Jump to content

NelsonG

Admin
  • Posts

    190,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by NelsonG

  1. Sunday night's Super Bowl has become the most watched TV program of this generation. Setting a record high, the big game — which saw the Kansas City Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in overtime — brought in an audience of 123.4 million, according to figures from Nielsen and Adobe Analytics. The number is close to the all-time-record held by the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, which had a whopping 125 to 150 million estimated viewers. Viewership was seven percent up from last year's game, when 115.1 million people watched Kansas City take home the victory. The record-breaking game was watched across a number of networks and streaming platforms: CBS, Paramount+ (despite that crash), Univision, CBS Sports, and NFL digital properties including NFL+. The majority of viewers — 112 million of them — tuned into CBS, accounting for the largest audience ever for a single network. SEE ALSO: Usher's Super Bowl halftime show: Every performer who hit the stage Nielsen also announced the number of people who viewed any portion of the game: 204 million, up 10 percent from last year. This year's Super Bowl may have gotten more attention than usual, for reasons ranging from Taylor Swift's relationship with Kansas Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce to Beyoncé announcing an upcoming album to Usher's cameo-filled halftime show to the game itself going into overtime. View the full article
  2. Amazon quietly stopped offering Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support on its ad-supported Prime Video tier. The change, first noticed by German outlet 4KFilme, was confirmed by an Amazon spokesperson, who spoke with The Verge. "Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos capabilities are only available on the ad free option, on relevant titles," they told the publisher. SEE ALSO: Amazon is testing new driver safety features following shootings This may be an unpleasant surprise for some users. In September last year, Amazon started charging $2.99 extra for an ad-free streaming video experience. The company's press release that announced the change, however, made no mention of Dolby Vision or Dolby Atmos. Dolby Vision is a set of standards for HDR (high dynamic range) video, while Dolby Atmos is a set of standards for surround sound. In the simplest of terms, the support for these standards mean better picture and better sound for users who have the hardware that can take advantage of them. Instead, ad-tier subscribers can now view content in HDR10+ and Dolby Digital 5.1 — not horrible by any means, but not as good as Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. Amazon's move in some ways reflects similar moves recently made by competitors. Netflix, for example, introduced an ad-supported tier in 2022, with less content available than on pricier, ad-free tiers. The streaming company axed its cheapest ad-free subscription plan earlier this year, making it ever pricier to see content without the intrusion of ads. Amazon's pricing is a little different than Netflix's, however. As a standalone service, Prime Video starts at $8.99 with ads (and without Dolby Vision and Atmos), with the ad-free tier costing an additional $2.99. Amazon Prime membership, which includes other perks besides video streaming, starts at $14.99 per month, and it also costs an extra $2.99 to get the ad-free tier. View the full article
  3. There aren't any Martians around to watch eclipses on Mars. But there are robots. NASA's Mars Perseverance rover recently spotted the desert planet's misshapen moon, Phobos, traversing the sun. The space agency's car-sized robot used cameras atop its mast — which act like a crow's nest aboard a ship — to capture the image below on Feb. 8. It was the rover's 1,056th Martian day, or Sol, exploring the Red Planet. SEE ALSO: Before its demise, NASA's Mars helicopter captured a glorious aerial view You can spy the oddly-shaped satellite partially eclipsing our star as the moon moves between Mars and the sun. The background is a canvas of distant stars. On Feb. 8, 2024, NASA's Mars Perseverance rover captured this image of the moon Phobos eclipsing the sun. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / ASU Here on Earth, we can witness a number of different solar eclipses, including the looming total solar eclipse, a rare celestial event happening on April 8, 2024. For those in the "path of totality," the moon will completely block out the sun for some three to over four minutes. Our moon is almost spherical, but Phobos isn't nearly. It's relatively small and not too massive, with its longest side measuring just 17 miles (27 kilometers) long. "Phobos is too light for gravity to make it spherical," the European Space Agency explains. What's more, it's been hit time and time again by potent space rocks. "Phobos was nearly shattered by a giant impact, and has gouges from thousands of meteorite impacts," NASA noted. The glaring impact site is Stickney crater, which is 5.6 miles (nine kilometers) wide. Phobos won't be a moon forever. Every year, it moves some six feet (1.8 meters) closer to the Red Planet. "At that rate, the moon will either crash into Mars in 50 million years or break up into a ring," NASA explained. When not stargazing, the space agency's Perseverance rover, which expertly landed on Mars in February 2021, uses its specialized cameras to explore a dried-up river delta in Mars' Jezero Crater. Some 3 billion years ago, NASA's planetary scientists suspect this area was filled with water. "This delta is one of the best locations on Mars for the rover to look for signs of past microscopic life," NASA said. View the full article
  4. TL;DR: As of February 13, get three years of WP Buzz Managed WordPress Hosting for only $49.99 — a savings of 83%. Having your own website is commonplace these days. WordPress is a popular choice among bloggers, businesses, and online shops. The only catch is that you need a hosting platform to get these WordPress sites online. Though it's not hard to do, finding a reliable host can be a challenge if you're new to the game. WP Buzz offers managed WordPress Hosting that's reliable, affordable, and secure. And the best part is that it was built and optimized specifically for WordPress. For a limited time, you can get a three-year subscription to this service for just $49.99 (reg. $297). Because it was made for WordPress, it was designed to feature faster speed and offer better performance for your WordPress site. It also has security features to protect your site. The built-in web application firewall is there to protect against attacks, and plugins are monitored so they don't potentially disrupt your site. You can manage your WordPress site easily from your tablet, phone, or desktop laptop. This host has auto-scaling to keep your site online and up and running. And a user-friendly control panel makes brand management a breeze. WP Buzz WordPress hosting includes load balancing, edge caching, and other quality features to ensure a smooth operation. This three-year plan allows you to host one WordPress install with unlimited bandwidth and SSD space. You also get unlimited emails, and free migration and updates are included. Don't miss the chance to get this optimized WordPress host at a steep discount. Get a 3-year WP Buzz WordPress Hosting subscription for just $49.99 (reg. $297) and see how it can elevate your site. StackSocial prices subject to change. Opens in a new window Credit: WP Buzz 3-year WP Buzz WordPress Hosting subscription $49.99 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal View the full article
