As Donald Trump used every available resource to ensure his tenancy at the most recognizable house in the United States was extended, some social media platforms had adopted an unorthodox approach to his accounts.

Despite receiving a number of takedown notices alleging copyright infringement in Trump’s tweets, and in some cases removing content in response to apparently valid claims, the president’s account wasn’t suspended or terminated as is often the case.

That allowed one of Trump’s team to post a tweet containing a short animation; a train sporting Trump’s campaign logo being pursued at some distance by rival Joe Biden on a railroad handcar failing to keep up. For reasons that remain unknown, the animator chose the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant as the animation’s soundtrack.

The animator didn’t ask Grant for permission and when the Trump team spotted the animation on Twitter, a decision was made to post it on Trump’s Twitter account, also without asking Grant for permission. Grant responded with a cease and desist notice and when that was ignored, Grant sued Trump and his team for copyright infringement.

Judge’s Opinion Was Just His Opinion?

In an ideal world, the failure of Trump’s motion to dismiss in September 2021 should’ve been seen as an opportunity to settle the case privately.

A very small slice of humble pie and some tea, perhaps, so that everyone could move on. Or even negotiating the terms of the settlement Grant offered in August 2020 before filing the lawsuit.

Instead, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl’s opinion and order, which painted a clear picture of how successful a fair use defense was likely to be in this matter, appears to have carried little weight with the defense. That was surprising.

Judge Koeltl had described the use of Electric Avenue as “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign, and noted that the defense had misunderstood “the focus of the transformative use inquiry.” The defense had also admitted that the animation was not fair use-friendly parody, but its less useful cousin, satire.

Judge Koeltl went to state that the defense had offered no justification at all for their “extensive borrowing” nor had they provided any evidence that use of the work had caused no market harm. In fact, such was the total disconnect between the use of Electric Avenue and the animation, the campaign could’ve chosen any other track, or indeed no track at all, to send the same message.

Four Year Legal Grind

What the defense were hoping to find isn’t clear but after failing to convince the court in October 2021 that Trump had “ Presidential absolute immunity ” in respect of Grant’s claims, the case dragged on for another three years, four years in total.

Exactly a year ago, September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment at a Manhattan federal court. The defendants informed the court that they would rely on a fair use defense, despite Grant’s legal team asserting that discovery had “revealed unequivocally” that the use of Electric Avenue was not transformative.

Fair Use Defense Fails, Defense Liable for Infringement

Judge Koeltl had formed the same opinion two years earlier and in an opinion and order dated September 13, 2024, he offers a reminder of his order handed down several years earlier.

“In an Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2021, this Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties have now filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment,” Judge Koeltl notes.

The Trump defendants asked the Court to dismiss part of the complaint based on their assertion that Grant lacked a valid copyright registration for the sound recording of “Electric Avenue.” The details are convoluted, but the bottom line straightforward; defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Oral argument was heard on September 6 and in his order, Judge Koeltl reveals that the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The defendants are liable for damages because their fair use defense comprehensively fails.

Fair Use Analysis

“In this case, the Video has a very low degree of ‘transformativeness,’ if any at all. As this Court found in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Video ‘is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad’,” Judge Koeltl notes, citing his opinion from 2021.

“The defendants also argue that the Video ‘transformed Grant’s original conception of Electric Avenue as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure’. Again, ‘the defendants’ argument misapprehends the focus of the transformative use inquiry.'”

The inquiry does not focus exclusively on the character of the animation, the Judge notes. Rather, “it focuses on the character of the animation’s use of Grant’s song.”

The defendants claimed that their use of the work gave them “no commercial advantage” but the Judge disagreed.

In this case, the defendants benefited commercially from using Electric Avenue without paying a licensing fee. While there was no direct profit motive, that was insufficient to overcome the lack of transformative use and the first fair use factor favoring Grant.

A Fair Use Full House For Grant

Once again citing his opinion and order from 2021, the Judge notes that the defendants conceded that Electric Avenue is a creative, published work, leading to the second factor favoring Grant.

The third fair use factor considers the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. This inquiry was also present in the opinion from 2021; in 2024, nothing has changed and still favors Grant.

The fourth factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” In this matter the Judge writes that there is no public benefit as a result of the defendants’ use of Electric Avenue; they could’ve used any song, even created their own, or used no song at all.

“The plaintiffs’ ability to license “Electric Avenue” in the market for licensed music for videos—political or otherwise—would be affected by widespread, uncompensated use. Accordingly, the last fair use factor favors the plaintiffs,” Judge Koeltl concludes.

That leaves the question of damages; Grant previously requested $300,000, but it’s likely the defense will have done their own calculations and arrived at a vastly lower sum.

