Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items tagged legal streams

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Is Streaming Pirated Movies Illegal? EU Court to Decide - TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/egal-eu-court-to-decide-151012

is streaming movies illegal legal europe court decide

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Oct 15
     
    " Ernesto on October 12, 2015 C: 35 Breaking Seeking clarification, a Dutch court has referred several streaming related questions to the EU Court of Justice. The questions relate to a case between local anti-piracy group BREIN and a seller of so-called "pirate boxes" that come pre-loaded with streaming plugins. It is currently unclear whether streaming pirated movies is permitted under EU law."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Watching Pirate Streams Isn't Illegal, EU Commission Argues - TorrentFreak - 1 views

torrentfreak.com/al-eu-commission-argues-161001

watching pirate free streams legal European Commission

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Oct 16
     
    " Ernesto on October 1, 2016 C: 38 News This week the European Court of Justice heard a crucial case that will give more clarity on the infringing nature of unauthorized streaming. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN and the Spanish authorities argued that offering or watching pirate streams is a violation of the EU Copyright Directive. However, the European Commission believes that consumers who watch unauthorized streams are not breaking the law."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Spotify Helps to Beat Music Piracy, European Commission Finds - TorrentFreak [# ! Note] - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/ropean-commission-finds-151028

spotify helps beat music piracy European Commision finds so offer leggal affordable onlne services but ...

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 29 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 29 Oct 15
     
    " Ernesto on October 28, 2015 C: 30 Breaking New research published by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre shows that Spotify is helping to beat piracy. The researchers examined the effects of legal streaming on torrent downloads and found that Spotify displaces piracy. However, the overall impact on revenue is neutral as streaming also cuts legal track sales."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Free Music Streaming Site Revives Grooveshark Magic, And More - TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/oveshark-magic-and-more-150712

StreamSquid free music streaming site revives grooveshark magic

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Jul 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 13 Jul 15
     
    "StreamSquid is a new service which allows users to stream music for free, using legal services such as YouTube and Soundcloud as a backbone. The streaming platform has an intuitive user interface that allows people to discover new music and manage their own playlists. As an added bonus, former Grooveshark users can revive their playlists in just one click."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Anti-Piracy Group Admits Streaming Movies Isn't Illegal | TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/ing-movies-isnt-illegal-130624

streaming is legal isn' illegal

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Jun 13
     
    "BitTorrent sites are a long-established mechanism for downloading video of all kinds but in recent years streaming of content, YouTube-style, has increased massively in popularity. While plenty of authorized content is available via streaming, so are thousands of mainstream movies. Now the lawyer for Sweden's top anti-piracy company has admitted that using these sites to watch illicit content is not illegal and little can be done to stop it."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Most Europeans Download and Stream Pirated Movies | TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/d-stream-pirated-movies-140214

european commission download stream movies most europeans culture defend Defend Citizens' Rights

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 14 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 14 Feb 14
     
    " Ernesto on February 14, 2014 C: 19 Breaking Nearly 70% of all Europeans download or stream films for free, a new study from the European Commission reveals. The high costs of legal alternatives such as movie tickets and DVDs are the main justification, with release lags and limited availability also among the top reasons."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Viewing Pirated Streams is Not Illegal, German Govt Says | TorrentFreak - 1 views

torrentfreak.com/llegal-german-govt-says-140109

viewing streams not illegal legal piracy freedom access

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 10 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 10 Jan 14
     
    "The controversial RedTube case in Germany has provoked an interesting response from the Ministry of Justice. Although it says the question will ultimately be answered by the European Court, the Ministry says that it believes the mere viewing of copyright infringing streams is not illegal under current law."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

EUROPA - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Lack of choice driving demand for film downloads - 0 views

europa.eu/...press-release_IP-14-120_en.htm

europa lack choice driving demand film downloads

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 14 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 14 Feb 14
     
    "Lack of choice driving demand for film downloads Nearly 70% of Europeans download or stream films for free, whether legally or illegally, according to a new European Commission study on audience behaviour. It also finds that 40% of smartphone owners and more than 60% of tablet owners watch films on their devices. The study finds that this is not surprising because, while the public takes a lot of interest in films as a whole, the nearest cinema is often some distance from them and the choice on screen is frequently rather limited. It suggests that the European film industry can increase revenues by exploiting different types of profit-making online platforms to increase the availability of films and reach new audiences. The audience behaviour study is based on research, analysis and interviews with audiences in 10 Member States - the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Croatia, Romania, Lithuania and Denmark. Nearly 5 000 people aged from 4-50 were asked about their film habits and preferences."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Yes, Major Record Labels Are Keeping Nearly All The Money They Get From Spotify, Rather... - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...han-giving-it-to-artists.shtml

major record labels keeping money spotify instead giving artists who steal

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 06 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 06 Feb 15
     
    "from the who-are-you-blaming-now? dept A small group of very vocal musicians has decided that the new target of their anger, after attacking cyberlockers, search engines and torrent sites, should be legal, authorized streaming services. "
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Microsoft cobra por ceder información al FBI - 2 views

www.muycomputer.com/...microsoft-cobra-fbi

microsoft cobra información fbi

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 23 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 23 Mar 14
     
