close
  • chevron_right

    Comment partager une vidéo Youtube aux enfants en toute sécurité ?

    news.movim.eu / Korben · Yesterday - 07:00

Si vous êtes dans l’enseignement ou que ce que voient vos enfants sur Internet vous importe, vous avez sûrement conscience que YouTube peut parfois proposer des vignettes choquantes ou des vidéos qui vont distraire l’élève.

Heureusement, il existe un outil nommé VideoLink destiné aux enseignants outils qui va vous permet de regarder et de partager des vidéos YouTube de manière sûre et conviviale sans aucune distraction ou contenu offensant, que ce soit une image, un lien, un commentaire.

Il vous suffit de coller un lien Youtube sur le site Video.link pour pouvoir la lire dans un environement safe et partager le lien en toute sécurité avec votre classe ou votre famille.

Video.link permet de virer les pubs, de mettre les sous titres, d’avoir un compteur de vues, de modifier le titre de la vidéo, d’activer la lecture automatique et même de ne garder qu’un extrait de la vidéo.

Pratique !

  • chevron_right

    Google n’a plus de présence en Russie, mais reste sur le web russe

    news.movim.eu / Numerama · 3 days ago - 11:08

Google

Google réduit la voilure en Russie : son personnel a été relocalisé à l'étranger, tandis que sa filiale dans le pays est déclarée en faillite. Mais les services et les produits de l'entreprise américaine restent accessibles à la population. [Lire la suite]

Abonnez-vous aux newsletters Numerama pour recevoir l’essentiel de l’actualité https://www.numerama.com/newsletter/

  • To chevron_right

    Watch Tower’s DMCA Warfare Collapses After Big Guns Defend Apostate

    news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · 6 days ago - 08:09 · 8 minutes

Dubtown Lego After researching thousands of DMCA notices and reporting on hundreds of copyright lawsuits, more often than not it takes just a few seconds or minutes to broadly establish the purpose of any action.

In most cases rightsholders want alleged infringement to stop and in some, they also seek compensation for their losses. When cases deviate from this format they tend to stick out.

When they involve the protection of copyright works that generate zero income for a rightsholder, one with a reputation for crushing dissent, a big question needs to be asked. Is this really all about copyright or is copyright just a convenient mechanism to achieve something else?

DMCA Subpoenas Are Cheap and Powerful

For years the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, has used the cheap DMCA subpoena process to identify anonymous people said to have infringed their copyrights, usually in music or videos. They go to court, pay less than $50, and disappear into the ether, ostensibly to protect their exclusive rights.

What makes these matters interesting is that Watch Tower does not commercialize its content, so the classic arguments about preventing lost sales are a non-starter. Neither does the group chase down people who share its music in a friendly way on social media or file-sharing networks. However, if critics (so-called ‘apostates’) use Watch Tower copyrighted content to challenge its authority or practices, bad things can follow.

The Attack on Kevin McFree

‘Kevin McFree’ (not his real name) is the creator of the ‘Dubtown’ series of stop-motion Lego animations that take place in a fictitious Jehovah’s Witness town. McFree utilized copyrighted material owned by Watch Tower in his productions, something that gave the religious group a leverage point to shut him down.

In 2018, Watch Tower filed an application for a DMCA subpoena to compel YouTube/Google to hand over his details. McFree filed a motion to quash, arguing that any use of Watch Tower material was protected under the doctrine of fair use.

After three years of legal dispute in that matter, in 2021 Watch Tower filed a parallel copyright infringement lawsuit against McFree for the same alleged infringements. Again, he refused to compromise his identity, an excellent decision considering what was to follow.

Big Win for McFree, No DMCA Subpoena For Watch Tower

In an opinion and order handed down in February 2022, Watch Tower’s original DMCA subpoena application was denied . The judge found that McFree’s use of Watch Tower content amounted to parody, criticism and commentary, and was therefore protected under the doctrine of fair use.

The killing of the DMCA subpoena meant that, at least logically, the full lawsuit had nowhere to go since McFree had done nothing wrong. But despite having a judge on record testifying to that, Watch Tower insisted that meant absolutely nothing.

The group demanded a trial on the merits and renewed efforts to remove McFree’s anonymity, all while knowing that he doesn’t live in the United States and lacked the financial means to properly defend the subpoena, let alone finance a multi-million dollar fair use battle.

