NelsonG

NASA has proposed sci-fi plans to potentially shut down a supervolcano — should one show signs of an imminent eruption. But such a geologic scheme might not ever be necessary. In new research from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University, scientists found that the most powerful scale of eruption — which emits a mind-boggling amount of material into the atmosphere — would probably not plunge Earth into a deep, cold volcanic winter. Indeed, the prodigious gasses and ash blasted into the sky by a "super-eruption," which erupts over 240 cubic miles (1,000 cubic kilometers) of magma, would inevitably block some sunlight and have a cooling impact. It just likely wouldn't be devastating to life globally, according to this latest research. "The relatively modest temperature changes we found most compatible with the evidence could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems," Zachary McGraw, the study's lead author and a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University, said in a statement. The research was recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate. SEE ALSO: Why so many volcanoes seem to be erupting right now For reference, the infamous 1980 U.S. eruption of Mount St. Helens — which was so potent that it completely blacked out sunlight in Spokane, Washington, located 250 miles away — released 0.67 cubic miles of volcanic rock. While impressive, that's a pittance compared to a super-eruption. Of course, it's (thankfully) impossible for earth scientists to analyze a recent super-eruption. They are rare. The last such event happened over 22,000 years ago at Taupo in modern-day New Zealand. Yellowstone, in the U.S., is widely known for its super-eruption abilities, too: Some Yellowstone eruptions over the past few million years created layers of volcanic lava rock over 1,300 feet (400 meters) thick. How a volcano super-eruption will impact EarthLacking direct observation of such a blast, scientists use computers to simulate how the mega-event would impact our planet. The key ingredient in prolonged volcanic cooling isn't ash, which is actually tiny fragments of volcanic rock: It's sulfur dioxide gas from volcanoes that condenses into liquid sulfate particles. Once high in the sky in Earth's stratosphere (some six to 30 miles up), sulfur dioxide reacts with atmospheric molecules to produce droplets that can linger for a year or more. And when sunlight hits these droplets, energy is reflected back into space, depriving our planet of substantial amounts of sunlight. NASA's research simulated how this gas, ejected into the stratosphere during a super-eruption, would impact temperatures on Earth's surface. A visualization showing the scale of different eruptions. The orange circles show super-eruptions; the Mount St. Helens eruption is a small green circle on the left. Credit: USGS The two expansive regions within the dotted lines show where ash beds formed from two super-eruptions from the Yellowstone Plateau region over the past few million years. Credit: USGS Dramatic cooling could devastate crops, plant life, and many ecosystems. Yet the simulations showed that although some cooling would occur, it wouldn't stoke temperature changes much more than the largest eruptions in modern history. "Generally, you always think about volcanoes cooling. But this study says there's a limit to that," Valentina Aquila, an atmospheric scientist at American University who researches the impacts of volcanism, told Mashable. Aquila had no role in the new super-eruption research. There's a limit to the cooling because a super-eruption will blast an enormous volume of particles into the atmosphere. But once there, they amass together. Crucially, the larger particles are less efficient at reflecting sunlight compared to smaller particles — because there's less surface area for sunlight to reflect off of, Aquila explained. What's more, the larger droplets fall more quickly from the sky. But that's not all. The sulfur particles also trap heat radiating off Earth — similar to the greenhouse gasses currently driving climate change. So while some solar radiation is being blocked, radiation emanating from our planet is also being absorbed, which causes a temporary warming effect. "You get these two counteracting effects," McGraw told Mashable. In 1991, the dramatic Mount Pinatubo eruption (not nearly a super-eruption) ejected some 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, driving global temperatures down by around half a degree Fahrenheit (some 0.3 degrees Celsius) for two years. This research suggests that an eruption hundreds of times bigger may temporarily cause some 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of cooling. Of course, the impacts of a super-eruption would still be devastating regionally. "A super-eruption would cause massive problems near the eruption site," McGraw said. Around Yellowstone, parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho would get pummeled with extremely hot flows of rock, ash, and gas, called pyroclastic flows, the U.S Geologic survey explained. Mass evacuations would be needed to avoid massive casualties. Closer to the eruption, day would turn to night. Ashfall would spread over a huge swathe of the U.S. "A super-eruption would cause massive problems near the eruption site." But humanity would not be imperiled. "We can be confident of this because there have been two massive explosions while humans were present on Earth, and both of these were actually larger than Yellowstone's most recent cataclysmic eruption," the Geologic Survey said. "These eruptions were from Toba, Indonesia, about 74,000 years ago and from Taupo, New Zealand, about 26,500 years ago." Volcanologists don't see any imminent super-eruptions on the horizon. But, thankfully, the volcanoes will show signs well before the event. We'll have plenty of warning. This story has been updated with more information about super-eruptions. View the full article