Judge Koeltl’s opinion and order can be found here (pdf)

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

As Donald Trump used every available resource to ensure his tenancy at the most recognizable house in the United States was extended, some social media platforms had adopted an unorthodox approach to his accounts.

Despite receiving a number of takedown notices alleging copyright infringement in Trump’s tweets, and in some cases removing content in response to apparently valid claims, the president’s account wasn’t suspended or terminated as is often the case.

That allowed one of Trump’s team to post a tweet containing a short animation; a train sporting Trump’s campaign logo being pursued at some distance by rival Joe Biden on a railroad handcar failing to keep up. For reasons that remain unknown, the animator chose the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant as the animation’s soundtrack.

The animator didn’t ask Grant for permission and when the Trump team spotted the animation on Twitter, a decision was made to post it on Trump’s Twitter account, also without asking Grant for permission. Grant responded with a cease and desist notice and when that was ignored, Grant sued Trump and his team for copyright infringement.

Judge’s Opinion Was Just His Opinion?

In an ideal world, the failure of Trump’s motion to dismiss in September 2021 should’ve been seen as an opportunity to settle the case privately.

A very small slice of humble pie and some tea, perhaps, so that everyone could move on. Or even negotiating the terms of the settlement Grant offered in August 2020 before filing the lawsuit.

Instead, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl’s opinion and order, which painted a clear picture of how successful a fair use defense was likely to be in this matter, appears to have carried little weight with the defense. That was surprising.

Judge Koeltl had described the use of Electric Avenue as “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign, and noted that the defense had misunderstood “the focus of the transformative use inquiry.” The defense had also admitted that the animation was not fair use-friendly parody, but its less useful cousin, satire.

Judge Koeltl went to state that the defense had offered no justification at all for their “extensive borrowing” nor had they provided any evidence that use of the work had caused no market harm. In fact, such was the total disconnect between the use of Electric Avenue and the animation, the campaign could’ve chosen any other track, or indeed no track at all, to send the same message.

Four Year Legal Grind

What the defense were hoping to find isn’t clear but after failing to convince the court in October 2021 that Trump had “ Presidential absolute immunity ” in respect of Grant’s claims, the case dragged on for another three years, four years in total.

Exactly a year ago, September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment at a Manhattan federal court. The defendants informed the court that they would rely on a fair use defense, despite Grant’s legal team asserting that discovery had “revealed unequivocally” that the use of Electric Avenue was not transformative.

Fair Use Defense Fails, Defense Liable for Infringement

Judge Koeltl had formed the same opinion two years earlier and in an opinion and order dated September 13, 2024, he offers a reminder of his order handed down several years earlier.

“In an Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2021, this Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties have now filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment,” Judge Koeltl notes.

The Trump defendants asked the Court to dismiss part of the complaint based on their assertion that Grant lacked a valid copyright registration for the sound recording of “Electric Avenue.” The details are convoluted, but the bottom line straightforward; defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Oral argument was heard on September 6 and in his order, Judge Koeltl reveals that the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The defendants are liable for damages because their fair use defense comprehensively fails.

Fair Use Analysis

“In this case, the Video has a very low degree of ‘transformativeness,’ if any at all. As this Court found in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Video ‘is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad’,” Judge Koeltl notes, citing his opinion from 2021.

“The defendants also argue that the Video ‘transformed Grant’s original conception of Electric Avenue as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure’. Again, ‘the defendants’ argument misapprehends the focus of the transformative use inquiry.'”

The inquiry does not focus exclusively on the character of the animation, the Judge notes. Rather, “it focuses on the character of the animation’s use of Grant’s song.”

The defendants claimed that their use of the work gave them “no commercial advantage” but the Judge disagreed.

In this case, the defendants benefited commercially from using Electric Avenue without paying a licensing fee. While there was no direct profit motive, that was insufficient to overcome the lack of transformative use and the first fair use factor favoring Grant.

A Fair Use Full House For Grant

Once again citing his opinion and order from 2021, the Judge notes that the defendants conceded that Electric Avenue is a creative, published work, leading to the second factor favoring Grant.

The third fair use factor considers the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. This inquiry was also present in the opinion from 2021; in 2024, nothing has changed and still favors Grant.

The fourth factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” In this matter the Judge writes that there is no public benefit as a result of the defendants’ use of Electric Avenue; they could’ve used any song, even created their own, or used no song at all.

“The plaintiffs’ ability to license “Electric Avenue” in the market for licensed music for videos—political or otherwise—would be affected by widespread, uncompensated use. Accordingly, the last fair use factor favors the plaintiffs,” Judge Koeltl concludes.

That leaves the question of damages; Grant previously requested $300,000, but it’s likely the defense will have done their own calculations and arrived at a vastly lower sum.

Judge Koeltl’s opinion and order can be found here (pdf)

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

As Donald Trump used every available resource to ensure his tenancy at the most recognizable house in the United States was extended, some social media platforms had adopted an unorthodox approach to his accounts.

