![]() |
|
Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology! |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,021
|
![]() Since 2002
![]() ![]() "It’s worth noting that this will not be a universally popular move." – Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters February 11th, 2023 ![]() Study: Over 50% of Academics Admit to Pirating Research Papers A majority of the survey respondents say they used websites like Sci-Hub to avoid paywalls by accessing illegal copies of research. Chris Stokel-Walker Piracy has long been a major problem for big businesses, with Netflix just the latest in a growing list of companies to crack down on password sharing. But as recent research shows, piracy is also a growing issue in the world of academic research. More than 50% of academics have used piracy websites like Sci-Hub in order to bypass paywalls for research they want to access, according to a recent study published in arXiv, a preprint server owned by Cornell University. The researchers surveyed more than 3,300 academics to examine why and how they use scholarly piracy websites. “It stems from our experience,” says Francisco Segado-Boj of the Complutense University of Madrid in Spain, and lead author of the paper. “As academics, we spend most of our time looking for previous research, and many times you find you don’t have access to the papers you need to check. We also follow some pathways to access this kind of document behind a paywall that our institution isn’t subscribed to.” The reason so many academics are willing to use illicit methods to access research is due in large part to journals’ tight access. Around 75% of academic articles are hidden behind a paywall, according to one 2019 study (though that figure varies depending on the subject matter). “I’m never surprised by any sort of questionnaire that states academics use pirate sites,” says Zakayo Kjellström, who studies research piracy at Umeå University in Sweden. (Kjellström was not involved in the arXiv study.) “Because it’s easy, essentially. But not just because it’s easy, but because of how access looks.” Accessing single papers can cost more than entire meals; buying a subscription to popular journals is an expense that some universities are willing to pay for, but many can’t afford. For many institutions outside the world’s largest universities and colleges, librarians and those in charge of overseeing academic subscriptions have to cherry pick subscriptions to make their budget go further. And even in the wealthier schools, access to journals isn’t necessarily distributed across departments equally. “Those in the most privileged disciplines, in the most well-funded research areas, or from the highest-income countries have access to almost everything they need,” says Segado-Boj. “The picture is different once you look at those in less-funded areas, such as social sciences and humanities, and even more worrying for those in less-developed countries.” (One academic, who spoke to Fast Company on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from their employer, highlighted their own example of using a piracy website. “A depressing use of SciHub is for accessing an article, which I wrote, but in a journal which my current institution doesn’t currently pay for,” they say.) As a result, many academics turn to Sci-Hub, which was created by Alexandra Elbakyan in 2011 and claims to have paywall-free copies of around 95% of all the academic literature. Sci-Hub regularly shifts location online as domain name registrars withdraw their hosting following complaints by the copyright holders of the research accessed through the site. Most recently, its sci-hub.se domain name went offline in late January 2023. Elbakyan recommended users instead try sci-hub.ru, though that domain name is inaccessible from a number of countries. (Elbakyan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) The constant cat-and-mouse game Sci-Hub has to play with authorities makes the website’s dream of unlocking access to the world’s knowledge more challenging, says Segado-Boj. According to his recent survey of academics, those in less-privileged positions either aren’t aware of the piracy platforms, or can’t keep up with where their latest iteration is. Surprising to Kjellström was the fact that most academics didn’t cite ideological reasons when explaining why they chose to use Sci-Hub or similar platforms. While many have bemoan the exploitative nature of academic publishing—where authors, editors, and peer reviewers do their work for free, only for large business-owned publishers to profit off their work by charging for access—it seems most academics are simply seeking a simpler, more convenient solution, rather than actively trying to disrupt and devolve the business model of publishers. Despite constantly being blocked and banned, Sci-Hub has become an integral part of the way that researchers conduct their work. A 2022 study in the journal Scientometrics (itself hidden behind a paywall) found that a paper’s presence on Sci-Hub almost doubled the number of citations to any given bit of work—an important metric for academics, who are often judged on their “impact” within the research world by the number of people who reference their work. The reliance on piracy websites within academia is a damning indication of the biases involved in the world, says Segado-Boj. “It’s additional evidence of the terrible gap between the core of academia—the northern, western, Anglo-Saxon side of academia—and the rest of the world, the so-called Global South,” he says. “It’s a vicious circle: if you lack access to the most renowned or highest quality journals, you are condemned to publish and read in the third and fourth tier journals; in less prestigious sites. It perpetuates inequalities.” https://www.fastcompany.com/90845744...esearch-papers ![]() After 2 Year Decline Australians Return to Online Piracy AAP Roughly one-in-four Australians pirated online content in 2022, as rates of unlawfully consumed media rebounded across film, television, music, and live sports viewership. The 2022 Consumer Survey on Online Copyright Infringement found an increase in the number of Australians illegally accessing media online after two years of declining piracy rates. Video games were the only category with a continued decline in unlawful consumption, whereas movie, television, music, and live sports piracy all grew by two to five percent between 2021 and 2022. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the statistics were “disturbingly high” and hoped new technologies would be adapted to protect Australian artists while ensuring consumers can still easily enjoy entertainment media. In 2023, Australia’s favourite shows and movies could be spread over as many as ten different streaming services, most of which increased their subscription prices in the two years. The report also showed 26 percent of respondents allowed someone outside their household to use their login details. With streaming king Netflix set to crackdown on password sharing, at least 1.5 million viewers will be kicked off the service by March. Compounded with the growing cost of necessities and inflation at a three-decade high of 7.8 percent, the allure of free content is more tempting than ever. The biggest driver of piracy was the draw of free content, with 31 percent of respondents saying they would be more likely to illegally access media if they didn’t have to pay – an increase of three per cent compared to 2020. Though 64 percent of Australians still believed pirating content was wrong, this was a four per cent decrease from the year before. In response to the report, the federal government has announced a review of copyright enforcement mechanisms. It is open for public consultation until https://www.theepochtimes.com/after-...y_5047769.html ![]() The Most Pirated Film Titles of 2022 Note: This article is an offshoot of Variety Intelligence Platform’s special report “The New Face of Content Piracy,” available exclusively to VIP+ subscribers. Tyler Aquilina Tom Cruise may have ruled the box office in 2022, but Maverick was no match for the superheroes when it came to illicit film viewing last year. Exclusive data provided to Variety Intelligence Platform by piracy-focused research firm Muso measured 2022 activity across a wide range of piracy sites, including illegal streaming, torrent, web download and stream-ripping platforms. The results reveal that superhero films held a dominant share of illegal viewing in 2022, with Marvel and DC releases collectively accounting for 70% of piracy demand (that is, illicit streams, downloads and the like) for the top 10 most pirated film titles of the year. DC’s “Black Adam” alone claimed a 9% share despite being released as late as October. Of course, “Top Gun: Maverick,” with its 8% share, was no slouch, but the discrepancy between its top spot at the 2022 domestic box office and its lower position among the most pirated titles reflects the streaming revolution’s impact on both illegal and legal film viewing. Per Muso data, spikes in a film’s piracy tend to coincide with its release on digital platforms, which enables the availability of high-quality pirated streams or downloads, as opposed to bootleg “cam-rip” versions illicitly recorded in a theater. These copies, per a Muso analyst, “often provide an unsatisfactory viewing experience and can drive frustrated consumers into theaters for a better experience.” In some cases, sheer demand for a film can outweigh such concerns. “Avatar: The Way of Water,” for instance, saw enough piracy in just the final three weeks of the year to rank as the third-most-pirated title of Q4 (behind only “Black Adam” and Marvel’s “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever”). Generally, however, HD copies serve as the most powerful drivers of piracy for popular films. The shortening of theatrical windows since the COVD-19 pandemic has led to high-quality viewing options arriving quicker than ever. Indeed, titles like “The Batman” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” landed on streaming services a mere 45-50 days after their theatrical debuts. “Top Gun,” on the other hand, had a nearly three-month window ahead of its release on VOD, with another four months passing before its streaming debut. Producer-star Cruise’s insistence on a long theatrical-exclusive run for the film cemented its box-office dominance and also helps account for its slightly lower levels of piracy, due to the lack of a high-quality digital copy on the market for months following its release. On a similar note, Marvel’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home” saw a huge spike in piracy nearly 90 days after its December 2021 theatrical release, and three days ahead of its digital VOD release (after a high-quality copy leaked online shortly beforehand). Unlike most Marvel movies, “Spider-Man” is a co-production between Disney’s Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures, meaning the film is not subject to Disney’s approximately 45-day theatrical window and does not stream on Disney+. That latter point also illustrates the significance of a studio’s streaming reach to piracy of its product. Sony doesn't have a proprietary streaming platform of its own, and due to a longstanding pay TV deal (which ended following its 2021 slate), “No Way Home” has only been available to stream in the U.S. thus far via Starz — which, as of Q3 2022, has a domestic subscriber base about one-fourth the size of Disney+’s. That factor — and, more than likely, a good deal of resulting confusion among consumers — helped keep piracy demand for “No Way Home” above some 2022 blockbusters, including “Uncharted” and “Doctor Strange,” in the latter months of the year, according to Muso data. (Muso did not disclose exact numbers for the films’ pirated streams and downloads.) It's an unfortunate fact that many streaming players must face: In-demand film assets may not be enough to build scale in the new world of content piracy. https://variety.com/2023/film/news/t...22-1235512387/ ![]() Netflix Steps Up its Effort to Get Paid for Account Sharing Dee-Ann Durbin Netflix has a plan to deal with rampant account sharing: a program that lets subscribers pay extra to share their account with people outside their household. The streaming giant introduced paid sharing in Canada, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain on Wednesday. It was previously rolled out in multiple markets in Latin America. While Netflix won’t say when paid sharing will come to other countries, some version of the plan is expected to be introduced in the U.S. in the next few weeks. Around one-third of Netflix’s subscribers live in the U.S. and Canada. Netflix has more than 231 million paid subscribers in 190 countries. The Los Gatos, California-based company estimates that 100 million households are currently sharing their accounts with others, which impacts the company’s ability to invest in new programming. “We’ve always made it easy for people who live together to share their Netflix account with features like profiles and multiple streams,” the company said in a blog post Wednesday. “While these have been hugely popular, they’ve also created confusion about when and how you can share Netflix.” Starting Wednesday, Netflix said it will allow standard and premium subscribers in Canada, Spain, New Zealand and Portugal to set up an extra account for up to two people they don’t live with for an extra monthly fee. The monthly fee varies by country; in Canada, it’s 7.99 Canadian dollars, while in Portugal it’s 3.99 euros. Netflix said it will also allow people who have been borrowing accounts to transfer their viewing history and other preferences to a new, paid subscription. Netflix didn’t say what actions it will take if subscribers continue to share accounts outside their household. In a conference call with investors in January, Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters said the company is trying to be thoughtful and gradual in its rollout. “It’s worth noting that this will not be a universally popular move, so there will current members that are unhappy with this move. We’ll see a bit of a cancel reaction to that,” he said. “We think of this as similar to what we see when we raise prices.” https://apnews.com/article/technolog...1f036e3aec7820 ![]() GitHub and EFF Back YouTube Ripper in Legal