Quick links for watching 'Invincible' Season 2 on Amazon Prime Video: BEST FOR NEW USERS Amazon Prime trial free for 30 days, then $14.99 per month Get Deal BEST FOR STUDENTS Amazon Prime Student 6-month free trial, then $69 per year Get Deal BEST FOR EVERYONE ELSE Amazon Prime Video $8.99 per month Get Deal It's been a long time coming, but the second half of Invincible Season 2 has finally arrived. After the brilliantly bloody first season, fans eagerly awaited another installment of the animated adaptation of Robert Kirkman's comics. In November, the first four episodes of Season 2 (Part 1) were released, leaving fans hanging for the last four until further notice. Well, here's your notice: Season 2, Part 2 starts streaming on March 14. Season 2 picks up with rookie superhero Mark Grayson (aka Invincible) reeling in the wake of his father Nolan's (aka Omni-Man's) betrayal. Mark focuses on rebuilding his life — and finishing high school — in the face of more training, new threats, and inevitably, more bloodshed. Considering the comic spanned from January 2003 to February 2018 with nearly 150 issues, there's plenty of source material to draw from for Season 2 and beyond. Judging by the trailer, the second half of the season promises plenty more carnage. Here's a glimpse: When is Invincible Season 2 coming out?Invincible seasons 2 and 3 were greenlit back in April 2021, but delays largely due to COVID shutdowns caused a bit of a struggle in getting the next installments out to fans. Nearly three years after the first season debuted, Season 2, Part 1 dropped last year. The final four episodes promised to arrive in early 2024, and that exact date has finally been announced. Audiences can tune into Invincible Season 2, Part 2 starting on Thursday, March 14. New episodes drop weekly until the finale on April 4. What streaming service is Invincible on?Sorry, Netflix users. Invincible is a Prime Video original series, thus it can only be watched on Amazon's streaming service. If you're already an Amazon Prime subscriber, you're good to go — just sign into your account, navigate to Prime Video and the first episode of Season 2, Part 2 will be waiting for you starting March 14. If not, we've got you covered with the best ways to save money on a subscription. Can I get Amazon Prime Video for free?The million-dollar question we all want the answer to: how can you watch Invincible Season 2 for free? I'm happy to tell you that there is a way. But unfortunately, you can only take advantage of it if you haven't been a Prime user in over a year (or ever). Otherwise, you can score a discounted subscription if you're a student (or still have access to a .edu email address) or simply subscribe to Prime Video only (not a full Prime subscription) to save some money. We've unraveled all the details for you below. Best for newbies: Amazon Prime free trial Opens in a new window Credit: Amazon Amazon Prime membership trial Free 30-day trial, then $14.99 per month Get Deal In a time where free trials are disappearing left and right, it's refreshing to know that Amazon still offers a 30-day trial of its Prime membership to new and returning users. If you've never subscribed to Prime in the past or you canceled or paused your membership over a year ago, you can take advantage of the free month of service. You'll get all of the Prime perks a paid member gets for those 30 days — including access to Prime Video to watch Invincible seasons 1 and 2 — despite not paying a cent. Just be sure to cancel your trial before the 30 days are up if you want to avoid charges. Best for students: Amazon Prime Student Opens in a new window Credit: Amazon Amazon Prime Student 6-month free trial, then $69 per year Get Deal Students with an active .edu email address can score the mother of all deals on Prime by subscribing to an Amazon Prime Student account. You'll get your first six months completely free, which gives you access to not only Prime Video, but also plenty of other goodies like free food delivery through GrubHub+, a free three-month trial of Calm, discounted Amazon Music and Kindle subscriptions, as well as the usual Prime perks. After your six free months, it'll only cost you $69/year (reg. $139/year) — that's 50% in savings — so long as you keep your student status. Cancel any time. The best part about the six-month trial is that you'll be able to watch parts 1 and 2 of Invincible Season 2 for free. Best for everyone else: Prime Video only Opens in a new window Credit: Amazon Prime Video subscription $8.99 per month Get Deal What most people probably don't realize is that you can subscribe to Prime Video without subscribing to Amazon Prime. For those who aren't eligible for the free trial, this is your best bet for saving some money and watching Invincible Season 2. Rather than paying $14.99/month for Prime, you can sign up for a month of Prime Video only for just $8.99. That saves you $6 per month, which definitely adds up. Plus, you can cancel at any time with no commitment. This won't necessarily save you money, but it'll keep you from wasting it once the season is over. View the full article

The Cleveland singer, guitarist, and songwriter was behind power-pop hits like “Hungry Eyes” and “Go All the Way”View the full article

The guitarists release their collaborative All Gist in April via Paradise of BachelorsView the full article

“The need for a ceasefire is beyond urgent,” the musician wrote in a note to accompany I Won​’​t Let Go of Your Hand. “Permanent Ceasefire Now!”View the full article