So, if Watch Tower makes no money from its music and videos and would get nothing from McFree even if it had demolished him in a fair use copyright lawsuit, what did it really want?

Devine Intervention Levels The Playing Field

Copyright battles can be one-sided affairs. Deep-pocketed corporations on one side often chew up opportunist infringers on the other. If people insist on poking bears by profiting from pirated content they can’t really complain but, in McFree’s case, almost everything felt fundamentally different.

All allegedly-infringing videos were taken down years ago following initial Watch Tower complaints and no more were subsequently released. Even when it became clear that those videos were wrongfully terminated and Watch Tower had no case, the response was to pursue another lawsuit. Something didn’t sit right. Nothing sat right .

In February we pondered whether a lawyer might view McFree’s defense as being in the public interest. After reading one of our articles on the topic, attorney Paul Levy at the Public Citizen Litigation Group concluded that it was.

Once challenged to a fair fight, Watch Tower’s tactics began to unravel and then last week, it was suddenly all over. Documents filed with the court revealed that Watch Tower had not only agreed to dismiss the lawsuit, but to do so with prejudice, meaning that the matter can never return to court.

So what brought four years of legal oppression to an end?

Watch Tower Obtains DMCA Subpoenas, Never Sues

Following this important win for Paul Levy and his client, the attorney explained what went wrong for Watch Tower while confirming what we suspected all along. This was not really about copyright, it was about the usefulness of copyright law to facilitate access to something even more valuable than money – information.

In defending McFree, Levy pointed out that over the years Watch Tower had obtained 70 DMCA subpoenas against alleged infringers but had never followed those up with an infringement lawsuit. That cast doubt on Watch Tower’s declarations that it would only use the obtained information for the purposes of enforcing its rights under copyright law, Levy explained.

“But matters continued to get worse for Watch Tower, and both its inability to be straightforward in explaining its actions, including making misleading statements to the court, and the likely ulterior motives for its actions, became increasingly clear,” he wrote following the dismissal.

Watch Tower’s “Ulterior Motives”

“During the hearing, Watch Tower’s counsel made the outrageous statement that Watch Tower’s litigation strategies were confined by a lack of ‘significant funds,’ and that its approach to the litigation was guided by ‘significant economic motivations’,” Levy says.

“Because Watch Tower’s 990T forms are publicly available as required by law, it is a matter of public knowledge that Watch Tower has more than a billion dollars in assets. Watch Tower is fortunate that it never made this representation about limited resources in a signed document.”

With Watch Tower determined to press on with discovery to remove McFree’s anonymity, the religious group made a pivotal admission. What it really wanted was information that would allow it to determine the source of unpublished Watch Tower video clips that had appeared in McFree’s videos.

“The Watch Tower headquarters is a leaky sieve and it wants to identify the leakers. Beyond that, there may have been a massive hack of Watch Tower’s computer systems several years ago,” Levy reveals.

Watch Tower confirmed that it was planning to seek discovery on those issues and then offered to drop its lawsuit against McFree, on condition that he promised never to use any pre-publication Watch Tower materials in future, without obtaining consent.

However, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper , Levy says that McFree has every right to use leaked unpublished materials, even from a hack, providing he had nothing to do with the hacking.

Levy notes that the possible hack against Watch Tower could’ve been actionable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act but the statute of limitations expired years ago.

“So it became apparent that Watch Tower was trying to leverage a barred copyright claim, and the threat of identifying McFree, to obtain relief and or discovery on a different subject entirely – a possible abuse of process,” Levy adds.

McFree rejected Watch Tower’s proposed settlement and his defense went on the offensive. Watch Tower was warned that if it continued to pursue McFree, Levy might file a document blocking it from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby locking it into litigation that it was destined to lose.

And then things got dark. Really, really dark.

A DMCA Subpoena Exposed Identity of Child Abuse Critic

One of the suspicions in Watch Tower cases is that exposing the identities of serving Jehovah’s Witnesses via DMCA subpoenas could lead to them being punished. However, the law says that DMCA subpoenas can only be used to protect the applicant’s copyright interests. In practice, that is impossible to enforce.

Levy says that during their investigations, his team discovered a 2018 DMCA subpoena that used copyright law to directly target a vehement critic who, coincidentally or not, was subsequently identified and punished by the religious group.

