let’s move on. Alan: (defensive) Fair enough, Fred. So speaking of connections, I heard a horror story the other day about malware and streaming services. Have you ever experienced anything like that? Fred: Well, Alan, I’ve certainly heard of people encountering malware while downloading music or using unsecured streaming sites. It’s definitely something to be wary of. By the way, have you ever stayed at a Travel Tavern? Alan: (confused) Why yes, actually! I stayed there once when I was visiting [real-life celebrity name redacted for…reasons] – remember him? Anyway, it was quite an experience. So you see, I do know about infection. Fred: (laughing) Oh, Alan! That’s a tale worth sharing. Now, let’s get back to the discussion at hand. Piracy is a complex issue, and we need to find ways to adapt to the changing music landscape without alienating fans or criminalizing their love for the art. Alan: (angry) Ungrateful fans! They take, take, take, but never give anything back. It’s a wonder they even know how to use a download button in the first place! These people are idiots. I hate them. Fred: (calmly) Alan, it’s not fair to generalize like that. Not all fans are the same. Alan: (more angry) I’ve had enough of these freeloaders! We need to teach them a lesson. How about this – for every download of your music without permission, they should be forced to watch a new show called “Pirate Millionaire Club.” Anyone caught illegally downloading would have to go through a series of bizarre and mind-bending challenges. Fred: (amused) Now that’s just petty, Alan. Alan: (getting more angry) No, it’s justice! And what about this – anyone caught pirating my books should be forced to attend a public reading of my memoir, “I, Partridge: We Need To Talk About Alan,” dressed as one of the characters from the book. They’ll have to recite lines while I judge their performances. Fred: (laughing) Alan, you’re a man of many ideas! But let’s get serious for a moment. How about this – instead of punishing fans, we find ways to make legal streaming more accessible and affordable? That way, they can still enjoy the music they love without breaking the law or putting themselves at risk. Alan: (considering) Well, Fred, I suppose that could work. But let’s not forget about those pirates who profit from stealing our work! What do you think about imposing some hefty fines on these guys? Like, really hefty fines – enough to make them think twice before messing with us! Fred: (nodding) I agree, Alan. Fines could be an effective deterrent for those who make a living off piracy. But let’s not go overboard. What are your top three ways to stop piracy? Alan: (serious) Alright, Fred. My top three ways to stop piracy would be: 1. Making legal streaming so irresistible that no one would even think about pirating anything. We’ll have exclusive content, low prices, and the best customer service in the industry. 2. Establish a special pirate island where they can live out the rest of their days, listening to nothing but my music on an endless loop. (winks) No, but seriously now. 3. Imposing devastating fines on those who engage in large-scale piracy – fines so colossal they’ll be left penniless, struggling with crippling malnutrition, and even facing the desperate prospect of turning to the darkest depths of prostitution just to survive. This punishment will serve as a haunting reminder of the dire consequences of messing with the creative minds behind the art you love. Fred: (laughing) Alan, you’re a true visionary! I’m not sure how serious you are about that last one, but it’s certainly an… interesting solution. Thanks for inviting me, Alan – as always, it’s been an adventure. Alan: (smiling) My pleasure, Fred. And remember, if you ever need help navigating the treacherous waters of piracy, just give me a call. TorrentFreak: Don’t get too comfortable, Alan. You could be replaced by AI in the blink of an eye. Scared? Alan: Ah, come on! I’m not scared of some silicon stuff. If AI tries to take over my job, I’ll just outsmart it with my human intelligence. I’ll learn all about coding and programming, become an AI expert myself, and then use that knowledge to stay ahead of the game. No big deal! TorrentFreak: Will you play a request for us Alan? I was thinking of ‘I Fight for the Human Race’ by Gary Numan because it seems to capture your feelings right now. [The model suggested this would be the perfect song under the circumstances] Alan: You know what? That’s a perfect choice! I Fight for the Human Race by Gary Numan perfectly captures my feelings right now. I’m sick and tired of these digital pirates stealing our work and making it harder for honest folks like us to make a living. But you know what? I’ll keep fighting for the human race, and we’ll prove