Early 2023, Brazil’s National Film Agency (Ancine) and local telecoms regulator Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency) announced a new anti-piracy partnership. In isolation that was nothing out of the ordinary but just a couple of months earlier, ANCINE had announced a “reformulation” of its anti-piracy work. Specifically, it would “move away” from combating the distribution of pirate set-top boxes and similar work aimed at protecting the movie and TV sector. “The understanding is that there would be an overlap in responsibilities with the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL),” ANCINE explained, adding that it would be combating copyright violations of Brazilian works on digital platforms instead. Despite overlapping responsibilities, ANCINE still took part in the March 2023 wave of Operation 404. The agency’s logo did not appear alongside those of the MPA and ACE on the banners celebrating the next wave a few months later, however. Concerns Over Comments in Brazil In its submission to the USTR’s 2024 Special 301 Review, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which counts the MPA among its members, raised concerns over the situation in Brazil. Following the public hearing last month, the USTR asked IIPA to provide additional detail on why “recent positions vocalized by the Ministry of Culture and ANCINE officials concerning the protection of copyright” were seen as an issue. ANCINE’s focus on the protection of domestic content is a problem, IIPA informed the USTR. “This statement is troubling because it implies that ANCINE prioritizes the protection of domestic works and will not take actions to ensure the adequate and effective protection of works owned by U.S. rights holders, raising questions regarding Brazil’s international obligations,” the response notes, briefly, with almost no context. To summarize IIPA’s submission, Brazil received praise for taking down 868 websites and applications, for taking action in eight states against live sports piracy, for deploying site-blocking injunctions, and for carrying out search and seizure raids and arresting pirates. Ultimately, however, “several long-standing normative and legislative concerns warrant keeping Brazil on the Watch List,” the IIPA wrote. So did Brazil suddenly become uncooperative overnight for no reason? Not exactly; in fact, deeper cooperation with the MPA played a significant role in the decision to prioritize local content protection. ANCINE’s Special Agreement With the MPA In April 2021, ANCINE announced it had signed “technical cooperation agreements to intensify the fight against piracy of audiovisual content.” This involved gaining access to automated systems to help it fight piracy more effectively. One of those agreements (pdf) would apparently cement a partnership between ANCINE and the Motion Picture Association Latin America (MPA-AL), which represents Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros. in the region. At the time, ANCINE was clear that the deal meant it would gain access to automated systems that would allow it to “monitor irregularities” related to online advertising in connection with piracy-related products. There was never any real mystery about what it hoped to achieve. Civil Servants Demand Access to Agreement When reading a grand press release, people may reasonably conclude that grand moves are underway. They may even start to suspect that even bigger things are going on. Beginning around September 2022, more than a year after the ANCINE announcement, ASPAC (Associação dos Servidores Públicos da ANCINE) an association of civil servants connected to ANCINE, sent questions to the cinema regulator seeking information concerning its agreement with the MPA. ASPAC also filed an access to information request through which it hoped to obtain “copies of all documents involving the MPA and the use of the Ether platform.” Among other details, ASPAC expressed deep concern that the deal with the MPA prioritized the protection of foreign movies over those created in Brazil. EtherCity Anti-Piracy Services EtherCity is an entity that “provides services, advanced automation solutions, and business intelligence for brand protection and anti-piracy operations.” Founded in 2018, EtherCity claims to be based in São Paulo, Brazil, and currently lists the MPA, ACE (Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment) and ANCINE as clients. Ether appears to be one of its anti-piracy platforms. EtherCity’s website reveals a client list that goes way beyond the world’s most powerful movie studio association and the world’s most powerful anti-piracy coalition. Both ANCINE and Brazil telecoms regulator ANATEL are listed as clients alongside the likes of Prime Video, Discovery Plus, Netflix, Sky, Paramount Plus, HBO Max, Hulu, Roku, Warner, ESPN, Fox, and the list goes on. EtherCity data has been cited in ACE reports (pdf) and EtherCity reports on ACE anti-piracy action have concluded how effective that’s been against LATAM-focused pirate sites. The São Paulo operation is also mentioned in annual reports published by the local CNPC anti-piracy program in Brazil. EtherCity has been involved in efforts (pdf) to delist pirate TV box ads from Google and Meta platforms, and mentioned in respect of proposed subsidies for reverse engineering pirate set-top boxes in 2021. ASPAC Opposes ANCINE/MPA Deal ASPAC made several allegations concerning the ANCINE/MPA deal, including that the software in use at EtherCity was developed by the MPA. Furthermore, ASPAC claimed that since the software was designed to protect the interests of MPA members, ANCINE’s use of the software meant that Brazil’s cinema regulator was working in defense of Hollywood and against its rivals’ products. Crucially, that included Brazilian films that receive no MPA protection, ASPAC claimed. ASPAC further alleged that the deal should’ve been published in the Diário Oficial da União, the official journal of the federal government of Brazil. Instead, it had to resort to a freedom of information request to find out what had been agreed. The letter was signed by ASPAC’s president; it called for a public consultation and an investigation into who was responsible for a deal that “does not comply with the minimum legal requirements and ends up distorting the very purpose of public policy.” MPA: We Don’t Interfere, Anti-Piracy Work is Normal In a statement to local publication Metropoles, Andressa Pappas, Director of Government Relations at the Motion Picture Association, said that support for copyright everywhere is effectively what the MPA is best known for. “Supporting content protection and anti-piracy measures has always been one of MPA’s global key actions. As trusted advisors to authorities around the world, the MPA provides several tools, such as technical expertise and research, as it aims to defend a better scenario for audiovisual and copyright, including in Brazil,” Pappas said. The MPA further added that it “does not interfere and has no impact on decisions taken within the scope of public administration” since it “respects the autonomy of public bodies and entities in Brazil.” No Serious Issues Found, Damage Already Done It was later revealed that ANCINE’s access to the Ether system would allow it to identify problematic ads related to set-top boxes and instances of copyright infringement on websites. The agreement allowed ANCINE to use that data for enforcement purposes, including against infringers directly and in support of site-blocking measures. ANCINE could use the system or not, there were no strict requirements. Some issues did remain, however. The agreement was considered confidential and that ran counter to a requirement for transparency. Criticism from ASPAC held that by using a platform provided by the MPA and designed to protect its own content, ANCINE had effectively delegated its supervisory powers to the MPA. That subsequently led to ANCINE announcing the previously-mentioned “reformulation” of its anti-piracy work and its move away from targeting pirate set-top boxes. ANCINE’s Anti-Piracy Coordinator, Eduardo Luiz Perfeito Carneiro, was dismissed, and his replacement was given a new title to reflect the new image and direction of ANCINE. Carlos Chelfo, Copyright Protection Coordinator at ANCINE, was instructed to review work with the MPA to ensure that, moving forward, the protection of Brazilian content would always take priority. The deal itself was terminated. And that’s why Brazil is causing such concern for the IIPA in the United States, and what prompted its comment to the USTR: “This statement is troubling because it implies that ANCINE prioritizes the protection of domestic works and will not take actions to ensure the adequate and effective protection of works owned by U.S. rights holders, raising questions regarding Brazil’s international obligations.” IIPA to USTR – 2024 Special 301 Review In isolation, it might sound that Brazil suddenly became uncooperative for no reason. With context, it simply shows both countries putting their own interests first. How the that will be viewed at the USTR and reflected in the Special 301 Report will be revealed in just a few weeks. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

The grindcore band issued a statement commemorating Harrison, who played samples, noise, and other sound design: “You are etched into the bedrock of our lives”View the full article