    " Sí, el gigante de Redmond hace caja cada vez que facilita información al FBI, algo que han confirmado desde la propia Microsoft, diciendo que las leyes estadounidenses permiten a las empresas el reembolso de los costes asociados al cumplimiento de órdenes legales que, en este caso, tienen por objeto la obtención de datos de clientes. Esto quiere decir que sí, efectivamente, Microsoft cobra, pero no en sentido estricto, ya de lo expuesto se deduce que sólo suple los costes de cumplir esas órdenes y ceder información al FBI, algo que a pesar de todo ha generado una cierta y comprensible controversia. Microsoft cobra por ceder información al FBI En teoría el coste por cada petición va desde los 50 hasta los 200 dólares, pero se realizan de forma muy frecuente y normalmente en grandes cantidades, lo que da lugar a facturas tan abultadas como la de la imagen que acompaña la noticia, que asciende a nada menos que 352.200 dólares. Categorías: Actualidad, Microsoft, Noticias Etiquetas: cobra, Datos, FBI, información, Microsoft, Seguridad, Tecnología « Anterior: Moto 360 tendrá pantalla OLED, carga inalámbrica y cristal de zafiro Siguiente: Microsoft ofrece descuentos de 100 dólares por abandonar Windows XP » Análisis Nokia Lumia 1320, análisis Nokia Lumia 1320, análisis Tras analizar el Nokia Lumia 1520, el phablet tope de gama de Nokia, ahora llega... Panasonic Lumix TZ60, análisis Panasonic Lumix TZ60, análisis No son tiempos fáciles para las compactas; el fenómeno smartphone,... FRITZ!Box 7490, análisis FRITZ!Box 7490, análisis Tras una primera toma de contacto con FRITZ!Box 7490, el... Monitor Philips 231C5, análisis Monitor Philips 231C5, análisis Philips 231C5 es un nuevo monitor táctil que destaca por... Más Análisis... MuyTV Smartwatch Motorola Moto 360 Nuevo WhatsApp Windows Phone Thumbnail Nuevo WhatsApp Windows Phone Tras la actualización del WhatsApp para Android, los responsables de... PC contra Xbox One en Ti
Paul Merrell

The FCC is about to kill the free Internet | PandoDaily - 0 views

pando.com/...bout-to-kill-the-free-internet

net neutrality FCC

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • The Federal Communications Commission is poised to ruin the free Internet on a technicality. The group is expected to introduce new net neutrality laws that would allow companies to pay for better access to consumers through deals similar to the one struck by Netflix and Comcast earlier this year. The argument is that those deals don’t technically fall under the net neutrality umbrella, so these new rules won’t apply to them even though they directly affect the Internet. At least the commission is being upfront about its disinterest in protecting the free Internet.
  • The Verge notes that the proposed rules will offer some protections to consumers: The Federal Communication Commission’s proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality, according to The Wall Street Journal. The rules will reportedly allow providers to charge for preferential treatment so long as they offer that treatment to all interested parties on “commercially reasonable” terms, with the FCC will deciding whether the terms are reasonable on a case-by-case basis. Providers will not be able to block individual websites, however. The goal of net neutrality rules is to prevent service providers from discriminating between different content, allowing all types of data and all companies’ data to be treated equally. While it appears that outright blocking of individual services won’t be allowed, the Journal reports that some forms of discrimination will be allowed, though that will apparently not include slowing down websites.
  • Re/code summarizes the discontent with these proposed rules: Consumer groups have complained about that plan because they’re worried that Wheeler’s rules may not hold up in court either. A federal appeals court rejected two previous versions of net neutrality rules after finding fault in the FCC’s legal reasoning. During the latest smackdown, however, the court suggested that the FCC had some authority to impose net neutrality rules under a section of the law that gives the agency the ability to regulate the deployment of broadband lines. Internet activists would prefer that the FCC just re-regulate Internet lines under old rules designed for telephone networks, which they say would give the agency clear authority to police Internet lines. Wheeler has rejected that approach for now. Phone and cable companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, have vociferously fought that idea over the past few years.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The Chicago Tribune reports on the process directing these rules: The five-member regulatory commission may vote as soon as May to formally propose the rules and collect public comment on them. Virtually all large Internet service providers, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc., have pledged to abide by the principles of open Internet reinforced by these rules. But critics have raised concerns that, without a formal rule, the voluntary pledges could be pulled back over time and also leave the door open for deals that would give unequal treatment to websites or services.
  • I wrote about the European Union’s attempts to defend the free Internet: The legislation is meant to provide access to online services ‘without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of the sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application.’ For example, ISPs would be barred from slowing down or ‘throttling’ the speed at which one service’s videos are delivered while allowing other services to stream at normal rates. To bastardize Gertrude Stein: a byte is a byte is a byte. Such restrictions would prevent deals like the one Comcast recently made with Netflix, which will allow the service’s videos to reach consumers faster than before. Comcast is also said to be in talks with Apple for a deal that would allow videos from its new streaming video service to reach consumers faster than videos from competitors. The Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality laws don’t apply to those deals, according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, so they are allowed to continue despite the threat they pose to the free Internet.
  • Paul Merrell on 24 Apr 14
     
