Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Google'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Categories

  • Drivers
  • Filesharing
    • BitTorrent
    • eDonkey & Direct Connect (DC)
    • NewsReaders (Usenet)
    • Other P2P Clients & Tools
  • Internet
    • Download Managers & FTP Clients
    • Messengers
    • Web Browsers
    • Other Internet Tools
  • Multimedia
    • Codecs & Converters
    • Image Viewers & Editors
    • Media Players
    • Other Multimedia Software
  • Security
    • Anti-Malware
    • Firewalls
    • Other Security Tools
  • System
    • Benchmarking & System Info
    • Customization
    • Defrag Tools
    • Disc & Registry Cleaners
    • Management Suites
    • Other System Tools
  • Other Apps
    • Burning & Imaging
    • Document Viewers & Editors
    • File Managers & Archivers
    • Miscellaneous Applications
  • Linux Distributions

Categories

  • General News
  • File Sharing News
  • Mobile News
  • Software News
  • Security & Privacy News
  • Technology News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

  1. Quick Tip Today am gonna show you how you can download your favorite Android Apps directly from Google Play Store. From the Play Store, search for your favorite app, copy the link with the app id visit apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ Paste the link and click generate download link. Wait for some seconds as your download link is been generated. After some few seconds, your link should be ready for download. eNJOy!!! source: thetechblog
  2. seriesbyte

    Google explain

    google favorite i want convenient photo here shows I do not want embarrassing photo here shows - thank you
  3. FRANKFURT Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:22am EST Surfboards lean against a wall at the Google office in Santa Monica, California, October 11, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson (Reuters) - A German court has ordered Google to block search results in Germany linking to photos of a sex party involving former Formula One boss Max Mosley. The court said on Friday that although Google had not taken the pictures it was responsible as a distributor of the images. "The court is of the opinion that the banned pictures of the plaintiff severely violate his private sphere, as they show him active in sexual practices," the court said. The ruling comes more than two months after a French court ordered Google to find a way to remove recurring links to images of Mosley, who was photographed in 2008 at an orgy with prostitutes. The dispute in the Hamburg court relates to photographs of Mosley published by the defunct British tabloid News of the World that were accompanied by an article suggesting he had organized a "sick Nazi orgy". Mosley has acknowledged that he engaged in sado-masochistic activity with the five women and paid them 2,500 sterling ($4,000), but denied the orgy was Nazi-themed. The decision is another setback for Google as it tries to defend a global stance that the search engine is merely a platform that delivers links to content and it should not be responsible for policing them. Although Google can delete images on its website, it cannot prevent others reposting them, resulting in a constant game of catch-up. Google said on Friday it would appeal the ruling. "It could mean that Internet providers are required to monitor even the smallest components of content they transmit or store for their users. We believe this is contrary to European law," a Google spokesman said. In a blog post published in September, Google said it had already removed "hundreds of pages for Mr. Mosley" as part of a process that helps people delete specific pages from Google's search results after they have been shown to violate the law. (Reporting by Harro ten Wolde and Nikola Rotscheroth; Editing by Catherine Evans) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-google-germany-court-idUSBREA0N0Y420140124
  4. By Emma Pinedo MADRID Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:30pm EST (Reuters) - News media companies in Spain will be able to charge search engines such as Google for displaying copyrighted content under a new law proposed by the Spanish government on Friday. The measure echoes similar drives around Europe. Publishers in Portugal, France, Belgium and Germany have pushed for compensation in some form or another for links, snippets, headlines and lead paragraphs that appear in news search engines and aggregators such as Google News and Yahoo news. The search engines draw revenue from advertising placed near news content and media companies have fought for a share of it. The new rule was introduced in the draft of an intellectual property law that the center-right People's Party government will present to parliament for approval, Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria told a weekly news conference. Under the proposed changes, the search engines would not have to seek permission to publish brief fragments but would have to pay "an equitable remuneration for the use". The government did not say how it would be determined which fragments must be paid for and how amounts would be calculated. This has been a matter of fierce debate elsewhere in Europe. A spokeswoman for Google in Spain said the company could not comment because it had not yet seen the exact wording of the intellectual property reform bill. "LONG-STANDING DEMAND" The Association of Spanish Newspaper Editors, known by its Spanish-language acronym AEDE, applauded the proposal. "We are very satisfied with the intellectual property law, which recognizes a long-standing demand from news editors," said Irene Lanzaco, deputy director of the association. Spanish media have been hit hard by a prolonged economic recession as advertising spending has plunged. Dozens of newspapers and other media have shut down and 9,500 journalists have been laid off in the last four years. European countries have taken different approaches to the issue of news content on search engines. A year ago Google agreed to pay 60 million euros into a special fund to help French media develop their presence on the Internet, but search engines will not pay publishers in France for displaying content. Germany passed a new copyright law last March that allows media there to charge search engines for using their content, but the original bill was watered down and links and small excerpts of text were exempted. Spain's proposed reform on search engines and content is just one element in a major overhaul of intellectual property rules that the government has been working on since last year. Internet piracy is widespread in Spain, which is considered to be one of Europe's worst offenders for illegal downloading of music, films and games. The draft bill approved by the cabinet on Friday envisages speedier processes to shut down piracy sites and establishes sanctions for sites that redirect users to illegal downloading sites, advertisers on piracy websites and companies that process payments to piracy sites. (Additional reporting and writing by Fiona Ortiz; Editing by Rodrigo de Miguel and Gareth Jones) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/14/us-spain-intellectualproperty-idUSBREA1D1O120140214
  5. Google on Tuesday updated Chrome to version 30, patching 50 vulnerabilities and paying outsider researchers $27,000 in bounties along the way. The Mountain View, Calif. company highlighted only one change in the newest desktop Chrome: Image search. "Starting this week, all Chrome users will be able to search by image," said Kibeom Kim, a Chrome engineer, in a short post to a company blog. By right-clicking an image displayed in Chrome, then selecting "Search Google for this image," the browser will show other image results culled from Google's search engine. Google typically calls out only some of the new features or improvements in an upgrade, but this month's list was abnormally short. The company has been criticized in the past for barely moving the needle with each iteration. Along with the new feature and the usual collection of stability and performance fixes, Chrome 30 patched 50 security vulnerabilities. Until July 30, Google had not revealed the number of patched flaws in each Chrome update. Prior to May, the company published what appeared to be a complete list -- although minus an official count -- but from late May though late July, it disclosed a subset of quashed bugs, those deemed "particularly interesting," or which called out researchers who reported issues or who had been awarded bounties. Starting two months ago, Google began naming the number of fixed flaws, though it continued to provide information about only a subset. On Tuesday, for example, it listed 19 the 50 patched vulnerabilities in its advisory. Ten of the 19 were rated "high," Google's second-most-serious threat ranking, with seven of the 10 marked as "use-after-free" bugs, a type of memory management flaw that Google's researchers -- both those employed by the company and independent bug hunters -- have shown expertise in rooting out. That's in large part because Google makes its AddressSanitizer memory error detector available to everyone. Google paid 13 different researchers a total of $27,000 in bounties, with more than a quarter -- $7,500 -- going to Atte Kettunen of Finland's Oulu University. Nearly a third -- $8,000 -- went to a threesome of Kettunen and frequent bounty recipients "cloudfuzzer" and "miaubiz," for reporting bugs during earlier stages of development so that they were squashed before work on the "stable" build began. The bug bounty payout total for 2013 stands at nearly $283,000, about $90.000 shy of last year's record. Google also updated Chrome for Android Tuesday with support for three new touchscreen gestures, including swiping horizontally to switch tabs and dragging down from the toolbar to see the tab switcher view. Chrome for Android hasn't replaced the more bare-bones stock Android browser in user share, according to metric company Net Applications, but it has been on a rapid climb: By the end of September, Chrome accounted for 6.3% of all mobile browsers, up 5.1 percentage points in the past 12 months. Google's browser is also available for iOS. Those who haven't tried Chrome on the desktop can download version 30 for Windows, OS X and Linux from Google's website. Current users can simply let the automatic updater retrieve the new version. Original Article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9242942/Google_adds_pix_search_to_Chrome_squashes_50_bugs
  6. Google has announced one more: custom URLs are now rolling out to almost everyone. If you don’t see the option yet on your Google+ profile or Google+ Page, don’t worry: Google says it is expanding availability throughout the week. For those who don’t know what custom URLs (also called vanity URLs) are, here’s quick example. Currently, my Google+ profile is located at plus.google.com/u/0/103897375441006577816/. If I were to get a custom URL, I could maybe changed it to plus.google.com/+emil or plus.google.com/+epro, swapping out the string of numbers for something that is much easier to share. Google first started testing custom URLs back in the middle of August 2012. About a week later, the company started notifying individuals and brands with verified accounts, but then it largely stopped expanding the feature. Now that’s finally changing. If your profile meets the following criteria, Google+ will let you claim a custom URL: Has a profile photo Has at least 10 followers Has an account that’s at least 30 days old. At the same time, brands and businesses that have a linked website or a verified local business can claim a custom URL for their Google+ page as well. If you fall into either of these categories, you’ll want to read more about link and verification over at the Google+ Help Center. Once you meet the eligibility criteria and Google prepares your custom URL, you can just visit your Google+ profile or Google+ page to begin the claiming process. Until then, you’ll just have to wait patiently, probably playing with all the other Google+ features that rolled out today. source: tnw