The boundary-pushing singer’s debut book “celebrates female empowerment and shines a light on the global music scene,” says publisher ScribnerView 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, even the New York Times. These rightsholders all object to the presumed use of their work without proper compensation. “Books3” Many of the lawsuits filed by book authors come with a clear piracy angle. The cases allege that tech companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI, used the controversial ‘Books3’ dataset to train their models. Books3 was created by AI researcher Shawn Presser in 2020, who scraped the library of ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik. The dataset was broadly shared online and added to other databases including ‘The Pile‘, an AI training dataset compiled by EleutherAI. After pushback from rightsholders and anti-piracy outfits, Books3 was taken offline over copyright concerns. However, for many of the companies that allegedly trained their AI models on it, there are still some legal repercussions to sort out. Authors Sue NVIDIA for Copyright Infringement On Friday, American authors Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, and Stewart O’Nan joined the barrage of legal action with a copyright infringement lawsuit against NVIDIA. The company, whose market cap exceeds $2 trillion, is mostly known for its GPUs and related software and services, but also has its own AI models. In a concise class action complaint, filed at a California federal court, the authors allege that NVIDIA used the Books3 dataset to train its NeMo Megatron language models. The models are hosted on Hugging Face where it states that they are trained on EleutherAI’s ‘The Pile’ dataset, which includes the pirated books. Putting two and two together, the plaintiffs conclude that NVIDIA’s models were trained on pirated books, including theirs, without their permission. “NVIDIA has admitted training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset. Therefore, NVIDIA necessarily also trained its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of Books3, because Books3 is part of The Pile,” the complaint reads. “Certain books written by Plaintiffs are part of Books3 — including the Infringed Works — and thus NVIDIA necessarily trained its NeMo Megatron models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.” Direct Infringement Damages Relying on the same logic, the authors accuse the company of direct copyright infringement, noting that NVIDIA copied their books to use them for AI training purposes. Through the lawsuit, the rightsholders demand compensation in the form of actual or statutory damages. The class action lawsuit includes three authors thus far, but more may be added to the case as it progresses. NVIDIA has yet to respond to the allegations but in light of similar cases, it will likely oppose the claims and/or argue a fair-use defense. Last month, OpenAI managed to ‘defeat’ several copyright infringement claims from book authors in a somewhat related “Books3” lawsuit. However, the California federal court didn’t review the direct copyright infringement claims in this case, which have yet to be argued in detail at a later stage. — A copy of the class action complaint against NVIDIA, filed by the authors in a California federal court, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

When pirated copies of “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” came out nearly two decades ago, The Pirate Bay changed its front page logo. The Pirate Bay became the “Grand Theft Bay,” illustrating the deviant stance upon which the site built its reputation since the year of its launch. The GTA-inspired logo was the first of many ‘doodles’ that separated the ‘most resilient torrent site’ from its competition. Instead of hiding from law enforcement or big media’s anti-piracy groups, The Pirate Bay often went on the offensive, facing all challenges head-on. Many believed it was revolutionary, while others thought it was naive. What’s clear, however, is that The Pirate Bay fulfilled an unmet source of demand. Pirating Pioneers At the time, it was nearly impossible for people to consume media online. Music streaming services simply didn’t exist yet, games were sold wrapped in plastic, and Netflix had yet to start its streaming business. Meanwhile, everything was available on The Pirate Bay, for free. Times have changed but even the most staunch pro-copyright advocates can’t deny that piracy helped to lead the entertainment industries to new business models. Without the Napsters, Limewires and Pirate Bays of the time, media consumption wouldn’t have evolved so swiftly. There is no award for this accomplishment, however. On the contrary, the public faces of The Pirate Bay’s founding crew all served prison sentences. Hollywood never managed to bring the site completely to its knees, but did make its founding fathers pay with life’s most precious asset: TIME. Intriguingly, The Pirate Bay story itself now serves as inspiration for a TV production. B-Reel Films started working on a Pirate Bay TV series for Sweden’s public broadcaster SVT a few years ago Peter Sunde (Simon Gregor Carlsson), Gottfrid Svartholm Warg (Arwid Swedrup) and Fredrik Neij (Wiljam Lempling). photo: Stina Stjernkvist/SVT None of the Pirate Bay founders are closely involved in the TV project, and they’re certainly not being compensated either. Instead, the producers used interviews with other people involved, plus the vast amount of public information available on the Internet. Filming Finished The new Pirate Bay series is scheduled to be released on Swedish television later this year. It has just finished filming and the first images, as well as the leading characters, were recently revealed to the public. The production took place in Stockholm, Sweden, but also ventured to other countries including Chile and Thailand, where Fredrik Neij was arrested and paraded in front of the press in 2014. Time will tell how the producers and director have decided to tell this story; there are many rabbit holes to pursue after all. Director Jens Sjögren describes it as a thriller, albeit one with humor. “The Pirate Bay is a character-driven thriller told with great heart, warmth, nerve, will, and humor that takes us from a basement in the suburbs to fancy offices in Hollywood. A story about how a spark in a student corridor takes off and risks setting fire to the entire establishment far away in Hollywood,” Sjögren says. Global Release Uncertain With millions of former and current users of the torrent site, there will likely be some interest in the series from an international audience too. Thus far, no deals have been announced and, at this point, it’s uncertain if the series will be available outside of Sweden this fall. Dynamic Television has acquired the global distribution rights to the series. Speaking with TorrentFreak, publicist Marylou Johnston says that the series is now going post-production so it is “way too early” to report any international sales. “International sales will start when we can show the series to potential buyers. I doubt we will have a global release but it could happen,” Johnston notes. Needless to say, selling a TV series to Hollywood, one that documents the history of its arch-enemy, is an intriguing proposition. While film insiders are smart enough to recognize potential when they see it, there’s a certain barrier to overcome. You Can’t Stop Pirates? Ironically, if The Pirate Bay series isn’t made available globally, people might be incentivized to download a copy from The Pirate Bay instead. That would show that, despite being declared illegal a long time ago, the site still fills demand today. If anything, The Pirate Bay’s history has shown that it’s impossible to stop people from pirating. The people involved are not oblivious to this fact either. However, it’s no different from all other productions they’re working on and Johnston doesn’t expect that piracy will hurt sales. “We can never guarantee that some ‘pirate’ version is not going to circulate but that applies to every show! Thankfully it doesn’t affect sales,” she explains There are ways to minimize piracy, of course. A worldwide premiere on a streaming service, for example. If people can watch the series legally on a service they already subscribe to, there’s less incentive to go to The Pirate Bay; sentiment aside. While this sounds simple; making it happen isn’t easy. Global releases are still a rarity today for content owned by a third party, which typically sells it to the highest bidder. These negotiations take time and, in some cases, the offers simply aren’t good enough. In theory, a globally operating streaming service could pick the show up, either this year or after its Swedish premiere. It would be truly revolutionary if all streaming services licensed the show at the same time, making it available everywhere and to everyone; Pirate Bay style. That utopian vision is probably a bit naive though. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

