Month: April 2019

With streaming now becoming the preferred method of obtaining video content for huge numbers of Internet users, sales of capable hardware are on the rise.

Devices like Amazon’s Fire TV Stick, Google’s Chromecast, Roku’s Streaming Stick, Apple TV, and the Nvidia Shield are now the tools of choice for millions of users. But while the above are completely legal to market and own, that isn’t always the case for alternatives from less well-known suppliers.

In most countries, people are able to buy streaming-capable (often Android-based and/or WiFi-enabled) devices over the Internet that don’t comply with local laws, and not just because they’re supplied ready-configured for piracy.

In Europe, for example, electronic devices must comply with strict safety, health, and environmental requirements (such as limits on external radio interference), before being able to display the ‘CE’ mark as required by law.

For those produced or sold in the United States, electronic devices can obtain certification and show the FCC logo (above right) providing that, among other things, the interference they cause is under the limits approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

According to the FCC, however, many devices being marketed, sold and used in the country do not meet the standards. In an Enforcement Advisory published this week, the FCC states that engaging in any of the above activites in respect of non-compliant devices is illegal and subject to punishment.

“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) has observed an increase in the marketing of Video TV Set-Top Boxes, designed to stream Internet-based content, that do not comply with FCC equipment marketing requirements,” the advisory reads.

“Anyone marketing or operating noncompliant devices should stop immediately. Violators may be subject to substantial monetary penalties that could total more than $147,000 per violation.”

In this case, the term ‘marketing’ is rather broad and defined by the FCC as importing, distributing, advertising or offering non-compliant devices for sale or lease. The $147,000 figure certainly looks scary too, but that’s only likely to apply to serious offenders (see: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(9) )

While even non-compliant devices can be used for otherwise legal purposes (streaming Netflix or Amazon Prime, for example), the advisory comes at a time when large numbers of companies are selling devices configured for piracy purposes (or targeted at piracy-focused buyers), which is likely responsible for a decent slice of the observed increase in marketing.

So-called “fully loaded boxes” grant access to large volumes of copyrighted content in breach of copyright law and have attracted the negative attention of global anti-piracy coalition the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE).

However, simply using non-compliant devices in the United States is also illegal, meaning that many thousands – potentially millions – of people who obtained their streaming devices from non-certified sources in the Far East or even the United States, for example, are breaking the law.

While sellers of illegal devices could indeed become targets for the FCC at any time, it seems unlikely that individuals will be affected as resources are limited are there are much bigger fish to fry.

According to the FCC, its Enforcement Advisories are “designed to educate businesses about and alert consumers to what’s required by FCC rules, the purpose of those rules and why they’re important to consumers, as well as the consequences of failures to comply.”

With that advice out of the way, users can find out whether their set-top boxes are legal (in terms of hardware at least) by referring to page 2 of the FCC’s Enforcement Advisory (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Apple sieht keine Probleme bei der Untersuchung der niederländischen Regulierungsbehörde rund um den App Store. Die Niederländer prüfen derzeit, ob das Unternehmen seine Marktmacht im App Store missbräuchlich nutzt. Derzeit laufen mehrere Untersuchungen in dieser Richtung gegen Apple. (Apple, Spotify)

From a new piracy mystery to Disney's big announcement, read about this and more in our roundup for the week ending April 12, 2019

Continue reading ...

Microsofts E-Mail-Dienst Outlook.com wurde teilweise gehackt. Für drei Monate hatten Unbefugte Zugriff auf Kundendaten. Wie viele Nutzer davon betroffen sind, sagt der Anbieter nicht. Kunden werden zum Zurücksetzen des Passworts aufgefordert. (Security, Microsoft)

Testflug erfolgreich, aber niemand weiß, wozu er dient. Das größte Flugzeug der Welt ist erstmals geflogen. Die Raketen, die damit gestartet werden sollten, werden aber nicht gebaut. (Paul Allen, Raumfahrt)

In Kürze gibt es wohl eine dritte Version von Amazon Music. Das Unternehmen will eine werbefinanzierte Variante seines Musikstreamingdienstes auf den Markt bringen. Noch vor Ostern ist die Antwort auf Spotify Free geplant. (Amazon Music, Amazon)

“Stream ripping, which is the process of creating a downloadable file from content that is available to stream online, is now the most prevalent form of online music copyright infringement,” music group IFPI declared in 2017.

The statement was in response to the shutdown of once-leading YouTube-ripping site YouTube-MP3, which previously helped millions of visitors convert videos into downloadable MP3 tracks, to the detriment of artists, according to IFPI.

But despite the fall of this giant, stream-ripping is still very high on the music piracy agenda. Where torrent sites and file-sharing applications were once the primary targets for legal action, stream-ripping sites now appear to be more of a concern for record labels everywhere.

In 2018, a group of major record labels with assistance from the RIAA targeted two of the larger stream-rippers that remained online following YouTube-MP3’s demise.

FLVTO.biz, 2conv.com, and their owner Tofig Kurbanov were sued for copyright infringement at a Virginia District Court. The case was dismissed since there was no evidence they targeted the United States. The labels quickly appealed, so the case continues. Similar platforms collapsed more quickly.

But the big elephant in the room is why the labels aren’t (to coin a well-worn piracy phrase) trying to cut off the head of the hydra? These ‘ripping’ sites aren’t the source of the content because in most cases, YouTube is.