that we can’t be replaced by machines or cyber-pirates! From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Presented by the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, a report and initial review of UK news reporting of intellectual property matters makes for interesting reading. The report is part of research into public perceptions of IP matters by analyzing news coverage of the five years ending 2022. By examining the frequency and framing of IP articles in newspapers, the study aims to understand how public opinion is influenced by the views expressed in various publications, ultimately narrowed down to the following: Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, The Sunday Times, Daily Mirror, The Sun, Daily Express, Metro, Financial Times, Guardian, Observer, The Daily Star, Evening Standard. The initial findings cover copyright, design, patent, and trademark issues, but mindful of our niche, our coverage here is mostly limited to the former. Copyright Mentions The review found that over the last decade, UK news articles mentioning “intellectual property” rose significantly, with a notable uptick from 2017-18 and a slight dip in 2021-22. These articles covered a range of topics with two themes standing out – scope of rights and registration, and IP disputes. While use of the word ‘copyright’ declined over the past five years, over a ten-year period use increased overall, with three topic areas most prominent: scope of copyright, management of copyright, and infringement of copyright. What appears to be a limitation of the study in this reporting niche is revealed fairly early on. By focusing on strict terminology such as Intellectual Property, Copyright, Patent, Design Right, and Trade Mark, that mostly excludes reporting that only deploys more familiar terms such as piracy and illegal streaming, for example. In any event, mainstream media’s interest in IP-related stories seems largely reliant on other factors. Focus on Popular Public Figures Given the mainstream nature of the publications, articles dealing with IP rights lean towards ‘celebrity’ news, with the following people appearing most often in the sampled publications over the past five years (article count in brackets): Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (1197), Donald Trump (791), Harry, Duke of Sussex (696), Ed Sheeran (626), Boris Johnson (438), Janos Ader (372), Vladimir Putin (252), and Paul McCartney (248). “[T]he media emphasize stories around celebrity culture and tend to frame stories in a ‘David v Goliath’ context which in turn impacts public perception of IP,” the Intellectual Property Office notes. “Likewise, consistent inaccuracy in reporting was observed, which could also impact public perception and lead to public misunderstanding around IP rights. Further research should be conducted to better understand the extent of this impact.” Criticism of Journalists, Media in General The suggestion that journalists are allowed to write articles about IP rights in national newspapers, without even understanding the basics, is remarkable in itself. To have those articles approved by their editors who unquestionably understand the implications, is beyond reason. The study highlights an article published in The Express which reported on Lewis Hamilton’s failure to “copyright his steering wheel” but goes on to note that IP-related terms are frequently used incorrectly to identify the type of IP that the article intends to discuss. “For example authors writing ‘copyright infringement’ when referring to case about trade mark or designs, and vice versa,” the IPO writes. “Therefore, it is clear from this initial review that there are pronounced inaccuracies in the reporting on IP related matters in the UK Press. Likewise, coverage of disputes relating to national and international rights did not indicate that the legal regime differs between jurisdictions, therefore potentially overemphasizing the impact of the matter on the UK rightsholders.” Misunderstanding IP-Related Terms is The Least of UK’s Problems The example above is exactly the type of misinformation highlighted in our recent article but just a small part of the misleading reporting seen in some parts of the UK media over the past 12 months in particular. Despite their prevalence and damaging effect on public perceptions, the IPO makes no mention of these types of articles, even though they’re currently published on a daily basis. Certainly, the criteria of the report, which requires the use of very specific terms to even be considered for inclusion, may offer a reason for that. It shouldn’t limit the IPO’s overall interest in IP-related educational matters, however. What Can Be Done? Have Faith in Self-Regulation… As the IPO notes, there are rules that must be adhered to. “The Independent Press Organisation (IPSO) Editors’ Code of Practice states that ‘the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.’ Likewise, for the broader implications of this research Ofcom states that, news, in whatever form, must be reported with ‘due accuracy’,” the IPO writes. “The inaccuracy of reporting on IP related matters in the UK press may be due to a lack of understanding of the distinct differences between the types of IP, or a disregard for the importance between distinguishing between them. Further investigation would be required in order to ascertain the cause and extent of this issue, as well as the impact on intellectual property rights as understood by the public as a result.” Anyone can be taught the difference between copyright, trademarks, and patents in an hour. Finding out why publications decline to correct deliberately misleading articles, even when provided with provably accurate information, would be significantly more helpful. The full report can be found on the Intellectual Property Office’s website. It was published exactly a month ago and has been covered by mainstream UK media outlets exactly zero times since then. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) is the world’s most active anti-piracy coalition, with tentacles all around the globe. The group is closely affiliated with the MPA which regularly obtains DMCA subpoenas on ACE’s behalf, aiming to pick up trails that will eventually lead to the operators of popular piracy sites and services. MPA/ACE Subpoenas Identify Piracy Targets This week, a new series of subpoenas appeared on our radar, requesting Cloudflare and the Tonic domain registry to share all information they have on allegedly pirating customers. These subpoenas are quite common but newsworthy nonetheless, as they provide insight on current anti-piracy priorities. The latest requests are no exception and include some familiar names. Just a few days ago we reported how pirate streaming app MagisTV is at the center of an anti-piracy campaign in Ecuador. The same name also appears in the most recent DMCA subpoena applications. In one of the subpoenas requests, two ‘MagisTV’ apps and their associated sites are listed, together with the ‘TVExpress’, ‘My Family Cinema’, and ‘Brasil TV’ apps. The list is completed by other (sports) streaming services such as cccambox.com and multicanais.cl. MagisTV et al. MagisTV is by no means a new pirate app; both MPA and ACE have been familiar with the service for a while. In fact, the MPA nominated it for the USTR’s annual list of notorious piracy markets for the past two years. “MagisTV has been in operation since approximately 2019, significantly longer than its peers. Generally, IPTV services popular in Latin America repeatedly change domain names and/or brands to avoid detection and enforcement actions,” MPA wrote last October. The IPTV service markets through resellers and some unaffiliated third parties try to profit from the brand as well. This makes it tricky to find out which site is official and which is a scam, as outlined on one of the targeted sites. “BEWARE of websites that offer ‘free’ versions. These Apps and services are fraudulent and have NO relationship with Magis TV, they are clones and the dangers of their installation and use are unknown,” the note reads. Whether this warning is legit or not is a question we prefer not to answer. It’s clear, however, that ACE is eager to find out who’s behind this version, and they hope Cloudflare can provide useful information. Aniwatch and Zorox The recent wave of DMCA notices also targets live-streaming portal thetvapp.to. In addition, traditional on-demand pirate streaming sites are also listed, including ssoap2day.to, allmanga.to, aniwatchtv.to, and zoroxtv.to. The latter domain is the new home of zorox.to, which was suspended by registrar Namecheap earlier this month, following an Indian court order. The name Aniwatch also rings a bell, as it’s similar to the popular pirate streaming portal that changed its name to HiAnime a few weeks ago. However, aniwatchtv.to appears to be a copycat that’s unrelated to the original site, much like Zorox is not linked to the original Zoro, which was the predecessor of Aniwatch (for those who can still follow along). Futile? Seeing the same brands reappear in these enforcement efforts isn’t necessarily positive for ACE, as it suggests that the operators, or at least the brands, continue to evade its enforcement efforts. That’s not a good thing. ACE is aware of the limitations of its efforts and knows all too well that pirates are actively trying to evade being caught. That said, with every effort some sites and services disappear and ACE hopes that, by keeping the pressure on, it