Despite receiving a number of takedown notices alleging copyright infringement in Trump’s tweets, and in some cases removing content in response to apparently valid claims, the president’s account wasn’t suspended or terminated as is often the case.

That allowed one of Trump’s team to post a tweet containing a short animation; a train sporting Trump’s campaign logo being pursued at some distance by rival Joe Biden on a railroad handcar failing to keep up. For reasons that remain unknown, the animator chose the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant as the animation’s soundtrack.

The animator didn’t ask Grant for permission and when the Trump team spotted the animation on Twitter, a decision was made to post it on Trump’s Twitter account, also without asking Grant for permission. Grant responded with a cease and desist notice and when that was ignored, Grant sued Trump and his team for copyright infringement.

Judge’s Opinion Was Just His Opinion?

In an ideal world, the failure of Trump’s motion to dismiss in September 2021 should’ve been seen as an opportunity to settle the case privately.

A very small slice of humble pie and some tea, perhaps, so that everyone could move on. Or even negotiating the terms of the settlement Grant offered in August 2020 before filing the lawsuit.

Instead, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl’s opinion and order, which painted a clear picture of how successful a fair use defense was likely to be in this matter, appears to have carried little weight with the defense. That was surprising.

Judge Koeltl had described the use of Electric Avenue as “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign, and noted that the defense had misunderstood “the focus of the transformative use inquiry.” The defense had also admitted that the animation was not fair use-friendly parody, but its less useful cousin, satire.

Judge Koeltl went to state that the defense had offered no justification at all for their “extensive borrowing” nor had they provided any evidence that use of the work had caused no market harm. In fact, such was the total disconnect between the use of Electric Avenue and the animation, the campaign could’ve chosen any other track, or indeed no track at all, to send the same message.

Four Year Legal Grind

What the defense were hoping to find isn’t clear but after failing to convince the court in October 2021 that Trump had “ Presidential absolute immunity ” in respect of Grant’s claims, the case dragged on for another three years, four years in total.

Exactly a year ago, September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment at a Manhattan federal court. The defendants informed the court that they would rely on a fair use defense, despite Grant’s legal team asserting that discovery had “revealed unequivocally” that the use of Electric Avenue was not transformative.

Fair Use Defense Fails, Defense Liable for Infringement

Judge Koeltl had formed the same opinion two years earlier and in an opinion and order dated September 13, 2024, he offers a reminder of his order handed down several years earlier.

“In an Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2021, this Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties have now filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment,” Judge Koeltl notes.

The Trump defendants asked the Court to dismiss part of the complaint based on their assertion that Grant lacked a valid copyright registration for the sound recording of “Electric Avenue.” The details are convoluted, but the bottom line straightforward; defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Oral argument was heard on September 6 and in his order, Judge Koeltl reveals that the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The defendants are liable for damages because their fair use defense comprehensively fails.

Fair Use Analysis

“In this case, the Video has a very low degree of ‘transformativeness,’ if any at all. As this Court found in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Video ‘is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad’,” Judge Koeltl notes, citing his opinion from 2021.

“The defendants also argue that the Video ‘transformed Grant’s original conception of Electric Avenue as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure’. Again, ‘the defendants’ argument misapprehends the focus of the transformative use inquiry.'”

The inquiry does not focus exclusively on the character of the animation, the Judge notes. Rather, “it focuses on the character of the animation’s use of Grant’s song.”

The defendants claimed that their use of the work gave them “no commercial advantage” but the Judge disagreed.

In this case, the defendants benefited commercially from using Electric Avenue without paying a licensing fee. While there was no direct profit motive, that was insufficient to overcome the lack of transformative use and the first fair use factor favoring Grant.

A Fair Use Full House For Grant

Once again citing his opinion and order from 2021, the Judge notes that the defendants conceded that Electric Avenue is a creative, published work, leading to the second factor favoring Grant.

The third fair use factor considers the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. This inquiry was also present in the opinion from 2021; in 2024, nothing has changed and still favors Grant.

The fourth factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” In this matter the Judge writes that there is no public benefit as a result of the defendants’ use of Electric Avenue; they could’ve used any song, even created their own, or used no song at all.

“The plaintiffs’ ability to license “Electric Avenue” in the market for licensed music for videos—political or otherwise—would be affected by widespread, uncompensated use. Accordingly, the last fair use factor favors the plaintiffs,” Judge Koeltl concludes.

That leaves the question of damages; Grant previously requested $300,000, but it’s likely the defense will have done their own calculations and arrived at a vastly lower sum.

Judge Koeltl’s opinion and order can be found here (pdf)

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

Android-based set-top devices have saturated the market in recent years, and it’s not uncommon for households to have several; downstairs, upstairs, and probably at least one in a drawer.