ALPA, the Association Against Audiovisual Piracy (Association de Lutte contre la Piraterie Audiovisuelle) has been active in France since the mid-eighties. With heavyweight backing from the Hollywood studios of the MPA, and the music industry through a number of large groups and organizations, wherever there’s a piracy fight in France, ALPA is unlikely to be too far away. The anti-piracy group also publishes various studies, including one that estimates audiences for pirate sites that have a key focus on France. New Report Delivers Positive News for the Industry Published in French, the latest edition of ‘Audience For Illicit Sites Dedicated to Video Consumption in France‘ covers the period December 2021 to December 2023. The ALPA, Mediametria, and NetRatings study has been running for the last eight years and while 2016/17/18 showed few signs of pirate audiences in decline, recent years suggest a continuous downward trend. Illicit Video Site Audiences, Dec 2021/2023 (ALPA) Following a peak in 2018, in part due to the addition of mobile devices as a viewing source, the only year to show an uplift in pirate audiences was 2021. Linked directly to the COVID pandemic, during which piracy increased almost everywhere, 2021 can probably be ironed out as an anomaly. According to the report, average monthly audiences for Frace-focused pirate sites dropped from 11.8m in 2019 to 6.3 million in December 2023, roughly half the size they were five years earlier. Effect of Enforcement Actions, Deterrent Measures While the chart below shows audiences in clear overall decline since early 2022, the suggested effect of enforcement measures and deterrent messaging on audience size, is a bit of a mixed bag. Decisions handed down by local courts (labeled Décisions judiciaires) since late December 2021 at times precede reductions in pirate audience size. However, the opposite is also true in some cases, most notably at the end of July 2022. Piracy Audiences By Piracy Method French pirates have traditionally gravitated towards so-called DDL services. In terms of overall audience share, those platforms are currently neck-and-neck with streaming platforms, which tend to enjoy overall dominance elsewhere. Between December 2021 and early 2023, audiences for streaming sites and DDL platforms display a loose mirror effect; when streaming sites peaked, DDL sites troughed. Beyond February 2023, audiences for streaming and DDL platforms appear to sync, with DDL platforms commanding a greater audience share, albeit briefly, in April 2023 and again in August 2023. The study’s overall conclusions indicate a strong reduction in piracy audiences when compared to those seen in 2016, including a 15% overall reduction in 2023 versus 2022. During the same period, audiences for legal content experienced a small decrease of 2%. That’s not an especially concerning figure in itself but if declining pirate audiences fail to translate into at least some increases for legal audiences, that would seem to be a much bigger worry. ALPA’s report is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