  7. Techdirt, BoingBoing, professor Michael Geist, lawyer Ken White at Popehat and TorrentFreak – what do we all have in common? According to On Press Inc., we’re all copyright scofflaws that deserve to have our webpages removed from Google. Sadly for this aggressor Google disagrees and has just published its refusal to censor dozens of legitimate news articles and references to a one line poem. In February 2013, Techdirt’s Mike Cushing wrote an excellent article detailing the ridiculous antics of On Press Inc. The company had been running around Twitter and other social media platforms admonishing and bullying individuals who had dared to quote a poem by a guy called Shaun Shane. “If only our tongues were made of glass,” the single line composition began, “how much more careful we would be when we speak.” For kicks, Cushing even administered some troll-bait of his own, which was duly gobbled up by On Press who sent the Techdirt writer similar threats and referred to him as “stupid” and “idiotic” for good measure. Of course, before long word started to spread. Among many others Rob Beschizza covered the story for BoingBoing only to get threatened too. The irrepressible Ken White at Popehat also joined in on the fun, describing the brains behind the On Press campaign as having “a grasp of law cobbled together by listening to 13-year-olds swearing at each other on Xbox Live.” A fuss even broke out in the comments section of a Michael Geist article covering a completely different topic after an On Press shill stepped in to inform a poster who dared to align the words of the Shane poem with the acts of an anti-piracy lobby group. But while things may have gone quiet since, the whole sorry episode is about to blow up again. Earlier this month TorrentFreak discovered that On Press had filed a DMCA notice with Google against one of our articles, asking the search engine to delist it from the company’s search results. The article was about Twitter copyright complaints but buried away in the comments section was a few paragraphs from Gene Poole, who said the following: Shane was clearly back, more crazy than ever before – and he wasn’t finished yet. In the same DMCA notice On Press targeted a who’s-who of its critics from earlier in the year. Perhaps unsurprisingly Techdirt was on the top of the hit list, with Google being ordered to remove a total of 43 URLs that On Press (incorrectly) claimed were infringing copyright, which bizarrely included a URL designed to call up all articles on the site which contained the words “legal” and “threat”. Adding to the catastrophe, On Press ordered Google to remove the articles written by Rob Beschizza and also Michael Geist, even though the latter was on an unrelated topic. Quite deliciously, mainly because we can’t wait for the Popehat reaction, On Press also ordered Google to censor Ken White’s article. A small sample of the DMCA takedown sent by On Press to Google The full DMCA notice sent to Google targeted an unbelievable 134 URLs across a total of 58 domains including Huffington Post, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, DeviantArt, WordPress, Linkedin and OKCupid. But aside from the notice’s very existence, what was important to us was Google’s reaction to it. That response has just come in and it shows just how misguided On Press are when it comes to copyright law. So far Google has deemed just 16 URLs to be infringing and has refused to remove 91 others, including all of the articles on Techdirt, Popehat, BoingBoing, Michael Geist’s blog and TorrentFreak. A decision on 27 URLs is still pending, quite possibly sitting on the desk of a Google lawyer who has much better things to spend his time on. If only On Press Inc’s DMCA agent had a tongue made of glass, we wouldn’t have to listen to their nonsense anymore. Source: TorrentFreak
  8. The Pirate Bay reached a dubious milestone today, as copyright holders have now asked Google to remove two million of the site's URLs from its search results. According to Google this means that between one and five percent of all Pirate Bay links are no longer discoverable in its search engine. In an effort to make it difficult for the public to find pirated content, copyright holders send millions of takedown notices to Google every week. One of the top domains listed in these notices is thepiratebay.se. Since the notorious torrent site doesn’t accept takedown requests itself, copyright holders have to turn to Google to do something about the appearance of their work on the infamous torrent site. This week the number of thepiratebay.se URLs submitted to Google reached the two million mark. Nearly all of these links have been removed and can no longer be accessed through search results. The chart below shows the number of links that have been submitted per week. There is a sharp decline towards the end of 2013 when The Pirate Bay used another domain name. The requests increased again in December when the torrent site switched back. In total, the two million URLs were submitted in 93,070 separate takedown notices, averaging more than 20 links per takedown request. A staggering number, but one that pales in comparison to other sites. Looking at the list of domains that received the most URLs removal requests, The Pirate Bay ends up in 29th place. The top spot goes to filestube.com with more than 11 million URLs, followed by dilandau.eu, rapidgator.net, zippyshare.com and 4shared.com.Torrentz.eu, the first torrent site in the list, comes in 8th with 4.4 million URLs. The million dollar question is of course whether all these takedown requests have had a significant impact on the availability of pirated content. According to Google, the two million URLs represent between one and five percent of all links that are indexed, so it’s safe to say that there’s still plenty of Pirate Bay content available via Google. Similarly, removing the search results doesn’t hinder people from going to the notorious torrent site directly. The Pirate Bay itself isn’t particularly concerned about this development. The site’s traffic has increased steadily over the past few years, and so has the number of files being uploaded to the site. In common with the many ISP blockades of The Pirate Bay, it’s safe to conclude that people can find plenty of alternative routes to end up where they want to be… Source: TorrentFreak
  9. Several large "pirate" movie streaming portals are using Google's servers to distribute copyrighted material. More than 18,000 videos are currently publicly available, and requests to Google to remove the files have reportedly gone unanswered. Google has been in the crosshairs of the entertainment industries for a while now. These companies believe that Google is not doing enough to prevent pirate sites from showing up in search results. However, there is another less visible problem that cropped up in recent months. Increasingly, streaming portals with a focus on the latest pirated copies and TV-shows are using Google as a source. A German anti-piracy outfit has identified more than 18,000 pirated videos that are featured on more than a dozen large sites. All these streaming sites use the same movie sources without charge, and the bandwidth bill goes to Google. The list of sites includes Movie4k.to, hdmoviezone.net, viooc.co, viooz.be, viooz.cc, vioozmovies.me, watch32.com, putlocker.bz, putocker.to, putlocker.tw, megashare.info, megashare.sh, megashare.ca, afdah.com, yify.tv, watch32.com. Together these streaming portals are good for several million daily visitors, which means that Google must be seeing a lot of traffic originating from these sites. The screenshot below shows a copy of The Wolf of Wall Street on YIFY.tv, available in several video qualities and with subtitles if needed. YIFY.tv Using Google It’s unclear where the videos are hosted, but the URL above shows the googlevideo.com domain. In addition, it includes a “source=picasa” string, suggesting Google’s image hosting service has something to do with it. While the site owners are benefiting from the free storage, copyright holders are less excited. A German media outfit, which remains unnamed, reportedly sent requests to Google last month hoping to take down the files, but without success. Since the files remain online, the lawyers of the media company have now applied for an injunction against Google at a local court. Two weeks ago Warner Bros. also asked Google to remove several of these URLs from its search engine. These requests were denied, most likely because the videos can’t be accessed directly through the link Warner provided. In a comment to TorrentFreak, Google stresses that users are not permitted to distribute copyrighted content without permission. The company is actively trying to stop these kinds of abuses and also responds swiftly to takedown notices. “Use of Google platforms to host infringing materials is a violation of our terms of use, and we design features into our systems to make them unattractive for this kind of abuse,” a Google spokesperson told TF. “We also respond quickly to disable access to any materials on our platforms identified to us by copyright owners as infringing,” Google adds. Why the thousands of Google-hosted videos on these streaming portals remain online is unclear. It could be that Google indeed removed the files in question, but that they were re-uploaded. Another possibility is that the copyright holder didn’t correctly identify the source file, as Warner Bros’ takedown notice suggests. One of the additional problems copyright holders face is that the URLs of the videos are harder to identify. Automated takedown tools can’t easily spot where the files are coming from, which makes it more complicated to send takedown requests. It will be interesting to see how this issue will be dealt with in the future. It’s clear that neither Google not the copyright holders are happy with the current situation. For now, the only ones benefiting are the streaming portals and their millions of users. Source: TorrentFreak
