Lawmakers have introduced a new bill aimed at countering “foreign piracy sites,” as reported earlier by TorrentFreak. The bill, called the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors (Block BEARD) Act, would allow copyright holders to ask a federal court to block piracy websites.

The bipartisan legislation, led by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Adam Schiff (D-CA), marks yet another effort to block digital piracy in the US. Earlier this year, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in January, which would similarly compel ISPs to block foreign piracy websites.

Under the Block BEARD Act, a copyright holder who finds infringing materials on a foreign website can ask a court to designate the online location a “foreign piracy site.” The court will then consider whether the copyright holder is harmed by the infringing material, as well as whether the site is “primarily designed” for infringing the material in question.

If a court gives the website a “foreign piracy site” designation, copyright holders can petition the court to issue an order forcing ISPs to prevent users in the US from accessing it. It would also give site owners the opportunity to contest the order and “piracy site” designation.

Over a decade ago, efforts to block piracy sites in the US were met with internet-wide blackouts that occurred in protest of proposed laws. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said earlier this year that site-blocking laws are “dangerous, unnecessary, and ineffective,” as restricting access to one site can potentially harm thousands of others using the same cloud infrastructure host or IP address. The EFF also points out that site-blocking is “trivially easy to evade,” as “determined evaders can create the same content on a new domain within hours,” while users can use a virtual private network (VPN) to regain access.

Despite this, Schiff says the Block BEARD Act will “protect creators and consumers alike from foreign criminal enterprises seeking to steal our intellectual property and exploit Americans.”

Now that Meta has largely beaten an AI training copyright lawsuit raised by 13 book authors—including comedian Sarah Silverman and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Diaz—the only matter left to settle in that case is whether Meta violated copyright laws by torrenting books used to train Llama models.

In an order that partly grants Meta's motion for summary judgment, judge Vince Chhabria confirmed that Meta and the authors would meet on July 11 to "discuss how to proceed on the plaintiffs’ separate claim that Meta unlawfully distributed their protected works during the torrenting process."

Chhabria's order suggested that authors may struggle to win this part of the fight, too, due to a lack of evidence, as there has not yet been much discovery on this issue that was raised so late in the case. But he also warned that Meta was wrong to argue its torrenting was completely "irrelevant" to whether its copying of books was fair use.

Read full article

Comments

Internet service provider Frontier Communications agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by major record labels that demanded mass disconnections of broadband users accused of piracy.

Universal, Sony, and Warner sued Frontier in 2021. In a notice of settlement filed last week in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each side to pay its own fees and costs.

The record labels and Frontier simultaneously announced a settlement of similar claims in a Bankruptcy Court case in the same district. Frontier also settled with movie companies in April of this year, just before a trial was scheduled to begin. (Frontier exited bankruptcy in 2021.)

Read full article

Comments

You wouldn't steal a car, right? So you shouldn't pirate a movie, either.

That was the gist of the infamous "You Wouldn't Steal a Car" anti-piracy campaign from the Motion Picture Association of America during the mid-2000s. But questions are now being asked about just how carefully the MPAA followed its own anti-piracy principles when designing the campaign. Specifically: Did the MPAA rip off a key font?

The answer to that question is, like many matters involving typefaces, fonts, and copyright, somewhat complicated.

Read full article

Comments