These devices, including the ubiquitous Amazon Firestick, are mostly content agnostic and equally capable of streaming video from legal sources such as Netflix or BBC iPlayer, or from unlicensed IPTV platforms.

The problem for rightsholders and governments hoping to curtail consumption of pirated content, is that the devices themselves are overwhelmingly legal. It’s the presence of piracy software installed on devices and the nature of the content consumed that tips the scale one way or the other. As a result, no realistic blanket banning solution exists, although Brazil has come up with a partial solution.

Devices Illegal By Default

The set-top device situation in Brazil is relatively straightforward. Unless telecoms regulator Anatel (Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações) authorizes a device type for importation, distribution, and sale, that device cannot be used legally in Brazil.

Anatel says its conformity assessment ensures that consumers only have access to products (typically electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, set-top boxes, routers, etc) that have been tested for quality and safety.

Set-top boxes without a Technical Conformity Certificate are illegal regardless of the content consumed. That eliminates a lot of red tape when Anatel decides to seize well over a million devices to curtail piracy, because all seizures are carried out on straightforward health and safety grounds.

For devices that enter the local market without certification, Anatel regularly reports various actions to remove them. In 2023, Anatel revealed its new anti-piracy lab, where intelligence meets site-blocking measures to disrupt supply and consumption of pirated content.

Most famously, the regulator said it had blocked 80% of all pirate set-top boxes in Brazil during October 2023. To this background of ongoing success, Anatel is now promoting a competition where hackers can test their skills to determine who has the best non-certified pirate set-top box blocking skills in Brazil.

Anatel Teams Up With Hackathon Brasil

If any cynics out there think that the real point of the hackathon is to shore up IPTV blocking measures in Brazil with fresh ideas and techniques, Anatel isn’t even trying to hide it.

“The National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and the Hackathon Brasil Community will hold the first TV Box Hackathon focused on developing innovative solutions for blocking irregular [non-certified] TV Boxes,” an announcement on the government’s website reads.

“The developer marathon will take place on September 28 and 29 and represents an important project for the industry, regulated sector and academia, highlighting Anatel’s role in the state of the art of technological innovation.”

A dedicated information page on Hackathon Brazil begins by outlining the prevalence of IoT devices and growing concerns over security.

Noting that devices without certification “pose risks to consumers and to Brazil’s telecommunications infrastructure,” more specific concerns include operating system vulnerabilities, malware, spyware (hidden screenshot capture and screenshare actions), plus the ability to execute code on other devices within a LAN.

The Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Whether those who choose to sign up will receive more detailed instruction is unclear, but the main goal isn’t difficult to understand.

So the challenge is this: by understanding how these non-approved devices work, you must develop an approach that is capable of interrupting the exchange of data that occurs between the devices and their users.

Given the difficulties Anatel faces in tackling millions of these devices, mostly located inside people’s homes, the winners of the hackathon are unlikely to find success by physically attacking a device with wire, solder, or a modified ROM. Any solution must scale but before that, there’s the question of how to gain mass access to devices.

The masters of access at scale are those who manage to build botnets using malware that users often willingly (although unknowingly) install themselves because they believe the software does something else. Coincidentally or not, for many years Brazil has been heavily targeted by botnets running on cheap, compromised Android set-top boxes.

According to a report from cybersecurity firm ESET, malware that disproportionately targets Brazil regularly arrives disguised as legitimate or illegitimate streaming apps.

Further research shows that the dangers cited by Anatel relate directly to this type of malware , including the ability to infect other devices in a network, typically cheap IoT devices with poor security. Cybersecurity companies charge millions of dollars to solve problems smaller than this.

Winners’ Rewards

Anyone interested in registering has until September 20th to fill in their details on the official Hackathon Brasil site and for those who come out on top at the end of the event, prizes are as follows:

When converted to United States dollars, the winners receive ~US$1200, second place ~US$530, and third place ~US$350, and after reading the small print and the event regulations ( pdf ) , a few things deserve to be highlighted.

This is a team event and the minimum team size is four. So if a four-person team wins by solving what appears to be a critical problem faced by Brazil on the security side, and national and international rightsholders on the other, all members stand to pocket $300 each. Come third with a six-person team and each member will receive just under $60.00, or $30 for each day’s work.

Intellectual Property Protection

Of course, everything doesn’t always have to be about money, why can’t we all just have fun for a couple of days and just enjoy ourselves? The answer lies in a concept known as ‘intellectual property’ and the value of that property to those who create it. While the odds are stacked against, the aim here is for the winners to create an extremely valuable piece of intellectual property.