Battle With the RIAA Ernesto Van der Sar GitHub and digital rights group EFF have filed briefs supporting stream-ripping site Yout.com in its legal battle with the RIAA. GitHub warns that the lower court's decision threatens to criminalize the work of many other developers. The EFF, meanwhile, stresses that an incorrect interpretation of the DMCA harms people who use stream-rippers lawfully. In 2020, YouTube ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA, asking a Connecticut district court to declare that the site does not violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The music group had previously used DMCA takedown notices to remove many of Yout’s appearances in Google’s search results. This had a significant impact on revenues, the site argued, adding that it always believed it wasn’t breaking any laws and hoped the court would agree. Dismissal and Appeal Last October, the Connecticut district court concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal the decision. Nader’s attorneys filed their opening brief last week at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision. The YouTube ripper is not the only party calling for a reversal. Yesterday, Microsoft-owned developer platform GitHub submitted an amicus brief that argues for the same. And in a separate filing, the EFF also agrees that the lower court’s decision should be overturned. GitHub’s Amicus Brief GitHub’s brief starts by pointing out that the company takes no position on the ultimate resolution of this appeal, nor does it side with all of Yout’s arguments. However, it does believe that the lower court’s interpretation of the DMCA is dangerous. The district court held that stream rippers can violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The court noted that these tools allow people to download video and audio from YouTube, despite the streaming platform’s lack of a download button. According to GitHub, this conclusion is premature, dangerous, and places other software types at risk. “[T]he district court’s expansive interpretation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision compels GitHub to point out how the court’s rationale needlessly threatens countless other software tools in widespread use,” GitHub writes. The developer platform is not new to this issue. The RIAA previously tried to remove the open-source software youtube-dl – upon which Yout.com relies – from its platform. After initially removing it, GitHub later decided to reinstate the project, arguing that it doesn’t violate the DMCA. In the present lawsuit, GitHub reiterates that stream-ripping tools should not be outlawed. The fact that YouTube doesn’t have a download button doesn’t mean that tools that enable people to download videos circumvent technological access restrictions. “YouTube’s decision not to provide its own ‘download’ button, however, is not a restriction on access to works. It merely affects how users experience them,” GitHub writes. If the court order is allowed to stand, GitHub warns that a broad group of developers could be exposed to criminal liability, effectively chilling technological innovation. “The district court’s expansive interpretation is particularly alarming because, unlike most copyright provisions, the DMCA imposes criminal penalties. At a minimum, those penalties underscore the importance of rejecting a construction that sweeps in a broad range of widely accepted conduct.” Browser Extensions, Screen Readers, Ad-Blockers and More YouTube download tools are not the only types of software at risk, according to GitHub. There are many others that affect ‘how users experience’ online websites. These could also be seen as problematic, based on the district court’s expansive interpretation of the DMCA. GitHub lists several examples, including browser extensions such as ‘Dark Reader,’ ‘Google Translate,’ and ‘OpenDyslexic’. The same also applies to screen readers, ad blockers, and media player software such as VLC, which plays YouTube videos outside of a web browser. These widely accepted tools could put their creators at risk if the DMCA is interpreted too strictly, GitHub warns. “On the district court’s erroneous theory, the developers who offer those widely embraced applications could be criminals facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines or years in prison.” EFF’s Amicus Brief The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also submitted an amicus curiae brief yesterday. The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, particularly when they get in the way of people’s ability to freely use technology. In this instance, EFF points out that stream-rippers such as Yout.com provide a neutral technology with plenty of legal uses. They can be used for infringing purposes, but that’s also true for existing technologies – the printing press, for example. “Like every reproduction technology — from the printing press to the smartphone — these programs, colloquially called ‘streamrippers,’ have important lawful uses as well as infringing ones. “Video creators, educators, journalists, and human rights organizations all depend on the ability to make copies of user-uploaded videos,” EFF adds. In common with GitHub, EFF notes that the absence of a download button on YouTube doesn’t imply that download tools automatically violate the DMCA, especially when there are no effective download restrictions on the platform. ‘No Encryption’ The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision is aimed at tools that bypass effective technological access restrictions. That doesn’t apply to YouTube’s Javascript-based code, EFF argues. “The YouTube website code at issue in this case is different: it was not clearly designed to limit access to videos, or the ability to copy them. YouTube videos arrive at a viewer’s device with no encryption or scrambling. No login, password, key, or other secret knowledge is required to gain access. “Tellingly, YouTube does use encryption and a password-controlled login to limit access to subscribers of its separate pay-TV service, YouTube TV,” EFF adds. According to EFF, Yout and similar tools provide the same functions as video cassette recorders once did. They allow people to make copies of videos that are posted publicly by their creators. In addition, these tools are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work. “Journalists and human rights monitoring organizations need to be able to save copies of eyewitness videos documenting notable events, conflicts, and malfeasance. Even copyright holders and their licensees rely on tools like Yout.com to download copies of their own or licensed works.” “This Court should reject the unwarranted expansion of Section 1201 liability, and reverse the dismissal of Yout.com’s claims,” EFF concludes. The RIAA has yet to respond to Yout’s appeal brief. Considering the importance of the case, it seems likely that they will also receive support from other rightsholders or their representatives. — A copy of GitHub’s Amicus Curiae brief calling for the reversal of the lower court’s decision in favor of the RIAA is available here (pdf) and EFF’s brief can be found here (pdf) https://torrentfreak.com/github-and-...e-riaa-230210/ ![]() Ken Clark has Successfully Fined Thousands of Canadians for Streaming Pirated Movies. Is he a Troll — or a Hero? Clark and his law firm send out more than 100,000 warnings every year and he’s sued thousands. Some say he’s harassing regular people for profit — but to others, he’s Canada’s copyright cop Christine Dobby It’s an email no one wants to get, but thousands of Canadians get one every month: “Important notice regarding your internet activity,” the subject line says. It looks like spam, but you click through just in case. At the top of the message is a note from your internet service provider explaining that the law requires it to forward you the email below — and that’s when you get nervous. The message, from an American movie studio, says your computer’s IP address was used to illegally distribute one of their movies. The email instructs you to remove the file and stop downloading or uploading copyright-protected content without permission. You click away from the email and return to your day. About a week later, you get another message that says your IP address is still linked to that studio’s movie. It’s a bit unnerving, but you forget about the emails for a few months — after all, your neighbour got a similar notice, and nothing ever came of it — but then you get a package of documents delivered by registered mail. That’s when you learn, after wading through the legalese, that you’re being sued for copyright infringement in the Federal Court of Canada. Millions of Canadians have received copyright infringement notices through their internet service providers (ISPs) over the past decade. Most people get one email and stop downloading pirated movies and TV shows (or lecture their teenager on why they shouldn’t) and that’s the end of the matter. But if you got two of those notices — and they came from a lawyer named Ken Clark — you should probably pay attention. When it comes to copyright infringement cases against individuals, Clark, a partner and intellectual property lawyer with the Bay Street law firm Aird & Berlis, is the most active lawyer in Canada. The firm sends out well over 100,000 warning notices every year and has sued thousands of Canadians, winning out-of-court settlements of up to $5,000 in most cases. To anyone who produces shows and movies that are routinely stolen, Ken Clark is a hero. To his detractors, though, Clark is a copyright troll. To anyone who produces shows and movies that are routinely stolen, Clark is a hero. He’s one of the few unofficial copyright cops in Canada willing to protect the work they created and for which they deserve to be paid. To his detractors, though, Clark is a copyright troll, going after otherwise upstanding Canadians for the almost victimless crime of streaming movies and shows on easily accessible websites that have been offering up free content for decades. Which raises a thorny question: Is Clark’s relentless pursuit of copyright infringers necessary to enforce his clients’ legal rights — or is he harassing and intimidating regular people for profit? That very question is at the heart of a $400-million legal battle taking place in Federal Court in Toronto right now. ‘A new take on copyright enforcement’ A mug with Clark’s smiling face on it (his profile picture from the Aird & Berlis website) sits on a bookshelf in his 28th-floor office overlooking the Toronto harbour. He’s just finished describing his client’s position in a recent copyright court fight, documents from the case arranged neatly on a desk cleared of all other distractions for this meeting, and now he’s talking more happily about some of the memorabilia he’s collected over the years. Skip Advertisement There are the requisite framed degrees of course, his “wall of credibility,” including a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Waterloo that briefly landed him work designing sensors for paper mills before he made a hard turn into a legal career. But then there’s the fun stuff, and Clark, an affable 53-year-old with dark, expressive eyebrows and salt and pepper hair, breaks into a real-life smile as he shows some of it off. Mixed in with family photos on his bookshelf there’s a mini sextant, a celestial navigational tool his brother gave him as a gift when he was called to the bar; mounted above his desk is a small replica of the Rosetta Stone; and behind him, on the last bit of space before the walls of the small office meet the glass windows, hangs a poster for the late ’90s movie “Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.” Clark, dressed in a sharp black suit and a tie with small pink flowers, says of “Ghost Dog,” “I came up with the metaphor that lawyers are sort of like him, urban samurais, following your code, that kind of thing.” Clark says he stumbled into the copyright enforcement program he leads at Aird & Berlis pretty much “by pure chance.” Canada introduced new copyright rules about a decade ago (the so-called “notice and notice” regime that lets copyright holders send those emails to internet users through their ISPs), and he received a cold call from a client who wanted to protect its content rights. It was that call that got him started. He has an affinity for computers and technology and began researching enforcement approaches content owners were using in Europe, Scandinavia and the U.S. “I came up with a litigation system that would fit in within the Canadian context … And once you develop a specialty in it, other people come and hire for you it.” “I don’t know that we’re the only people doing it, but I think that we’re the most well known,” he says. That’s certainly true. Online message boards are filled with posts from people confused about what to do after being sued for copyright infringement — many users mention Clark by name in one thread on RedFlagDeals that goes on for 120 pages and spans almost five years. There are even defence lawyers who advertise, “If you have received a statement of claim from Ken Clark of Aird & Berlis, we can help.” “I guess it’s a compliment,” he says of that. He also notes that there’s a team of people working on this at the firm, not wanting to take all the credit. Clark says his clients use forensic software to detect IP addresses that are sharing their movies using the BitTorrent protocol. BitTorrent is a legal way for computer users to share files, but it’s often used for illegal file-sharing. Many Canadians have also purchased Android boxes to watch online content on their televisions and certain apps for those boxes use BitTorrent to access “free” movies and TV shows, Clark says. The firm sends second notices in about one in 10 cases, he estimates. His clients then routinely go to court for orders disclosing the names of the internet users to whom they’ve sent second notices if the infringing behaviour did not stop. Clark estimates he’s launched about 25 copyright infringement claims in Federal Court and in each of those cases, he sues hundreds — sometimes thousands — of people at a time. None of those lawsuits have gone to a full trial (though one case seeking a default judgment against defendants who failed to respond is working its way through the system). Instead, the cases are almost always settled for amounts that