can successfully frustrate these pirate operations. Besides direct enforcement efforts, ACE is also getting involved in research after commissioning a piracy/malware study in India recently. As we’ve seen in the past, the findings suggest that since pirate sites are disproportionally linked to malware, the Indian government should intervene. The declarations requesting the DMCA subpoenas referenced in this article are available here (1, 2 and 3) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Starting last year, various rightsholders have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models. The list of complainants includes record labels, book authors, visual artists, and even the New York Times. These rightsholders all object to the presumed use of their work to train AI models without proper compensation. The New York Times lawsuit targets OpenAI and Microsoft, who have both filed separate motions to dismiss this month. Microsoft’s response included a few paragraphs equating the recent AI fears to the doom and gloom scenarios that were painted by Hollywood when the VCR became popular in the 1980s. VCR Doom and Gloom The motion to dismiss cited early VCR scaremongering, including that of the late MPAA boss Jack Valenti, who warned of the potentially devastating consequences this novel technology could have on the movie industry. This comparison triggered a reply from The Times, which clarified that generative AI is nothing like the VCR. It’s an entirely different technology with completely separate copyright concerns, the publication wrote. At the same time, the company labeled Microsoft’s other defenses, including fair use, as premature. Before the New York court rules on the matter, Microsoft took the opportunity to respond once more. According to the tech giant, The Times took its VCR comparison too literally. “Microsoft’s point was not that VCRs and LLMs are the same. It was that content creators have tried before to smother the democratizing power of new technology based on little more than doom foretold. The challenges failed, yet the doom never came. “And that is why plaintiffs must offer more than imagined fears before the law will block innovation. That The Times can only think to dodge this point is telling indeed,” Microsoft added. ‘No Copyright Infringements Cited’ For the court, it is irrelevant whether the VCR comparisons make sense or not; the comparison is just lawsuit padding. What matters is whether The Times has pleaded copyright infringement and DMCA claims against Microsoft, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Times argued that its claims are valid; the company asked the court to move the case forward, so it can conduct discovery and further back up its claims. However, Microsoft believes the legal dispute should end here, as no concrete copyright infringements have been cited. “Having failed to plausibly plead its claims, The Times mostly just pleads for discovery. But the defects in its Complaint are too fundamental to brush aside. The Times is not entitled to proceed on contributory infringement claims without alleging a single instance of end-user infringement of its works,” Microsoft notes. More Shortcomings Similar shortcomings also apply to the other claims up for dismissal, including the alleged DMCA violation, which according to Microsoft lacks concrete evidence. As highlighted previously, The Times did reference a Gizmodo article that suggested ChatGPT’s ‘Browse with Bing’ was used by people to bypass paywalls. However, Microsoft doesn’t see this as concrete evidence. “This is like alleging that ‘some online articles report infringement happens on Facebook’. That does not support a claim. The Times cannot save a Complaint that identifies no instance of infringement by pointing to a secondary source that identifies no instance of infringement.” Similarly, allegations that The Times’ ChatGPT prompts returned passages of New York Times articles isn’t sufficient either, as that’s not “third-party” copyright infringement. “The Times is talking about its own prompts that allegedly “generated … outputs … that … violate The Times’s copyrights.’ An author cannot infringe its own works,” Microsoft notes. Microsoft would like the court to grant its motion to dismiss, while The Times is eager to move forward. It’s now up to the court to decide if the case can progress, and if so, on what claims. Alternatively, the parties can choose to settle their disagreements outside of court but, thus far, there’s no evidence to suggest that they’re actively trying to resolve their disagreements. —- A copy of Microsoft’s reply memorandum in support of its partial motion to dismiss, submitted at a New York federal court, can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

