Nintendo Shuts Down “Donkey Kong” Remake For Roku

When Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto came up with Donkey Kong more than 35 years ago, gaming was still a niche pastime.

How different is that today, where the average household has more than a handful of devices that play computer games.

While the gaming industry has come a long way, plenty of people are still drawn to older arcade games. There’s something nostalgic about their look and feel, and thanks to emulators and remakes, they are still widely available.

Donkey Kong, for example, could be played on Roku thanks to the efforts of Marcelo Lv Cabral, who released an unofficial version of the Nintendo game using the original art and music.

The software developer, who lives in Arizona, started the project as a hobby to improve his programming skills. He previously did the same with other games such as Lode Runner and Prince of Persia.

When he finished the project he released the code on GitHub, incuding a disclaimer stating his intent.

“This source code was developed as a programming exercise, it is not being used for profit or any kind of financial gain, all assets and images belong to the original copyright owner,” it read.

Screenshot from the GitHub page

While nostalgic arcade game fans will appreciate the effort, Nintendo was not amused. This week the gaming giant instructed the developer platform GitHub to remove the repository, which it did.

“The reported repository contains a recreation of Nintendo’s Donkey Kong video game for Roku, which was created and published without Nintendo’s authorization,” Nintendo writes in its takedown notice. “Please immediately remove the repository.”

We reached out to the developer, who is disappointed to see his code taken down. While he realizes that Nintendo owns the rights to Donkey Kong, his code was unique and completely custom.

“I believe they have the rights related to the name and the assets, but not to my code. That was completely done by myself, no porting of any Nintendo code, but GitHub took down everything,” Cabral tells TorrentFreak.

“What I don`t understand is why only my project was removed, if you search Donkey Kong on the GitHub you`ll found several other remake projects,” he adds.

The developer doesn’t plan to challenge the takedown. In theory, he could re-release the code with unique artwork and a new name, but Cabral prefers to focus on other projects for the time being.

He is currently working on a remake of the game Moon Patrol for example, also for the Roku platform.

While Nintendo has every right to take the infringing Donkey Kong content offline, some might feel that the company should allow fans a little more leeway for their fan-made projects.

However, judging from recent history, this is idle hope. In recent years the company has taken several fan-projects offline, including a popular JavaScript-powered Game Boy Advance emulator

Luckily for Cabral, his Lode Runner and Prince of Persia remakes are still available, for now. These games were originally released by Brøderbund Software, which no longer exists.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2sa2DSD
via IFTTT

HTPC News Roundup 2017 Wk 26: PlayStation Vue review, Best Kodi subtitle addons, System76 unveils new Linux OS

Welcome to the htpcBeginner HTPC News Roundup 2017 Wk 26. This week saw developments in the Kodi illegal addon crackdown, Plex automatic quality adjustments, and a new Linux OS from System76. Read on for the latest in HTPC news and updates! htpcBeginner Recap In case you missed them, here is a recap of all our […]

HTPC News Roundup 2017 Wk 26: PlayStation Vue review, Best Kodi subtitle addons, System76 unveils new Linux OS is a post from htpcBeginner.

from htpcBeginner http://ift.tt/2tsGkvH
via IFTTT

200 ‘Pirate’ Media Player Sellers Shut Down After EU Court Ruling

The huge increase in popularity of piracy-configured set-top boxes has been nothing short of amazing over the past 18 months.

According to numerous reports, their use has become somewhat of an epidemic in Europe, prompting concern from anti-piracy organizations across the continent.

One group at the forefront is Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, who took a case against a seller of ‘pirate’ boxes all the way to the European Court of Justice – and won.

Handed down in April, the decision concluded that selling devices pre-configured for piracy (such as those loaded with Kodi and third-party addons) is illegal under EU law.

While news of the decision was never likely to reach all sellers of ‘pirate’ boxes, those under the impression that sales occupied some kind of gray area were quickly corrected. That resulted in some sellers exiting the market and others changing the way they operate, such as selling boxes blank and expecting users to configure them themselves.