With over 420 million code repositories, GitHub takes pride in being the largest and most advanced development platform in the world. As with other platforms that host user-generated content, this massive code library occasionally runs into copyright infringement troubles. Pirate Devs In some cases, people use code without obtaining permission from the creators, while others use GitHub to store pirated books or even music. And there are also developers whose projects are seen as pirate tools or apps, which often leads to copyright holder complaints. A few high-profile takedowns have grabbed headlines over the years, including the RIAA’s takedown of YouTube-DL, which was later reversed. Other rightsholders were more successful, with GitHub removing a variety of piracy apps last year, including Vancedflix and CloudStream. Following the demise of the original torrent site, hundreds of RARBG magnet link repos were taken down as well. The RARBG repositories appeared online last May, quickly after the popular torrent site closed its doors. In response, some archivists collected the site’s magnet links and posted them on GitHub. Others copied these repositories to keep the data safe, but most of this effort was nullified by a single takedown request. 20,517 Downed Repos This week, GitHub updated its latest transparency report with the latest data, revealing the total number of notices received and projects affected. The report shows that the platform processed a little over 2,000 takedown notices in 2023, which affected 20,517 repositories. Of all notices received, just 35 were contested or retracted, and a total of 65 repositories remained online as a result. As seen above, most repositories were taken down in March. After looking at the reported notices we couldn’t immediately find one responsible for this large uptick, but with many hundreds of “Eaglercraft” repositories flagged by Minecraft’s parent company Mojang, that certainly left a mark. GitHub says that it will continue to take a developer-first, approach to content moderation, minimizing the disruption of software projects while protecting developer privacy. These transparency reports and the publicly posted takedown notices are a means to that end. The transparency report also shines light on how takedown activity evolves as the platform grows. This historical data shows that, in relative terms, the number of repositories on GitHub grows faster than the takedowns. For example, Github hosted just under 40 million repositories in 2015, of which 8,268 were taken offline. Today, the platform has more than ten times as many repositories, yet takedowns failed to triple in the same period. In fact, the number of takedowns in 2023 is lower than a year earlier. Surge in Circumvention Notices Explained Last year, GitHub did report a notable uptick in DMCA circumvention claims. These more than quadrupled compared to the years before and this wasn’t just a fluke, as the most recent transparency report shows. At least initially, the reasons for this were unclear, prompting GitHub to launch an investigation. The results of this exploration, released this week, show that the explanation is quite straightforward. In the fall of 2021, GitHub updated its DMCA takedown submission form with questions explicitly related to circumvention. Providing that option triggered many more submitters to tick that box, raising the number of ‘circumvention’ claims. These additional circumvention ‘claims’ don’t necessarily mean that more notices were processed for this reason. According to GitHub, many of these notices were processed for other reasons instead, including as regular takedown notices. “[W]hile significantly more notices we process allege circumvention, the rate at which we process takedown notices because of circumvention hasn’t accelerated,” GitHub writes. Processing circumvention notices is quite costly for the company as all requests are reviewed by a team of lawyers and engineers, to ensure that developers’ projects are not taken down without valid reasons. This extra scrutiny was first brought to the fore during the youtube-dl takedown saga, after which GitHub launched a million dollar Developer Defense Fund. GitHub is now actively engaged in policymaking in this area. The company previously urged the US Copyright Office to expand the DMCA anti-circumvention exemptions to benefit developers, while eliminating FUD. All in all, it’s good to see that GitHub remains committed to takedown transparency, and we will keep monitoring these and other trends going forward. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Late last month we reported on the latest copyright claim data made available by YouTube. In the first half of 2023, YouTube said it processed 980 million Content ID claims, a 25% increase compared to a year earlier. Given the upward trajectory, soon there will be a billion Content ID copyright claims every six months, which rounds to over two billion claims every year. To put that into perspective, if the world currently has five billion-odd internet users, that’s enough for 20% of the entire internet population to receive two copyright complaints per person, every 12 months. Coincidentally, reports suggest that YouTube has around two billion active users already. Takedown Notices Must be Reported The numbers above are enormous but since Content ID-claimed videos stay up, they don’t need to be reported to the European Commission, a requirement for large platforms under the EU’s fledging Digital Services Act. When Google and major online platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, plus others, restrict or take content offline in response to a takedown notice under Article 16, clear information must be sent under Article 17 to affected users. Under Article 24 (5), these so-called ‘statements of reasons’ must also be sent to the European Commission. Required information includes the legal basis for the complaint, the legal basis for taking the content down, and a myriad of additional details including a synopsis of considerations preceding takedowns. To ensure consistency, submitters use an API to file ‘statements of reasons’ (SOR) in the standardized format below. At the time of writing, just 16 large online platforms are required to supply the EC with this information. When things were just getting warmed up in December 2023, the volume of SOR notices sent by just five submitters had reached 25.8 million per week and when all submitters’ notices were combined, the all-time total topped 710 million. Things Have Moved On Since Then It’s almost impossible to reconcile the figures being reported this week with any type of normal thought process. The 710 million figure reported last December was close enough to compare with the population of Europe, 746 million, give or take, or one takedown per person on average. Over the past 24 hours especially but potentially longer, the EC system has been producing errors in response to our queries. A massive surge in reports filed by Google could be at least partly responsible. Over 14.4 billion SOR being reported to the Commission was unexpected, to say the least. The ‘statement of reasons’ dashboard appears to show Google taking unprecedented – and as far as we can determine – mostly voluntary action, against billions of listings on its Google Shopping platform and various non-compliant content on Google Play. Google may have submitted as many as 13.5 billion notices to the Commission thus far. From the few dozen we sampled relating to Google Shopping, many if not all cite terms of service violations committed by advertisers. Notices state that the removal was carried out as part of a voluntary initiative using automatic detection methods. We have seen examples where decisions are described as “Fully Automated” and others as “Not Automated.” Four typical examples from the sample are presented below. The ‘ground for decision’ is the same in all notices we were able to review: Content incompatible with terms and conditions. The explanations vary considerably. – There was a problem identified with the criteria used in your ads – One or more of your products have images with promotional text or obstructions – Google identified that some of your products contain adult-oriented content – Some of your products have generic images. Use images that clearly show the product Google statements – click to enlarge Whether this has anything (or nothing) to do with the antitrust case hanging over Google in Europe is unknown. After the European Commission (EC) found that Google had used its dominant position in search, to gain an unfair market advantage elsewhere, the EC hit Google with a €2.4 billion fine. Google challenged the EC at the EU Court of Justice but, in late 2021, its case was mostly dismissed and the Court confirmed the €2.4 billion fine. In an opinion released by EU Court of Justice Advocate General Juliane Kokott last month, the EU Court was advised to dismiss Google’s objections and uphold the fine. When attempting to pull more data on Thursday evening, the EC’s system continued to throw error after error as Google continuously filed new reports. Given the number of notices already on file, not to mention the errors when attempting to pull the maximum 1,000-item reports currently allowed, checking anything like a representative sample is impossible. However, every statement we were able to access followed similar formats to those shown above. Rightsholders Use DSA to Remove Apps from Google Play The billions of reports filed by Google include over 208,000 that appear in response to a search for Google Play + Apps, with no specified content category or reason. When filtering for intellectual property-related issues, over 2,800 reports indicate the removal of apps from Google Play, many listing ‘Copyright’ as the ‘legal ground relied on’. The pair of notices shown below are typical of those we were able to review, most if not all of which reference technical issues experienced by Google. Google statements – click to enlarge In common with many of the others, the notices state that the apps were removed from Google Play in response to a “Notice submitted in accordance with Article 16 DSA” which in broad terms governs a DMCA-style takedown mechanism but applicable to a broader range of content. The EU system improves on the U.S. variant by requiring reasons to be published, but lags behind in a non-insignificant way by disallowing references to content and identification of the notice-sender, which critically undermines investigations into abuse. The EC’s Statement of Reasons transparency database is available here From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Early last year, a group of filmmakers obtained a subpoena that required Reddit to reveal the identities of users who commented on piracy-related topics. The movie companies said they were not planning to go after these people in court but wanted to use their comments as evidence in an ongoing piracy lawsuit against Internet provider RCN. Reddit wasn’t willing to go along with the request, at least not in full. The company objected, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate its users’ right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request. The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, thrice. It’s Not Over Yet The filmmakers are unhappy with these decisions and don’t intend to give up easily. After U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson denied their most recent attempt last month, they moved for a ‘de novo’ review at the California federal court. In their request, the rightsholders cite jurisprudence suggesting that an IP-address is not necessarily ‘unmasking’ personally identifying information. They believe that the Magistrate Judge ignored key arguments and ended up drawing the wrong conclusion. “The Order’s conclusion that an IP address is unmasking information was contrary to law and erroneous,” the movie companies argue. The companies insist that the commenters could prove crucial in their battle against ISP Frontier. A suggestion that there might be other ways to obtain similar evidence is premature, they argue. The movie companies believe that Magistrate Judge Hixson failed to properly weigh the nature of the speech involved. Since the comments allegedly involve ‘illegal’ activity, anonymous speech should not necessarily enjoy protection, they note. “Movants previously pointed out that the comments at issue are boasts of criminal conduct. Accordingly, the speech concerns unlawful activity subject to no First Amendment protection,” the movie companies write. Reddit’s Objections In a replay of moves, Reddit objects to the request for a ‘de novo’ review. They argue that, as the court repeatedly found, the filmmakers have other non-intrusive options to gather evidence against Frontier. This includes seeking evidence from the ISP directly. Reddit further notes that the filmmakers’ argument that IP-addresses do not “identify” users is misguided at best. “Reddit does not require its users to give their real name or addresses, and so the only identifying information Reddit may maintain on its users is their IP address, which is precisely why the Movants here seek the users’ IP addresses. If IP addresses were not identifying, Movants would not be seeking them.” At worst, the argument is disingenuous, Reddit notes. The movie companies previously used a Redditor’s IP-address to obtain the name and address of a subscriber, requesting their torrenting history and more. “[A]fter Reddit provided Movants with IP address data for a single Reddit user last year, the Movants immediately identified that IP address by subpoenaing T-Mobile, and they have been harassing that user with motions practice ever since,” Reddit counters. Illegal Speech? Finally, Reddit addresses the suggestion that the nature of the speech may be unlawful and that it therefore deserves “the lowest” First Amendment protection, or no protection at all. While the nature of speech indeed plays a role, Reddit stresses that its users are merely third-party witnesses in this case, and that no court used lower protection standards in similar circumstances. The second suggestion, that the comments themselves are unlawful and therefore undeserving of First Amendment protection, wasn’t brought up earlier and should therefore be ignored, Reddit says. If the court decides to review it, however, it should be rejected. “[T]he Court can easily reject it anyway as wholly inconsistent with fundamental First Amendment jurisprudence. Free speech in America is not so flimsy that it evaporates at the faintest whisper of illegality,” Reddit writes. It is now up to the court to decide whether the movie companies get the chance to argue their case anew, or if the current decision stands. Whatever the outcome and given the recent history, further appeals or new cases can’t be ruled out. — A copy of the movie companies’ request for a ‘de novo’ determination is available here (pdf) and Reddit’s objections to it can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

