Month: July 2024

Die FAA verhängt ein vorläufiges Startverbot für die Falcon-9-Raketen von SpaceX. Zuerst muss die Ursache von der Panne am 11. Juli 2024 ergründet werden. (Falcon-9, Raumfahrt)

Stellantis hat ein Patent für ein Lenkrad eingereicht, mit dem Pedale überflüssig werden und Fahrer bremsen und beschleunigen können. (Auto, Politik)

Künstliche Intelligenz könnte ein Lösungsansatz für den Personalmangel im öffentlichen Sektor sein, heißt es in einer Studie. (Arbeit, KI)

Um Raketen zu bauen und landen zu lassen, braucht es wohl kein Studium der Raumfahrt. Das beweisen zumindest zwei junge Männer unabhängig voneinander. (Raumfahrt, Falcon-9)

At a time when many pirate sites seem increasingly elusive, oftentimes almost transient as domains, identities, and branding, come and go, static enforcement targets are in limited supply.

The same can’t be said for internet service providers and over the past few years, several have paid a very steep price. Not for engaging in piracy per se, but for not responding aggressively enough against subscribers mostly accused of repeatedly pirating movies and music.

Just before the weekend, dozens of record labels including UMG, Warner, and Sony, filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon at a New York federal court. In common with previous lawsuits that accused rivals of similar inaction, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless), stand accused of assisting subscribers to download and share pirated music, by not doing enough to stop them.

Can You Hear Me Now?

The labels’ complaint introduces Verizon as one of the largest ISPs in the country, one that “knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates.”

Knowledge of infringement, the labels say, was established at Verizon over a period of several years during which it received “hundreds of thousands” of copyright notices, referencing instances of infringement allegedly carried out by its subscribers. The complaint cites Verizon subscribers’ persistent use of BitTorrent networks to download and share pirated music, with Verizon allegedly failing to curtail their activity.

“While Verizon is famous for its ‘Can you hear me now?’ advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs’ notices and buried its head in the sand,” the labels write.

“Undeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices continued to use Verizon’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them.”

Through this lawsuit, which references piracy of songs recorded by artists including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and others, the labels suggest that Verizon will have no choice but to hear them now.

“Scope of Repeat Infringement on Verizon’s Network is Staggering”

The labels claim that since early 2020, their representatives have sent more than 340,000 infringement notices to Verizon. These notifications “clearly and unambiguously” advised the ISP of its subscribers’ “blatant and systematic use of Verizon’s Internet service” to download, copy, and share the plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings via BitTorrent networks.

“The scope of repeat infringement on Verizon’s network is staggering. Thousands of Verizon subscribers were the subject of 20 or more notices from Plaintiffs, and more than 500 subscribers were the subject of 100 or more notices,” the complaint claims.

“One particularly egregious Verizon subscriber was single-handedly the subject of 4,450 infringement notices from Plaintiffs alone.”

Egregious infringers

The plaintiffs state that Verizon acknowledged receipt of the notices, sent by third party vendor OpSec Online LLC, but in terms of response, chose to ignore them, “willfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.”

The complaint makes it clear that if Verizon wanted to avoid being held liable for subscribers’ violations, termination of repeat infringers’ accounts or similar meaningful action would’ve been appropriate steps to take. Instead, it’s alleged that Verizon “routinely thumbed its nose” in response to complaints, while continuing to provide service to subscribers known to be serial infringers.

“In reality, Verizon operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement,” the plaintiffs add, noting that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from subscribers’ repeated infringements, by failing to take action as part of an effective repeat infringer program.

Repeat Infringer Program is Ineffective

The plaintiffs note that Verizon’s published “Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy” prohibits subscribers from using the ISP’s systems or servers in a manner that infringes third party intellectual property rights. The policy further states that under Section 512 of the DMCA, Verizon terminates repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances.”

One of the problems, the labels claim, is that Verizon actively attempts to thwart copyright holders’ efforts to inform the ISP of infringement.

The complaint describes Verizon’s Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program as having “onerous conditions” that require participants to pay burdensome fees for automated processes such as IP address lookups and notice forwarding. Rightsholders are further required to waive their copyright claims, indemnify Verizon, while keeping the terms of the program confidential, the labels say.