The rules for the event state that all who register for Hackathon TV Box authorize the ‘ORGANIZING COMMITTEE’ (COMISSÃO ORGANIZADORA) to “ use, edit, publish, reproduce and disclose, through newspapers, magazines, television, cinema, radio and internet, VHS and CD-ROM, or in any other means of communication, free of charge and without prior or additional authorization, their names, voices, images, projects or companies, both nationally and internationally, for a period of 10 (ten) years. ”

The committee is defined as “members and directors of the Hackathon Brasil Community and ANATEL” with a note that “the safeguarding of intellectual property rights, the ideas, arrangements and methods will be the responsibility of the project’s own design team.”

Legal statements exist for a reason and the above seems to grant permission to “use” “free of charge” “the project” “nationally and internationally” “for a period of 10 (ten) years.”

It’s probably just a reference to image/publicity rights; definitely so if the project fails to deliver. In the event a miracle plays out, who knows?

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

Android-based set-top devices have saturated the market in recent years, and it’s not uncommon for households to have several; downstairs, upstairs, and probably at least one in a drawer.

These devices, including the ubiquitous Amazon Firestick, are mostly content agnostic and equally capable of streaming video from legal sources such as Netflix or BBC iPlayer, or from unlicensed IPTV platforms.

The problem for rightsholders and governments hoping to curtail consumption of pirated content, is that the devices themselves are overwhelmingly legal. It’s the presence of piracy software installed on devices and the nature of the content consumed that tips the scale one way or the other. As a result, no realistic blanket banning solution exists, although Brazil has come up with a partial solution.

Devices Illegal By Default

The set-top device situation in Brazil is relatively straightforward. Unless telecoms regulator Anatel (Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações) authorizes a device type for importation, distribution, and sale, that device cannot be used legally in Brazil.

Anatel says its conformity assessment ensures that consumers only have access to products (typically electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, set-top boxes, routers, etc) that have been tested for quality and safety.

Set-top boxes without a Technical Conformity Certificate are illegal regardless of the content consumed. That eliminates a lot of red tape when Anatel decides to seize well over a million devices to curtail piracy, because all seizures are carried out on straightforward health and safety grounds.

For devices that enter the local market without certification, Anatel regularly reports various actions to remove them. In 2023, Anatel revealed its new anti-piracy lab, where intelligence meets site-blocking measures to disrupt supply and consumption of pirated content.

Most famously, the regulator said it had blocked 80% of all pirate set-top boxes in Brazil during October 2023. To this background of ongoing success, Anatel is now promoting a competition where hackers can test their skills to determine who has the best non-certified pirate set-top box blocking skills in Brazil.

Anatel Teams Up With Hackathon Brasil

If any cynics out there think that the real point of the hackathon is to shore up IPTV blocking measures in Brazil with fresh ideas and techniques, Anatel isn’t even trying to hide it.

“The National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and the Hackathon Brasil Community will hold the first TV Box Hackathon focused on developing innovative solutions for blocking irregular [non-certified] TV Boxes,” an announcement on the government’s website reads.

“The developer marathon will take place on September 28 and 29 and represents an important project for the industry, regulated sector and academia, highlighting Anatel’s role in the state of the art of technological innovation.”

A dedicated information page on Hackathon Brazil begins by outlining the prevalence of IoT devices and growing concerns over security.

Noting that devices without certification “pose risks to consumers and to Brazil’s telecommunications infrastructure,” more specific concerns include operating system vulnerabilities, malware, spyware (hidden screenshot capture and screenshare actions), plus the ability to execute code on other devices within a LAN.

The Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Whether those who choose to sign up will receive more detailed instruction is unclear, but the main goal isn’t difficult to understand.

So the challenge is this: by understanding how these non-approved devices work, you must develop an approach that is capable of interrupting the exchange of data that occurs between the devices and their users.

Given the difficulties Anatel faces in tackling millions of these devices, mostly located inside people’s homes, the winners of the hackathon are unlikely to find success by physically attacking a device with wire, solder, or a modified ROM. Any solution must scale but before that, there’s the question of how to gain mass access to devices.

The masters of access at scale are those who manage to build botnets using malware that users often willingly (although unknowingly) install themselves because they believe the software does something else. Coincidentally or not, for many years Brazil has been heavily targeted by botnets running on cheap, compromised Android set-top boxes.

According to a report from cybersecurity firm ESET, malware that disproportionately targets Brazil regularly arrives disguised as legitimate or illegitimate streaming apps.

Further research shows that the dangers cited by Anatel relate directly to this type of malware , including the ability to infect other devices in a network, typically cheap IoT devices with poor security. Cybersecurity companies charge millions of dollars to solve problems smaller than this.

Winners’ Rewards

Anyone interested in registering has until September 20th to fill in their details on the official Hackathon Brasil site and for those who come out on top at the end of the event, prizes are as follows:

When converted to United States dollars, the winners receive ~US$1200, second place ~US$530, and third place ~US$350, and after reading the small print and the event regulations ( pdf ) , a few things deserve to be highlighted.