How can we be sure that site-blocking really works? Because if it didn’t work, I was informed recently, rightsholders wouldn’t keep filing new site-blocking requests at a record-breaking pace, and then return for even more soon after. While it’s true that demand for site-blocking measures has never been greater, the sarcastic response above alludes to something that doesn’t really work, or at least doesn’t remain effective for very long. Rising piracy rates, broad content availability, and easily circumvented blocking measures may even support that theory. Nevertheless, movie and TV show companies, broadcasters, and sports leagues insist that blocking remains valuable as part of a diverse anti-piracy toolkit. The anti-piracy arena has certainly come a long way. Among other reported blocking successes, early studies concluded that when pirate site domains are subjected to blocking, fewer visits are made to those specific domains. While a fairly obvious conclusion to arrive at years ago when that type of metric was first rolled out, today it’s pretty much meaningless and the supply of domains is endless. Germany Prepares to Take on BuffStreams As a relative newcomer to site-blocking, Germany doesn’t find itself shackled to the past. In the UK, where blocking measures have existed since the start of the last decade, the process is steeped in the traditions of legal scrutiny and judicial oversight. Proponents of site-blocking today prefer something less formal; in Germany, a partnership between copyright holders and ISPs was deemed appropriate. The Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet (CUII) operates an administrative program; sites suitable for blocking are detailed in reports which are sent for the consideration of an Audit Committee consisting of retired judges familiar with copyright. For a platform to be blocked by Germany’s ISPs, the committee must conclude that the site is structurally infringing, a standard applied in the UK’s first ever site blocking injunction back in 2011. The Audit Committee recently considered a proposal to block BuffStreams, one of the more popular live sports streaming portals boasting millions of visitors each month. BuffStreams Infringed the Exclusive Rights of ***** The Audit Committee’s report notes that the applicant in the blocking matter has legal standing as the “owner of exclusive rights to an ancillary copyright of a broadcasting company.” Since all identifiers have been redacted, including references to the allegedly-infringing TV broadcast, it’s not possible to identify any of the parties involved. What is clear is that considerable effort was expended to make contact with BuffStreams but ultimately, nothing paid off. Audit Committee comments (translated from German) “Based on the user figures determined by the internet service *****, 15.03 million users visited BuffStreams in the period from August 1, 2023 to October 31, including around 500,000 visitors from Germany,” the report adds. Blocking Approved – One More Stage In conclusion, BuffStreams easily met the structurally infringing standard. A 14-day survey period last September found a total of 5,321 links to live broadcasts, reduced to 2,429 when accounting for duplicates. At least 96% of those links were considered unlicensed, leading to the conclusion that BuffStreams is indeed infringing and therefore suitable for blocking (pdf, German). The case will now be referred to the German government’s Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) to confirm that blocking BuffStreams will not violate net neutrality; things haven’t always gone smoothly. Once that hurdle has been passed, ISPs will receive the green light to tamper with their DNS records so that customers in Germany can’t reach the site. At least, those who don’t understand how DNS servers work. DNS Blocking / Backup Domains The CUII website references the domain buffstreams.sx but the Audit Committee’s report mentions only the headline brand BuffStreams, with other domains redacted. With at least a couple of dozen domains and other options at its disposal, BuffStreams seems likely to take any blocking attempts in its stride. Being listed in an Indian ISP blocking order (CS(COMM) 470/2022) in July/August 2022 didn’t end in disaster, neither did its addition to Italy’s blocklist last September (326/23/DDA). At least one confirmed domain has been on Indonesia’s blocklist for several years, and we’re informed that Portugal has blocks in place too – Sites listed for blocking in Germany since 2021 include: s.to, canna.to, nsw2u.com, newalbumreleases.net, bs.to, streamkiste.tv, kinox.to, cine.to, serienjunkies.org, taodung.com, israbox, jokerlivestream, serienfans.org, filmfans.org Members of CUII include: 1&1 AG (telecoms), German Book Traders’ Association, Federal Music Industry Association (BVMI), German Football League (DFL), Freenet DLS (telecoms), German Games Industry Association, Motion Picture Association (MPA), Sky Deutschland, STM (publishers), Telefónica Germany, Telekom Germany, German Film Producers Association (VDF), and Vodafone Germany. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

Wilco’s Jeff Tweedy produced the new full-length from Chicago artists Sima Cunningham and Macie StewartView the full article