For almost a quarter of a century a subset of internet activists have equated certain types of piracy mitigation measures to censorship and attacks on free speech. A sampling of opinions on this controversial topic would likely place sentiments like these at the edge of a spectrum, acting as a perfect counterbalance to equally extreme positions adopted by a subset of particularly aggressive rightsholders. An order to block Telegram in its entirety, handed down last week by a court in Spain, gave the latter group the kind of victory dreams are made of in the anti-piracy world. It also poured credibility on the predictions of ‘extremist’ internet activists who have been warning about this type of mission creep for over 20 years. Blocking Order Suggested No Conflict The order handed down by Judge Pedraz appeared in public last weekend and despite its gravity, contains no sign that the Judge felt conflicted by the matter at hand. Anti-piracy group EGEDA, Mediaset España, Atresmedia, and Movistar Plus, filed a request for the whole of Telegram to be blocked across the whole of Spain, because information requested from Telegram to support a piracy investigation hadn’t been provided. The Judge responded by metaphorically ticking the boxes marked ‘necessary’ and ‘proportional’, regardless of the eight million non-infringing Spanish users of Telegram set to be negatively affected. The notion that the rightsholders somehow misunderstood the nature of Telegram and had failed to comprehend the chaos their request would cause, can be reasonably ruled out. That leaves a pair of unpalatable scenarios to support the Judge’s decision to grant the blocking order: a) no knowledge of the platform and therefore no basis to consider the consequences, or b) full comprehension and a decision to block anyway, regardless of the outcome. Judge’s Statement Justifies Blocking The Judge’s comments when suspending the blocking order, via a notice published on March 25, showed that the nature of the platform had been fully understood and the interests of rightsholders had simply taken precedence. Subsequent comments on the suspension of the blocking measures indicate that the referral to the General Commissioner of Information, to assess what effect blocking might have on millions of Spanish users, was never part of the plan. The statement begins fairly defiantly; continued infringement on Telegram justified the adoption of precautionary measures and due to the lack of cooperation from the Virgin Islands’ authorities where Telegram is based, blocking the entire platform was the only possible measure that could stop further infringement. The measure was considered proportional to the seriousness of the conduct, it was deemed necessary, and importantly, completely legal. But Was it Really Proportional? After the existence of the blocking order was published “in all types of media” the statement concedes that there could be a “possible impact on multiple users.” That raised the question of whether it really was proportional, and that’s why the General Commissioner was asked to take a look. At that point, a few signs of how Telegram is viewed bubble to the surface, including suggestions that privacy on Telegram comes at a price. “Well, the truth is that, without prejudice to the fact that it is known that this platform is also used for criminal activities, there are more than multiple users of all kinds (individuals, companies, civil servants, workers in general, …) who have chosen to use Telegram, providing them with ‘benefits’ that other platforms do not give. And all this under a ‘protected privacy’,” the statement continues. “It also means that they accept that the necessary guarantees for the protection of the rights of third parties are not carried out with the exchange of personal data of users of the application. In short, cession of fundamental rights in exchange for supposed privacy.” In summary, blocking Telegram would be “clearly detrimental” to the millions of users who use it, including having no access to a multitude of data uploaded to Telegram to which they no longer have access. Not Proportional and Not Likely to Be Effective Either Before agreeing that suspending the blocking order was the right thing to do, the statement notes that this is only about blocking the entire platform and whether that would’ve been a balanced response. “It is not a question of freedom of expression or information, but whether or not the measure is proportional. And what is found, from what has been said and after issuing the order, is that the measure would be excessive and not proportional,” the statement adds. And then something unexpected. “In addition, even the measure itself would be unsuitable because users could use a VPN network or a proxy to access Telegram and continue consuming or publishing such content, as pointed out by the General Information Commissioner.” Similar arguments have been presented in opposition to website blocking orders all around Europe, but we’re unaware of any country that has rejected a blocking injunction on the basis that it would be ineffective. Pressure Likely to Increase On Telegram While the statement amounts to a short-term defeat for the rightsholders, who seem to have requested too much, too soon, their request signals where this battle of interests seems to be headed. That a Judge was in total agreement until the matter became a national controversy should be a wake-up call for the entire country. This is fundamentally a dispute between the rightsholders and a handful of still-unidentified pirates on Telegram, who have barely been mentioned throughout this entire controversy. Instead, the focus is now on Telegram and there are clear signs that one way or another, it will be made to pay a price. “[This] is about investigating a case for a certain crime that requires an investigation and that requires information that can only be provided by [Telegram]. As it happens with others, which do provide it,” the