This is a team event and the minimum team size is four. So if a four-person team wins by solving what appears to be a critical problem faced by Brazil on the security side, and national and international rightsholders on the other, all members stand to pocket $300 each. Come third with a six-person team and each member will receive just under $60.00, or $30 for each day’s work.

Intellectual Property Protection

Of course, everything doesn’t always have to be about money, why can’t we all just have fun for a couple of days and just enjoy ourselves? The answer lies in a concept known as ‘intellectual property’ and the value of that property to those who create it. While the odds are stacked against, the aim here is for the winners to create an extremely valuable piece of intellectual property.

The rules for the event state that all who register for Hackathon TV Box authorize the ‘ORGANIZING COMMITTEE’ (COMISSÃO ORGANIZADORA) to “ use, edit, publish, reproduce and disclose, through newspapers, magazines, television, cinema, radio and internet, VHS and CD-ROM, or in any other means of communication, free of charge and without prior or additional authorization, their names, voices, images, projects or companies, both nationally and internationally, for a period of 10 (ten) years. ”

The committee is defined as “members and directors of the Hackathon Brasil Community and ANATEL” with a note that “the safeguarding of intellectual property rights, the ideas, arrangements and methods will be the responsibility of the project’s own design team.”

Legal statements exist for a reason and the above seems to grant permission to “use” “free of charge” “the project” “nationally and internationally” “for a period of 10 (ten) years.”

It’s probably just a reference to image/publicity rights; definitely so if the project fails to deliver. In the event a miracle plays out, who knows?

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

Android-based set-top devices have saturated the market in recent years, and it’s not uncommon for households to have several; downstairs, upstairs, and probably at least one in a drawer.

These devices, including the ubiquitous Amazon Firestick, are mostly content agnostic and equally capable of streaming video from legal sources such as Netflix or BBC iPlayer, or from unlicensed IPTV platforms.

The problem for rightsholders and governments hoping to curtail consumption of pirated content, is that the devices themselves are overwhelmingly legal. It’s the presence of piracy software installed on devices and the nature of the content consumed that tips the scale one way or the other. As a result, no realistic blanket banning solution exists, although Brazil has come up with a partial solution.

Devices Illegal By Default

The set-top device situation in Brazil is relatively straightforward. Unless telecoms regulator Anatel (Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações) authorizes a device type for importation, distribution, and sale, that device cannot be used legally in Brazil.

Anatel says its conformity assessment ensures that consumers only have access to products (typically electronic devices such as cell phones, tablets, set-top boxes, routers, etc) that have been tested for quality and safety.

Set-top boxes without a Technical Conformity Certificate are illegal regardless of the content consumed. That eliminates a lot of red tape when Anatel decides to seize well over a million devices to curtail piracy, because all seizures are carried out on straightforward health and safety grounds.

For devices that enter the local market without certification, Anatel regularly reports various actions to remove them. In 2023, Anatel revealed its new anti-piracy lab, where intelligence meets site-blocking measures to disrupt supply and consumption of pirated content.

Most famously, the regulator said it had blocked 80% of all pirate set-top boxes in Brazil during October 2023. To this background of ongoing success, Anatel is now promoting a competition where hackers can test their skills to determine who has the best non-certified pirate set-top box blocking skills in Brazil.

Anatel Teams Up With Hackathon Brasil

If any cynics out there think that the real point of the hackathon is to shore up IPTV blocking measures in Brazil with fresh ideas and techniques, Anatel isn’t even trying to hide it.

“The National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and the Hackathon Brasil Community will hold the first TV Box Hackathon focused on developing innovative solutions for blocking irregular [non-certified] TV Boxes,” an announcement on the government’s website reads.

“The developer marathon will take place on September 28 and 29 and represents an important project for the industry, regulated sector and academia, highlighting Anatel’s role in the state of the art of technological innovation.”

A dedicated information page on Hackathon Brazil begins by outlining the prevalence of IoT devices and growing concerns over security.

Noting that devices without certification “pose risks to consumers and to Brazil’s telecommunications infrastructure,” more specific concerns include operating system vulnerabilities, malware, spyware (hidden screenshot capture and screenshare actions), plus the ability to execute code on other devices within a LAN.

The Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Whether those who choose to sign up will receive more detailed instruction is unclear, but the main goal isn’t difficult to understand.

So the challenge is this: by understanding how these non-approved devices work, you must develop an approach that is capable of interrupting the exchange of data that occurs between the devices and their users.

Given the difficulties Anatel faces in tackling millions of these devices, mostly located inside people’s homes, the winners of the hackathon are unlikely to find success by physically attacking a device with wire, solder, or a modified ROM. Any solution must scale but before that, there’s the question of how to gain mass access to devices.