  5. TL;DR: Through February 19, get two, five or 10TB of lifetime cloud storage from Internxt for over 60% off. If someone would've said 20 years ago that we'd be storing our files, pictures, and videos in an invisible place called the cloud, most of us would've considered it bonkers. However, in today's uber-digital landscape, storing things in the cloud isn't just commonplace; it's kind of a necessity. While there are different services out there, the people at Internxt have created a cloud storage service that has a ton of space that you can feel secure about — and you only have to pay for once. This offer gives you three options to choose from: 2TB, 5TB, or 10TB of lifetime cloud storage. Self-described as a private cloud service suite, Internxt has made privacy and security its priority. The comprehensive encryption divides the info into smaller pieces and encrypts them separately to secure your data. This zero-knowledge, open-source data storage is even compliant with GDPR, as well as audited and verified by Securitum. It's a decentralized storage solution for which only you have access to your files. Internxt was designed to give you speed without limits. You can also share, store, and send files, photos, and videos from the cloud on any device, including Apple and Android, Windows, iOS, Linux, and more. And it was all created to give you a user-friendly, intuitive interface. With this secure solution, you can keep your files and precious memories safe and collaborate easily and quickly with team members, friends, and family. However, this offer is only available to new users. Pick from the following options and save significantly on a lifetime subscription to Internxt Cloud Storage when you order by February 19 at 11:59 p.m. PT as part of this Presidents' Day sale: 2TB Internxt Cloud Storage, on sale for $149.97 5TB Internxt Cloud Storage on sale for $249.97 10TB Internxt Cloud Storage on sale for $389.97 StackSocial prices subject to change. Opens in a new window Credit: Internxt 10TB Internxt Cloud Storage $389.97 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal Opens in a new window Credit: Internxt 5TB Internxt Cloud Storage $249.97 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal Opens in a new window Credit: Internxt 2TB Internxt Cloud Storage $149.97 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal View the full article
  6. TL;DR: As of February 13, get a lifetime license to Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022 and Learn to Code Premium Certification bundle for $64.99 — a $1,999 value. If you want to enter the world of coding, you need to start somewhere. Online learning is a great option because it allows you to learn on your own time, whether it be on weekends or your lunch break. This Learn to Code bundle includes 15 multi-lesson courses on the most in-demand coding languages. It also comes with a lifetime license to Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022. And it's on sale for just $64.99 (reg. $1,199) for a limited time. Many professional coders are self-taught. This bundle gives you the tools to teach yourself more efficiently and easily from the comfort of your home. The Learn to Code bundle dives into the most popular programs. This includes beginner-friendly courses such as Learn to Code with Python 3. Python 3 is used to develop websites and software, automate tasks, and more. The bundle also features a course that gives you a more complex understanding and focuses on learning Python by doing. You'll also be able to roll up your sleeves and learn from the ground up in C++ for Absolute Beginners 2024. Other courses cover ChatGPT, MySQL, SQL, JavaScript, Vuex, Ruby on Rails, Salesforce, Google Assistant, and more. It's a comprehensive set of courses that will help you on your journey to coding excellence. The other part of this bundle includes a lifetime license to Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022. This development environment allows you to practice all you learned in the coding bundle, as it supports those languages. This software is designed to make it easy for beginners to flex their coding muscles and gives pros a place to code more efficiently, so it should always be very useful, even as you get better at coding. Get the Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022 and Learn to Code bundle for just $64.99 (reg. $1,999). StackSocial prices subject to change. Opens in a new window Credit: Shutterstock/Stack Commerce Microsoft Visual Studio Professional 2022 + The 2024 Premium Learn to Code Certification Bundle $64.99 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal View the full article
  7. TL;DR: As of February 13, get an open-box Eufy RoboVac G30 Robot Vacuum for just $99.99 — that's 15% off. What if we told you that you might never have to vacuum or sweep your floors ever again? And we aren’t talking about ignoring those dust bunnies or clumps of pet hair — we’re talking about getting a robot vacuum. You may have held off of the trend due to their usual prices, but this Eufy RoboVac G30 is only $99.99 for an open-box model (reg. $118.99). This robot is like having a maidImagine this: Instead of lugging your vacuum up the stairs and tripping over its cord as you clean, you could set the Eufy RoboVac to tidy your space for you — even when you’re not even home. Just use the app to schedule sessions, add focus spots, change modes, and review its cleaning history. Skeptics of these robot maids often raise the concern that they miss spots, but the Eufy RoboVac has Smart Dynamic Navigation 2.0 to design logical paths around your house to cover entire areas like your living room and kitchen. Other critics claim they aren’t as powerful as traditional vacuums, but this robot has 2000Pa suction, which is an excellent balance between effectiveness and quietness. Plus, technology called BoostIQ™ adjusts suction power when transitioning between hard surfaces and carpets. Save 15% with an open-box modelThis Eufy RoboVac is under $100 because it’s an open-box model. While that does mean it’s not technically brand-new, it does come with factory settings, all original accessories, and a 90-day product warranty. What will you do with all of your newfound time, free from the constant clutch of vacuuming? We recommend relaxing and binge-watching your favorite series, but focusing attention on cleaning other things is also a way to go. Grab your open-box Eufy RoboVac G30 for $99.99 (reg. $118.99) and save 15%. StackSocial prices subject to change. Opens in a new window Credit: Eufy Eufy RoboVac G30 Robot Vacuum Black (Open Box) $99.99 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal View the full article
  8. Jimmy Kimmel, aka "Mid-Life Crisis Ken", gets a helping hand to the Oscars from Barbie cast Kate McKinnon, America Ferrera and Ryan Gosling in the silly skit above. Kimmel arrives in one piece before he and Ken (Gosling) begin to short-circuit into continuous screams after learning that Greta Gerwig isn't nominated for Best Director. "Girls grow into women, but not all boys grow into men," says Barbie narrator Helen Mirren in voice-over. "Some remain hopelessly stuck in a loop of infantile foolishness. One of them will host the Oscars." View the full article
  9. TL;DR: A lifetime subscription to Dollar Flight Club Premium Plus+ is on sale for £78.35, saving you 94% on list price. Travel can be thrilling. It can take you to new places, meet new people, and gain a new perspective on life. It can also be sort of expensive, which means most of us don't get to do it very often. If you or someone on your shopping list is into travel, this could be the gift of all gifts — and could be bought right at the last minute since it doesn't have to be shipped. Get a lifetime subscription to this flight deal alert service: Dollar Flight Club (DFC) Premium Plus+ for just £78.35. It's a simple concept that claims to have saved members thousands on their trips. All you need to do is enter your choice of four home airports from which you would want to fly and check your mail to see what kind of flight deals DFC sent your way. This Premium Plus+ subscription gets you access to deals and mistake fares on domestic and international flights. It includes flights on economy, business, and first class, so you can fly in style for a much cheaper rate. Premium Plus+ members also save 20% on Mobile Passport Plus and other partner savings. Get someone who wants to see the world this thoughtful gift that doesn't require shipping. A lifetime subscription to Dollar Flight Club Premium Plus+ is on sale for £78.35, saving you 94% on list price. Opens in a new window Credit: Dollar Flight Club Dollar Flight Club Premium Plus+ (Lifetime Suscription) £78.35 at the Mashable Shop Get Deal View the full article