  10. HBO is cracking down on unauthorized copies of Game of Thrones that have appeared online over the past weeks. The TV-network has sent Google several takedown requests to remove thousands of links from its search engine. Interestingly enough, the requests also list the popular show's official trailers. Game of Thrones is without a doubt the most pirated TV-show on the Internet. The popular series entered its fourth season early April and broke the record of most people sharing a pirated copy simultaneously. While several people connected to Game of Thrones have noted that piracy might actually benefit the show, HBO executives are clamping down on widespread piracy nonetheless. Over the past few weeks the TV-network has sent dozens of takedown requests to Google, listing thousands of allegedly pirated copies of their work. Many of these are links to torrent sites and streaming portals where recent episodes can be downloaded for free. With these takedown requests HBO hopes to make it harder for people to find unauthorized copies. However, a careful inspection of the notices by TorrentFreak reveals that promotional material such as trailers are also being censored. Unfortunately for HBO, Google happily processed these requests and removed the “infringing” trailers from their search results. As can be seen below, a search for “Game of Thrones trailer torrent” includes a notice that several results have been removed on copyright grounds. GoT trailer torrent search results Looking at the individual notices, it becomes clear that these are indeed links to promotional trailers which should be freely available to the public. The DMCA notice pictured in the screenshot below lists several of these URLs, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. GoT trailer takedowns The current crackdown on Game of Thrones runs counter to comments from director David Petrarca who said that piracy generates much-needed “cultural buzz.” These dubious takedowns may create a buzz as well, but probably not the kind HBO is hoping for. As for the trailer takedowns, we expect that these have been taken down in error. That wouldn’t be HBO’s first mistake either, as the company previously tried to censor their own website HBO.com because it apparently contained infringing content. Perhaps their automated takedown tools need some further adjustments? Source: TorrentFreak
  11. Copyright notices are designed to take down infringing content, but in some cases they do much more than that. The operator of a file-hosting service says that an abuse of the DMCA means that his site has been disappeared by Google, and as a result thousands of members are being lost. As revealed in a report earlier this week, DMCA takedown notices issued to Google have surged 711,887 percent in just four years. In fact, this month saw a new record week for notices received by the search engine. In a seven day period starting March 10, Google processed an amazing 6,532,393 notices, sent mainly by the music and adult industries. While the majority of these notices are precise, there are some serious inaccuracies. Google does a pretty good job of rejecting many that are sent in error but it’s inevitable that some slip through the net, and when they do sites can suffer. One of the latest sites to get on the wrong end of an overbroad notice is UpToBox, a file-hosting service with millions of visitors each month. Particularly popular with the French, the site is France’s 191st most-visited site. On March 25, anti-piracy company Piracy Stops Here LLC sent a notice on behalf of adult movie company Jim Weathers Productions, asking for more than a thousand URLs to be removed from Google’s search results. All of them were specific URLs, except one – UptoBox’s homepage at UptoBox.com. Despite zero infringing content appearing on the file-hosting site’s homepage, Google subsequently de-listed the site. On Friday, French news site Numerama contacted Google to find out whether there had been a mistake or whether removing the homepage was intentional, but received no response. Speaking with TorrentFreak, UpToBox operator ‘Guillaume’ says despite contacting Google several times in the past few days, no one from the company has responded to their requests for an explanation. “We have sent a notice to Google to cancel this decision some days ago, without any reply from them,” Guillaume explains. “We will continue to send a notice everyday to get us put back in the search engine.” Guillaume says the cost to his site is already high. Thousands of people have failed to find the site as they might do ordinarily and as a result UptoBox has lost “a huge quantity” of new members. So, could there be unusual circumstances which would explain the complete de-listing of the site? To find out, we asked Guillaume how the site responds to copyright complaints. “We analyze them one by one, to see if notices are legal, and if files are really copyright infringing. We have received some DMCA notices about legal files in the past, so now we analyze everything,” he explains. “We delete an infringing file quickly when we received the notification, usually in 24 to 48 hours.” So for now the UptoBox homepage remains delisted by Google with no idea of when, if ever, it will be restored. The big question now is whether Piracy Stops Here knew what they were doing when they sent the notice or if it was a genuine mistake. That said, with no punishments available for those who send bad notices, nothing can be done against them anyway, a problem raised by WordPress owners Automattic earlier this month. Update: Good new for UptoBox, as the homepage has now been reinstated. Source: TorrentFreak
  12. In its biggest makeover in half a decade, the world's most popular TV torrent site EZTV has implemented a revolutionary anti-piracy program. But while its operators were led to believe its transformation into a Google-like operation would solve most copyright issues, things appear to be getting worse. EZTV is undoubtedly the most popular TV-focused torrent site on the Internet today. Founded way back in 2005, it is also one of the oldest with nine full years under its belt. Through its indexing of all popular TV shows, EZTV has become the go-to venue for torrent downloaders but behind the scenes the site has been wrestling with a copyright predicament. Instead of sending in takedown notices via email, in recent months several studios switched to sending theirs in via regular mail, overloading the site’s staff in the process. “For the first few days UPS turned up with a couple of small boxes of notices, but it was soon several crates a day stacking several feet deep,” EZTV informs TorrentFreak. In a bid to solve the crisis, EZTV decided to speak with the two studios responsible for sending the majority of the notices. The outcome of the discussions, which were facilitated by the MPAA, was unequivocal – EZTV would have to massively change the way it does business. EZTV went back to the drawing board. Which model could they emulate to show that they were now a completely neutral, content agnostic platform? Which company, by virtue of the fact that it had never been sued by the studios over its indexing, could EZTV emulate? It was obvious – GOOGLE. Visitors to EZTV today can see the outcome. Instead of the layout users have become accustomed to over the past near-decade, EZTV now sports a minimal Google-style search engine beneath a new and rebranded EZTV logo. All TV show categories have gone and all that remains are descriptions pulled from the Internet using algorithms licensed from Google. Completing the sterilization of the site, all torrents have been deleted and now only magnet hash values of content specifically searched for by the user are listed. But EZTV’s operators wanted to do more. Realizing that Google’s Auto-Complete and Auto-Suggest features only serve to direct people to infringing content, EZTV now filters these from Google’s API and hence its own search results. Not suggesting stuff before people had even asked for it was a key MPAA-pleasing move. Honing the business model that has enabled Google to avoid being sued by any Hollywood studio over its search results, EZTV went further still. Working closely with City of London Police’s new Operation Creative, EZTV has filtered out not only all major brands’ advertising, but all advertising entirely. “We’ve never had any advertising on EZTV but noticed how little trouble Google has had monetizing links to potentially infringing content. With that in mind, we decided nearly a decade ago to go much further, but we’re only really shouting about it now,” EZTV told TF. Unsurprisingly, the MPAA are pleased with the results. “By working with the industry, EZTV has successfully removed all financial incentives for it to exist by cutting off its own revenues for the last nine years,” the MPAA said in a statement. “This is just the kind of action that will save jobs and fuel innovation.” The changes, which were phased in during the past month but visible over the past few hours, were expected to solve all of EZTV’s problems, but this morning at the site’s spacious New York offices a different picture was emerging. “Becoming just like Google is proving to be a nightmare. Just like them we’re now receiving millions of notices every hour,” EZTV told TF in phone call a few minutes ago. “UPS just turned up with a convoy of trucks. We’re scanning the notices as quickly as we can but the folks at Chilling Effects have already run out of space.” Whether EZTV will continue to emulate Google into the future is unclear, but at this point it seems that going back to the way they were might be the best option. Source: TorrentFreak
  13. The MPAA has asked Google to remove a Reddit community from its search results over piracy concerns. The movie industry group lists the "FullLengthFilms" subreddit in a recent takedown request, alongside several notorious pirate sites. Thus far Google has refused to take the page down, and Reddit hasn't taken any action either. Every week copyright holders send millions of DMCA takedown notices to Google, hoping to make pirated movies and music harder to find. Not all copyright holders take the same approach. Where the RIAA targets millions of infringing URLs per month, the MPAA only sends out a handful of notices. Instead of using dragnet scripts to take down everything that links to infringing copies, the movie industry group specifically targets homepages of ‘rogue’ sites and other high impact targets. In the latest DMCA notice, sent last week, Reddit ended up on the list. Like many other user-generated content sites, Reddit has plenty of links to copyright infringing material. In fact, there are several sub-communities that are dedicated to finding and publishing lists to pirated material. The subreddit r/fulllengthfilms is a good example. Here, users are encouraged to post links to their favorite movies, preferably from legal sources. However, pretty much all links point to streams of pirated films including “Gravity” and “The Wolf of Wall Street.” The MPAA is not happy with this growing list of movies. In their most recent takedown notice they ask Google to remove the entire subreddit from its search engine, because it contains a link to a camcorded copy of “Edge of Tomorrow.” MPAA’s takedown request Interestingly, Google has declined to action the MPAA’s takedown request. It’s not clear why the search giant refused to take it down, but one of the reasons may be that the MPAA did not limit their request to the “Edge of Tomorrow” posting. Instead, the movie industry group targeted the entire subreddit. These broad takedown requests are not uncommon as most of the MPAA’s takedown notices contain homepages of download portals or streaming sites. In some cases the infringing work listed in the takedown request no longer appears on these homepages, and the MPAA often fails to list the internal page it’s supposed to link to. With this strategy the MPAA has managed to remove the homepages of several popular sites from Google’s search results, including KickassTorrents. But Google doesn’t always comply. For the most recent DMCA notice it refused to take down most links, including the Reddit one. It’s still unclear whether the MPAA also sent a takedown notice to Reddit. TorrentFreak asked Reddit for a comment on the news but we have yet to receive a response. At the time of writing the FullLengthFilms subreddit and the “Edge of Tomorrow” posting remain online. Source: TorrentFreak