Due to the locality of the original case, sellers in the Netherlands were always likely to feel the impact of the ECJ ruling most initially, particularly with BREIN breathing down their collective necks. That has just been effectively confirmed by the anti-piracy group, with the news that around 200 ‘pirate’ media player sellers have ceased trading since the decision.

“This is a mixture of individuals and companies,” BREIN chief Tim Kuik informs TorrentFreak.

Kuik says that the sales were taking place via dedicated websites, online stores such as Amazon and eBay, plus social platforms including Facebook.

In an indication of how much in demand the devices are, the BREIN chief says that most of the sellers sold nothing else but ‘pirate’ boxes, to sustain a business or bring in some extra cash for the entrepreneurial individual.

Kuik says that 150 out of the 200 entities were contacted directly by BREIN, who advised them to stop what they’re doing to avoid things getting out of hand.

“Typically we send an explanatory letter with a cease and desist undertaking. Everyone gets the opportunity to settle. Most take it,” Kuik says.

Of course, others choose not to comply with BREIN’s demands, so for them, things have the potential to get more expensive and complicated, given the right conditions.

“We have now entered a phase in which willful infringement is assumed and this means no more warnings. If no settlement is reached the case will go to court. We have a couple of court cases under preparation,” Kuik explains.

This could mean a contested court case, which following the ECJ ruling is likely to end badly for anyone selling boxes filled with pirate addons. That being said, settling with BREIN can be expensive too.

“Providers who settle with BREIN pay up to 10,000 euros. Those who continue can count on a multiple of that. There’s a raw deal for those who think they’ll just get a warning. That time is now over.”

For those who ignore BREIN’s overtures and threats of legal action, there’s also the possibility of a case going ahead without them even being there.

“Under certain circumstances, an ex parte court order may be applied for,” Kuik concludes.

While the legality of such devices now seems completely clear in the EU, the market is yet to settle. Given past innovations, it’s more than likely that new avenues will open up to re-test the law to a new breaking point – and beyond.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2s8ujY5
via IFTTT

Having issues with free Movies, TV Shows, Sports, IPTV Streams?

Due to recent legal action against websites and repositories promoting add-ons that use pirated (stolen) media content, many have shut-down their services. This is driving a large increase in users complaining in our forums and on social media about their "Kodi Box" no longer working.

Team Kodi (the unpaid volunteers who create Kodi and manage the Kodi name/brand for love not money) have never manufactured a "Kodi Box" and we do not supply media content. People who have been selling "Fully Loaded" devices on Amazon, eBay, Facebook, etc. or provide "IPTV Streaming" services with impossibly $cheap subscriptions to improbably $large selections of Movies, TV shows, Live Sports, etc. are not affiliated with the Kodi project. They are criminals who profit from piracy.

Criminals selling "Pirate Boxes" are supported by an ecosystem of "Kodi News, Help and Tips" websites promoting "the best Kodi add-ons" and services (for pirated/stolen content) and YouTube clowns who output an endless stream of diarrhoea that redefines #fakenews. These sites and channels do not exist because their operators are die-hard Kodi fans who want to help the community. They exist because the operators are die-hard fans of the advertising revenues being generated. Local courts must decide whether they are also criminals, but it is obvious they sustain and profit from piracy.

If you post in our forums or social channels about a pirate add-on or streaming service not working please expect ZERO sympathy or support. We don't care. We care less than not caring. We don't care biggly. And to counter a popular comment; if the Kodi userbase drops a huge percentage because pirate services flee or die, we're fine with that. Kodi has been around since 2002 and we are not going to implode or disappear (unlike the pirates). Life will be a little quieter, but less time spent on self-entitled whiny people means more time writing great code and having fun. We're okay with that too.

CALLING ALL LEGAL ADD-ON AUTHORS!