Equally, when people access platforms like Spotify and Deezer using readily available tools and services to rip MP3s to their own hard drives, why aren’t the leaks getting plugged by those respective companies?

This week, TorrentFreak asked all three services for their opinions on stream-ripping and why the phenomenon is still a problem, not only for the record labels but also for them. After all, everyone involved loses revenue when users don’t return to a streaming service for repeat performances of musical works.

“We are deeply committed to ensuring YouTube is not a home for copyright-infringing content and have invested significantly in teams and technology to combat this issue,” a YouTube spokesperson told TF.

“YouTube’s Terms of Service prohibit the downloading or copying of videos without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective copyright licensor, and we take technical steps to prevent this behavior.”

Given the size and relatively open nature of the YouTube platform, it’s no surprise that the Google-owned company is at the center of the stream-ripping controversy. But ripping from YouTube is only part of the problem.

Premium and ad-supported services such as Spotify and Deezer are also targeted by people ripping streams directly to their machines. In these cases, third-party platforms aren’t even necessary since readily-available user-side tools to do the work.

Both companies have taken action in the past (including using technical means and via DMCA notices (1,2,3) against circumvention tools) but we were keen to hear about the problems from the companies themselves.

Unlike YouTube, which responded extremely quickly, both Spotify and Deezer failed to respond to our requests for comment, so we remain in the dark on the companies’ policies and whether or not they intend to tighten the noose moving forward.

That being said, could stream-ripping be less of a problem than it once was?

PRS for Music is a UK organization that pays royalties to its members when their content is performed, broadcast, streamed, downloaded, reproduced, played in public, or used in film and TV.

In July 2017, PRS published a report (which in part relied on data supplied by anti-piracy firm MUSO) indicating that between January 2014 and September 2016, the use of stream-ripping services increased by 141.3%.

However, more recent data supplied by MUSO to TorrentFreak suggests that the use of stream-ripping services might be on the wane. In January 2018, the company logged 743.6 million visits to stream-ripping platforms but by January 2019, that figure had decreased to 589.4 million visits.

It should be noted some popular ‘ripping’ platforms, such as the 200 million visits per month OnlineVideoConverter, have uses other than simply ripping MP3s from YouTube videos. However, given the rest of the top 10 most-visited platforms are more tightly focused, the decline does seem genuine.

Quite why this is the case isn’t clearly defined but IFPI’s recently published Global Music Report 2019 may contain a few subtle hints. The group reported that total revenues for 2018 were US$19.1 billion, a music market growth of 9.7%. And legal streaming played a huge part.

“Streaming revenue grew by 34.0% and accounted for almost half (47%) of global revenue, driven by a 32.9% increase in paid subscription streaming,” IFPI reported.

“There were 255 million users of paid streaming services at the end of 2018 accounting for 37% of total recorded music revenue. Growth in streaming more than offset a 10.1% decline in physical revenue and a 21.2% decline in download revenue.”

Whether or not former stream-ripping users are now choosing to “go legal” will remain to be seen but in the meantime, it’s clear the record labels consider the activity to be unacceptable.

In a statement, the BPI told TorrentFreak that music fans often don’t realize that by ripping music from YouTube “they are also ripping off artists” while also helping stream-ripping services to break the law.

“Stream ripping deprives artists and the creative businesses that invest in their talent of significant income, and causes real harm – not least to up and coming musicians who rely on that revenue. Sites shouldn’t be able to so easily encourage and dupe users with such casual slogans as… ‘convert videos in one click’,” the BPI commented.

“The music industry is letting music fans know that stream rippers are illegal by taking legal action and closing down the sites – like we did with YouTube-MP3. Stream rippers also circumvent the protections put in place by YouTube and we hope that, in addition to our work, YouTube itself takes further action.”

YouTube, for its part, says it is doing all it can to prevent people from ripping content from its site.

“Once notified of an infringing tool or service that violates our Terms of Service, we take action, including disabling access to the YouTube API. In addition, we work with the music industry to identify and respond to stream ripping entities,” the company told us.

So at least for now, stream-ripping remains a problem for the music industry but with greater uptake of comprehensive and reasonably-priced legal alternatives, the decline in their use could be set to continue.

Some people argue that there’s nothing better than having permanent MP3 files on their own machine, particularly when they come for free. Those files can’t be taken away, at the whim of a label or delivery platform.

But for the most part, interaction with huge local MP3 libraries (unless downloaders put in considerable labeling and organizational effort) offers a second-rate experience, crucially lacking in advanced discovery methods.

In addition to the music, of course, perhaps it is the developing curation systems of legal services that are attracting consumers to today’s legal offerings? If so, that, in turn, will lead to a natural decline in use of ripping services because, quite frankly, they aren’t known for being particularly innovative.

So that brings us to the conclusion that whether or not technical measures are put in place to prevent their operation, stream-ripping services will continue to be out-classed by their legal rivals. They may be free but at some point, an outstanding user experience will become the irresistible draw.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Electronic Arts hat erste Details zu Star Wars: Jedi - Fallen Order veröffentlicht. Das Actionspiel mit einem jungen Padawan namens Cal Kestis soll Nahkämpfe mit dem Lichtschwert und eine spannende Handlung bieten. Ein Multiplayermodus ist nicht geplant. (Star Wars, Electronic Arts)