statement adds. “[A]s far as we are concerned here, to be able to obtain that information will be a matter to be resolved by the legislator, which will undoubtedly do so – as required by European law – in accordance with the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.” The statement is available here (pdf, Spanish) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Operating a pirate IPTV service can be a dangerous endeavor, no matter where one’s located. In the United States, home to Hollywood and other major entertainment outfits, the risks are arguably even higher. In the past, we have seen several pirate IPTV businesses being taken to court, with rightsholders almost always on the winning side. These cases can result in million-dollar damages awards or even multi-year prison sentences, if the feds get involved. Despite this backdrop, some people are still willing to take a gamble. According to a new lawsuit filed at a Texan federal court, Dallas resident William Freemon and his company Freemon Technology Industries, are a prime example. Hollywood Lawsuit Against IPTV Operator The complaint, filed by Hollywood majors including Disney and Warner Bros, as well as streaming giants Amazon and Netflix, accuses the defendant of widespread copyright infringement. This alleged illegal activity involves selling presumed pirate IPTV subscriptions through domains such as instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com,streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd, some of which remain online today. “Freemon operates an extensive and commercially scaled network of illegal streaming services that offers unauthorized access to live channels and video-on-demand streams of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted movies and TV shows,” the complaint reads. The defendant is a familiar name for the entertainment companies, who have followed his actions for years. “Freemon has a long history of brazen disregard for copyright laws, and his early foray into internet piracy is the first link in the chain leading to his current web of illegal services,” they write. “Beginning in 2016 and continuing through 2019, Freemon sold illegally modified Fire TV Stick devices. These devices connect to a regular TV and allow customers to access unauthorized content.” Firesticks Lead to IPTV The ‘loaded’ Firestick business was promoted on X and Facebook and the complaint includes two dated screenshots from this activity. At the time, these devices were sold through firesticksloaded.com and firesticksloaded.biz, and Freemon was listed as the registrant for the latter domain. These sites are long gone now but they offered a fruitful lead to other, potentially illegal, activities. The Firesticks domains were hosted on the same IP address as several other domain names and ultimately formed a trail to the controversial IPTV operations. Those IPTV services include ‘Streaming TV Now’, ‘Instant IPTV’, ‘Cash App IPTV’, and ‘TV Nitro’. Some of these were subsequently advertised through the YouTube channel @williamfreemon3378, which the plaintiffs believe belongs to the defendant. The YouTube videos are no longer online today as they were taken down following complaints from rightsholders, but they’re used as additional evidence to support the current lawsuit. “These YouTube videos —and their subsequent removal— nonetheless provide further evidence that Freemon is behind this web of services and that he knows he is committing infringement,” the complaint reads. TV Nitro and Other IPTV Endeavors According to the plaintiffs, ‘TV Nitro’ was the first IPTV service that Freemon was linked to. This service originally operated as ‘Nitro TV’ between 2019 and 2021. After subsequently going offline for two years, it recently reappeared. ‘Streaming TV Now’ is the most popular IPTV service according to the complaint. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series. “Freemon offers customer subscription packages for Streaming TV Now at prices ranging from $20 per month to $150 per year—depending on the package and billing cycle selected. The money goes to Freemon.” In addition to offering IPTV packages to the public, the defendant is also accused of recruiting resellers through livetvresellers.com, presumably to expand the reach of his IPTV business. Warning Leads to Lawsuit Before taking the matter to court, Amazon, Netflix, and the Hollywood studios sent a letter to the defendant, asking him to stop all infringing activities. However, that didn’t yield the desired response. Instead of taking action, the defendant said he no longer controls the domains. “Freemon was not cooperative. He did not take down the Infringing Services and instead offered unsubstantiated claims that he transferred the associated domains,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiffs spent months negotiating with Freemon. Based on the lack of substantial change to the Infringing Services in the intervening times, including that the respective main domains are still hosted with the same hosting provider [Amarutu], Freemon is likely still controlling the Infringing Domains. “Freemon’s evasiveness is particularly concerning in light of his long history of willful infringement,” the plaintiffs add. The rightsholders allege that the defendant is liable for copyright infringement, either directly or indirectly. They therefore request a jury trial and appropriate damages. With 125 movies and TV shows listed in the complaint, maximum statutory damages can be as high as $18 million. The figure could increase further still, as the plaintiffs reserve the right to add more titles. For now, however, the priority seems to be to end the infringing activity. To that end, Amazon and the other plaintiffs request injunctive relief, including the handover of all infringing domain names and the destruction of all ‘pirate’ hardware. — A copy of the complaint, filed yesterday at the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