If you've had enough of dubious repo operators and want to free your legal add-ons from the taint of piracy, please come talk to us. Team Kodi wants to help you publish in the official Kodi repo where add-ons are seen by all Kodi users. In the past we've been a little slow to approve changes, and sometimes we've been critical about coding. There are still some ground rules on submissions but we now aim to publish updates in under 24 hours and the purpose of code review is to coach not chastise. In recent months we cleaned up our submission process and invited popular add-on authors to join Team Kodi or Slack to improve communication and collaboration. If you have legal add-ons that need a permanent home, let's chat.

from Kodi News http://ift.tt/2tq3rpU
via IFTTT

New Lawsuit Demands ISP Blockades Against ‘Pirate’ Site Sci-Hub

Founded more than 140 years ago, the American Chemical Society (ACS) is a leading source of academic publications in the field of chemistry.

The non-profit organization has around 157,000 members and researchers publish tens of thousands of articles a year in its peer-reviewed journals.

ACS derives a significant portion of its revenue from its publishing work, which is in large part behind a paywall. As such, it is not happy with websites that offer their copyrighted articles for free, such as Sci-Hub.

The deviant ‘pirate site’ believes that all scientific articles should be open to the public, as that’s in the best interest of science. While some academics are sympathetic to the goal, publishers share a different view.

Just last week Sci-Hub lost its copyright infringement case against Elsevier, and now ACS is following suit with a separate case. In a complaint filed in a Virginia District Court, the scientific society demands damages for Sci-Hub’s copyright and trademark infringements.

According to the filing, Sci-Hub has “stolen Plaintiff’s copyright-protected scientific articles and reproduced and distributed them on the Internet without permission.”

ACS points out that Sci-Hub is operating two websites that are nearly identical to the organization’s official site, located at pubs.acs.org.sci-hub.cc and acs.org.secure.sci-hub.cc. These are confusing to the public, they claim, and also an infringement of its copyrights and trademarks.

“The Pirated/Spoofed Site appears to almost completely replicate the content of Plaintiff’s website. For example, the Pirated/Spoofed Site replicates webpages on ACS’s history, purpose, news, scholarship opportunities, and budget,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

“Each of these pages on the Pirated/Spoofed Site contains ACS’s Copyrighted Works and the ACS Marks, creating the impression that the Pirated/Spoofed Site is associated with ACS.”

From the ACS complaint

By offering its articles for free and mimicking the ACS website, Sci-Hub is in direct competition with the scientific society. As a result, ACS claims to lose revenue.

“Defendants are attempting to divert users and revenues away from ACS by replicating and distributing ACS’s Copyrighted Works without authorization,” the complaint reads.

With the lawsuit, ACS hopes to recoup the money it claims to have lost. It’s likely that the total damages amount will run in the millions. However, if the defendants stay out of reach, this might be hard to collect.

Perhaps this is why the current lawsuit has included a request for a broader injunction against Sci-Hub. Not only does it ask for domain name seizures, but the scientific society also wants search engines, web hosting companies and general Internet providers to block access to the site.

“That those in privity with Defendants and those with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, and domain name registries cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendants engage in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, and distribution of the ACS Marks or ACS’s Copyrighted Works,” it reads.

If granted, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast would have to block users from accessing Sci-Hub. That’s a big deal since pirate site blockades are not common in the United States.

It might very well be that ACS is not expecting any compensation for the alleged copyright and trademark infringements, but that the broad injunction is their main goal. If that is the case, this case could turn out to be more crucial than it looks at first sight.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2toWrdA
via IFTTT

Canada’s Supreme Court Orders Google to Remove Search Results Worldwide

Back in 2014, the case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack saw two Canadian entities battle over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products.

Google had no direct links to the case, yet it became embroiled when Equustek Solutions claimed that Google’s search results helped to send visitors to websites operated by the defendants (former Equustek employees) who were selling unlawful products.

Google voluntarily removed links to the sites from its Google.ca (Canada) results, but Equustek demanded a more comprehensive response. It got one.

In a ruling handed down by a court in British Columbia, Google was ordered to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling had worldwide implications.

Google filed an appeal hoping for a better result, arguing that it does not operate servers in British Columbia, nor does it operate any local offices. It also questioned whether the injunction could be enforced outside Canada’s borders.

