Month: February 2021

US-based broadcaster DISH Networks has put a lot of effort into tracking down outfits and individuals who distribute the company’s content without permission.

This has resulted in dozens of lawsuits through which the company won millions of dollars in damages. However, the piracy problem isn’t going away.

Behind the scenes, DISH continues to explore new options to tackle copyright infringement. This includes an entirely novel anti-piracy system where copyrighted content is managed and secured through a blockchain.

Blockchain Anti-Piracy Patent

The company summarized its idea in a patent application filed two years ago. After going through all the necessary processes, the “anti-piracy management” patent is now officially granted. Right on time, it seems.

The broadcaster notes that “millennials” and the “next generation” are increasingly turning their backs on the traditional bundle service system, opting for less-costly alternatives instead.

These cheaper alternatives include the consumption of unlicensed content on or through legitimate services including YouTube, Facebook, Telegram and many others.

“Over the past five years, content piracy has dramatically disrupted the media industry on a global scale and the decentralized nature is increasingly becoming more complex and difficult to manage and monitor,” DISH writes.

These legitimate platforms accept takedown notices and some even offer advanced copyright filters. While that is laudable, for copyright holders it can be a nightmare to police all these sites and work with different systems that all come with unique requirements.

A Unified System That Anyone Can Use

This is the problem DISH hopes to tackle with its own system. Instead of dozens of unique anti-piracy tools, it proposes a unified anti-piracy platform.

“Traditional anti-piracy technologies to the fast-changing and growing decentralized content sharing industry are becoming archaic in containing content piracy. With many different anti-piracy methods, a reformulation is needed that minimizes divergent approaches and unifies participants on a common protocol,” DISH explains.

The newly patented system tackles several problems that exist in current anti-piracy measures. For example, it doesn’t require copyright holders to actively search for pirated content. At the same time, there’s no need for resource-intensive watermarking technologies either.

If ‘copyright-friendly’ sites and services adopt DISH’s anti-piracy platform, all copyright information will be managed and verified on the blockchain, which is scalable and can be used by anyone.

Patent descriptions are far from a complete product, but there are enough details available to get an impression of how one could work. We’ll try to summarize some of the key elements, starting from the copyright holder’s perspective.

Ledger Keeps Track Of Rights

When a copyright holder uploads or shares a new file to the anti-piracy system it will generate a new entry in the distributed blockchain ledger. This will link it to the rightful owner in exchange for a small fee.

After that, the system assigns a unique identifier that will be embedded in the file, which is added to the content repository.

If this file is then uploaded to a third-party site that uses the same system, it can check with the ledger to confirm that the uploader has the necessary rights. If so, that will create a separate entry in the ledger but otherwise, access will be blocked.

The system also allows for various roles to be added to the ledger. In addition to the copyright holder, creators or subscribers can be assigned certain rights that match their status. Needless to say, when users try to upload files that are owned by others, they will be blocked from doing so.

DISH believes that its system fixes shortcomings in the current anti-piracy landscape which is expensive and inefficient.

Simple, Cheap, But Just an Idea

“The facility connects and unifies participants–creators, content owners, distributors and other network participants–across the world and standardizes the anti-piracy protocol. It eliminates the cost of complexity and redefines the traditional boundaries of the anti-piracy industry,” DISH notes.

While this all sounds positive, it’s not clear how this will work in practice. For one, DISH would have to unite many major tech companies and competitors to adopt its system, which will be a challenge.

That aside, one has to wonder about practicality. Would it mean that everyone who uploads something has to pay a fee, even for homebrew cat videos? And what if someone modified a video to create a different signature to evade being blocked?

We have no idea if DISH plans to turn this idea into reality or what that would look like. Several others have come up with blockchain-based copyright management systems in the past but to date, none have taken off.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

In many ways the U.S. is seen as the standard when it comes to copyright law. In some cases, it almost appears to be an export product in itself.

However, there are some American copyright elements that remain fairly unique.

Statutory Damages

For example, one concept that doesn’t exist in most countries is statutory damages. This allows copyright holders to request up to $150,000 per infringed work in the US, without having to prove actual losses.

This option was implemented in addition to ‘actual damages’ to allow rightsholders to recoup losses, whatever the circumstances may be. In the U.S. this has become standard procedure in most cases, which can result in monetary awards that are a multitude higher than the actual damage.