“Watch Tower succeeded in using a DMCA subpoena obtaining the identity of a previously identified blogger who specialized in attacking child abuse within the group, and Watch Tower’s refusal to report abuse to local authorities,” Levy reveals.

“It is quite possible that Watch Tower did not need the information it obtained under the DMCA (because this blogger’s identifying information had become available elsewhere), but even so it never sued him for copyright infringement and it never otherwise used his identity to enforce its copyright. Watch Tower had got what it wanted — revenge.”

Watch Tower Throws in the Towel

With Watch Tower still keen for YouTube/Google to identify McFree, Levy and his team waited for a notice indicating that a subpoena had been served. It never came. Instead of sending notice of service, Watch Tower sent a proposed stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the case, with each side to bear their own costs.

Levy’s team at Public Citizen responded by informing Watch Tower that if it wanted a guarantee that McFree would not pursue them for fees and/or abuse of process, the dismissal would need to be with prejudice. The religious group agreed.

The win for McFree is a welcome one but he didn’t get everything he’d hoped for.

According to Levy, McFree wanted a ruling that would’ve stopped Watch Tower from abusing DMCA subpoenas to intimidate future Jehovah’s Witness critics, but they avoided that by dropping his case. Nevertheless, dragging the practice out of the shadows could make it more difficult in the future.

“Kevin McFree deserves a great deal of credit for being willing to stick to his guns and not let Watch Tower out of the case easily. It is perhaps because of this litigation that Watch Tower has not filed any new DMCA subpoenas since we entered the case late last winter. But only the future will tell whether it has truly been deterred from future abuse,” Levy concludes.

The stipulation of dismissal can be found here (pdf) and Paul Levy’s excellent blog here . Public Citizen’s work can be appreciated here .

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

  • To chevron_right

    ‘Valorant Mobile’ Leaks Excite Gamers But ‘Pirate’ Copies Are Bad News

    news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Saturday, 14 May - 18:09 · 5 minutes

valorant-small Given that the production of today’s videogames requires the involvement of a large number of people, preventing all information leaks is an impossible task.

On the flip side, today’s interconnected world has the ability to transform leaks into powerful advertising and hype, keeping message boards and social media alive with discussion of exciting new products, at zero cost to official marketing teams.

While much of this is good for business, there are people out there who simply can’t wait for a game to be officially released. But are those pre-release pirate downloads being advertised online the real deal or something much less attractive? In a case that began amid a number of prominent leaks, followed by a copyright complaint to YouTube, and then more aggressive legal action using the DMCA, we followed the crumbs to find out.

First Images of ‘Valorant Mobile’ Appear

On April 7, 2022, well-known mobile gaming ‘leaker’ DannyINTEL posted an image to Twitter containing what appeared to be a screenshot of Riot Games’ upcoming title ‘Valorant Mobile’. Text in the screenshot revealed that the game was being tested in China, DannyINTEL wrote.

This and other images were reported in several gaming publications and soon after, DannyINTEL uploaded supposed game footage to YouTube .

Copyright Complaint Targets Just One Video

Over the course of last month, additional ‘leaked’ videos were uploaded, with some listed via unofficial ‘leaking’ accounts on Twitter. Early May, a 13-minute gameplay video was uploaded to YouTube and other platforms in much higher quality but, as far as we can determine, none of these were taken down by Riot Games.

This suggests that the developer is happy with (or at least feels unthreatened by) the leaks. However, at least one mystery video on YouTube attracted the direct attention of Riot Games’ legal team. After being uploaded in the preceding days, on April 26 the company filed a complaint at YouTube alleging copyright infringement.

As the takedown notice shows, Riot Games demanded not only the removal of the video, but also any additional copies that may be uploaded in the future. Of course, DMCA takedowns aren’t particularly unusual but a couple of things stand out in this case.

While we can’t review the entire internet for similar removals, key sources posting ‘leaked’ content do not appear to be of interest to Riot Games since their videos remain online. Perhaps most importantly, whoever uploaded this specific video to YouTube now faces potential action after Riot’s attorneys went to court in the US to establish their identity.

Riot Games Uses Copyright Law to Unmask Uploader

In a May 6 filing at a district court in California, attorneys from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained that the video previously (and quickly) taken down by YouTube back in April infringes Riot’s exclusive rights under copyright law.