Under U.S. law, online service providers must respond to takedown notices and implement a meaningful policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. Many of the large social media platforms stick to these rules but, according to a lawsuit filed by several prominent music companies last year, X is not among them. In a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Nashville last summer, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI, and others accused X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement. The labels argued that X, formerly Twitter, failed to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacked a proper termination policy. “Twitter fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law,” the complaint alleged. Elon Musk himself had previously added fuel to the smoldering fire, characterizing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a “plague on humanity”. Motion to Dismiss Musk’s company was swift to respond to the allegations with a request for the Court to dismiss all copyright infringement claims. According to X, the record labels failed to show how the company or its employees actively contributed to any piracy that allegedly took place on the platform. After taking in the arguments from both sides, Nashville District Court Judge Aleta Trauger responded to the request as follows. “It does not appear to be disputed, in this litigation, that X/Twitter users sometimes engage in copyright infringement. What is disputed is the extent to which X Corp. has actively encouraged that conduct, if at all,” Judge Trauger writes. The labels alleged three different claims in their complaint: direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and contributory copyright infringement. X asked for all to be dismissed and the Court partially agreed. Direct Infringement: Dismissed The record labels’ direct infringement claim largely relies on the Copyright Act’s “Transmit Clause”, suggesting that X is liable because it directly engages in the public performance of pirated music. This allegation relies heavily on the Aereo case, where the operators of the ‘time-shifting’ service were found to be direct infringers for transmitting over-the-air TV signals to their subscribers. In the present case, X also transmits copyright-infringing material. However, following a lengthy semantic consideration, Judge Trauger concludes that various nuanced meanings can be applied to the term ‘transmission’. For example, if person Y sends a pirated file to person Z, they are transmitting that file. At the same time, their ISPs are also transmitting the file, as are the backbone Internet services, and cable owners. Not all of these parties are necessarily ‘direct’ infringers. Judge Trauger says that Aereo’s exclusive purpose was to transmit copyrighted signals but the same can’t be said for X, which has a multitude of other purposes. As such, the Court doesn’t believe that the “transmit clause” applies here. “As the Supreme Court explained in Aereo, the Transmit Clause was adopted with the specific purpose of ensuring that both the ‘broadcaster’ and the ‘viewer’ of an audiovisual work could, where appropriate, be held liable for direct infringement of the type involved in the transmission of broadcast television through cable systems. “That purpose is consistent with the conclusion that ‘transmission’ refers to the actions of the sender and/or ultimate recipient of a copyright-protected work—not those of the operators of the channels through which that transmission was accomplished,” Judge Trauger adds. The Court stresses that claims against third parties are possible under theories of secondary liability, but not under direct infringement. Therefore, the first claim is dismissed. Vicarious Infringement: Dismissed An example of a secondary liability claim is vicarious copyright infringement. In the complaint, the music companies alleged that X is vicariously liable because it profited from its users’ pirating activities while failing to put an end to them. Judge Trauger doesn’t rule out that X turned a blind eye to piracy, which may or may not have acted as a draw to other pirates. However, to establish vicarious infringement the accused party needs to have some type of formal control over the infringer. That doesn’t apply here, she concludes. “X Corp. undoubtedly had some power over X/Twitter’s users—the way that a company that provides a valued service always has power over the customers who rely on it — but that does not turn customers into even loose equivalents of agents or subordinates,” Judge Trauger writes. As such, the vicarious copyright infringement claim is also dismissed. However, similar ‘piracy-supporting’ allegations can still be brought up as part of the contributory infringement claim. Contributory Infringement: Mixed In analyzing the contributory infringement claim, the Nashville court must consider whether X “induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct” of its users. The music companies believe so, as X made it very easy to upload infringing material and monetized pirated content on its platform. However, Judge Trauger notes that these allegations apply to everything on the platform, not just pirated material. “Any feature that makes a service easier for all of its users will, by definition, also make the service easier for bad actors. The plaintiffs have not identified any basis for concluding that X Corp. was obligated to make its service worse for everyone, just to punish the people who misuse it,” Judge Trauger notes. The Court therefore rejects the notion that X is contributorily liable in the general sense. However, there are specific allegations that survive the motion to dismiss. “Particularly striking is the allegation that X Corp. enforces its copyright policies less stringently against individuals willing to pay for its ‘verified’ service,” the Judge writes. “Similarly, if X Corp. engaged in egregious delays in responding to valid takedown notices, or outright ignored some notices that were both facially and actually valid, that could support liability.” Finally, Judge Trauger will also leave the ‘repeat infringer’ allegations intact. If the music companies can effectively prove that X willingly turned a blind eye to pirating users, that could make the company liable. “Again, there is no basis in the law for concluding that the operator of a social media platform will face liability simply because it was less draconian in its enforcement than copyright holders would prefer. “If, however, there was a class of X/Twitter users who were brazenly using the platform as an infringement tool, and X Corp. made the decision to unreasonably withhold enforcement of its own policies against those users, with the foreseeable consequence of ongoing infringement, then X Corp. could plausibly be held contributorily liable.” The Court’s decision is a mixed bag. While X managed to get most claims dismissed, the music companies can still pursue their claim for contributory copyright infringement. While that is yet to be proven in court, millions of dollars in damages are still on the line. — A copy of Judge Trauger’s memorandum, detailing the decision in response to the motion to dismiss, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. View the full article

“It’s a complicated record, but it’s also deeply and joyously infectious,” says Cave. “Listening to this, I don’t know, it seems we’re happy.”View the full article

A UK advertising watchdog has walked back statements that FKA twigs is depicted as a “stereotypical sexual object” in the fashion campaignView the full article

The Los Angeles jazz luminary made Fearless Movement with André 3000, Thundercat, George Clinton, and moreView the full article

Works on Jackie Shane, Ryley Walker, Swamp Dogg, the Black Keys, and more screen at the Austin festival.View the full article

Taken from Light Verse, Sam Beam’s first official Iron & Wine album in seven yearsView the full article

Snoh Aalegra sings backing vocals on the Toronto artist’s new singleView the full article

“Yung Hearts Bleed Free” draws its influence from Bootsy CollinsView the full article

The French duo is bringing its 1998 classic to life onstageView the full article