are not publicly disclosed, but range from $100 to $5,000, the statutory limit for copyright infringement by individuals. The point of all this, he tells the Star, is to educate people on copyright rules, teach them that the internet is not a free-for-all. There have been multiple court battles fought over the notice and notice system (with Clark’s clients at the centre of most of them, including a proposed “reverse class action” that could allow them to streamline the administrative process while suing thousands of people at a time). Yet, there are still untested legal issues, according to James Plotkin, a lawyer with Gowling WLG in Ottawa who has represented numerous defendants in lawsuits launched by Clark’s firm. One major question, he says, is whether someone like a landlord or internet subscriber with an open Wi-Fi connection should be responsible for what other people do with that connection. “Copyright laws exist for a reason of course, but the question is how should they be enforced against whom and using what methods?” Plotkin says. “These BitTorrent cases are certainly a new take on copyright enforcement that we haven’t seen before in Canada.” Users ‘intimidated’ into settlements, Bell claims A few days after the meeting in his office, Clark sits in silence in a courtroom on Queen St. W. near University Ave., listening as a lawyer representing Bell Canada tears into the copyright program he’s built. The lawyer accuses his law firm of overwhelming internet service providers with notices and then intimidating the ordinary people they later sue. Clark’s client, Millennium Funding, launched a lawsuit against Bell in 2021, alleging the telecom company failed to pass along almost 40,000 initial notices of infringement tied to six movies: “Angel Has Fallen,” “Hellboy,” “The Outpost,” “Hunter Killer,” “Rambo: Last Blood,” and 2017’s “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” starring Ryan Reynolds. The penalty for an internet service provider such as Bell failing to pass along a valid notice is up to $10,000, which is how the claim got to the eye-popping $400-million number. It’s the first case to test this issue and it’s a strange position for Bell to be in. Bell itself owns an array of creative content, some produced for its CraveTV streaming service, as well as shows created for its traditional and specialty TV stations and the TSN sports broadcast network. The company has been aggressive in protecting its own copyright and has been involved in several cases seeking court orders to block websites illegally streaming content, such as the NHL playoffs. But Bell came out swinging in its defence, arguing that it did send along all the valid notices it received from Clark’s client, and launching a counterclaim against both Millennium and Aird & Berlis itself, accusing them of abuse of process and “copyright misuse.” In a ruling last year, a case management judge struck out parts of Bell’s statement of defence and its counterclaim against Aird & Berlis, but the company appealed that decision and the whole thing landed back before the Federal Court in Toronto in late January. “The copyright enforcement program is a tool of harassment and intimidation,” says Steve Mason, an experienced IP litigator with McCarthy Tétrault, adding that the goal is to get average internet users to settle for “much larger amounts than the damages actually suffered.” Standing at a podium surrounded by other lawyers in dark suits and stacks of bound copies of legal filings, Mason says Aird & Berlis’s copyright program inundates internet service providers with vast numbers of “unreliable and automatically generated” notices. “They say they’re just enforcing their rights. We say they’re doing so in a manner that violates public policy.” In his own submissions to the judge, Dale Schlosser, who represented Aird & Berlis at the hearing, later calls Bell’s claims “bald allegations (that) are scandalous and vexatious.” He also points out that Bell has acknowledged the legitimacy of the “notice and notice” regime and co-operated in other cases. If Bell wanted to challenge the actual system, Schlosser says, it should have objected during previous cases when Aird & Berlis sought orders requiring Bell to turn over its internet subscribers’ names so the firm could sue them for copyright infringement. When Mason rises to reply, things get tense. He makes one emphatic point after another before concluding: “They are shaking down innocent people for unjustified settlements, extorting innocent infringers.” After the hearing wraps just minutes later, the lawyers from both sides stand to shake each others’ hands. But Clark refuses to extend his hand to Mason. “(Not after) you stand up here and say Aird & Berlis extorts people,” he says, explaining his rejection of the typical custom in Canadian court. A few days later, Clark says Mason sent him a partial apology, explaining that he misspoke and didn’t mean to say “extort.” (Bell’s written pleadings don’t contain the word.) Bell declined to comment beyond the court proceedings and Clark doesn’t want to say much more at this point, concerned about commenting directly on matters before the judge, who has not yet ruled on the motion. But he adds, “I would have expected a little more courtesy.” ‘No one’s getting rich off of these lawsuits’ Mason’s dig at Aird & Berlis’s copyright enforcement program stung because Clark himself designed it. It’s the most prominent such program in Canada, and says he goes to great lengths to treat people fairly. “We take our reputation as a major law firm very seriously,” he told the Star in an interview before Mason’s comments. “In our view, it’s a transparent litigation tactic to try to kick Aird & Berlis off the record,” Clark says of Bell’s arguments in its counterclaim and in its appeal. He believes clients like Millennium have a legitimate reason to launch these lawsuits, noting that if mid-size studios don’t actively enforce against copyright infringement, it’s either harder to get distribution deals or they make less money from the deals. (Clark has acted for other studios, including Voltage Pictures, but only Millennium allowed him to comment for this article.) Recent data suggests Canadians are less likely to access pirated content than they were in the past, particularly now there are more legal options, such as Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Prime, but many people still illegally stream pirated movies and TV shows online and don’t seem to think it’s a serious crime. A 2022 survey of 2,000 adults conducted by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority found 80 per cent of respondents said they do not access pirated TV shows or movies — up from 72 per cent who said the same in 2018 — but 11 per cent of people said they still do. “There’s considerable online infringement out there,” Clark says. “I send tens of thousands of warning notices every month and it’s still there and it’s still been going on for a long time.” He points to a recent report from the International Intellectual Property Alliance (a coalition of U.S. trade associations representing the music, film, TV and publishing industries), which notes that box office revenue in Canada