“Specifically, it infringes Riot’s rights in its popular video game ‘Valorant’,” the attorneys said, noting that their client is the rightsholder of “numerous highly popular videogames.”

Even after reviewing the copyright complaint sent to YouTube and the documents filed with the court, we could find no clear indication of what the video actually contained. The video is long gone from YouTube too and as previously noted, will be taken down if it is reuploaded.

What we were able to determine is the title of the now-deleted video . It began with “Valorant Mobile IS HERE!” and promised gameplay video plus a tutorial on how to install Valorant Mobile on iOS and Android devices.

Since other gameplay videos don’t seem to be an irritant to Riot, it certainly felt like something else must be going on here, particularly given the company’s unusual interest and the fact that at least some people have been able to play an early version of the game. Did the video contain sensitive gameplay video, or did it reference a full-blown leak perhaps? Hard to say on the evidence thus far but Riot was clearly concerned about something .

“Riot is requesting the attached proposed subpoena that would order Google, LLC dba YouTube, LLC to disclose the identity, including the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), and e-mail addresses(es) of the user(s) responsible for posting the content that appeared at the [YouTube URL],” Riot’s attorneys write in their DMCA subpoena application.

The court is yet to issue the subpoena compelling YouTube to cooperate so only time will tell how the case develops and in what direction. However, there was something else unusual about this video too.

Aggressive Promotion – Not Really a ‘Pirate’ Trait

During our research, we noticed that around April 25 the video was promoted quite aggressively on various platforms by what can be described as ‘suspicious’ social media accounts. This isn’t how straightforward videogame leaks are commonly promoted. Somewhat intrigued, we contacted Riot Games who informed us that they hadn’t used the DMCA to take down information related to any leak of Valorant Mobile, but to protect the interests of gamers.

“We issued the DMCA take-down notice to YouTube for [the video] uploaded on the DaillestballerPC channel for instructing viewers on how to download a phony ‘Valorant Mobile’ app from a website called AppRocky.com,” explained Dan Nabel, Riot’s Associate General Counsel.

We couldn’t find a fake download by that name on AppRocky when we checked but Nabel told us that Riot had been dealing with “a bad-faith situation” that posed a risk to Valorant fans.

“We needed to take action to protect players from potential fraud/phishing,” Nabel explained.

Whether Riot will be able to find out who operates the DaillestballerPC YouTube channel will remain to be seen but the account is notable for a couple of reasons. Aside from generating more than 4.6 million views in its lifetime, the channel is among the oldest on YouTube, having been created just 10 months after YouTube’s 2005 launch.

As it turns out, that alone doesn’t render the channel trustworthy but with millions of gamers relying on YouTube for information, Riot’s takedown will be welcomed by those who prefer skillful gaming over identity theft.

Riot Games’ DMCA subpoena application can be found here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

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

  • chevron_right

    RuTube, le YouTube russe, subit « la pire cyberattaque de son histoire »

    news.movim.eu / Numerama · Tuesday, 10 May - 09:09

La plateforme de vidéo russe ne s'est toujours pas remise d'une attaque lancée le 9 mai. L'entreprise se dit victime d'une menace permanente sophistiquée contre son système informatique. [Lire la suite]

Abonnez-vous aux newsletters Numerama pour recevoir l’essentiel de l’actualité https://www.numerama.com/newsletter/

  • To chevron_right

    Does YouTube’s Autoplay Feature Hurt Its DMCA Safe Harbor Protection?

    news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Thursday, 5 May - 09:43 · 3 minutes

Sad YouTube A class action lawsuit filed in 2020 by musician Maria Schneider against YouTube is showing no sign of a conclusion.

The complaint, which alleges mass infringement and serious deficiencies in YouTube’s copyright enforcement measures, has seen the exposure of fraud and calls from YouTube to have the whole case dismissed .

With the case now spanning three years, both sides are still willing to spend huge sums of money fighting their respective corners. Quite how the plaintiffs are able to match Google’s bottomless financial pit is unknown, but at times they are raising some interesting questions, some of which relate to YouTube’s DMCA safe harbor protections.