Ultimately, the British Columbia Court of Appeal disappointed the search giant. In a June 2015 ruling, the Court decided that Google does indeed do business in the region. It also found that a decision to restrict infringement was unlikely to offend any overseas nation.

“The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect,” Justice Groberman wrote.

Undeterred, Google took its case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping to limit the scope of the injunction by arguing that it violates freedom of expression. That effort has now failed.

In a 7-2 majority decision released Wednesday, Google was branded a “determinative player” in facilitating harm to Equustek.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders,” wrote Justice Rosalia Abella.

“We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.”

With Google now required to delist the sites on a global basis, the big question is what happens when other players attempt to apply the ruling to their particular business sector. Unsurprisingly that hasn’t taken long.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which supported Equustek’s position in the long-running case, welcomed the decision and said that Google must “take on the responsibility” to ensure it does not direct users to illegal sites.

“Canada’s highest court has handed down a decision that is very good news for rights holders both in Canada and around the world. Whilst this was not a music piracy case, search engines play a prominent role in directing users to illegal content online including illegal music sites,” said IFPI CEO, Frances Moore.

“If the digital economy is to grow to its full potential, online intermediaries, including search engines, must play their part by ensuring that their services are not used to facilitate the infringement of intellectual property rights.”

Graham Henderson, President and CEO of Music Canada, which represents Sony, Universal, Warner and others, also welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that online service providers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal activity that they facilitate; on the contrary, they have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the Internet from becoming a black market,” Henderson said.

But for every voice of approval from groups like IFPI and Music Canada, others raised concerns over the scope of the decision and its potential to create a legal and political minefield. In particular, University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist raised a number of interesting scenarios.

“What happens if a Chinese court orders [Google] to remove Taiwanese sites from the index? Or if an Iranian court orders it to remove gay and lesbian sites from the index? Since local content laws differ from country to country, there is a great likelihood of conflicts,” Geist said.

But rather than painting Google as the loser in this battle, Geist believes the decision actually grants the search giant more power.

“When it comes to Internet jurisdiction, exercising restraint and limiting the scope of court orders is likely to increase global respect for the law and the effectiveness of judicial decisions. Yet this decision demonstrates what many have feared: the temptation for courts will be to assert jurisdiction over online activities and leave it to the parties to sort out potential conflicts,” Geist says.

“In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada has lent its support to global takedowns and vested more power in Internet intermediaries, who may increasingly emerge as the arbiters of which laws to follow online.”

Only time will tell how Google will react, but it’s clear there will be plenty of entities ready to test the limits and scope of the company’s responses to the ruling.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2tnZW3z
via IFTTT

6 Ways to store local media for streaming on Kodi, Plex, and more

Media center options like Kodi and Plex are increasingly popular. Especially with a rise on cord cutting, media server alternatives offer increased flexibility. But methods like Plex, Kodi, and Emby rely on user provided content. Rather than streaming from external sources, these software choices put an onus on local file playback. There’s no one way […]

6 Ways to store local media for streaming on Kodi, Plex, and more is a post from htpcBeginner.

from htpcBeginner http://ift.tt/2sp5NBv
via IFTTT

Operation ‘Pirate On Demand’ Blocks Pirate IPTV Portals

Via cheap set-top boxes, IPTV services (Internet Protocol TV) allow people to access thousands of live TV channels in their living rooms for a nominal fee.

Some of these services are available for just a few euros, dollars or pounds per month, often in HD quality.

While service levels can vary, some of the best also offer comprehensive Video On Demand (VOD), with hundreds and in some cases thousands of movies and TV shows on tap, supported by catch-up TV. Given their professional nature, the best IPTV products are proving a real thorn in the side for rights holders, who hope to charge ten times the money while delivering a lesser product.

As a result, crackdowns against IPTV providers, resellers and other people in the chain are underway across the world, but Europe in particular. Today’s news comes from Italy, where Operation “Pirate On Demand” is hoping to make a dent in IPTV piracy.