The masters of access at scale are those who manage to build botnets using malware that users often willingly (although unknowingly) install themselves because they believe the software does something else. Coincidentally or not, for many years Brazil has been heavily targeted by botnets running on cheap, compromised Android set-top boxes.

According to a report from cybersecurity firm ESET, malware that disproportionately targets Brazil regularly arrives disguised as legitimate or illegitimate streaming apps.

Further research shows that the dangers cited by Anatel relate directly to this type of malware , including the ability to infect other devices in a network, typically cheap IoT devices with poor security. Cybersecurity companies charge millions of dollars to solve problems smaller than this.

Winners’ Rewards

Anyone interested in registering has until September 20th to fill in their details on the official Hackathon Brasil site and for those who come out on top at the end of the event, prizes are as follows:

When converted to United States dollars, the winners receive ~US$1200, second place ~US$530, and third place ~US$350, and after reading the small print and the event regulations ( pdf ) , a few things deserve to be highlighted.

This is a team event and the minimum team size is four. So if a four-person team wins by solving what appears to be a critical problem faced by Brazil on the security side, and national and international rightsholders on the other, all members stand to pocket $300 each. Come third with a six-person team and each member will receive just under $60.00, or $30 for each day’s work.

Intellectual Property Protection

Of course, everything doesn’t always have to be about money, why can’t we all just have fun for a couple of days and just enjoy ourselves? The answer lies in a concept known as ‘intellectual property’ and the value of that property to those who create it. While the odds are stacked against, the aim here is for the winners to create an extremely valuable piece of intellectual property.

The rules for the event state that all who register for Hackathon TV Box authorize the ‘ORGANIZING COMMITTEE’ (COMISSÃO ORGANIZADORA) to “ use, edit, publish, reproduce and disclose, through newspapers, magazines, television, cinema, radio and internet, VHS and CD-ROM, or in any other means of communication, free of charge and without prior or additional authorization, their names, voices, images, projects or companies, both nationally and internationally, for a period of 10 (ten) years. ”

The committee is defined as “members and directors of the Hackathon Brasil Community and ANATEL” with a note that “the safeguarding of intellectual property rights, the ideas, arrangements and methods will be the responsibility of the project’s own design team.”

Legal statements exist for a reason and the above seems to grant permission to “use” “free of charge” “the project” “nationally and internationally” “for a period of 10 (ten) years.”

It’s probably just a reference to image/publicity rights; definitely so if the project fails to deliver. In the event a miracle plays out, who knows?

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

Next Thursday, September 19, 2024, will mark the one-year anniversary of the raids on French datacenters that brought down file-hosting platform Uptobox.

Founded in 2011, Uptobox was a very popular site with over 34 million visits per month, a third of which were generated by French users. After being blocked by ISPs in mid-2023, enforcement action became more likely than not.

Around 20 police officers participated in the raids on cloud service providers Scaleway, OpCore, and OVH. Members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, including Columbia, Paramount, StudioCanal, Warner Bros, Disney, Apple, and Amazon, later confirmed that their complaint triggered the raids and the subsequent seizure of Uptobox servers.

Fighting Back

Unlike some other platforms accused of piracy, Uptobox has thus far bucked the trend of disappearing in response to a lawsuit, with Dubai-based owner Genius Servers Tech FZE (Genius) fully engaged in the legal process.

In April 2024, Uptobox attempted to have the entire case thrown out, arguing it wasn’t the piracy haven the plaintiffs were describing.

In a setback for Uptobox, the attempt ultimately failed, but owner Genius still hoped to have various seizure orders, that had granted the removal of its servers back in 2023, lifted by the court.

The company argued on various grounds, including that the seizures weren’t warranted due to the activities of Genius, and were a “manifestly disproportionate measure” that caused damage to Genius and users of the Uptobox service.

The plaintiffs presented a laundry list of objections, all of which are detailed in the order of the Paris court linked below. Ultimately, however, the appeal would run out of steam for reasons unrelated to the merits of the case.

Time Waits For No One

The decision handed down by the Paris judicial court on Thursday was first reported by Marc Rees at l’Informé; as he explains , Genius Servers’ efforts failed after the court ruled its requests inadmissible.

In a nutshell, demands by Genius to lift the seizure order and restore the servers were declared “time-barred” because they were simply filed too late.

The seizures were authorized in eight separate orders which targeted the headquarters and premises of Scaleway, Op Core and OVH. The only timely request by Genius concerned the seizures carried out at Scaleway. Subsequent requests in February 2024 encompassed Op Core and OVH, but the deadline had long since passed, having expired in October 2023.

The failed process is an expensive one for Genius. The court instructed the Dubai-based company to pay 8,000 euros in legal costs to each of the rightsholder claimants, to a total of 70,000 euros. The main case, whatever that may hold moving forward, will now continue.