    Cute. Deliberately not using the authority the court of appeals said it could use to impose net neutrality. So Europe can have net neutrality but not in the U.S.
Paul Merrell

European Parliament Urges Protection for Edward Snowden - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...snowden-nsa-whistleblower.html

surveillance state Snowden EU-Parliament resolution charges extradition

shared by Paul Merrell on 30 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • The European Parliament narrowly adopted a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution on Thursday urging the 28 nations of the European Union to recognize Edward J. Snowden as a “whistle-blower and international human rights defender” and shield him from prosecution.On Twitter, Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked millions of documents about electronic surveillance by the United States government, called the vote a “game-changer.” But the resolution has no legal force and limited practical effect for Mr. Snowden, who is living in Russia on a three-year residency permit.Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and none have done so thus far. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Open Source: Now Following the N.S.A. on Twitter, @SnowdenSEPT. 29, 2015 Snowden Sees Some Victories, From a DistanceMAY 19, 2015 Still, the resolution was the strongest statement of support seen for Mr. Snowden from the European Parliament. At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
  • The resolution calls on European Union members to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties.”In June 2013, shortly after Mr. Snowden’s leaks became public, the United States charged him with theft of government property and violations of the Espionage Act of 1917. By then, he had flown to Moscow, where he spent weeks in legal limbo before he was granted temporary asylum and, later, a residency permit.Four Latin American nations have offered him permanent asylum, but he does not believe he could travel from Russia to those countries without running the risk of arrest and extradition to the United States along the way.
  • The White House, which has used diplomatic efforts to discourage even symbolic resolutions of support for Mr. Snowden, immediately criticized the resolution.“Our position has not changed,” said Ned Price, a spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.“Mr. Snowden is accused of leaking classified information and faces felony charges here in the United States. As such, he should be returned to the U.S. as soon as possible, where he will be accorded full due process.”Jan Philipp Albrecht, one of the lawmakers who sponsored the resolution in Europe, said it should increase pressure on national governments.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • “It’s the first time a Parliament votes to ask for this to be done — and it’s the European Parliament,” Mr. Albrecht, a German lawmaker with the Greens political bloc, said in a phone interview shortly after the vote, which was held in Strasbourg, France. “So this has an impact surely on the debate in the member states.”The resolution “is asking or demanding the member states’ governments to end all the charges and to prevent any extradition to a third party,” Mr. Albrecht said. “That’s a very clear call, and that can’t be just ignored by the governments,” he said.
Paul Merrell

Save Firefox! | Electronic Frontier Foundation - 0 views

www.eff.org/...save-firefox

W3C web-standards CDM encrypted-media-extensions EME DRM

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 May 16 - No Cached
  • The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), once the force for open standards that kept browsers from locking publishers to their proprietary capabilities, has changed its mission. Since 2013, the organization has provided a forum where today's dominant browser companies and the dominant entertainment companies can collaborate on a system to let our browsers control our behavior, rather than the other way. This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new browser. This is the opposite of every W3C standard to date: once, all you needed to do to render content sent by a server was follow the standard, not get permission. If browsers had needed permission to render a page at the launch of Mozilla, the publishers would have frozen out this new, pop-up-blocking upstart. Kiss Firefox goodbye, in other words.
  • The W3C didn't have to do this. No copyright law says that making a video gives you the right to tell people who legally watch it how they must configure their equipment. But because of the design of EME, copyright holders will be able to use the law to shut down any new browser that tries to render the video without their permission. That's because EME is designed to trigger liability under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which says that removing a digital lock that controls access to a copyrighted work without permission is an offense, even if the person removing the lock has the right to the content it restricts. In other words, once a video is sent with EME, a new company that unlocks it for its users can be sued, even if the users do nothing illegal with that video. We proposed that the W3C could protect new browsers by making their members promise not to use the DMCA to attack new entrants in the market, an idea supported by a diverse group of W3C members, but the W3C executive overruled us saying the work would go forward with no safeguards for future competition. It's even worse than at first glance. The DMCA isn't limited to the USA: the US Trade Representative has spread DMCA-like rules to virtually every country that does business with America. Worse still: the DMCA is also routinely used by companies to threaten and silence security researchers who reveal embarrassing defects in their products. The W3C also declined to require its members to protect security researchers who discover flaws in EME, leaving every Web user vulnerable to vulnerabilities whose disclosure can only safely take place if the affected company decides to permit it.
  • The W3C needs credibility with people who care about the open Web and innovation in order to be viable. They are sensitive to this kind of criticism. We empathize. There are lots of good people working there, people who genuinely, passionately want the Web to stay open to everyone, and to be safe for its users. But the organization made a terrible decision when it opted to provide a home for EME, and an even worse one when it overruled its own members and declined protection for security research and new competitors. It needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be.
1 - 13 of 13
Showing 20▼ items per page