The operation is being headed up by the Guardia di Finanza (GdF), a department under Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance. Part of the Italian Armed Forces, GdF says it has targeted nine sites involved in the unlawful distribution of content offered officially by local media giants Mediaset and Sky.

The authorities received assistance of a specialized team from the local anti-piracy group DCP, which operates on behalf of a broad range of entertainment industry companies.

According to GdF, a total of 89 servers were behind the portals which together delivered an estimated 178 terabytes of pirate content, ranging from TV shows and sports, to movies and children’s entertainment.

The nine portals are in the process of being blocked with some displaying the following message.

Seizure notice on the affected sites

The investigation began in September 2016 and was coordinated by Giangiacomo Pilia, the prosecutor at the Cagliari Court. Thus far, two people have been arrested.

A person arrested in the Varese area, who police believe is the commercial director of an illicit platform, has been charged with breaching copyright law.

A second individual arrested in Macerata is also suspected of copyright offenses, having technically managed the platform. Computer equipment, decoders, smart cards, and other electronic devices were also seized.

In addition to blocking various web portals, measures will now be taken to block the servers being used to supply the IPTV services. The GdF has also delivered a veiled threat to people who subscribed to the illicit services.

“It is also in the hands of investigators the position of those who have actively accessed the platforms by purchasing pirated subscriptions and thus benefiting by taking advantage,” GdF said.

The moves this week are the latest to take place under the Operation “Pirate On Demand” banner. Back in March, authorities moved to shut down and block 15 portals offering illegal IPTV access to Mediaset and Sky channels.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2sRLVuh
via IFTTT

FACT Threatens Users of ‘Pirate’ Kodi Add-Ons

In the UK there’s a war going on against streaming pirates. At least, that’s what the local anti-piracy body FACT would like the public to know.

The popular media streaming platform Kodi is at the center of the controversy. While Kodi is perfectly legal, many people use it in conjunction with third party add-ons that offer pirated content.

FACT hopes to curb this trend. The group has already taken action against sellers of Kodi devices pre-loaded with these add-ons and they’re keeping a keen eye on developers of illicit add-ons too.

However, according to FACT, the ‘crackdown’ doesn’t stop there. Users of pirate add-ons are also at risk, they claim.

“And then we’ll also be looking at, at some point, the end user. The reason for end users to come into this is that they are committing criminal offences,” FACT’s chief executive Kieron Sharp told the Independent.

While people who stream pirated content are generally hard to track, since they don’t broadcast their IP-address to the public, FACT says that customer data could be obtained directly from sellers of fully-loaded Kodi boxes.

“When we’re working with the police against a company that’s selling IPTV boxes or illicit streaming devices on a large scale, they have records of who they’ve sold them to,” Sharp noted.

While the current legal efforts are focused on the supply side, including these sellers, the end users may also be targeted in the future.

“We have a number of cases coming before the courts in terms of those people who have been providing, selling and distributing illicit streaming devices. It’s something for the very near future, when we’ll consider whether we go any further than that, in terms of customers.”

The comments above make it clear that FACT wants users of these pirate devices to feel vulnerable and exposed. But threatening talk is much easier than action.

It will be very hard to get someone convicted, simply because they bought a device that can access both legal and illegal content. A receipt doesn’t prove intent, and even if it did, it’s pretty much impossible to prove that a person streamed specific pirated content.

But let’s say FACT was able to prove that someone bought a fully-loaded Kodi box and streamed content without permission. How would that result in a conviction? Contrary to claims in the mainstream press, watching a pirated stream isn’t an offense covered by the new Digital Economy Act.

In theory, there could be other ways, but given the complexity of the situation, one would think that FACT would be better off spending its efforts elsewhere.

If FACT was indeed interested in going after individuals then they could easily target people who use torrents. These people broadcast their IP-addresses to the public, which makes them easy to identify. In addition, you can see what they are uploading, and they would also be liable under the Digital Economy Act.