Rightsholders who prefer not to utilize this program are required to send notices via email. The labels claim these notices aren’t reviewed, processed, forwarded to subscribers, or even tracked to ensure that repeat infringers are handled in line with Verizon policy.

Given that Verizon’s response to infringement notices falls short of what the labels consider to be the threshold for avoiding liability, they predict that the consequences of the ISP’s “support of and profit from infringement are obvious and stark.”

Claims For Contributory and Vicarious copyright Infringement

Attached to the complaint, Exhibit A contains a non-exhaustive list of the plaintiffs’ copyright works allegedly infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. The document is over 400 pages long, with each track listed representing potential liability for Verizon as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, the complaint notes.

This inevitably leads to claims based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed on Count I (contributory infringement). The statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work is also applied to Count II (vicarious infringement), based on the labels’ claim that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringements of its subscribers.

The labels’ complaint, filed at a New York federal court last Friday, can be found here (pdf)

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

Valve hatte 2021 eine Personalstärke von 336 Angestellten: Ein Gerichtsdokument ermöglicht seltene Einblicke auf Interna des Steam-Betreibers. (Valve, Steam)

Dieser Workshop vermittelt die Grundlagen des Informationssicherheits-managements nach ISO/IEC 27001 und bereitet auf die entsprechende Zertifizierungsprüfung vor. Mit Prüfung und auch in Englisch. (Golem Karrierewelt, Unternehmenssoftware)

Googles Mutterkonzern könnte in Kürze den Kauf von Wiz ankündigen. Das Start up sichert Entwicklungsarbeiten in der Cloud ab. (Alphabet, Google)

Under a concept known as Released Time for Religious Instruction (RTRI), children in the United States are permitted to leave school to receive religious instruction elsewhere.

Whether an hour a day or once per week, the fact that young students are taken off-site is a component of the law.

Use of the tax-supported public school system, to finance and help spread whatever beliefs various groups may have, is disallowed under the First Amendment. To remain constitutional, RTRI takes place away from public school premises, with school teachers and authorities’ involvement limited to releasing children for instruction.

The current controversy stems from the nature of the ‘religious instruction’ children receive when not being supervised by their school or their parents. In this matter, rapidly expanding religious group LifeWise provides the instruction. However, a quest by local parents, to raise public awareness of the nature of that instruction, has led to one of their group in Indiana being sued by LifeWise for copyright infringement.

Copyright Complaint, Religious Controversy

Filed in the Northern District of Indiana (Fort Wayne Division) on July 2, 2024, plaintiff LifeWise Inc. of Indiana describes itself as a “privately funded Christian non-profit” that provides “religious instruction in traditional, character-based, Biblical teaching.” Such instruction is only provided to children after permission has been obtained from their parents and, in line with the law, instruction only takes place away from school premises, LifeWise notes.

On the website of Parents Against LifeWise, an opposition group formed to raise awareness of LifeWise and its alleged practices, the religious group is described in somewhat different terms. We’ll touch on the more serious allegations later on.

“The business model consists of a motivational ‘character-based’ school assembly where religion is hinted at but never fully addressed, followed by the invitation to join them again ‘after school’ for a more ‘gospel-centric outreach concert’. Sometimes these are held off school property at a local church but often they are held in the same place the assembly was during the school day,” the statement reads.

The basis for the lawsuit, which targets Parents Against LifeWise member Zachary Parrish, is relatively straightforward. The organization’s religious instruction program, marketed as LifeWise Academy, has a curriculum which outlines the religious instruction children receive.

In the belief that the curriculum contains information supportive of the group’s cause and in the wider public interest, it’s alleged that Parrish set out to obtain a copy. The curriculum later appeared on the Parents Against LifeWise website and on Facebook; that attracted the negative attention of LifeWise and allegations of copyright infringement. In the complaint, how the curriculum was allegedly obtained is painted as a serious matter too.

Obtaining the Curriculum

“Upon Information and belief, Mr. Parrish used unauthorized means to obtain the password-protected LifeWise Curriculum only accessible by paid employees of LifeWise who have been issued login credentials,” the allegations begin.