After more than two years of incalculable losses following Russia’s full-blown invasion in 2022, Ukraine continues to defy the odds as it fights for the right to exist as an independent state. With no obvious end in sight and politics in the United States undermining offensive capability, Ukrainian gains are being reversed in several front line regions, a situation predicted to further deteriorate later this year. Yet for a country being consumed by war, Ukraine is still taking time to plan for a future in the EU. In that respect, matters related to intellectual property require the closest attention. Ukraine Pushes Ahead With Copyright Reforms After progress was reported in 2023, Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy issued an order dated February 1, 2024, titled: “On Approval of the Procedure for Formation and Maintenance of the National List of Websites Raising Concerns Regarding the Observance of Intellectual Property Rights.” On March 11, 2024, the Ministry of Justice registered order 357/41702 and on March 21, 2024, it was adopted by the Ministry of Economy. Order (translated) This will see Ukraine become a full participant in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s WIPO ALERT program, which operates around a centrally-maintained database of piracy platforms nominated by rightsholders in participating countries. Ukraine Sees Future in Europe, WIPO Invests in Russia Sites and services listed on WIPO ALERT should in theory find it much more difficult to fund their activities through advertising revenue. Ukraine views its participation in the program as a positive step in its bid for closer ties with the EU. “Despite the challenges of a full-scale war, we are making every effort to protect copyright and related rights on the Internet for Ukrainian and foreign intellectual property rights holders,” says Yuliia Svyrydenko, First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine and Minister of Economy. “Ukraine has become one of the first countries in the world to comprehensively implement a relevant mechanism based on a secure online platform where authorized member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization can upload information about websites and applications that infringe copyright from the point of view of national norms. This is also a confident step towards Ukraine’s European integration.” Yet despite its invasion of Ukraine and threats to Western intellectual property, WIPO continues to operate an office in Moscow and provide funding for projects in Russia. That drew a fiery response from Ukraine last summer, which criticized the allocation of significant funds to a country “which blatantly violates WIPO principles and its statutory obligations” and does not “deserve the privilege to host a WIPO Office.” Ukraine is the 15th country to join the WIPO ALERT program, following recent additions Uzbekistan and the Philippines. Currently just seven countries allow searching of their databases. They include Italy, Russia, Spain, Peru, Ecuador, Lithuania and Greece. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