  10. While anti-piracy enforcement actions are likely to be at the highest level ever seen, there’s no shortage of sites and services surging to millions of monthly visits before appearing to attract negative attention. Piracy services slipping through the net may not have actually done so completely unnoticed, however. Finite anti-piracy resources or strategy may play a role in services staying online, and not every platform warrants immediate attention. That being said, when piracy-focused apps appear on Google Play and somehow manage to grow huge audiences for month, that can be puzzling. Google will take down obviously infringing apps in response to a DMCA takedown notice and since major rightsholders can file those in an instant, it’s difficult to know why popular apps don’t get taken down. Pirate Streaming Apps on Google Play As part of its coverage of the new Piracy Shield IPTV blocking system recently deployed in Italy, local tech news outlet DDAY.it recently highlighted pirate streaming apps on Google Play, some with hundreds of thousands of downloads. Those mentioned in the article focus on live football streams, the same priority content Piracy Shield is supposed to wipe out. While that lofty goal was never likely to be achieved in two weeks, DDAY asked Google why the apps hadn’t been delisted and, from Google’s response, the question seems likely to have mentioned Piracy Shield. The platform built by AGCOM, Piracy Shield, is used to notify providers who provide access to sites hosting infringing content with orders to disable such access. However, hosting service providers such as the Google Play Store are not subject to these orders. In any case and regardless of the legislation in question, it is always possible for authorities and users to report apps that allow activities in violation of the law or platform rules as described here. (Response from Google) As a statement of fact, Google’s response is non-controversial. In contrast, a subsequent comment from AGCOM significantly muddies the waters. Comply With The Law, But Do More Google accepts DMCA takedown notices from copyright holders and those authorized to act on their behalf, as the provided link demonstrates. That tends to suggest that takedown notices to remove the apps from Google Play may not have been sent by the relevant rightsholders. In his response, AGCOM Commissioner Massimiliano Capitano doesn’t address the possibility that an existing anti-piracy option wasn’t used. Instead, he says that others simply need to do more. In this historical moment we need an alliance for legality, which passes through respect for the rules but also through autonomous initiatives by private entities inspired by ethics and self-regulation. Nobody asks for an ex ante filter, nor to wear blindfolds. (Response from AGCOM Commissioner Capitano) If “respect for the rules” means compliance with the law, the law says that if Google receives a proper complaint, those apps would have to come down. If “autonomous initiatives” is a reference to private deals that go beyond the strict requirements of the law, Google would still need to know which content to remove and why. Since only the relevant rightsholders have that information, having them supply it in a takedown notice seems like a clear and efficient option. Law 93/2023, Article 2, Paragraph 5 After suggesting that Google should ethically remove content without rightsholder involvement, Commissioner Capitano goes on to claim that the new law passed last year does indeed apply to the Play Store, contrary to Google’s earlier statement. [I] would like to remind you that law 93/2023 following the amendments prepared by the Caivano Decree, paragraph 5 of article 2 expressly provides that search engines and other sites, even if they are not directly involved in accessibility of Pirate sites subject to Agcom investigation, must adopt all technical measures useful to hinder the visibility of illicit content. (AGCOM Commissioner Capitano) The relevant section of the law (art. 2, para 5), states that network access service providers, search engine operators and information society service providers “involved in any capacity in the accessibility of the website or illegal services” must within 30 minutes, disable DNS resolution of domain names and traffic routing to the notified IP addresses. Google Can’t Comply With The Above While AGCOM and Google argue over whether Google Play qualifies under the law, it’s beyond clear that Google’s ability to comply with the above terms in respect of an app is all but impossible. Any app providing access to pirated streams will do so using IP addresses and DNS servers of which Google Play has no knowledge. Even if it had knowledge, Google Play could do nothing about that; it doesn’t supply internet connectivity and doesn’t control DNS. In the event the app relied on Google DNS, then Google DNS should be served with a blocking order, not Google Play. Google Play Could Do ‘Something’ The law does provide a catch-all clause that requires platforms, “in any case…to adopt technological measures or the organizational measures necessary to prevent access to content disseminated illegally.” That could logically mean the removal of an app from Google Play. However, regardless of what action is eventually taken, the targets are first identified by rightsholders and then placed in a list, which is subsequently made available to the service providers to take action. Without that list, no action can be taken because, ethically or not, guesses are no match for facts. That leads to the conclusion that as well as likely receiving no takedown notices, Google Play has received no lists of targets to take action against under the new law, regardless of whether the law applies to it or not. Furthermore, the only reason those pirate streaming apps remain useful is purely down to the availability of streams accessible within the app. Since it’s Piracy Shield’s job to render those inaccessible, that might be a good place to start. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  11. Despite the growing availability of legal options, online piracy remains rampant. Every day pirate sites and services are used by millions of people worldwide. New data released by UK-based piracy tracking company MUSO shows that pirate sites remain very relevant. And people have no trouble finding them either. 229 Billion Pirate Site Visits A few weeks ago it was revealed that video piracy continued to grow in 2023. A new report shows this uptrend is visible across all other content categories, reaching 229 billion platform visits in 2023, a 6.7% increase compared to a year earlier. Music and software piracy are by far the smallest categories, but these saw the largest relative piracy increases. The number of visits to music and software piracy sites grew 13.4% and 14.1% respectively over the past year. TV piracy remains the most popular among consumers, however, accounting for almost half of all piracy traffic with 103.9 billion visits in 2023. The publishing category takes second place with 63.6 billion visits, followed by 29.6 billion film piracy visits. Pirate Site Visits per Category (2023) Category Visits Market Share Growth YoY Data: Muso.com TV 103.9 billion 45.4% 4.2% Publishing 63.3 billion 27.6% 7.4% Film 29.6 billion 12.9% 6.5% Music 17.1 billion 7.5% 13.4% Software 15.2 billion 6.6% 14.1% Manga In recent years, the publishing category has seen a sharp traffic increase. This rise is mostly driven by manga comics, which have drawn more pirate site visits than film piracy in recent years. “The global phenomenon of Manga, Japanese comic book and graphic novels, has driven publishing piracy to new heights in recent years, overtaking film piracy and the second most pirated medium in 2020,” MUSO writes. Manga now dominates the publishing category. While traditional book publishers have been very active on the anti-piracy front recently, more than two-thirds of all ‘publishing’ pirates (69.2%) are drawn to manga sites. The United States is in the lead as the main source of traffic to manga sites. With 13% of all visits, it leaves all other countries, including Japan, trailing behind. TV Piracy Looking at the TV category, we see that the United States remains the top traffic driver overall. With more than 14 billion visits it puts runner-up Russia in distant second place. Top TV Piracy Sources The TV category also includes anime content which, unlike our yearly overview, is included in MUSO’s top 10 list of most viewed TV series. The Last of Us remains the winner, however. In recent years TV piracy has been dominated by streaming sites, which represent direct competition for Netflix and other authorized platforms. These pirate streaming sites now make up 96.3% of all traffic, marginalizing torrent sites and download portals. Iran, India and Russia It’s no surprise that the United States is leading in the TV and Publishing categories due to the sheer size of the population and readily available broadband access. However, this dominance doesn’t apply to all categories. Looking at movie piracy, India is the clear winner by a wide margin (30%!), according to MUSO’s data. Interestingly, visits to this category declined sharply in the second half of 2023 for reasons that are not immediately clear. In the music category, Iran is the surprising leader with 11.8% of music piracy visits, followed by India and the U.S. as runners-up. This includes traffic to stream-ripping sites, download portals, and streaming sites. Finally, MUSO attributes most software piracy to Russia, with the U.S. and China closely behind. This includes traffic to app piracy sites. Needless to say, all software piracy takes place through direct download portals. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  12. The last time developer Christopher Boomer appeared on our radar was back in July 2022 when he attempted to unmask thousands of alleged copyright infringers using the DMCA subpoena process. As the developer behind the Weightlifting Simulator series of games, among others, Boomer has enjoyed extraordinary success in the Roblox community. Billions of plays of the developer’s games are an endorsement of his work; for some, it’s also a signal to publish similar if not identical games, to generate revenue for themselves. Boomer’s earlier attempt at using the DMCA subpoena process, to unmask potentially thousands of targets, failed Roblox weighed in. While it was clear that the developer had at least some genuine claims, a DMCA subpoena was the wrong mechanism to obtain alleged infringers’ identities. New Lawsuit Filed in the United States A new lawsuit filed in a California court this week faces no such obstacles. The complaint states that Boomer is the author of the massively popular Roblox games Weight Lifting Simulator (released in 2017/18) and a game with a similar theme called Muscles Legends (2019). Key features of the games include a play area with weights, benches, treadmills, and other sundry objects. When the player interacts with these items their in-game character becomes larger and stronger in appearance, which leads to progression in the game. Get Muscles Simulator Released on the Roblox platform in January 2022, Get Muscles Simulator “appears to be based on the same idea and features the same underlying mechanics as Mr. Boomer’s Weightlifting Games,” the complaint notes. In Weight Lifting Simulator, player avatars interact with in-game objects to increase attributes, and can also battle other avatars. The same gameplay mechanics also appear in Get Muscles Simulator but the complaint alleges that copying goes well beyond that. “[T]he infringing game blatantly copies Mr. Boomer’s protectable expression, including, inter alia, its artwork, level design, animations, design aesthetics, game pieces, user interface and the selection and coordination of game elements, colors, and shapes.” A visual comparison of the games “Indeed, the presence of these elements in Defendant’s game makes it readily apparent that it is a blatant clone of Mr. Boomer’s game. As the non-exhaustive examples [above] show, the main elements of Defendant’s Get Muscles Simulator are substantially similar to the constituent elements of Mr. Boomer’s Weightlifting Games that are original.” DMCA Counter-Notices Should Be Taken Seriously As previously reported, a thriving and cut-price cottage industry has sprung up in recent years promising to remove infringing content from the internet using DMCA notices. The same operations also claim that if a client’s content is taken down, they will file DMCA counter-notices to ensure content is restored. Unfortunately, many of these DIY operations have a cavalier attitude to counter-notices and few warn of the consequences when things go wrong. As this case shows, no matter who sends a counter-notice, they should be taken seriously. Around January 24, 2024, Boomer submitted a DMCA takedown notice to Roblox with the aim of removing Get Muscles Simulator from the platform. Three days later, around January 27, the developer of the allegedly-infringing game responded with a DMCA counter-notice to Roblox. A DMCA counter-notice allows those targeted by a DMCA takedown notice to challenge its validity and ask for the removed content to be restored. However, this also triggers a 14-day period in which the original complainant has an opportunity to sue to prevent restoration. If no lawsuit is filed, the content should be restored between day 10 and day 14. In this case, Boomer sued. Under Penalty of Perjury, Don’t Provide False Information Counter-notices must contain an address where the sender can be reached and here, the counter-notice sender provided an address in Montana. According to Boomer’s complaint, that statement was false. In a second counter-notice, submitted around January 31, the developer of Get Muscles Simulator provided an address in California. Whether that address is accurate is unclear, but other things also need to be taken into account. Counter-notices require the sender to state, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that their content should not have been taken down. In this case, Boomer’s lawsuit makes his position clear; Get Muscles Simulator is a blatant copy of his copyrighted game. The defendant will have to satisfy the court that simply isn’t true. When submitting a counter-notice, senders are required to consent to the jurisdiction of a federal court in the district where they live. In this case, Boomer’s complaint states that there are no jurisdiction issues to consider because the defendant consented in writing to the jurisdiction of the court in the counter-notice submitted to Roblox. Claim for Damages The complaint notes that Get Muscles Simulator copies substantial original elements from Boomer’s game. It further alleges that the game’s developer, identified as Alexander Koshkin, is a deliberate and willful infringer, who generated unjust profits, gains, and advantages by competing against Boomer’s game hoping to “poach the market” for his weightlifting games. Boomer requests a preliminary and/or permanent injunction to prevent further infringement, an award for damages, costs and attorney’s fees, interest, and a trial by jury. The complaint is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  13. In recent years, rightsholders have repeatedly teamed up with Egyptian law enforcement to tackle several large pirate sites and services. The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) booked several successes, shutting down domains related to popular piracy rings, streaming portals such as MyCima and, more recently, Cima4U. Several of these actions took place in coordination with sports broadcaster beIN. The company is very active in the Middle East and North Africa (the MENA region) where a large part of its subscriber base resides. Traditionally, this is a region with plenty of enforcement challenges. beIN Shares MENA Piracy Concerns Despite recent successes, these challenges remain. A few days ago, beIN and subsidiary Miramax submitted an overview to the U.S. Trade Representative, as input for the annual “Special 301” review. The submission focuses exclusively on the MENA region. “[T]here is still a huge amount to be done. beIN and other intellectual property rights owners, continue to sustain huge revenue losses from piracy in MENA, which greatly threatens the development of the legitimate audio-visual sector,” beIN writes. “In many countries, commitment to intellectual property enforcement, and general respect of intellectual property remains very low. In many countries, piracy continues to be the primary way for people to consume premium sports and entertainment content.” The submission signals a variety of piracy-related problems in countries such as Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE, and Lebanon, where lacking enforcement is a recurring theme. However, our attention was mostly drawn to the comments regarding Egypt. Similar to other countries, many pirate sites are easy to access in Egypt and dedicated piracy devices and subscriptions are openly sold there. While the ACE actions have shown that there is some cooperation from local law enforcement, plenty of concerns remain. Paid Pirate Site Blocking Licenses One particularly problematic development relates to site blocking. Rightsholders historically faced difficulty getting support from local authorities on the site-blocking front. Last year, there appeared to be some progress on this front, but not the type beIN wanted. Site blocking is an option in Egypt today. However, instead of it being part of a legal or administrative process, pirate site blocking is offered as a ‘privatized’ service by an unnamed commercial company. BeIN inquired about the available blocking options, but it believes that the fees that are currently charged are too steep. “In 2023, beIN was made aware that license to order such blocking has been granted to a commercial entity, which is offering this to rights owners as a paid service. The fee offered to beIN was neither proportional nor realistic to the service being offered.’ The ‘pay to block’ offering came as a surprise to beIN, which hopes that the Egyptian government will reconsider the blocking scheme. Perhaps after a nudge from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). “beIN is not aware of any other country, where enforcement of IPR has been privatized in such a manner. beIN would urge the authorities in Egypt to reconsider their approach,” the company informs the USTR. How Bad Is It? TorrentFreak asked ACE, which is well-connected in Egypt, to share their thoughts on the matter. At this time, however, the anti-piracy group prefers not to comment. Without more details on the scheme and the blocking company involved, it is hard to grasp what’s going on precisely. In theory, the fees being charged could simply be used to cover the costs, instead of blocking being a for-profit business. Interestingly, it appears that not all rightsholders are increasingly concerned about Egypt. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents major rightsholder groups including the MPA and RIAA, removed the country from its watchlist recommendation for the first time this year. Since 1989, IIPA has listed Egypt as either a “watchlist” or “priority watchlist” recommendation in its “Special 301” submissions to the USTR, but that’s no longer the case today. So, not all is bad. — A copy of the submission beIN and Miremax sent to the USTR for its upcoming 2024 Special 301 Review is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  14. From the very beginning and from every possible angle, this story makes almost no sense. But it will, eventually. By chance, when trying to track down a document a few weeks ago, a .pdf file with ‘IPTV’ in the description suddenly stood out in Google search results. Interesting things can appear by pure luck but, on first view, the document seemed quite mundane. Sporting a maple leaf in the top left corner and text on the right mentioning a meeting of Mapleton City Council, deletion was mere moments away. But then the word ‘ACTION’ caught the eye, quickly followed by ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV streaming’. It transpires that Mapleton is no regular city. Founded in 1850, settled in 1856, and officially incorporated in 1948, it currently boasts a population of around 11,220 people. According to FBI data, just 16 crimes involving violence or threat of violence were recorded in 2022. No murders, no robberies, and it looks absolutely stunning. Mapleton City Council Loves Mapleton, Records Everything As far as data is concerned, Mapleton City Council operates with a high level of transparency and appears to keep immaculate records, many of which are published on its website. The city is currently building an all new fiber network promising speeds of up to 2Gbps but, in the meantime, existing internet connections seem to suffice. According to another of the city’s highly detailed documents, on November 3rd, 2022, Mapleton City staff met to finalize and propose a rate to deliver a “High-definition IPTV subscription service” for all network users. In common with most documents that mention IPTV on the Mapleton City Website, this one mentions ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV’ too. “Mapleton City Administration asked the Mapleton City Network to investigate offering High-definition IPTV streaming service to residential and business users,” the official request for the Council to approve the ‘Xtreme’ service reads. “As we research the options, it became clear that a High-definition IPTV subscription service would be the best value and the least expensive to deploy. We as staff agree that a streaming subscription service should be deployed to compete with other communications companies within the Mapleton service area.” So what type of ‘Xtreme IPTV service’ could give local communications companies a run for their money? Well, if we shorten ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV’ we arrive at a more manageable and recognizable name: Xtreme HD IPTV. If we then place a few channels from the proposed Mapleton IPTV service on the left, and channels from what is actually a well-known pirate IPTV service on the right, we get… …..exactly the same service March 15, 2023: D-Day Even the most permissive view of events thus far defies explanation. Did the search for a cheap but legal service to entertain city residents simply get out of hand? Is there a weird, Utah-specific internet filter that blocks negative news about illegal IPTV services and streaming sites, but allows other stuff through? The screenshot below, of a post dated March 15, 2023, was taken from the official Instagram account of the City Council. Based on the possibility that there may have been a huge mistake, or perhaps people have been led to believe certain things that simply aren’t true, we’ve chosen to obscure the identities of the people below. The relevant sections in red clearly show upcoming events. Since when do people running a city knowingly celebrate the upcoming approval of a massive pirate IPTV reselling operation with an announcement on Instagram? And if that sounds too ridiculous to be true, how about the existence of a detailed cost analysis? The table below not only attempts to calculate the potential size of the local market, but also predicts huge profit margins after weighing in IPTV-specific factors such as concurrent connections. Yet, despite all of the above, there was still a strong urge to uncover any reason that might go at least some way towards explaining why a local authority might find itself in such a crazy position. This week, we reached out to two key figures on the council with a request for comment, or even a chat to hear why this isn’t such a great idea. At the time of publication, we still hadn’t heard back. Desperate for any new theories, here’s an obvious one: Is the city and/or its population in dire financial straights? More recent figures may indicate otherwise but in 2021, the median property value in Mapleton was just over $502,000, while median household income was close to $115,000. Just 3% of residents live below the poverty line, which is actually pretty impressive. But even if 100% of all residents were unable to make ends meet, wouldn’t it be sensible to discuss something like this a little more quietly? After spending way too much time trying to answer these and similar questions, a long trawl through the Mapleton City YouTube channel effectively answered them all. Seeing is Believing On March 15, 2023, Mapleton City Council unanimously approved the implementation of the Xtreme HD IPTV system. They did so based on 16 minutes of testimony describing how it worked and, more importantly, the absence of legal concerns. The discussion concerning the Xtreme HD proposition begins around the 32-minute mark but from a personal perspective, it’s a very tough watch. The people who gave the project the green light asked questions which mostly headed in the right direction; the information relied upon to reach that decision had only negative value. The same can’t be said of the video, which may turn out to be priceless. Without it, no sane person would believe something like this could ever be possible. Despite the project receiving official approval (a unanimous vote is audible in the video), hopefully someone managed to pull the plug before launch, or at least fairly soon after. The public records referenced in this report are available here From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  15. At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest YouTube rippers took the unprecedented step of taking the music industry to court. Yout.com’s Johnathan Nader had grown tired of the bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and allegedly defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing. The RIAA and others were asking Google to remove so-called YouTube-rippers from search results. The music industry group believes that these sites should not be allowed to operate and filed a motion to dismiss Yout’s lawsuit. RIAA Wins, Yout Appeals At the end of 2022, the district court handed a win to the RIAA and dismissed the matter at an early stage. Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. That wasn’t the end though. Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision. The stream-ripper’s arguments are partly supported by amicus briefs from GitHub and the EFF, both of which joined the case. On the other side of the aisle, the RIAA dug in its heels. The music group saw no reason to doubt the lower court’s position and, in its response to the appeal, found the Copyright Alliance at its side. Appeals Court Hearing On the surface, this case largely revolves around a seemingly simple question. The problem, however, is that both parties have a completely different answer. – Does YouTube employ a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works? This question brings up all sorts of semantic challenges. What is a measure and when is it technological? What does access mean in this context and under which conditions is it controlled? And if there is such a measure, does Yout.com circumvent it? A few days ago Yout and the RIAA had the chance to explain their reasoning to the Court of Appeals. The hearing was presided over by Judge Carney, Judge Leval, and Judge Sullivan, who critically questioned both attorneys on their views. First up was Evan Fray Witzer, who represents Yout LLC. The attorney explained that this case brings up several novel questions, relating to three distinct provisions of the DMCA’s section 1201. At the same time, however, it is crucial to have a full factual record, which is currently missing. The lower court dismissed Yout’s case at the rule 12 stage before all the factual evidence was gathered. No witnesses were heard and it’s not even clear if YouTube intentionally implemented a ‘measure’ to prevent users from downloading videos. “There is a question as to what YouTube intended with these measures. We don’t know because YouTube isn’t here. YouTube has not come in as an amicus. And we have not had the opportunity to question YouTube about that,” Witzer said. Yout’s attorney suggests that it’s possible that YouTube never implemented any technology specifically to prevent people from grabbing video files. It might have, but in that case, it is still easy to circumvent, even without specialized tools such as Yout. Where’s YouTube? Judge Leval responded by saying that preventing downloads is of great commercial significance to YouTube, as it generates its revenue from advertising. Yout’s attorney agreed but had his response ready. “I have two responses to that. The first is; one would expect if that was YouTube’s concern, that you would have an amicus brief from YouTube here, and you don’t. And I think that that is significant and telling. “The second, though, is that is the same concern, Your Honor, that every television broadcast had when the VCR came out. If you can simply record this, you can show it at your movie night. You can show it as many times as you want.” The VCR comparison was brought up a few times but not as often as the role of YouTube in this lawsuit. The case essentially centers around its purported protection measures, without any direct input from the company itself. When Judge Carney asked what in particular would be developed on a fuller record, if this case was sent back to the lower court, Yout’s attorney said that YouTube could and should be heard. “I think one thing that would be developed on a fuller record, Your Honor, is what precisely is the technological measure employed by YouTube and does it, is it designed to prevent access? Is it designed to prevent copying? Or does it have some other use that YouTube is putting to it?” The attorney said that they would need to subpoena YouTube as a third party. That should clarify what their technology and methods are and how this relates to YouTube’s business. “I’ll simply conclude by saying this is the type of case that calls out for expert witnesses,” Witzer said, noting that the EFF and GitHub had already argued in their favor. Court Questions RIAA The hearing then continued with RIAA attorney Rose Ehler, who started by pointing out that Yout allows the public to download audio and video files. This includes copies of music videos that were only intended to be streamed through YouTube. This introduction triggered a quick tête-à-tête with Judge Sullivan, who tried to get to the bottom of RIAA’s reasoning. It went like this. Judge: But I could do that without Yout, right? RIAA: There are instructions for how one could do it without Yout. But what Yout does is enable it on an automated basis. Judge: I get that. But […] what is the technological measure that would be protecting this copyrightable material if I can do it myself? RIAA: Well, just because you can do it yourself or you can hack the technological measure, it doesn’t mean…[interrupted] Judge: Well, I’m not hacking anything. I mean, I could do this right now in this courtroom on my computer probably, right? RIAA: Your Honor could. I think it would be hacking… RIAA’s attorney went on to explain what it sees as the “technical measure.” Yout itself has stated that YouTube uses a “signature mechanism” that must be read and interpreted by JavaScript. Yout modifies the signature value. This prompted more questions from Judge Sullivan, who suggested that the signature value is accessible through a regular browser and that he and others could also modify it without using a dedicated tool such as Yout. “You’re saying I would then be violating the statute as well?” the Judge asked. RIAA’s attorney agreed that people could do it on their own which, in individual cases, may qualify as a copyright exemption. However, doing it to download a music video and to seed piracy on the Internet would be classified as circumvention under the DMCA. Reverse Engineered Technological Protection? Moving on to the “protection” element, the RIAA believes that the signature value used by YouTube serves as a technological measure that, in the ordinary course, prevents people from downloading music videos. “The strength is not what we look at. We look at how it operates in the ordinary course and whether in the ordinary course of the operation, it serves the function of limiting or controlling access,” RIAA’s attorney said. This again triggered more questions from the court about how effective this is and whether the signature value was intended as a protection measure. The latter question can only be answered by YouTube, whose views are unknown. The RIAA countered by noting that intent isn’t important, as it’s not part of the DMCA rules. The statute looks at whether a technological measure is being circumvented in the ordinary course of operation, which it believes is the case here. This didn’t convince Judge Sullivan who pointed out that the lower court seems to have “reverse engineered” its way to a conclusion. “But how are we able to know that from the pleadings? How are we able to know how it works in the ordinary course? I mean, it might be people are doing this all the time on their own. There’s no discovery on that. There’s no expert opinion on that. “It seems to me that Judge Underhill sort of inferred that this, because it’s complicated, because there’s no download button, because it’s a contractual provision, there must be a technological measure. He’s sort of backwardly engineered it, it seems to me,” Judge Sullivan added. An Easy Solution As is, the court may not be convinced by the RIAA’s arguments alone. That’s not to say that they’re wrong, but he suggests that this case could benefit from YouTube’s input on the matter. Particularly because there are “some pretty big stakes here.” “This could be easily solved. And my hunch is when it is. It’s going to be clear that there are other technological measures that are here. But right now, YouTube’s staying out of it and we’re kind of guessing, Judge Sullivan noted. Both attorneys were confronted with critical questions during the hearing, as is often the case. This means that it is too early to draw any conclusions. It is clear, however, that YouTube holds the keys to many of the questions that have come up. Whether it will be heard, however, is for the Court of Appeals to decide. — A copy of the full hearing is available here (mp3). All quotes are transcribed by us. Update: we fixed part of a quote that included an incorrectly transcribed word. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  16. Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit. In many cases, discussion comments are read and soon forgotten but several old threads were brought back to life recently as part of piracy liability lawsuits. The comments in question were picked up by Kerry Culpepper, a copyright attorney who leads several piracy lawsuits against Internet providers on behalf of independent film companies. While they say they’re not interested in pursuing legal action against these people, their comments could serve as important evidence. Filmmakers Try to Unmask Redditors Early last year, the film companies subpoenaed Reddit for the first time, requesting the personal details of several users. Reddit refused to cooperate, defending their users’ right to anonymous speech, and found a California federal court in agreement. In a second attempt a few weeks later, several film companies sent a similar subpoena to Reddit. This time, the request was more targeted, as all comments specifically referred to the ISP being sued; Grande Communications. Reddit still refused to comply, however, stressing that its users’ First Amendment rights would still be at stake. After hearing both parties, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler sided with Reddit once again. Reddit III: Targeting IP-addresses While the denial was another setback for the film companies and their attorney, they had no plans to abandon this route to evidence quite so easily. Last month, they were back in court with a similar but tweaked request, this time related to a lawsuit targeting Internet provider Frontier Communications. Broadly speaking, the third case was comparable to the others. The film companies, including Voltage Holdings and Screen Media Ventures, wanted to use comments made by six Redditors to show that the ISP didn’t take proper action against repeat infringers, or that ‘lax’ enforcement acted as a draw to potential pirates. Contrary to the earlier requests, the film companies were no longer looking for any names or email addresses, only the applicable IP address logs. This would allow the commenters to remain anonymous because an ‘IP-address is not a person‘, their attorney argued. Reddit, again, refused to hand over information, arguing it would violate users’ right to anonymous speech. The fact that it would only have to reveal IP-addresses wouldn’t change that, Reddit argued. Court Sides with Reddit, Thrice After both sides had the chance to present their arguments, the matter landed on the desk of U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson of the California federal court. After reviewing the paperwork, Judge Hixson denied the motion to compel. Similar to the decisions in Reddit I and Reddit II, the court concluded that the First Amendment rights of individuals to speak anonymously weigh stronger than the interests of rightsholders. This is particularly true because the Redditors are third parties and not defendants in this case. Of importance in this decision is the so-called ‘2TheMart.com’ standard, which was also applied in the earlier two cases. From that perspective, the court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion. This case deals with comments from six Redditors that could serve as evidence in the film companies ‘legal battle with Frontier. However, the court believes that the rightsholders can obtain similar evidence from a more direct source. In the legal proceeding against the ISP, the court previously ruled that the film companies can unmask several alleged pirate subscribers. This could be used to obtain comments directly from Frontier subscribers. “[T]here is information available from another source, as Movants themselves note the underlying bankruptcy court adjudicating the copyright litigation has already ruled they can obtain identifying information from Frontier for IP addresses known to have pirated using Frontier’s network,” Judge Hixson writes. “If Movants sought further information, they need only subpoena the ISP for the subscriber information associated with that IP address, as the ISP does not share Reddit’s interest in protecting the anonymity of that user.” Anonymous IP-addresses? Judge Hixson didn’t elaborate in response to the filmmakers’ novel argument that sharing IP-addresses wouldn’t violate the First Amendment right to anonymous speech (‘not a person’). According to the ruling, current precedents suggest that it’s not common to disregard the First Amendment argument when it comes to IP-address unmasking. “While the Court is unaware of any cases in the Ninth Circuit in which a court has declined to apply a First Amendment unmasking standard for IP addresses, other courts have recognized that IP addresses are essential to unmasking because an ‘IP address cannot be made up in the same way that a poster may provide a false name and address’.” “For this reason, the Court finds no reason to believe provision of an IP address is not unmasking subject to First Amendment scrutiny,” Judge Hixson writes. The court further added that the film companies can still use the Redditor’s comments as evidence, as is. Printouts of webpages have been used at previous trials as well, so that could apply here. Based on these and other arguments, Judge Hixson ultimately reached the same conclusion as the court did in the earlier two cases. “In sum, the Court finds Movants cannot meet the 2TheMart standard because the evidence they seek can be obtained from other sources, including from Frontier in the normal course of discovery.” If the rightsholders are unable to obtain the desired evidence from Frontier, they could always try again, of course. If anything, the film companies have shown that aren’t prepared to give up easily. — A copy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson’s order is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  17. In the early 2000s, powerful entertainment industry groups were demanding action to prevent “wholesale theft” of their content online, much of it at the hands of regular customers of the world’s ISPs. That very little content was available to buy legally online not only helped to fuel the crisis, in this underdeveloped market many ISPs still had just one key product to sell; internet access and the bandwidth it consumed. Broadly speaking, ISPs were concerned by the threats; on balance, however, putting customer interests last wouldn’t have been an ideal strategy in a rapidly growing market. Epic Battle For The Internet In 2004, Belgian music rights group SABAM made an extraordinary move designed to force ISPs into compliance. Targeting local ISP Scarlet, SABAM sought a declaration that the ISP’s subscribers infringed its members’ rights, demanding that the ISP should be compelled to filter and block all piracy traffic. For the next seven years, through local courts and the European Court of Justice, Scarlet fought SABAM and the notion that an ISP could be forced to proactively monitor, block and filter to protect SABAM’s members’ rights, but at the expense of internet users’ fundamental rights. Scarlet’s landmark victory in 2011 remains one of the most important of its kind but in the 13 years that followed, entertainment companies changed and consumption of pirated content changed. While the legal principles underlying Scarlet’s victory did not, attitudes towards acceptable filtering and blocking were on the move. ISPs Develop Tools to Block IPTV, Can’t Wait to Use Them In 2008, Scarlet was acquired by telecoms giant Belgacom Group, which later rebranded as Proximus. Today the Scarlet brand is associated with the cheapest prices available in Belgium but, for owner Proximus, the availability of cheap bandwidth shouldn’t be seen as a green light to consume cheap pirate IPTV services. Indeed, the company not only disapproves of pirate IPTV services, but it’s also eager to play a more active role to ensure that its customers can’t consume them. Right now, only paperwork is holding that back. “We are just waiting for the legal framework to be able to cut the streams. We don’t have the right to do that today. But we have the capacity,” CEO Guillaume Boutin revealed in a recent interview. “The cycle between when the link is spotted and when we receive permission to cut it takes too long. Afterwards it abounds in all directions. More links are coming. This procedure is of no use today.” Boutin says that if he spots an illegal stream, under the current framework he can’t simply decide to block it. “However, it is critical to be able to stem the phenomenon. Honestly, this IPTV situation is intolerable, for the rights holders, for the distributors, and for Proximus too. This is an enormous evaporation of value for the sector. This is unacceptable.” Hearing an ISP use language and reasoning typically associated with rightsholders is rare; in some regions, it’s completely unheard of. It suggests that these former rivals not only have much more in common, but may also stand to benefit from common policy in specific areas of business. Elsewhere in Belgium, another ISP appears to be singing from exactly the same sheet. CEO of Orange Completely Agrees Telecoms company Orange Belgium is a Proximus competitor albeit a little more expensive according to online comparisons. Yet in an interview with La Libre (paywall) published early February, comments by CEO Xavier Pichon are so closely aligned with those of Proximus chief Guillaume Boutin, there’s little to set them apart. “We have the technological means to massively block these streams, and the content publishers who lose money are just asking