“Defendant Zachary Parrish posed as a LifeWise volunteer to gain access to internal LifeWise documents. Mr. Parrish published internal LifeWise documents and the entire copyrighted LifeWise Curriculum on his website [Parents Against LifeWise]. LifeWise tried multiple times to reason with Mr. Parrish to remove the LifeWise Curriculum from his Website. But Mr. Parrish refused,” the complaint notes.

At the time of writing, items from the curriculum are plainly visible in search engine results. A cursory test suggests that access to at least some of those files requires no credentials. Whether these are official uploads is unclear but even in a limited way, files are available to the public.

The LifeWise complaint puts forward its own theory to explain what motivated Parrish to obtain the curriculum. Noting that the Parents Against LifeWise Facebook group has already attracted around 2,500 members since it was created September 1, 2023, LifeWise is of the belief that “Mr. Parrish does not support LifeWise’s mission.”

“[H]is goal was to gather information and internal documents with the hope of publishing information online which might harm LifeWise’s reputation and galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise Academy chapters in their communities,” the religious group claims.

“[A]fter submitting his fraudulent volunteer application, Mr. Parrish improperly gained access to LifeWise’s information storage systems, downloaded internal LifeWise documents, and posted them to his Website. He also improperly obtained and posted a digital copy of the entire LifeWise Curriculum.”

Complaint: Parrish Was Motivated By His Opposition

The complaint makes no mention of why any of the documents, whether allegedly sought or obtained, might have the potential to harm LifeWise’s reputation. Likewise, there’s nothing to explain how a curriculum may have the potential to “galvanize parents” against LifeWise Academy providing religious instruction to local children.

In its complaint the plaintiff makes clear that Parrish is considered an opponent who strongly objects to LifeWise’s mission. The Parents Against LifeWise website leaves no doubt that the conclusion drawn by LifeWise is 100% accurate. The opposition group claims that LifeWise Academy “is spreading Evangelical Christianity, Purity Culture, Christian Nationalism, homophobic beliefs, transphobia, and hateful rhetoric to the youngest of our children.”

The veracity of these claims plays no part in the copyright lawsuit, but they do serve to underline the only aspect of this matter upon which both the plaintiff and defendant agree; Parrish strongly opposes LifeWise’s mission to reach “every unchurched child in America.” To that background, LifeWise’s complaint alleges that Parrish’s “exploitation of the Registered Copyrighted Works” was willful and in disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

At this point there appears to be a shift in direction. LifeWise says that on information and belief (something it has been told, that it believes is true), Parrish’s “intentional infringing conduct” was undertaken to “reap the creative benefit and value associated with the Registered Copyrighted Works” without obtaining authorization from LifeWise or incurring the costs that would entail.

Having established Parrish’s opposition to LifeWise and its religious teachings, reaping “creative benefit” from the curriculum seems quite the stretch. The allegation that licensing costs were avoided carries much more weight, however.

Parents Denied Access to the Curriculum

The Parents Against LifeWise website makes it crystal clear that formal requests to gain access to curriculum documents have repeatedly failed. The complaint itself acknowledges that while a summary of the curriculum is made available to the public, access to the full curriculum is restricted by licensing; further restrictions LifeWise may choose to impose include “the right to deny permission altogether.”

Who owns the copyrights to the curriculum and how licensing is structured, may be a point of interest for the defense. According to LifeWise, the “curriculum exists as part of a license agreement between Lifeway Publishing and LifeWise Academy.”

According to the LifeWise website, the above licensing agreement prevents it from making the curriculum available to the public. In the complaint, LifeWise states that the terms of the curriculum licensing agreement include “its exclusive use in the United States and within a classroom setting with student learners.”

This seems to suggest an extremely restrictive licensing arrangement which makes no provision for parents to make an informed decision on consent; at least based on a review of the curriculum outside the classroom setting described by LifeWise. Before moving on, it’s worth considering who holds the power in respect of this specific copyrighted work.

This Will Require Some Untangling

In its complaint, LifeWise claims to be the copyright owner of the curriculum, which provides it with control over the use of this copyrighted work and the right to file a copyright complaint.