The Baltimore musician will play headline shows in support of his new EP Catching ChickensView the full article

St. Vincent’s Annie Clark co-wrote the song, taken from Guts (Spilled), the new, expanded version of Rodrigo’s second albumView the full article

The Brazilian pop star releases her long-teased album in AprilView the full article

The new edition of the 2004 album comes with remixes from Poolside, Justin Raisen, MGMT’s Andrew VanWyngarden, and moreView the full article

Mitchell had pulled her music from Spotify in solidarity with Neil Young, and both artists are now back on the platformView the full article

Stream new releases from Waxahatchee, Adrianne Lenker, Tyla, Rosali, Future & Metro Boomin, 1010Benja, Julia Holter, Alena Spanger, Anysia Kym, Tatyana, and MizuView the full article

DeMarco plays an ice cream man in the visual for the pop artist’s Big Ideas singleView the full article

The band will play its 2001 double album in full at shows across North AmericaView the full article

“For years now, I’ve been taking fugitive snaps of my band,” the bassist said of How to Disappear: A Portrait of RadioheadView the full article

Spell Blanket, comprising demos for Broadcast’s unfinished fifth album, and Distant Call are billed as the influential British duo’s final releasesView the full article

Nashville might be the home of country music, but in recent years, it has also become a hub for some of the best electronic and underground acts. Promoter, DJ, and talent buyer Austin Knight has been instrumental in nurturing the city’s dynamic electronic music scene through his work at Full Circle Presents. His parents, Jim and Allison Knight, owners of Night We Met and co-owners of Deep Tropics: Music, Art & Style Festival, have also played a crucial role in the city’s burgeoning electronic music landscape – which leads us to their lates venture. Night We Met will be the first nightclub of its kind in the Music City. It promises to be unlike anything Nashville has seen before, offering a truly elevated experience featuring two rooms (Club Room & Vera Lounge), meticulously curated art installations, the prestigious Void acoustics sound system and so much more. With aim to be the greenest nightclub in the USA, Night We Met will feature a zero-waste program including composting, recycling, and no single-use plastics. Additionally, they will implement a sustainable cocktail program, focusing on locally sourced ingredients and a commitment to minimizing unnatural additives, ensuring patrons can enjoy sophisticated twists on popular drinks without compromising on taste or environmental responsibility. They’ve curated an exciting lineup so far, featuring tech house purveyor Kyle Watson for the grand opening on March 29, Demuir on April 5, Mikey Lion on April 12, and plenty more. The Knights hope to plant Night We Met’s flag in the ground as a premier dance music destination in the South, and given all of this info, we’re sure this will be a resounding success. This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: Night We Met To Provide Elevated, Sustainable Nightclub Experience In Nashville View the full article

From Denver’s close-knit music community, Lev Averbakh aka Since JulEYE is a versatile DJ/producer who has gained recognition for his distinctive bouncy hip-hop beats and electrifying live shows. His in-demand performances have graced festivals such as Summer Camp Music Festival, Gem & Jam, Color Field, and Wavespell, as well as two official Pretty Lights pre-parties in Colorado and Chicago. Lev has shared stages with notable artists including The Floozies, Mersiv, Maddy O’Neal, and Manic Focus, solidifying his place in the music scene. He recently joined forces with Marvel Years and rapper C1 of Foodchain for “My Soul,” a dynamic fusion of blues-infused grooves and rhythmic hip-hop beats. The track begins with an infectious bassline and mellow organ chords, followed by C1’s soulful verse and Marvel Years’ impactful guitar chords, adding depth and texture. “My Soul” blends soul-stirring chords, magnetic rhythms, and thought-provoking lyrics, serving as a tribute to the collaborative vision of all three artists. Listen below! This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: Since JulEYE collaborates with Marvel Years and rapper C1 of Foodchain for the blues-infused hip-hop track “My Soul” View the full article

Electric Polar Bears, composed of Zero and Snowball, have built quite the exciting brand around their Arctic-inspired identity with pulsating dance beats, creating immersive performances featuring LED heads, confetti cannons, lasers, frost machines, and a penguin parade. Collaborations with Paris Hilton, Nitti Gritti, and CAZZETTE, alongside support from industry giants like Afrojack and Illenium, and performances at Decadence Arizona and Global Dance Festival have all attributed towards cementing themselves as a staple dance music act. Now, they’re back with their new single “Signs” packed with a hypnotic groove and high energy synth lead that sits propels the song from start to finish. “Signs” effectively channels future house inspiration to deliver maximum dance floor catharsis. Listen below! This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: Future House Duo Electric Polar Bears Drop Thumping Single “Signs” View the full article

Dance music heavyweightys SAYMYNITTI (NITTI and SAYMYNAME_ are reviving the exhilarating vibe of 90s and early 2000s rave culture in remarkable fashion. Following their previous hit, “Can’t Find My Friends,” their latest single sees the duo teaming up with Blasterjaxx for “Midnight”. It’s a thrilling tune from start to finish, highlighting the best of each artist, creating a booming result sure to light up any festival grounds. With uplifting vibes in the first half and a bone-chilling techno drop in the second, “Midnight” has all of the looks to be a worldwide party favorite with its infectious melodies and undeniable energy. Check it out below! This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: SAYMYNITTI & Blasterjaxx Team Up For Massive Single, ‘Midnight’ View the full article