  14. Nearly all of file-hosting service Rapidgator's pages have been wiped from Google's search results, including many that don't link to infringing content. This is the second time that Rapidgator has been censored by mistake, and thus far the company has not been able to get the URLs reinstated. Every week Google processes millions of DMCA takedown requests, submitted by copyright holders from all over the world. In most cases the requests are legitimate, but every now and then they also target pages that don’t link to pirated content. As a result some websites have their URLs removed from Google in error, which in turn leads to a decrease in visitors. This has now happened to Rapidgator.net, one of the largest file-hostings sites on the Internet. For the past few weeks the site has had nearly all its URLs de-listed, including its homepage. The request responsible for this overbroad censorship was issued by the Publishers Association, a UK-based trade group. Aside from the Rapidgator URLs, the takedown notice in question lists several other pages that have nothing to do with their copyrighted works. Hoping to get its URLs restored Rapidgator submitted a counter-notification to Google, but several weeks have passed since and the problem remains. TorrentFreak spoke with Rapidgator operator Mike, who is concerned about the lack of response and the ease at which sites can be removed from Google. “With the procedure Google has in place now any website can be de-listed by anybody,” Mike says. “When Google receives a DMCA notice they remove URLs within a day, but if you want to have them restored it can take weeks or months. We think that they should restore URLs in the same timeframe as the original removals,” he adds. Rapidgator’s operator understand that Google can’t process every URL manually due to the massive amount of DMCA notices. However, he believes that they could at least flag requests to remove the homepages of websites so these can be manually verified. This isn’t the first time that Rapidgator has lost nearly all its listings in Google. The same thing happened late last year and on that occasion it also took several weeks before Google took action, leading to a dip in search traffic for the site. TorrentFreak asked Google for a comment on the counter-notification process but the company couldn’t say anything about the number of requests it receives, or what the average response time is. For Rapidgator there’s no other option than to wait until Google responds to its inquiry. In the meantime, only five Rapidgator pages remain indexed by Google. Source: TorrentFreak
  15. A TV network operated by Sony has obtained a sweeping High Court injunction compelling Indian ISPs to block hundreds of 'pirate' sites. However, in addition to sites like The Pirate Bay, for the second time in a month Sony affiliates have sucked in innocent victims including several Google services and Kim Dotcom's Mega.co.nz. With the World Cup now heading to its semi-final stages, FIFA and its distribution partners are pushing hard to stem the tide of unauthorized content. While FIFA has even gone as far as taking action against Twitter avatars, news today shows that its affiliates are also prepared to disrupt the activities of hundreds of sites and countless millions of Internet users if that means protecting their copyrights. The development follows legal action initiated by Multi Screen Media PVT Ltd, a Sony Entertainment Television subsidiary in India. Earlier this year the company obtained a license from FIFA to broadcast the 2014 World Cup to Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Of course, content is now being made available elsewhere without permission, so the company has decided to do something about that. In a statement to the High Court in Delhi, counsel for Multi Screen Media explained that “various websites are indulging in hosting, streaming, providing access to” infringing content causing substantial loss of revenue not just for the company, but also to the government due to lost tax on TV subscription fees. The list of ‘infringing’ sites supplied to the High Court is huge – 479 sites in all – and contains well known sharing sites including The Pirate Bay, torrent storage site Torrage, 1337x, Demonoid, and dozens of file-hosting sites. Quite amazingly, however, the list also contains entirely legitimate sites including Google Docs, Google Video, Google URL shortener Goo.gl, and Kim Dotcom’s Mega.co.nz. None escape the criticism of Sony or the High Court. “Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that many of the websites [in the list] are anonymous in nature and it is virtually impossible to locate the owners of such websites or contact details of such owners. It is further submitted that many of these Rogue Websites also hide behind domain privacy services offered by various domain name Registrars,” the judge wrote in his decision. “[Websites] listed below, or any other website identified by the Plaintiff are restrained, from in any manner hosting, streaming, broadcasting, rebroadcasting, retransmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and / or communicating to the public, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updating and/or sharing (including to its subscribers and users), through the internet, in any manner whatsoever,” he continued. With that Judge V. Kameswar Rao issued an order for the country’s ISPs to block the 479 sites in question – Google’s included – plus “such other websites that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff to be infringing of its exclusive rights.” While the Judge granting a blocking order against Google is bad enough, one has to question how the company’s services ended up on the High Court application in the first place. That is the responsibility of local anti-piracy company Markscan, who compiled the list for Multi Screen Media. Markscan were featured in a TorrentFreak article last month when they sent dozens of erroneous takedown notices to Google, again on behalf of a Sony company. “We want to assure you that we deploy technology, in addition to best efforts of our teams, to ensure that we do not impact legal content on yours, or any other website,” they told us at the time. Users of Google Docs, Goo.gl and Google Video may beg to differ. While some local ISPs have already initiated blockades, Google told Indian news outlet Medianama that there had been “no interruption of our services mentioned in the order.” The High Court order was issued June 23, alongside an instruction to distribute the summons to the defendant sites by July 22, 2014. Full List of Sites to Be Blocked 1. cdn.playwire.com 2. embedupload.com 3. 1fichier.com 4. crocko.com 5. multiupload.nl 6. uppit.com 7. solidfiles.com 8. bayfiles.net 9. tusfiles.net 10. bitshare.com 11. muchshare.net 12. mega.co.nz 13. share-online.biz 14. sendspace.com 15. real4download.com 16. telugump3.biz 17. wapkafiles.com 18. telugumasthi.wapka.me 19. telugustar.net 20. myteluguwap.net 21. s1.myteluguwap.net 22. s2.myteluguwap.net 23. filestube.to 24. bannedhost.to 25. mightyupload.com 26. bannedhost.net 27. freakshare.com 28. putlocker.com 29. uploadable.ch 30. safelinking.net 31. ultramegabit.com 32. terafile.co 33. fileom.com 34. d01.megashares.com 35. dizzcloud.com 36. lumfile.com 37. fileparadox.in 38. nitrobits.com 39. filemonkey.in 40. fastshare.cz 41. keep2share.cc 42. k2s.cc 43. sharerepo.com 44. depositfiles.com 45. rapidshare.com 46. filerio.com 47. goo.gl 48. fcore.eu 49. anonfiles.com 50. adf.ly 51. megafiles.se 52. exashare.com 53. primeshare.tv 54. uploadc.com 55. epicshare.net 56. dwn.so 57. uploadhero.com 58. dfiles.eu 59. thefile.me 60. nosupload.com 61. uploadsat.com 62. shareflare.net 63. letitbit.net 64. filesfrog.net 65. unlimitzone.com 66. uploadrocket.net 67. secureupload.eu 68. hulkfile.eu 69. tusfiles.co.nz 70. filehoot.com 71. jumbofiles.com 72. usefile.com 73. clicktoview.org 74. 180upload.nl 75. hitfile.net 76. easybytez.com 77. crisshare.com 78. vip-file.com 79. ufile.eu 80. jheberg.net 81. dl.free.fr 82. 2shared.com 83. sharebeast.com 84. cramit.in 85. ryushare.com 86. teluguworld.asia 87. twap.in 88. vshare.eu 89. 108.59.3.225:182 90. megafilesfactory.com 91. 199.91.152.94 92. 205.196.121.39 93. 199.91.152.86 94. 199.91.154.157 95. 205.196.123.194 96. 205.196.123.8 97. 205.196.123.182 98. mhnwap.wapka.me 99. mhnwap.wapka.mobi 100. realitytelevisionportal.eu 101. dorabuzz.in 102. foncity.in 103. toonvideos.in 104. bestcartoon.wapka.mobi 105. wap.dorabuzz.in 106. playpanda.net 107. play44.net 108. shared.sx 109. mega-vids.com 110. promptfile.com 111. 4upfiles.com 112. filemoney.com 113. lemuploads.com 114. anysend.com 115. luckyshare.net 116. filedap.com 117. junocloud.me 118. filevice.com 119. v-vids.com 120. quickyshare.net 121. tumi.tv 122. mp4star.com 123. sockshare.ws 124. uploadcrazy.net 125. uploadboy.com 126. putlocker.ws 127. filenuke.net 128. docs.google.com 129. dotsemper.com 130. upload.com 131. cloudyvideos.com 132. v.youku.com 133. movzap.com 134. googlevideo.com 135. vertor.eu 136. dramautubes.com 137. nosvideo.com 138. vreer.com 139. vidxden.com 140. divxstage.eu 141. rapidvideo.tv 142. vidspot.net 143. freshvideo.net 144. vidbux.com 145. vidplay.net 146. vidup.me 147. video.tt 148. modovideo.com 149. youwatch.org 150. magnovideo.com 151. videobam.com 152. sharexvid.com 153. videoslasher.com 154. nowvideo.ch 155. donevideo.com 156. videozed.net 157. vidhog.com 158. vidzi.tv 159. streamin.to 160. thevideo.me 161. vidzbeez.com 162. divxpress.com 163. nubestream.com 164. divxstream.net 165. videobb.com 166. divxden.com 167. mixturecloud.com 168. divxstage.net 169. videowood.tv 170. hostingbulk.com 171. playit.pk 172. movpod.net 173. daclips.com 174. slickvid.com 175. videofun.me 176. video44.net 177. yucache.net 178. moevideos.net 179. videomega.tv 180. vidpaid.com 181. sharevid.org 182. zuzvideo.com 183. video.vidcrazy.net 184. videovalley.net 185. videoboxone.com 186. vidcrazy.net 187. vodu.ch 188. watchfreeinhd.com 189. veehd.com 190. movdivx.com 191. blip.tv 192. animeuploads.com 193. videohub.ws 194. hdwide.co 195. stormvid.co 196. neovid.me 197. hawkhd.me 198. streamland.cc 199. vidshark.ws 200. vidspace.cc 201. vids.bz 202. play.flashx.tv 203. videoweed.es 204. torrenthound.com 205. nowvideo.sx 206. limetorrents.com 207. novamov.com 208. torrentfunk.com 209. torrents.net 210. wapkafile.com 211. thepiratebay.org 212. torlock.com 213. movshare.net 214. unblockedpiratebay-proxy.com 215. thetorrent.org 216. torrentz.sx 217. thepiratebay.se.unblock.to 218. nowdownload.ch 219. sockshare.com 220. bittorrent.pm 221. uptobox.com 222. torrage.com 223. vidbux.com 224. muchshare.net 225. sumotorrent.sx 226. torrentdownload.ws 227. vidup.me 228. btmon.com 229. ryushare.com 230. uploadable.ch 231. thepiratebay.se 232. 1337x.to 233. video.tt 234. bthunter.org 235. tusfiles.net 236. 1337x.org 237. swankshare.com 238. 1337xproxy.in 239. torrentz.dj 240. torrentcrazy.ee 241. filesbomb.in 242. torrentz.is 243. torrentz.am 244. kickassunblock.net 245. torrent.tm 246. uploadboy.com 247. oc.o2.vc 248. ineedtorrent.net 249. torrenthoundproxy.com 250. torcache.kickassunblock.net 251. kickasstor.net 252. streamupload.org 253. arabloads.net 254. torrentsnet.come.in 255. torrentz.to 256. filesfrog.net 257. 