for that, but for the moment, it is blocked because of administrative and judicial consistency. But that will change,” Pichon said. “Illegal IPTV seriously threatens the entire economic model of publishers, copyrights and media. Telecommunications companies invest considerable resources in acquiring the rights to content and, at the same time, in the sizing and quality of the network necessary to carry content traffic over the network. “On the contrary, illegal service providers do not contribute to copyright and threaten the entire economic model of the media,” Orange’s CEO added. New Law in Place But Awaiting Royal Decree Both Proximus and Orange say that they’re waiting (impatiently, in the case of the former) for implementation through a royal decree of a draft law published in 2022. The ISPs believe that the law will authorize the type of immediate blocking needed to properly tackle pirate IPTV providers. Pichon also believes that today’s ‘pirate IPTV’ platforms will eventually find themselves usurped; the term IPTV will live on, though, at least after work to polish its image. “But let’s remember that IPTV, which is a product of piracy, will be a product of the future,” he said, alluding to success for a legal alternative. “We will have to ‘unbrand’ the term IPTV.” From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  18. Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for book piracy sources and shadow libraries. Launched in the fall of 2022, just days after Z-Library was targeted in a U.S. criminal crackdown, its self-stated goal is to ensure and facilitate the availability of books and articles to the broader public. A few months ago, the search engine expanded its offering by making available data from OCLC’s proprietary WorldCat database. Anna’s Archive scraped several terabytes of data over the course of a year and published roughly 700 million unique records online, for free. These records contain no copyrighted books or articles. However, they can help to create a to-do list of all missing shadow library content on the web, with the ultimate goal of making as much content publicly available as possible. The people behind the site are not oblivious to the legal risks involved. However, they believe these are worth taking for the greater goal; creating a barrier-free global digital library. “We believe that efforts like ours to preserve the legacy of humanity should be fully legal, and that copyright is way too strict. But alas, this is not to be. We take every precaution. This mission is so important that it’s worth the risks,” ‘Anna’ previously told us. WorldCat Sues Anna’s Archive It is no secret that publishers fiercely oppose the search engine’s stated goals. The same also applies to OCLC, which has now elevated its concerns into a full-blown lawsuit, filed this month at a federal court in Ohio. The complaint accuses Washington citizen Maria Dolores Anasztasia Matienzo and several “John Does” of operating the search engine and scraping WorldCat data. The scraping is equated to a cyberattack by OCLC and started around the time Anna’s Archive launched. “Beginning in the fall of 2022, OCLC began experiencing cyberattacks on WorldCat.org and OCLC’s servers that significantly affected the speed and operations of WorldCat.org, other OCLC products and services, and OCLC’s servers and network infrastructure,” OCLC’s complaint notes. “These attacks continued throughout the following year, forcing OCLC to devote significant time and resources toward non-routine network infrastructure enhancements, maintenance, and troubleshooting.” The non-profit says that it spent roughly $68 million over the past two years developing and enhancing WorldCat records, which are an essential part of its operation. Having a copy of the data publicly available through Anna’s Archive is a direct threat to its business. OCLC claims that Anna’s Archive unmasked itself as the “perpetrator of the attacks on WorldCat.org” when it publicly announced its scraping effort. This includes a detailed blog post the operators published on the matter, encouraging the public to use the scraped data. The Announcement In addition to harvesting data from WorldCat.org, the defendants are also accused of obtaining and using credentials of a member library to access WorldCat Discovery Services. This opened the door to yet more detailed records that are not available on WorldCat.org. OCLC says that it spent significant time and resources to address the ‘attacks’ on its systems. “These hacking attacks materially affected OCLC’s production systems and servers, requiring around-the-clock efforts from November 2022 to March 2023 to attempt to limit service outages and maintain the production systems’ performance for customers. “To respond to these ongoing attacks, OCLC spent over 1.4 million dollars on its systems’ infrastructure and devoted nearly 10,000 employee hours to the same,” the complaint adds. Torrenting Terabytes The complaint recognizes that Anna’s Archive doesn’t host any copyrighted material. Instead, it links to third-party sources and offers torrent downloads. The WorldCat data is also made available through a torrent, which ultimately leads to 2.2TB of uncompressed records. “Defendants, through the Anna’s Archive domains, have made, and continue to make, all 2.2 TB of WorldCat® data available for public download through its torrents,” OCLC writes. The complaint accuses the defendants of encouraging users to download and analyze the data. For example, the search engine launched a ‘minicompetition for data scientists’ and called on visitors to help seed the torrents. OCLC further highlights that, similar to its own business, the non-profit element of Anna’s Archive doesn’t mean that no revenue is involved. The search engine offers subscriptions to its users that come with various perks. “For example, a $5 per month subscription will give a visitor ’20 fast downloads per day,’ while a $100 per month subscription grants a visitor ‘1000 fast downloads per day’ and naming rights to a torrent file on Anna’s Archive (‘Adopt a torrent’).” Subscriptions Defendants and Damages Following the alleged hacking efforts, OCLC tried to identify the perpetrators. In their complaint, Maria Dolores Anasztasia Matienzo, purportedly of Seattle Washington, is the only named defendant. The complaint notes that Matienzo describes herself as an “archivist” and uses the handle “anarchivist”. She allegedly works as a software engineer at an AI startup and previously worked as a catalog librarian at a direct competitor of OCLC. The defendant allegedly teamed up with unnamed co-conspirators. These “John Does” are believed to reside in various foreign countries, including Israel and Brazil. Before taking legal action, OCLC sent cease-and-desist requests via various email addresses and the X account of Anna’s Archive, which has since been removed. However, these notices didn’t result in the desired outcome. Through the lawsuit, OCLC hopes to stop the site from linking to the WorldCat records. Among other claims, the defendants stand accused of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference of contract and business relationships, trespass to chattels, and conversion of property. As compensation for OCLC’s reported injuries, the company seeks damages, including compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages. At the time of writing, the defendants have yet to respond to the allegations. — A copy of OCLC’s complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, is available here (pdf) Update: In a comment to InfoDOCKET OCLC clarifies that its internal systems weren’t hacked. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article
  19. Stream new releases from Vijay Iyer Trio; J Mascis; Ariel Kalma, Jeremiah Chiu & Marta Sofia Honer; Meth Math; Lee “Scratch” Perry; the Paranoid Style; and Cookin Soul & Tha God FahimView the full article
  20. The Aris Tatalovich–produced single follows recent collaborations with Faye Webster and Chief KeefView the full article
  21. The North Carolina rapper’s first Interscope project includes the singles “Yung Joc” and “Bonnet”View the full article
  22. The 12" vinyl of his solo XL Recordings debut will be released on February 9View the full article
  23. The Top Dawg Entertainment rapper is looking to release his Crash Talk follow-up on March 1View the full article
  24. Long out of print, the 1968 and 1970 albums will come to vinyl and CD next monthView the full article
  25. The album, which Del Rey says she made with Jack Antonoff in Muscle Shoals, Nashville, and Mississippi, is apparently coming out in SeptemberView the full article
×
×
  • Create New...