The order of the Paris judicial court is available here (pdf)

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

Next Thursday, September 19, 2024, will mark the one-year anniversary of the raids on French datacenters that brought down file-hosting platform Uptobox.

Founded in 2011, Uptobox was a very popular site with over 34 million visits per month, a third of which were generated by French users. After being blocked by ISPs in mid-2023, enforcement action became more likely than not.

Around 20 police officers participated in the raids on cloud service providers Scaleway, OpCore, and OVH. Members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, including Columbia, Paramount, StudioCanal, Warner Bros, Disney, Apple, and Amazon, later confirmed that their complaint triggered the raids and the subsequent seizure of Uptobox servers.

Fighting Back

Unlike some other platforms accused of piracy, Uptobox has thus far bucked the trend of disappearing in response to a lawsuit, with Dubai-based owner Genius Servers Tech FZE (Genius) fully engaged in the legal process.

In April 2024, Uptobox attempted to have the entire case thrown out, arguing it wasn’t the piracy haven the plaintiffs were describing.

In a setback for Uptobox, the attempt ultimately failed, but owner Genius still hoped to have various seizure orders, that had granted the removal of its servers back in 2023, lifted by the court.

The company argued on various grounds, including that the seizures weren’t warranted due to the activities of Genius, and were a “manifestly disproportionate measure” that caused damage to Genius and users of the Uptobox service.

The plaintiffs presented a laundry list of objections, all of which are detailed in the order of the Paris court linked below. Ultimately, however, the appeal would run out of steam for reasons unrelated to the merits of the case.

Time Waits For No One

The decision handed down by the Paris judicial court on Thursday was first reported by Marc Rees at l’Informé; as he explains , Genius Servers’ efforts failed after the court ruled its requests inadmissible.

In a nutshell, demands by Genius to lift the seizure order and restore the servers were declared “time-barred” because they were simply filed too late.

The seizures were authorized in eight separate orders which targeted the headquarters and premises of Scaleway, Op Core and OVH. The only timely request by Genius concerned the seizures carried out at Scaleway. Subsequent requests in February 2024 encompassed Op Core and OVH, but the deadline had long since passed, having expired in October 2023.

The failed process is an expensive one for Genius. The court instructed the Dubai-based company to pay 8,000 euros in legal costs to each of the rightsholder claimants, to a total of 70,000 euros. The main case, whatever that may hold moving forward, will now continue.

The order of the Paris judicial court is available here (pdf)

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

Next Thursday, September 19, 2024, will mark the one-year anniversary of the raids on French datacenters that brought down file-hosting platform Uptobox.

Founded in 2011, Uptobox was a very popular site with over 34 million visits per month, a third of which were generated by French users. After being blocked by ISPs in mid-2023, enforcement action became more likely than not.

Around 20 police officers participated in the raids on cloud service providers Scaleway, OpCore, and OVH. Members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, including Columbia, Paramount, StudioCanal, Warner Bros, Disney, Apple, and Amazon, later confirmed that their complaint triggered the raids and the subsequent seizure of Uptobox servers.

Fighting Back

Unlike some other platforms accused of piracy, Uptobox has thus far bucked the trend of disappearing in response to a lawsuit, with Dubai-based owner Genius Servers Tech FZE (Genius) fully engaged in the legal process.

In April 2024, Uptobox attempted to have the entire case thrown out, arguing it wasn’t the piracy haven the plaintiffs were describing.

In a setback for Uptobox, the attempt ultimately failed, but owner Genius still hoped to have various seizure orders, that had granted the removal of its servers back in 2023, lifted by the court.

The company argued on various grounds, including that the seizures weren’t warranted due to the activities of Genius, and were a “manifestly disproportionate measure” that caused damage to Genius and users of the Uptobox service.

The plaintiffs presented a laundry list of objections, all of which are detailed in the order of the Paris court linked below. Ultimately, however, the appeal would run out of steam for reasons unrelated to the merits of the case.

Time Waits For No One

The decision handed down by the Paris judicial court on Thursday was first reported by Marc Rees at l’Informé; as he explains , Genius Servers’ efforts failed after the court ruled its requests inadmissible.

In a nutshell, demands by Genius to lift the seizure order and restore the servers were declared “time-barred” because they were simply filed too late.

The seizures were authorized in eight separate orders which targeted the headquarters and premises of Scaleway, Op Core and OVH. The only timely request by Genius concerned the seizures carried out at Scaleway. Subsequent requests in February 2024 encompassed Op Core and OVH, but the deadline had long since passed, having expired in October 2023.

The failed process is an expensive one for Genius. The court instructed the Dubai-based company to pay 8,000 euros in legal costs to each of the rightsholder claimants, to a total of 70,000 euros. The main case, whatever that may hold moving forward, will now continue.

The order of the Paris judicial court is available here (pdf)

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