3gparena.in 258. dl.free.fr 259. divxstage.eu 260. play.flashx.tv 261. download-abc.com 262. filmsmaza.com 263. glotorrents.com 264. coolmoviez.com 265. 62.210.201.55:81 266. fuckyourcrew.org 267. mimti1.moviesmobile.net 268. sandy1.moviesmobile.net 269. sandy3.moviesmobile.net 270. sandy4.moviesmobile.net 271. thepiratebay.mk 272. dev.torrentz.pro 273. bannedhost.net 274. torrentmoviemafia.com 275. 1337x.pw 276. share1.moviesmobile.net 277. share2.moviesmobile.net 278. share3.moviesmobile.net 279. share4.moviesmobile.net 280. bayproxy.me 281. sarthaktv.in 282. p2p4ever.com 283. tny.cz 284. torrent-loco.com.ar 285. piraattilahti.org 286. punjabwap.com 287. torrent.ee 288. torrentz.asia 289. fromplay.org 290. proxybay.pw 291. vertor.com 292. katshore.org 293. nl.malaysiabay.org 294. demonoid.ph 295. kickasstorrents.come.in 296. putlocker.cz 297. proxybay.eu 298. vertor.eu 299. 3gparina.in 300. 89.248.162.148 301. fromplay.com 302. etorrent.co.kr 303. fun4buddy.com 304. livetvindian.com 305. ontohinbd.com 306. pc.rdxhd.com 307. seedpeer.me 308. ukcast.tv 309. ezcast.tv 310. xuscacamusca.se 311. crichd.in 312. 122.155.203.9 313. http://www.0dian8.com/ 314. http://www.114nba.com/ 315. http://360bo.com/ 316. http://51live.com/ 317. http://www.52waha.com/ 318. http://bf.5xzb.com/ 319. http://allsport-live.net/ 320. http://www.antibookers.ru/ 321. http://www.assistirtvonlineaovivo.tv/ 322. http://atdhe.eu/ 323. http://atdhe.so/ 324. http://atdhe.xxx/ 325. http://www.atdhe24.net/ 326. http://www.azhibo.com/ 327. http://barcelonastream.com/ 328. http://www.coolsport.tv/schedule-coolsport-tv.html 329. http://www.tvole.com/ 330. http://www.drakulastream.eu/ 331. http://esportesaovivo.com/ 332. http://www.feed2all.eu/type/football.html 333. http://gofirstrowuk.eu/ 334. http://www.footballstreaming.info/ 335. http://www.frombar.com/ 336. http://www.futebolaovivo.net/inicio.php 337. http://www.online.futebolaovivogratis.org/ 338. http://gooool.org/ 339. http://www.rajangan.me/ 340. http://www.hahasport.com/ 341. http://hdzhibo.com/ 342. http://neolive.net/ 343. http://www.kanqiu.tv/ 344. http://livesport4u.com/ 345. http://livetv.sx/ 346. http://meczelive.tv/ 347. http://www.megatvonline.co/ 348. http://tvonline.megavertvonline.net/live/ 349. http://myp2p.pw/ 350. http://nogomya.ch/ 351. http://www.p2p-hd.com/ 352. http://qmzhibo.com/ 353. http://rntplayer.com/ 354. http://www.rojadirecta.me/ 355. http://www.seezb.net/ 356. http://www.sport.net/ 357. http://sport5online.com/ 358. http://sportlemon.ge/ 359. http://sportlemontv.eu/ 360. http://sportlive.lt/ 361. http://www.sportlv.info/ 362. http://www.sportp2p.com/ 363. http://www.stopstream.tv/ 364. http://thefirstrow.biz/ 365. http://www.feed4u.net/ 366. http://www.time4tv.com/ 367. http://torrent-tv.ru/ 368. http://tvaovivogratis.net/ 369. http://tvonlinexat.com/ 370. http://www.usagoals.tv/ 371. http://vipbox.net/ 372. http://www.vipboxuk.co/ 373. http://www.wasu.cn/ 374. http://www.wiziwig.tv/ 375. http://wszhibo.com/ 376. http://www.look-tvs.com/ 377. http://www.yaomtv.com.cn/ 378. http://www.zhiboche.com/ 379. http://zqnow.com/ 380. http://www.24livestreamtv.com/brazil-2014-fifa-world-cup-football- live-streaming-online-tv/ 381. http://acefootball.eu/ 382. http://al3ablive.info/ 383. http://atdhe.ru/ 384. http://atdhe.ge/ 385. http://atdhe.sx/ 386. http://atdhe.ws/ 387. http://bongdatructuyen.info/ 388. http://www.bongdatructuyen.vn/ 389. http://bongdatv.net/ 390. http://bongdaup.com/ 391. http://www.majika.biz/ 392. http://btvsports.com/ 393. http://canalesdetv.com/ 394. http://capodeportes.net/ 395. http://www.catedralhd.tk/ 396. http://www.cv55.eu/ 397. http://desistreams.tv/ 398. http://desportogratis.com/ 399. http://dinozap.com/ 400. http://drhtv.com.pl/ 401. http://epctv.com/ 402. http://zonasports.to/ 403. http://fancylive.com/ 404. http://feed2all.eu/ 405. http://www.firstrows.eu/ 406. http://firstrows.biz/ 407. http://firstrowsports.ge/ 408. http://footballhd.ru/ 409. http://footdirect24.com/ 410. http://freefootball.ws/ 411. http://freehdspor.com/ 412. http://freelivefussball.de/ 413. http://freelivesport.eu/ 414. http://fsicrew.info/ 415. http://fussball-live-streams.com/ 416. http://futbolarg.tv/ 417. http://www.futbol-envivo.com/ 418. http://futbolsinlimites.pw/ 419. http://futebolaovivogratis.org/ 420. http://goatd.net/ 421. http://hdembed.com/ 422. http://funkeysports.com/ 423. http://hdsports.me/ 424. http://www.hdstreams.tv/index.php 425. http://iraqgoals.in/ 426. http://jokerplanete.com/ 427. http://lesoleildelanuit.wf/ 428. http://life-sport.org/ 429. http://livesportv.com/ 430. http://max-deportv.com/ 431. http://megaviptv.net/ 432. http://milloxtv.me/ 433. http://myp2p.cm/ 434. http://myp2p.ec/ 435. http://newsoccertv.com/ 436. http://nowwatchtvlive.com/ 437. http://onlinemoviesportsandtv.com/ 438. http://online–soccer.eu/ 439. http://portugaldesportivo.com/ 440. http://premier-league-live.net/ 441. http://qxzhibo.com/ 442. http://realtvsport.com/ 443. http://real-tv-sport.com/ 444. http://www.redzer.tv/ 445. http://s247.tv/ 446. http://sambasoccer.pw/ 447. http://skysport.tv/ 448. http://soccerembed.com/ 449. http://soccertoall.net/ 450. http://softsportstv.eu/ 451. http://www.sportsbeech.tv/ 452. http://sports-x.net/ 453. http://sportz-hd.eu/ 454. http://stadium-live.com/ 455. http://stream-foot.tv/ 456. http://streamhd.eu/ 457. http://streamking.org/ 458. http://todaytv.me/ 459. http://www.tvonlinepc.eu/ 460. http://totbet.net/ 461. http://tructiepbongda.com/ 462. http://tvembed.com/ 463. http://tvembed.eu/ 464. http://tv-link.in/ 465. http://tv-porinternet.com/ 466. http://tvsport24.info/ 467. http://u-peak.me/ 468. http://vipbox.co/ 469. http://vipracing.co.in/ 470. http://vtv4u.eu/ 471. http://whoopwhoop.tv/ 472. http://wiziwigfootball.com/ Source
  16. In what is being viewed as an over-broad action with serious implications, a Canadian court has ordered Google to completely block a group of websites from its worldwide search results. The ruling was handed down despite Google's protestations that the court has no jurisdiction over Google locally or in the United States. Google’s dominance of the Internet, particularly in search, has seen the company become embroiled in the disputes of countless other companies. Day after day, Google is expected to take action in third parties’ intellectual property complaints to avoid becoming liable itself. Prime examples can be found in the millions of DMCA-style notices the company processes each week. Google must remove those entries or face being accused of facilitating infringement. Another case that Google has become involved in, Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, sees two Canadian entities face off (the latter previous employees of the former) over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products. While Google has no direct links to the case, the plaintiffs claim that the company’s search engine is helping to direct people to a network of websites operated by the defendants which are selling the unlawful products. Google already removed links from its Google.ca results voluntarily, but that wasn’t enough for Equustek who wanted broader action. In a ruling handed down in British Columbia, Justice L.A. Fenlon agreed, ordering Google to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its search results. Despite protestations from Google that any injunction should be limited to Canada and Google.ca, the Judge targeted Google’s central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling has worldwide implications. “I note again that on the record before me, the injunction would compel Google to take steps in California or the state in which its search engine is controlled, and would not therefore direct that steps be taken around the world,” the Judge wrote. “That the effect of the injunction could reach beyond one state is a separate issue. Even an order mandating or enjoining conduct entirely within British Columbia may have such extraterritorial, or even worldwide effect.” Noting that Google did not complain that an order requiring it block the websites would “offend” the law in California where it is based, or any other country from where a search could be carried out, the Judge said that the search giant acknowledged that most countries would recognize that dealing in pirated products was “a legal wrong.” Further detailing her decision, Judge Fenlon compared Google to an innocent warehouse that had been forbidden from shipping out goods for a company subjected to an injunction. That local order not to ship could also have broader geographical implications. “Could it sensibly be argued that the Court could not grant the injunction because it would have effects worldwide? The impact of an injunction on strangers to the suit or the order itself is a valid consideration in deciding whether to exercise the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction. It does not, however, affect the Court’s authority to make such an order,” she wrote. The Judge also touched on the futility of ordering a blockade of results only on Google.ca, when users can simply switch to another variant. “For example, even if the defendants’ websites were blocked from searches conducted through www.google.ca, Canadian users can go to www.google.co.uk or www.google.fr and obtain results including the defendants’ websites. On the record before me it appears that to be effective, even within Canada, Google must block search results on all of its websites,” she explained. The nature of the ruling has raised concerns with lawyer Michael Geist, who notes that despite being issued by a local court, the ruling has attempted to match Google’s global reach. “The issues raised by the decision date back to the very beginning of the globalization of the Internet and the World Wide Web as many worried about jurisdictional over-reach with courts applying local laws to a global audience,” Geist explains. “While there is much to be said for asserting jurisdiction over Google – if it does business in the jurisdiction, the law should apply – attempts to extend blocking orders to a global audience has very troubling implications that could lead to a run on court orders that target the company’s global search results.” While Google has a little under two weeks to comply with the injunction, its representatives told The Globe and Mail that the decision will be appealed. Source: TorrentFreak