However, after FACT’s decades-long association with the MPAA ended, its main partner in the demonization of Kodi-enabled devices is now the Premier League, who are far more concerned about piracy of live broadcasts (streaming) than content made available after the fact via torrents.

So, given the challenges of having a meaningful criminal prosecution of an end-user as suggested, that leaves us with the probability of FACT sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In other words, scaring the public to deter them from buying or using a fully-loaded Kodi box.

This would also fit in with FACT’s recent claims that some pirate devices are a fire hazard. While it’s kind of FACT to be concerned about the well-being of pirates, as an anti-piracy organization their warnings also serve as a deterrent.

This strategy could pay off to a degree but there’s also some risk involved. Every day new “Kodi” related articles appear in the UK tabloid press, many of them with comments from FACT. Some of these may scare prospective users, but the same headlines also make these boxes known to a much wider public.

In fact, in what is quite a serious backfire, some recent pieces published by the popular Trinity Mirror group (which include FACT comments) actually provide a nice list of pirate addons that are still operational following recent crackdowns.

So are we just sowing fear now or educating a whole new audience?

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2sPM55s
via IFTTT

Intro to cord cutting: PlayStation Vue review – Channel lineups, DVR, and more

With cord cutting on the rise, many services offer the ability to stream sans cable. Sony introduced its PS Vue as a cable alternative. It’s a means to watch television without a satellite or cable subscription. However, is PlayStation Vue good? Find out in this intro to cord cutting PlayStation Vue review. [Read: Intro to […]

Intro to cord cutting: PlayStation Vue review – Channel lineups, DVR, and more is a post from htpcBeginner.

from htpcBeginner http://ift.tt/2ugBA8R
via IFTTT

Cox: Supreme Court Suggests That Pirates Shouldn’t Lose Internet Access

December 2015 a Virginia federal jury held Internet provider Cox Communications responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers.

The ISP refused to disconnect alleged pirates and was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement. In addition, it was ordered to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

Cox has since filed an appeal and this week it submitted an additional piece of evidence from the US Supreme Court, stating that this strongly supports its side of the argument.

Last week the Supreme Court issued an important verdict in Packingham v. North Carolina, ruling that it’s unconstitutional to bar convicted sex offenders from social media. The Court described the Internet as an important tool for people to exercise free speech rights.

While nothing in the ruling refers to online piracy, it could turn out to be crucial in the case between Cox and BMG. The Internet provider now argues that if convicted criminals have the right to use the Internet, accused file-sharers should have it too.

“Packingham is directly relevant to what constitute ‘appropriate circumstances’ to terminate Internet access to Cox’s customers. The decision emphatically establishes the centrality of Internet access to protected First Amendment activity..,” Cox writes in its filing at the Court of Appeals.

“As the Court recognized, Internet sources are often ‘the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge’.”

Citing the Supreme Court ruling, Cox notes that the Government “may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” This would be the case if entire households lost Internet access because a copyright holder accused someone of repeated copyright infringements.

“The Court’s analysis strongly suggests that at least intermediate scrutiny must apply to any law that purports to restrict the ability of a class of persons to access the Internet,” ISP writes (pdf).

In its case against BMG, Cox was held liable because it failed to take appropriate action against frequent pirates, solely based on allegations of piracy monitoring outfit Rightscorp. Cox doesn’t believe these one-sided complaints should be enough for people to be disconnected from the Internet.

If convicted sex offenders still have the right to use social media, accused pirates should not be barred from the Internet on a whim, the argument goes.

“And if it offends the Constitution to cut off a portion of Internet access to convicted criminals, then the district court’s erroneous interpretation of Section 512(i) of the DMCA — which effectively invokes the state’s coercive power to require ISPs to terminate all Internet access to merely accused infringers — cannot stand,” Cox writes.

Whether the Court of Appeals will agree has yet to be seen, but with the stakes at hand this issue is far from resolved. In addition to the case between BMG and Cox, the MPAA recently filed a lawsuit against Grande Communications, which centers around the same issue.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2seIuPH
via IFTTT