For example, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was famously ordered to pay $1.5 million for 24 songs she shared via Kazaa years ago. That amount was eventually reduced to $222,000 by the appeals court, but it’s still hard to see how two dozen downloads caused that much in losses.

If anything, the potential of these astronomical damages awards can be seen as a giant stick, which copyright holders can use to their advantage. That’s a problem, according to seasoned copyright lawyer Bill Patry.

Patry has a well-established track record when it comes to copyright. After being admitted to the bar forty years ago, he served as copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, held a position as a law school professor, to then become a prominent copyright counsel at Google.

A few days ago Patry appeared as a guest on the “Whose Song Is It Anyway?” podcast, hosted by Dr Hayleigh Bosher and lawyer/producer Julius O’Riordan, better known as “Judge Jules.” The trio discusses a wide variety of topics, including an intriguing question at the end.

What Bill Patry Would Change

The hosts ask Paltry what he would pick if there was one thing he could change in copyright law going forward. While some may have to give that some thought, Patry immediately replies with statutory damages.

“Statutory damages I think are a big problem. Because they’ve enabled an industry of trolls,” he says.

Google’s copyright counsel is not against statutory damages by definition. There are instances where they work well. For example, in a situation where there aren’t any sales yet, or if rightsholders have to spend a disproportionate amount of resources to enforce their rights.

However, when it comes to online copyright infringement, these statutory damages have facilitated an industry of copyright trolls. These trolls file numerous lawsuits, often without rock-solid evidence.

Enabling Copyright Trolls

“What’s happened in the digital world is that, because the volume of alleged infringements can be high, it becomes an attractive thing for copyright trolls,” Patry notes.

As an example, Patry mentions a lawyer in the Southern District of New York who filed thousands of cases and was recently disbarred. While no name is mentioned, this description clearly points to Richard Liebowitz. That’s an extreme example, but troll-type practices are also common in piracy lawsuits.

These trolls are helped by statutory damages because they give rightsholders a massive ‘stick.’ They threaten their targets with damages of up to $150,000 for using a single image or sharing a single film, to then settle for a few thousand dollars.

A few thousand dollars is cheap in comparison to $150,000 but often much higher than the actual losses, if there’s any real damage at all.

“That has become an industry. Where more than half of all copyright suits filed in the US are copyright troll suits,” Patry says.

“So that’s the single change I would make. Dealing with statutory damages, which has become a weapon, rather than what it should be, a way to get copyright owners some money when their work has been infringed,” he adds.

Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel doesn’t go into detail about what he would change, but it would likely involve some modification to prevent statutory damages from being abused. For now, however, it appears that US lawmakers are only trying to feed the trolls, he says.

CASE Act is a Problem Too

Patry mentions that the CASE Act, which was passed as part of the spending bill in December, is only going to make matters worse.

Short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” establishes a copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office. This offers an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, with maximum damages of $30,000 per case.

This law aims to make it cheaper to resolve issues for all parties involved, but Patry fears that it’s an open invitation to trolls.

“That’s a copyright troll act to me,” he says. “The Copyright Office is going to regret the sponsorship of that I think because they’re going to be overwhelmed by suits.

“There may be 50,000 of those suits filed per year and there going to be three judges deciding that? I don’t think so. I don’t think you can decide 50,000 cases in one year with three judges,” Patry adds.

This is fierce criticism coming from a top lawyer at Google, but it’s not new. Several experts have issued similar warnings in the past. Time will tell whether those are warranted or not.

The full episode of “Whose Song Is It Anyway?” which was highlighted by IPKAT is available below. The section about statutory damages starts around 41:00.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Die Verbreitung von mutmaßlich gefährlichen Mutationen soll mit harten Einreisebeschränkungen eingedämmt werden. Sie gelten für Reisende aus Tschechien, der Slowakei und Tirol. Aus der EU und den betroffenen Ländern kommt scharfe Kritik

Amazon’s Fire TV devices ship with a custom, Android-based operating system called Fire OS. But it’s possible to replace the default software with something that looks and functions a bit more like Google’s Android TV. Xda-developers forum member burcbuluklu has posted a guide outlining the process for doing that with an Amazon Fire TV Stick […]

The post Give an Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K an Android TV-style makeover appeared first on Liliputing.

Read 17 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 33 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 15 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Eine Million Autos von Mercedes müssen in die Werkstatt, weil das eCall-System bei Unfällen falsche GPS-Daten des Standorts übermitteln kann. (Mercedes Benz, Technologie)