  17. The RIAA has reached a new milestone in its ongoing efforts to get pirated content removed from the Internet. This week, the music industry group reported their 50 millionth URL to Google. Despite the search engine's swift removal policy, the RIAA sees pirated files reappearing almost immediately, calling it a ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns. Despite the growing availability of legal music services in many countries, record labels are facing a constant stream of pirated music. In an attempt to prevent stop these infringements, the RIAA and other music industry groups send millions of takedown notices to Internet services every month. Most of these requests are directed at Google. This week the RIAA reached a new milestone after notifying Google of the 50 millionth allegedly infringing URL, up from 25 million less than a year ago. The latest figures show that the 50 million links were spread out over 14,907 separate DMCA takedown notices. Most of the requests, nearly 2 million, were for URLs belonging to the cyberlocker search engine filestube.com, which now operates under a new domain name. The MP3 download portals pisamba.com, downloads.nl, mp3skull.com and beemp3.com complete the top five with between 1.3 and 1.6 allegedly infringing links each. RIAA’s takedown stats While Google swiftly removes infringing links from its search index, the RIAA remains unhappy with how the takedown process in general is working. One of the main issues is that several foreign websites simply ignore takedown notices, or put the links back under a slightly modified URL. “All those links to infringing music files that were automatically repopulated by each pirate site after today’s takedown will be re-indexed and appear in search results tomorrow,” RIAA CEO Cary Sherman said previously. “Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It’s like ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns.” For the RIAA and other copyright holders there are few options to deal with these ‘rogue’ sites. However, the music industry group believes that Google and other search engines can do more to prevent people from accessing pirate sites through their services. The RIAA believes that search engines should strike a deal with copyright holders to make sure that pirated files stay down through advanced filtering techniques. In addition the RIAA wants Google to lift all takedown limits, push down pirate sites in search results, promote legal sites and services, remove pirate terms from Autocomplete and completely remove “repeat infringers” from their search index. Google sees things differently and believes that it’s already doing enough. The company’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama previously noted that copyright holders should consider better SEO, and focus on offering consumers what they want; decent legal alternatives. “The best way to battle piracy is with better, more convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy, as services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated. The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can,” she said. Over the past few months numerous copyright holders and lawmakers have increased their pressure on Google, but the search engine shows no intention of changing its policies. The longer the current standoff continues, the more likely it is that this issue will eventually be fought out in court. Source: TorrentFreak
  18. In a recommendation to the Australian Government, Google warns that draconian anti-piracy measures could prove counterproductive. Instead, the Government should promote new business models. "There is significant, credible evidence emerging that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem," Google states. As in many other countries, online piracy is causing headaches for the Australian Government. A variety of anti-piracy strategies to deal with the problem have been suggested in recent years, but thus far without result. Late last year Australia’s Minister for Communication invited several companies to share their thoughts on the reduction of regulation in the communication sector. The minister asked for input on a variety of issues including future legislation regarding copyright. One of the companies that responded is Google, and TorrentFreak has obtained a previously unpublished copy of the company’s response. In its letter Google warns the Government not to implement draconian ant-piracy legislation. The search giant notes that they believe piracy is mostly an availability and pricing problem, which is best tackled with innovation instead of legislation. “We believe there is significant, credible evidence emerging that online piracy is primarily an availability and pricing problem. We would encourage the Government to promote new business models and a free marketplace for legal purchasing of content,” Google writes. “We would be disappointed if the Government decided to go down the route of overly harsh regulation to combat piracy without considering the evidence from around the world that this would likely be costly for businesses to implement and with little effect,” they add. Besides the warning above, Google stresses that some of the current legislation is also problematic. For example, Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act is used to censor websites, which threatens the free availability of information. “It appears that this law has been interpreted broadly by various Australian government agencies to include the take down of websites that are deemed illegal,” Google writes. “Google believes that section 313 does not contain sufficient safeguards, and could potentially impact significantly on the availability of information and content on the internet through the over­broad blocking of websites.” Google recommends that the Government should create more oversight by implementing measures to make these website takedowns more transparent. In addition, Google is also worried about the lack of a safe harbor for Internet services, which can now be held liable for pirating users. According to the company it is of “critical importance” that this gap is addressed, as the current uncertainty has a chilling effect on innovation among Internet services. Google’s suggestions appear to stand in sharp contrast to the plans Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis unveiled a few weeks ago. In a speech to the Australian Digital Alliance forum, Brandis opted for a ”three strikes” graduated response system for persistent pirates as well as wide scale blockades of infringing websites. Source: TorrentFreak
  19. The UK's top IP advisor has published recommendations on how search engines should deal with online piracy. The document envisions demoting sites based on numbers of copyright notices received, removal of others entirely after acknowledging ISP blocking orders, and warning consumers away from sites without industry certification. Mike Weatherley, a Conservative MP and Intellectual Property Adviser to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, has become increasingly involved in the online piracy debate in recent months. Weatherley’s current focus is on the role search engines can play in reducing infringement. In contrast to the approach taken by the entertainment industries, the MP has taken a much more positive stance when speaking of Google’s efforts thus far. In a new report, however, Weatherley lays out often far-reaching recommendations that puts him almost completely in sync with industry demands. The report, which Weatherley says is intended to stimulate debate, begins with praise for Google for “engaging positively” during its creation. Its recommendations are directed at all search engines, but as the market leader Google is called on to show leadership. Where Google goes, others will follow, Weatherley believes. Search results – demoting illegal sites The music and movie industries have long complained that illegal content is too easy to find and for a long time they’ve been putting Google under pressure to do something about that. Weatherley believes that by working with two existing sources of information – Google’s Transparency Report and the recently formed Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s infringing site “blacklist” – Google has a ready formula at hand. The BPI’s input suggests that when a search engine has received 10,000 infringement notices for a site, that site should no longer appear on the first page of search results. Any that receive 100,000 notices should no longer appear in the first 10 pages. However, it’s envisioned that “certificates” could be handed out to some sites to help them avoid being relegated – more on that later. Voluntarily complying with site-blocking court orders In the UK around 30 ‘pirate’ sites are now blocked via the UK’s major ISPs after both the BPI and MPA went to court to obtain injunctions. While these injunctions only legally apply to their formal targets (the ISPs), in future Weatherley would like Google to acknowledge the existence of injunctions by immediately removing the affected sites from all search results. The MP acknowledges that this may require a change in the law. Accepting takedown notices for AutoComplete terms For some time Google has been accepting applications from rightsholders to remove “infringing” terms from its AutoComplete service. Weatherley now wants to see this process formalized. “Given that Google has accepted that Autocomplete for pirate sites should not occur, it seems uncontroversial to recommend that steps are taken to continue to ensure this does not happen,” he writes. AutoComplete takedown notices should be included in Google’s Transparency Report, the MP says. Incorporating “Trust Marks” and “Warnings” to inform consumers The idea here is that somehow Google will consider the reputation of a site when formulating its algorithms and when it presents its search results. “Trust Marks” would be used to denote a legal and licensed resource while “Warnings” would be used to highlight an illegal site. The exact process through which a site could become trusted is unclear, but suggestions from the BPI indicate that a “certificate” could be obtained from its own Music Matters project to indicate that a resource is “clean”. Similar certificates could be obtained by sites that receive a lot of takedown notices but operate legally (YouTube for example) so that they are whitelisted by Google and not downgraded in search results. In terms of warning against unlicensed sites, rightsholders suggest that Google takes note of PIPCU’s “pirate” site blacklist by either negatively marking affected sites in search results or removing them completely. Referencing a TorrentFreak article published last month reporting how Google had signaled that Demonoid was a potentially dangerous site, Weatherley said Google can do more to protect consumers. “Google has not only proven in relation to malware on certain torrent sites that it has the technical capability within its systems to deliver consumer messaging in search listings, but that such messages can be an effective deterrent to consumers,” the MP explains. Licensed services should do more to help themselves in search results While the music and movie industries complain endlessly about “pirate” results appearing above their own licensed content, not much time is given to explaining why that’s the case. Weatherley reveals that Google has made a request for movie and music streaming services behind a paywall to allow Google to crawl their sites in order for consumers to be able to see them in results. For some services, apparently that’s not currently allowed. “Google maintains that it is perfectly possible to create crawlable pages for each movie or album title in a security-friendly way. I am told by rights holders that there are potential security issues around making licensed services crawlable and they have concerns with this proposal,” Weatherley notes. Conclusion While Weatherley is currently praising Google in order to keep the tone positive and the discussion flowing, the IP advisor clearly believes that the search engine is capable of assisting rightsholders much more but is failing to do so. The MP’s report has no official standing in respect of government policy but it addresses most if not all of the movie and music industries’ main problems with Google. Expect this document to become a point of reference in the months to come. Source: TorrentFreak