and the U.S. could increase by about 15 per cent if pre-release movie piracy could be stopped. When it comes to the process itself, Clark says it’s all supervised by the Federal Court and not meant to harass people or force them into settling. In fact, he says he asks for confidentiality orders to protect the names of the people his clients sue and includes information on pro-bono legal resources in the cover letters to every defendant. He also requires his clients to agree to accept settlements in proportion to what they believe the defendants can afford to pay and says he’s dropped cases when he’s learned someone is on social assistance. “The deal there is we’re not taking anyone’s rent money away,” he says. “No one’s getting rich off of these lawsuits.” Clark encourages people to get legal representation specifically so they don’t feel intimidated, he says, adding that no one has ever filed a complaint with the Law Society of Ontario over his conduct. “Our goal here … is to try to get people to have the equivalent of a speeding ticket now and then, and to learn,” he says. “A lot of people need to learn. And sometimes the only way to learn is by getting caught and paying the price.” https://www.thestar.com/business/202...suing-you.html ![]() Getty Images Sues AI Art Generator Stable Diffusion in the US for Copyright Infringement Getty Images has filed a case against Stability AI, alleging that the company copied 12 million images to train its AI model ‘without permission ... or compensation.’ James Vincent Getty Images has filed a lawsuit in the US against Stability AI, creators of open-source AI art generator Stable Diffusion, escalating its legal battle against the firm. The stock photography company is accusing Stability AI of “brazen infringement of Getty Images’ intellectual property on a staggering scale.” It claims that Stability AI copied more than 12 million images from its database “without permission ... or compensation ... as part of its efforts to build a competing business,” and that the startup has infringed on both the company’s copyright and trademark protections. The lawsuit is the latest volley in the ongoing legal struggle between the creators of AI art generators and rights-holders. AI art tools require illustrations, artwork, and photographs to use as training data, and often scrape it from the web without the creator’s consent. The latest in a fast-developing legal battle between AI startups and rights’ holders Getty announced last month that it has “commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of Justice in London” against Stability AI. However, that claim has not yet been served, and the company did not say at the time whether or not it also intended to pursue legal action in the US. Stability AI is also being sued in US along with another AI art startup, Midjourney, by a trio of artists who are seeking a class action lawsuit. “We can confirm on Friday Getty Images filed a complaint against Stability AI, Inc. in the United States District Court in Delaware,” Anne Flanagan, vice president of communications at Getty Images, told The Verge. “Getty Images has also filed a Claim in the High Court, which has not been served at this time. As is customary in the UK, on January 16 Getty Images sent and requested a response to a letter before action from Stability AI Limited within a customary timeframe. Stability AI Limited have confirmed receipt of this letter.” Legal experts say Getty Images’ case is on stronger footing than the artist-led lawsuit, but caution that in such unknown legal territory it’s impossible to predict any outcome. Andres Guadamaz, a UK academic specializing in AI and copyright law, said Getty’s complaint was “very strong,” on Twitter. “The complaint is technically more accurate than the class action lawsuit,” said Guadamaz. “The case will likely rest on the [copyright] infringement claim, and the defendants are likely to argue fair use. Could go either way.” Aaron Moss, a copyright lawyer at Greenberg Glusker and publisher of the Copyright Lately blog, tweeted: “Getty’s new complaint is much better than the overreaching class action lawsuit I wrote about last month. The focus is where it should be: the input stage ingestion of copyrighted images to train the data. This will be a fascinating fair use battle.” Speaking to The Verge via DM, Moss, who was the first to publish the full complaint on his blog, noted that the would-be class action lawsuit “was much more focused on the occupational harm caused to working artists by the proliferation of AI tools,” while Getty’s concentrates “on the fact it wasn’t paid for the use of its images.” Notably, Getty has licensed its images and metadata to other AI art generators, underscoring the fact that Stability AI willfully scraped its images without permission. The copyright infringement arguments in the lawsuit will turn on the interpretation of the US fair use doctrine, which protects the unlicensed use of copyrighted-work in certain scenarios. The concept of “transformative use” is also likely to be an important factor. Is the output of Stable Diffusion different enough from its training data? Recent research has found that the software memorizes some of its training images and can reproduce them almost exactly, though this only happens in a very small number of cases. Another argument floated by Getty Images relates to its trademark. Stable Diffusion is well known for recreating the company’s watermark in some of its images, and Getty argues that the appearance of this watermark on the model’s “bizarre or grotesque images, dilutes the quality of the Getty Images Marks by blurring or tarnishment.” The case will be slow to move forward though, cautioned Moss. He notes that it was filed in the District Court of Delaware, and that the court’s docket is “pretty backed up.” “I’m currently handling a matter there, and was told that judges routinely take months (like sometimes up to 6-9 months) to decide motions to dismiss after they’re submitted,” Moss told The Verge. “It will likely take several years for the Getty Images case to get through discovery and summary judgment motions before trial.” He notes that such fair use cases also require input from both judges and juries. “The jury decides any disputed factual issues, but the ultimate legal questions are supposed to be decided by a judge,” says Moss. The Verge has reached out to Stability AI for comment and will update this story if we hear back. You can read Getty Images’ complaint (No. 1:23-cv-00135) in full below: Getty Images vs Stability AI - District Court of Delaware complaint https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23...able-diffusion ![]() Librarians Are Finding Thousands Of Books No Longer Protected By Copyright Law Up to 75 percent of books published before 1964 may now be in the public domain, according to researchers at the New York Public Library. Claire Woodcock On January 1, 2023, a swath of books, films, and songs entered the public domain. The public domain is not a place—it refers to all the creative works not protected by an intellectual property law like copyright. Creative works may not have intellectual property protections for a number of reasons. In