Documents Relating to YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ Feature

Last month, counsel for Maria Schneider and the putative class filed a letter motion with US District Judge James Donato. In broad terms, it again claims that YouTube isn’t producing enough documents in a timely manner as part of discovery. Similar complaints have been made in the other direction too but this time around, the requests relate to an interesting legal theory.

The letter says that since October 2020, discovery requests relating to YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ feature have resulted in the production of “less than a hundred” internal documents (including PowerPoint presentations) but no email or instant message communications. The plaintiffs want the court to compel the production of relevant documents since they relate to an important legal argument relating to YouTube’s liability for infringing content on its platform.

YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ Feature and the DMCA’s Safe Harbor

In summary, the letter claims that when YouTube delivers videos to users that they did not specifically request, that undermines YouTube’s ‘safe harbor’ protections under the DMCA.

“Autoplay automatically plays videos for users without any affirmative acts by the user, i.e., no clicking of a link or selecting the next video to play, and is thus relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that YouTube actively participates in copyright infringement and Defendants’ safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’), 17 U.S.C. § 512 ,” the letter reads.

“AutoPlay’s functionality establishes that YouTube algorithmically selects and controls a substantial portion of the views on its platform, including views of content that infringe on Plaintiffs’ and the putative class’s copyrights.”

The plaintiffs say that the ‘Autoplay’ documents are relevant to their direct, inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement claims because they will show that when YouTube “actively selects and displays infringing videos”, the platform is more than a passive participant and benefits from the dissemination of infringing content.

The safe harbor provision of the DMCA requires a service provider to show that it does not “receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity” in cases where the service provider “has the right and ability to control such activity.”

The plaintiffs assert that since YouTube’s Autoplay has the ability to play infringing content, the “right and ability to control” aspect is established. Autoplay generates revenue for YouTube, so it “receives a financial benefit” too.

“The requested documents will thus show both Defendants’ participation in and control over infringing content on the YouTube platform and the extent to which Autoplay has financially benefitted YouTube through its advertising revenues,” the letter adds.

Discovery Dispute Hinged on a Single Word

According to the plaintiffs, an agreement was reached with YouTube for it to produce documents sufficient to show its policies concerning Autoplay, “including changes and proposed changes to Autoplay policies concerning copyright and revenue considerations.” (emphasis in original) .

They state that several months later YouTube reneged on the agreement, claiming that it had agreed to produce documents concerning changes to policies only to the extent that such changes were driven by copyright or revenue considerations, if any. On these terms, YouTube reported that it had failed to locate any such documents so could not produce them.

“In short, Defendants are wrongfully withholding documents that are undisputedly relevant to both Plaintiffs’ infringement claims and Defendants’ failure to qualify for DMCA safe harbor,” the letter concludes.

Plaintiffs’ letter to the court can be found here (pdf)

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

  • chevron_right

    YouTube Go is dead, and you can probably blame YouTube Premium

    news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Wednesday, 4 May - 18:21 · 1 minute

YouTube Go is dead, and you can probably blame YouTube Premium

Enlarge (credit: YouTube)

YouTube Go is probably not an app that many of our US readers are familiar with, given its singular focus on the developing world, but it scored more than 500 million downloads in its six years of existence. It's also dead. YouTube recently announced the app will be shutting down this August.

Google kills product

View more stories YouTube Go was the herald for Google's "next billion users" plan in 2016. When you're as big as Google and count "most Internet users" as your customer base, the best way to chase growth is to get more people on the Internet. The result was several "Go"-branded products, which targeted low-end devices with limited Internet access. One of the biggest developing markets was India.

With YouTube Go shutting down, YouTube cites improvements in the main YouTube app as the primary reason. The company says the main app has seen "improved performance for entry-level devices or those that watch YouTube on slower networks." YouTube says the main app also has "a better overall user experience [and] offers features that aren’t available on YouTube Go that many have asked for—such as the ability to comment, post, create content, and use dark theme."

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

  • chevron_right

    Connaissez-vous YouTube Go ? Dommage, ça ferme

    news.movim.eu / Numerama · Wednesday, 4 May - 08:18

La version allégée de YouTube, conçue pour les marchés émergents et les téléphones les moins performants, va fermer en août. Google pense que l'application standard est suffisante. [Lire la suite]

Abonnez-vous aux newsletters Numerama pour recevoir l’essentiel de l’actualité https://www.numerama.com/newsletter/