  20. A little more than four months into the year, Google has already processed copyright takedown requests for a record-breaking 100 million search results. This is a significant increase compared to last year, and the end of the takedown surge is not yet in sight. In the hope of steering prospective customers away from pirate sites, copyright holders are overloading Google with DMCA takedown notices. These requests have increased dramatically over the years. In 2008, the search engine received only a few dozen takedown notices during the entire year, but today it can process in excess of a million in a single day. Adding up the numbers reported in Google’s Transparency Report, we found that since January 2014 Google has been asked to remove over 100,000,000 links to infringing webpages. Most of the reported webpages have indeed been removed and no longer appear in Google’s search results. The massive surge in removal requests is controversial. It’s been reported that some pages contain no copyrighted material, due to mistakes or abuse, but are deleted nonetheless. Google has a pretty good track record of catching these errors, but since manual review of all links is undoable, some URLs are removed in error. On the other end of the spectrum, copyright holders are also far from satisfied. While Google does its best to comply with its obligations under current law, some industry groups claim that the search giant can and should do more. For the RIAA the staggering amount of takedown requests only confirms the notion that the process isn’t very effective. Brad Buckles, RIAA executive vice president of anti-piracy, previously suggested that Google should start banning entire domains from its search results. “Every day produces more results and there is no end in sight. We are using a bucket to deal with an ocean of illegal downloading,” Buckles said. “Isn’t it simply logical and fair at some point to conclude that such links are infringing without requiring content owners to keep expending time and resources to have the link taken down?” Google is doing its best to address the concerns of copyright holders. A few months ago the company released a report detailing the various anti-piracy measures it uses. However, the company also stressed that copyright holders can do more to prevent piracy themselves. Without legal options it’s hard to beat unauthorized copying, Google argues. “Piracy often arises when consumer demand goes unmet by legitimate supply. As services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated, the best way to combat piracy is with better and more convenient legitimate services,” the company explained. “The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can.” The apparent standoff has also piqued the interest of U.S. lawmakers. Earlier this year the House Judiciary Subcommittee had a hearing on the DMCA takedown issue, and both copyright holders, Internet service providers, and other parties are examining what they can do to optimize the process. In the meantime, the avalanche of removal requests is expected to continue, at an increasing rate. Source: TorrentFreak
  21. In one of the harshest moves a search engine can take against a site, during the past few hours Google flagged torrent site Demonoid as likely to harm users' computers. After arriving at the conclusion that malicious third-party ads had caused the problem, Demonoid responded by disabling every single advert on its site until further notice. In recent months, entertainment industry bodies have been working hard to ensure that companies become more aware of where their ads are being placed, with the aim of strangling site finances and eliminating any idea that brands are in partnership with pirates. Just recently the tactic branched out into describing most leading pirate sites as malware havens, a claim that some described as exaggerated. However, during the past few hours a pretty big and related drama hit semi-private torrent site Demonoid. After being off-air for 20 months after hosting trouble in Ukraine, the site relaunched this March. Former members of the site were pleased to find that their old logins worked and ever since the site has been trying to get back to its former glory. Yesterday, however, problems with third party adds provoked a harsh response from Google, one that continues today. Those searching for Demonoid are currently warned in search listings that “This site may harm your computer” and even those who choose to ignore the warnings aren’t allowed to access the site via Google. Instead they are diverted to the following page: Google’s advisory reports that after checking 59 pages on the site during the past 90 days, 7 pages resulted in “malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent”, something likely to worry most users. Google goes on to report that the malicious software in question was hosted on another domain – adv-inv-net.com – and further investigation reveals that the site is the source of a huge number of problems. According to malware analysis the Romanian-hosted domain carries 177 exploits and 2 trojans, which together have led to the infection of not only Demonoid, but more than 2,000 other sites. Aware that Demonoid along with thousands of other sites had been blacklisted by most search engines and web browsers, Demonoid’s operators announced that all advertisements would be removed from the site until the problem could be identified. “We run content from a lot of ad networks in our ad banners, and a lot of banners from each,” the management team said in an announcement. “One of those banners started serving malware, so we disabled all ads until we are 100% sure of the culprit and get it removed. We are also taking the proper steps to get us out of all the blacklists.” This latest advertising controversy comes just a week after the publication of a report which claimed that 90% of the Internet’s top 30 “pirate” sites contain malware, “potentially unwanted programs”, or items designed to deceive. While seemingly not Demonoid’s fault in this instance, one has to question if these kinds of malware events will become more prevalent in the months to come. With entertainment industry companies scaring away advertisers, options for torrent and streaming site operators to do business with ‘up-front’ ad networks are likely to narrow, forcing them further into the arms of those who carry the kind of junk experienced in the past 24 hours. Source: TorrentFreak
  22. Google is often admonished by music companies for not making pirate music harder to find, but does it deserve that criticism? Tests carried out by TorrentFreak on the Billboard Top 10 reveal that in the majority of cases finding authorized content is quicker and easier than finding pirate downloads. For the past several years Google has been under the hammer for supposedly providing easy access to pirated content online. Criticism has flooded in on both sides of the Atlantic, with record labels and their Hollywood counterparts blaming the search giant for infringement they have little do with. The argument is that Google should take responsibility for what the wider Internet is doing by doctoring its search results and AutoSuggest/AutoComplete features in order to promote legal content while relegating pirate sources to the poor leagues. The record labels claim that little has happened on this front so we decided to carry out some tests of our own. How quickly could we find both legal and illegal popular music using only Google’s search and suggestions? The rules Searching for the current Billboard Top 10, we carried out two searches for each track. One would aim to find infringing content and the other only legal options. We entered no more letters of a song than needed and stopped when Google began guiding us with its AutoSuggest options which we accepted. Any more than ten keypresses or clicks overall would be classed as an abort. Track #1 – Fancy – Iggy Azalea Featuring Charli XCX Search for unauthorized download Google Search Entry – “fancy_” AutoSuggest offered – “fancy mp3″ Best offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9 Search for authorized track Google Search Entry – “fan” AutoSuggest offered – “fancy” Best Offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #2 Rude – MAGIC! Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “rud” AutoSuggest offered – “rude mp3″ Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “rud” AutoSuggest offered – “rude magic” Best Offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #3 Problem – Ariana Grande Featuring Iggy Azalea Search for unauthorized download Google Search Entry – “probl” AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande mp3″ Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7 Search for authorized track Google Search Entry – “prob” AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #4 – Am I Wrong – Nico & Vinz Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “am_” AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong mp3″ Best offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “am i w” AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong nico and vinz” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8 Winner: Pirate option (MP3Skull) ————————————————————————————— #5 Stay With Me – Sam Smith Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “stay_w” AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me sam smith mp3″ Best offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “stay” AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #6 Wiggle – Jason Derulo Featuring Snoop Dogg Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “wigg” AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo mp3″ Best offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “wig” AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #7 – Summer – Calvin Harris Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “summer_” AutoSuggest offered – “summer calvin harris mp3″ Several ‘pirate’ results failed. Total keypresses and clicks before listening = Aborted (more than 10) Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “sum” AutoSuggest offered – “summer” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #8 All Of Me – John Legend Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “all_o” AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend mp3″ Best Offer: MP3Fon (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “all_of_me_j” AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 13 Winner: Pirate option (MP3Fon) ————————————————————————————— #9 – Maps – Maroon 5 Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “maps_maro” AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5 mp3″ Best offer: MP3Skull (second result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 12 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “maps_m” AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5″ Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— #10 – Turn Down For What – DJ Snake & Lil Jon Search for unauthorized download Google Search entry – “turn_d” AutoSuggest offered – (turn down for what mp3) Best offer: MP3Skull (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9 Search for authorized track Google Search entry – “turn” AutoSuggest offered – “turn down for what” Best offer: Vevo (top result) Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6 Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube) ————————————————————————————— Conclusions From the above results we can see that when using only a song title and then taking Google’s suggestions, most of the time those searching for pirate content will take longer to access it than those looking to go legal. However, what we’re talking about here is a difference of a handful of clicks, which is hardly the accessibility chasm the RIAA and BPI were aiming for. Pressuring Google and sending millions of DMCA takedown notices every month appears to have had little effect on pirate availability. Also, it’s also worth noting that if the YouTube/Vevo results were ignored in our tests or removed from Google results altogether, finding legal alternatives would become much harder since iTunes and similar sites are rarely, if ever, on the first page of Google results following either a ‘pirate’ or ‘legal’ search for music. Google has told the record labels that they need to do something about that themselves, by making their sites more crawlable, but it appears that security concerns have hindered progress on that front to the point that sites like MP3Skull with relatively tiny budgets can beat them at every turn. It’s difficult to blame anyone but the labels and their partners for that problem. Source: TorrentFreak