However, the certificate of registration at the Copyright Office for the ‘LifeWise Curriculum’ states that Stand for Truth Inc. is the author, not LifeWise, Inc., the plaintiff in this case. In the complaint, LifeWise explains that Stand for Truth, Inc. was named as the author of the work on July 8, 2021, but subsequently changed its corporate name to LifeWise, Inc. on September 7, 2022.

If we are to assume that LifeWise Inc. is indeed the copyright owner, another aspect needs to be considered first. According to the complaint, the LifeWise Curriculum is actually a derivative work, i.e it is based on and contains other copyrighted content. And so it begins.

“LifeWise entered into a white label copyright licensing agreement with Lifeway Christian Resources (‘Lifeway’) to develop the LifeWise Curriculum based on Lifeway’s copyrighted Sunday school curriculum called the Gospel Project,” the complaint explains.

A white label agreement is commonly used to govern the supply of goods or services by one party, for use by another party in their course of their own business, oftentimes under their own branding.

A Completely Baffling Conclusion

If our understanding thus far is correct, a summary seems to go something like this:

Christian publishing company LifeWay owns or owned the copyright in a curriculum called the Gospel Project. Stand For Truth, Inc. obtained permission to create a derivative work called the LifeWise Curriculum, which it registered as an independent copyright work at the Copyright Office, without referencing the work it was derived from.

Stand For Truth, Inc. later became LifeWise, Inc. and now declares itself the copyright owner of the copyrighted work in suit. The restrictive licensing agreement referenced above, precludes LifeWise, the alleged copyright owner, from using the curriculum outside a classroom setting. LifeWise (the claimed copyright owner) admits in the complaint that it pays Lifeway a licensing fee for use of the curriculum under the terms of the white label agreement mentioned earlier.

This strongly suggests that LifeWise pays a licensing fee to a third party, for the privilege of obtaining strictly limited access and subsequent use of its own copyrighted work.

Parrish Will Probably Mount a Fair Use Defense

A series of documents reviewed by TorrentFreak reveal events leading up to the lawsuit and the subsequent fallout. A DMCA takedown notice filed at WordPress owner Automattic led to Parrish filing a DMCA counter notice. That required LifeWise to file a lawsuit or face the curriculum being reinstated after initially being taken down.

After the complaint was filed, Parrish quickly received an offer to settle. We don’t know what terms were offered, or if terms were even discussed. If settling this matter involves a component that requires Parrish and the wider group to stop creating awareness for their cause, we get the impression that will be of no interest.

Parrish has not directly confirmed that he will rely on a fair use defense, although that is clearly one of the options available. In general, confidence on the legal aspects is high. In respect of the group’s mission, “to shed light on LifeWise Academy and show people the truth about the organization,” determination remains rock solid.

Zach Parrish: The Group and Its Mission

“When I started learning about this program in 2021, I saw the nationwide trajectory [LifeWise] were on. I was screaming into the abyss on Reddit trying to warn people. There was no information, resource, help or support for me regarding LifeWise,” Parrish informs TorrentFreak.

“[Parents Against LifeWise co-founder] Molly Gaines and I have organized this movement to be that for other parents, teachers, and all citizens who care about the separation of church and state or the extreme Christian Nationalist agenda, because make no mistake, LifeWise is simply an arm of that much larger picture.”

Parrish pulls no punches when describing the nature of the religious group and its “very Evangelical doctrine.” Those who wish to read the opinions of Parents Against LifeWise can do so in depth on the group’s website, and on the GoFundMe page set up for legal defense.

In this matter, access to the curriculum is viewed as fundamental for parents and the wider community.

“The bottom line is if our schools are made to provide curriculum to parents, any organization that is coming in and asking parents to sign over the custodial rights of their children from the public schools to these 3rd party volunteers, the curriculum they’re teaching should also be available,” Parrish insists.

“It’s absurd to claim parents, clergy members, teachers and school admin are simply not allowed to review curriculum, and LifeWise refuses every time someone asks. They provide a 27-page sample, and this is part of their claim, my counter is that 27-pages does not cover a 12-year curriculum.”

A copy of the LifeWise complaint is available here (pdf)

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

Das Training von KI-Modellen kostet viel Zeit und braucht enorm teure Hardware. Goldman Sachs zweifelt daran, ob das überhaupt sinnvoll ist. (KI, Nvidia)