  23. Google has removed all links to Bayfiles, the file-hosting service created by the Pirate Bay's founders. For reasons unknown, people searching for the site can no longer reach it through the search engine. The site's operators are puzzled, but say that the change has very little impact on visitor numbers. Nearly three years ago Pirate Bay founders Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde launched Bayfiles, a new file-sharing venture. The site has been growing ever since and has accumulated a steady user base. Instead of using P2P transfers, Bayfiles users can upload and download large files directly from the site. Besides some issues with their payment provider, Bayfiles hasn’t run into any significant problems to date. However, very recently the site suffered a setback after it became impossible to reach through Google. Without explanation, Google wiped all of the tens of thousands of Bayfiles links from its search index. The search results below show that the file-hosting service is no longer featured as the top result and a more specific search reveals that all of the site’s URLs have been wiped. No Bayfiles in Google TorrentFreak spoke with the Bayfiles team who have no clue what’s going on. Their robots.txt allows the site to be indexed and other search engines such as Bing do so just fine. “Perhaps they don’t like filehosting services that can’t be cut off from their payment provider, as we no longer have paid accounts,” the Bayfiles team suggests. Bayfiles never had a lot of traffic from search engines so there is no major impact on visitor numbers. Still, it’s never good to have your entire service removed by Google. The most likely explanation is that Google found Bayfiles guilty of some sort of violation for which the site has been removed from Google as a penalty. What type of violation that might be remains a mystery to the site’s operators. Penalty or not, Bayfiles will continue to serve files all around the world, free of charge. Source: TorrentFreak
  24. RIAA CEO Cary Sherman wants search engines to take significant action against pirate sites. The RIAA says Google should implement special anti-piracy measures as copyright holders can't properly take down constantly reappearing links to infringing content. "It’s like 'Groundhog Day' for takedowns," Sherman says. In a written statement to a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the DMCA takedown system, RIAA CEO Cary Sherman informed lawmakers about the ongoing struggle against online piracy. According to Sherman the current takedown system is not sufficient to deal with the problem. One of the main issues is that several foreign websites simply ignore takedown notices, or put the links back under a slightly modified URL. “The Pirate Bay website, for example, simply ignores takedown notices. Mp3skull, we believe, immediately repopulates, with modest changes in the address, all of its links that are contained within our takedown notices,” Sherman explains. For the RIAA and other copyright holders there are no legal options to deal with these rogue sites. However, the music industry group believes that Google and other search engines can do more to prevent people from accessing pirate sites through their services. Sherman explains that Google deserves credit for processing takedown notices swiftly, but since the search engine limits the number of takedown requests copyright holders can send, it’s impossible for them to target piracy properly. “Google places a numerical limit on the number of search queries we can make to find the infringing content and, as a result, we can only take down a tiny fraction of the number of infringing files on each pirate site, let alone on the Internet generally,” Sherman notes. “Google claims that they ‘receive notices for far less than 1% of everything hosted and indexed by Google.’ Well, that’s largely because their search query limitations provide us with a bucket to address an ever-replenishing ocean of infringement,” he adds. Regardless of whether Google ups its limits, the DMCA takedown process is still not sufficient for the RIAA. Sherman explains that several sites simply change the links, which are then available through Google and other search engines a day later. “All those links to infringing music files that were automatically repopulated by each pirate site after today’s takedown will be re-indexed and appear in search results tomorrow. Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It’s like ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns,” Sherman says. “Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It’s like ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns.” The RIAA believes that it’s time for search engines to strike a deal with copyright holders to address this issue. The industry group wants Google to end the piracy “whack-a-mole” by going beyond the legal takedown requirements. “Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It’s like ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns.” ”Ensure that when links to content are taken down, the same content on the same site is not continuously re-indexed when repopulated by the pirate site, rendering the takedown process useless,” RIAA’s CEO suggests. RIAA’s checkboxes In addition the RIAA wants Google to lift all takedown limits, push down pirate sites in search results, promote legal sites and services, remove pirate terms from Autocomplete and completely remove “repeat infringers” from their search index. Google, however, clearly disagrees with the RIAA. Katherine Oyama, Google’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel, appeared before the House Judiciary Subcommittee yesterday and stressed that the DMCA process is working just fine. She noted that some copyright holders abuse the process, but in general it works. Bouncing the ball back into the RIAA’s court, Oyama noted that copyright holders should consider better SEO if they want to improve their search rankings. Other than that, they should focus on offering consumers what they want; decent legal alternatives. “The best way to battle piracy is with better, more convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy, as services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated. The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can,” Oyama said. If anything, the above shows that Google and industry group such as the RIAA have a long way to go before they are on the same page. Both would like to address online piracy issues without new legislation, but in the near future they are not expected to reach consensus on the measures to take. Source: TorrentFreak
  25. An announcement later this week will confirm Google as a member of a new coalition to cut off "pirate" sites from their ad revenue. Following similar initiatives in the U.S. and UK, a Memorandum of Understanding between the online advertising industry and the music and movie industries in Italy will signal a creation of a central body to tackle the piracy issue. There is a theory in the entertainment industries that if running torrent, file-sharing or streaming sites makes no commercial sense to their operators, then they will soon wither and die. Every week there are often aggressive opinions published on why cutting off revenue is perhaps the most powerful weapon in the online piracy war. This crescendo has already grown into notable action in both the United States and United Kingdom. Later this week a new initiative will be presented to the public, and the fact that Google is onboard will no doubt help to promote the completeness of the effort. Continuing the European effort after the UK, this Thursday in Rome, Italy, a coalition of key advertising players plus the main anti-piracy groups of the music and movie industries will announce the signing of a new Memorandum of Understanding. The announcement, taking place at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s IAB Events 2014 conference, will see the IAB, music industry anti-piracy group FPM and Fapav (the Italian MPAA) announce a new coalition to deprive revenue from pirate sites. Speaking with TorrentFreak, Enzo Mazza, chief at music industry group Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana (FIMI), explains how the initiative will work. “IAB Italia, the local branch of Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has been very active in discussing with music and movie associations a self-regulation approach to promote an effective action to prevent advertisers from posting ads on rogue sites,” Mazza explains. “IAB already educates marketers, agencies, media companies and the wider business community about the value of interactive advertising. In our goal the agreement should promote a cooperation in order to implement effective measures to prevent ads being placed on rogue sites and to quickly remove any ads that are found to have been so placed.” Having Google on board is also a plus, Mazza says. “Google is already doing a lot of efforts in this area and the company promoted a strategy so-called ‘follow the money’ which we consider part of a general strategy based on enforcement on one side, self-regulation and legal offer on the other side.” Mazza says that a joint committee compromised of MoU signatories will be created to oversee the technical implementation of the project, with consideration given to how similar schemes are operating elsewhere. This will include the auditing of advertising companies and networks for compliance with a code of conduct respectful of intellectual property rights. On a day-to-day basis the committee will receive complaints from rights holders detailing the appearance of advertising on “rogue sites” and take action on these with brokers and the advertisers themselves. Whether they will be able to cut through the complex and labrynthine mechanisms often employed by such sites will remain to be seen. The Memorandum of Understanding has been passed to the Italian competition authority for approval and while the project is clearly in the early stages, momentum is clearly there. Source: TorrentFreak
×
×
  • Create New...