most cases, the rights have expired or have been forfeited. Basically, no one holds the exclusive rights to these works, meaning that living artists today can sample and build off those works legally without asking anyone’s permission to do so. That’s why the New York Public Library (NYPL) has been reviewing the U.S. Copyright Office’s official registration and renewals records for creative works whose copyrights haven’t been renewed, and have thus been overlooked as part of the public domain. The books in question were published between 1923 and 1964, before changes to U.S. copyright law removed the requirement for rights holders to renew their copyrights. According to Greg Cram, associate general counsel and director of information policy at NYPL, an initial overview of books published in that period shows that around 65 to 75 percent of rights holders opted not to renew their copyrights. “That’s sort of a staggering figure,” Cram told Motherboard. “That’s 25 to 35 percent of books that were renewed, while the rest were not. That’s interesting for me as we think about copyright policy going forward.” Cram warns that since the project is still ongoing, the data may ultimately come out to be slightly more or slightly less, and that NYPL hasn’t even begun to dive into films, music, or other types of creative works. But these early findings could help lawmakers craft copyright policies from an evidence-based standpoint that wasn’t easily accessible in the past. “Folks need to understand that this data is really important to the record of American creativity,” he added. “It is the history of American creativity. To some extent, it is a great record of American creativity, and I think that the data should be usable not just by us, by the libraries, but by everyone. I think it belongs to the people and is the people’s data.” Making informed decisions about whether something is under copyright isn’t as straightforward as it sounds, mostly because the inquirer needs to know what questions to ask and where that data lives. The U.S. Copyright Office and the Internet Archive collaborate to digitize these records, and while that digitization effort has been foundational for NYPL to even be able to conduct their investigation, the digital experience isn’t much different from the physical one: To navigate the records, you have to click on a picture of an antique card catalog and then sift through volumes of digitized cards without the help of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software, which converts books into machine-readable text. Cram says that use of these tools today still requires some sort of specialized knowledge, like which drawer to open and which category to look for. Those searches can take a lot of time and produce a lot of false positives for researchers. Plus, what Cram is looking for within the records is exactly what’s missing: A copyright renewal registration, or a renewal, or a registration to begin with. [trying to find absence of information] NYPL partnered with the technology firm Data Conversion Laboratory (DCL) to manage all the data for the project. Marianne Calilhanna, vice president of marketing with DCL, says the archivists started by adding OCR to all the digital copyright registration files, then using algorithms to automatically structure and sort the data. “We started the pilot with, I think it was just around 10,000 records, and then we started to realize, okay, we can start making some rules here,” Calilhanna told Motherboard. “So we’re able to start making these conversion rules that then we can kind of put into our automation processes to start to structure this.” DCL also had to train the algorithm to account for the three columns of a copyright record, which is something that would be easier for a human eye to process but not a computer without proper instruction. “Ultimately, the output we’re creating is XML,” she added. “XML is a series of tags that tell the computer, this is a title of a book, this is the title of a journal article. This is the author of that. And then we would also apply extra metadata on top of that record.” DCL has other clients in the information sector, including the academic publishing company Elsevier, which DCL has created deep learning and pattern detection to identify, process, and restructure bibliographic citations for specific repositories. Elsevier is notorious for not sharing its metadata with academic librarians, which is essentially what’s needed to make digital files discoverable and therefore accessible in the first place. But NYPL plans to make their XML open source for other libraries across the nation and the world to use. “For us to advance the progress and knowledge, which is the goal of copyright, I think we need access to this data so that we can understand how to answer that question of how can I use this?” Cram noted. “Having the data helps get us closer to an answer for that question, which ultimately is the goal, to use works lawfully, in a way that advances knowledge.” The U.S. Copyright Office said in a statement that it remains committed to preserving and making all of its public records available, and that it has a longer term goal of making all public records available and searchable online. “As part of our commitment to the preservation of and access to all public records, the Office has undertaken efforts to digitize print and microfilm records to make them available to a broader audience,” The U.S. Copyright Office said in a statement to Motherboard. “These historical public records include the copyright card catalog, record books, and the Catalogs of Copyright Entries (CCE). Eventually, the Office’s aim is to make these historical public records available in the new Copyright Public Records System once each collection's digitization and metadata capture are completed.” For many creators, the question of whether they can use something seems so simple, but can be really hard to figure out. Until recently, a lot of that data has been locked away in these public records. “That’s not great for a library,” Cram said. “It’s not great for the public and the public is hungry for it, because getting access and knowing how to use that data and knowing where to find that data is really important to answer that question of ‘Can I use it?’” https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzy...-copyright-law ![]() Microsoft Swears it's Not Coming for Your Data with Scan for Old Office Versions Don't mind us, we'll just have a quick look for unsupported installs and then disappear, we pwoooomise Jeff Burt Microsoft wants everyone to know that it isn't looking to invade their privacy while looking through their Windows PCs to find out-of-date versions of Office software. In its KB5021751 update last month, Microsoft included a plan to scan Windows systems to smoke out those Office versions that are no longer supported or nearing the end of support. Those include Office 2007 (which saw support end in 2017) and Office 2010 (in 2020) and the 2013 build (this coming April). The company stressed that it would run only one time and would not install anything on the user's Windows system, adding that the file for the update is scanned to ensure it's not infected by malware and is stored on highly secure servers to prevent unauthorized changes to it. The update caused some discussion among users, at least enough to convince Microsoft to make another pitch that it is respecting user privacy and won't access private data despite scanning their systems. The update collects diagnostic and performance data so that it can determine the use of various versions of Office and how to best support and service them, the software maker wrote in an expanded note this week. The update will silently run once to collect the data and no files are left on the user's systems once the scan is completed. "This data is gathered from registry entries and APIs," it wrote. "The update does not gather licensing details, customer content, or data about non-Microsoft products. Microsoft values, protects, and defends privacy." Microsoft then gives a link to the company's privacy page for further reading. The more detailed explanation tries to address some of the shortcomings of the original update notice that we detailed, including how it will gather the information regarding the Office versions being run, any other system information being collected via the update, and if anything is left behind after the update is completed. Microsoft is delivering the update to users who have opted to receive updates for its products and who have Office 2007, 2010, or 2013 installed. Users who are squeamish about this scan can download the Show or Hide Updates troubleshooter for Windows 10 and 11, which along with disabling updates that repeatedly fail to install or are causing other problems. Users won't have to restart their systems after the update is installed, according to Redmond. https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/...d_office_scan/ ![]() FCC Approves Amazon’s Satellite Broadband Plan Over SpaceX’s Objections Amazon's 3,236-satellite plan greenlit despite SpaceX seeking 578-satellite limit. Jon Brodkin Amazon's Kuiper division can start launching satellites to offer broadband service in the US, the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday. The FCC's International Bureau approved Kuiper's orbital debris mitigation plan. This approval was needed to satisfy a condition imposed in 2020 when the Amazon subsidiary received tentative approval for a network of 3,236 satellites in low-Earth orbit. "Our action will allow Kuiper to begin deployment of its constellation in order to bring high-speed broadband connectivity to customers around the world," yesterday's FCC order said. Amazon's satellite launch plans took shape in April 2022 when it announced deals for 83 launches over five years using Arianespace, Blue Origin, and United Launch Alliance. Amazon said the deals would let it deploy most of its 3,236 planned satellites. The company plans to deploy two prototype satellites early in 2023 on the upcoming launch of United Launch Alliance's new Vulcan Centaur rocket. When contacted by Ars, Amazon declined to say when it will start launching the production satellites that will allow it to offer broadband service to homes and businesses. In a statement on the FCC decision, Amazon said, "Our orbital debris mitigation plans demonstrate the Kuiper System is designed to meet or exceed all requirements set forth by the FCC. We are pleased that the Commission has granted our application and we appreciate the coordination to ensure the industry is prioritizing safety." The FCC said it found "Kuiper's orbital debris mitigation plan to be sufficiently developed to support deployment of its NGSO [non-geostationary orbit] satellite system." SpaceX sought 578-satellite limit Amazon's biggest competitor for low-latency satellite broadband will be SpaceX's Starlink service, but Amazon's launch schedule puts it a few years behind SpaceX. The companies have fought each other in FCC proceedings, with Amazon objecting to SpaceX's satellite plans and SpaceX filing objections to Amazon's. In approving Amazon's plan yesterday, the FCC dismissed objections from other satellite providers such as SpaceX and Viasat. As the FCC order notes, SpaceX argued that the commission "should limit Kuiper to deploy only 578 satellites in its 630 kilometer orbital shell, and defer action regarding the remainder of the constellation," in order to "address Kuiper's ability to coexist with other systems in and around its 590 kilometer and 610 kilometer shells, and allow for 'continued monitoring' of deployment." A Space filing last month said, "Granting an initial 578 satellites of Amazon's 3,236-satellite system would offer Amazon a path to begin deploying for 'many months,' while providing the Commission with time and additional data to assess the serious issues raised in this proceeding." The FCC concluded that SpaceX's requested limit isn't necessary: To the extent that SpaceX is concerned with Kuiper demonstrating its ability to safely operate, the conditions adopted here are designed to address that point. We do not see a specific need to further limit Kuiper's authorization. While SpaceX expresses concern over Kuiper's ability to co-exist with other systems at certain altitudes, similar to Viasat, it does not specify a particular risk presented by the deployment of an identified planned system. The FCC order said in a footnote, "In terms of numbers of satellites, we observe that SpaceX’s proposed second generation Starlink constellation, which has been authorized in part, is almost ten times as large as Kuiper’s planned system." The FCC also said the requirements it imposed on the Kuiper and SpaceX constellations are similar. FCC dismisses other objections According to the FCC, SpaceX also argued "that Kuiper's satellite disposal strategy will place the Kuiper satellites in an elliptical orbit that, because of the variable effects of atmospheric drag on orbit evolution, will result in large uncertainties in the predicted trajectories of the Kuiper satellites, making it difficult for other operators to assess and mitigate risk." SpaceX contended that "the large covariances involved in the elliptical orbits may therefore pose a risk to SpaceX's satellites operating at the same altitudes during their orbit raising phase of operations." However, Kuiper responded that it "will perform orbit determination using Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements on all Kuiper satellites during the deorbiting process and share high-accuracy location information with operators on a real-time basis." The FCC accepted that plan and imposed it as a condition on the license. SpaceX and Viasat both "raised concerns that Kuiper's satellite designs are not sufficiently finalized to enable review," but Amazon said the design is complete and that it doesn't expect material changes, the FCC order said. Kuiper would have to apply for a license modification if it does make significant changes. Starlink speeds have been dropping as it signs up more users, but it's still a viable option for people without access to cable or fiber. SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said yesterday that Starlink had its first "cash-flow positive quarter last year" and that the satellite division "will make money" in 2023, according to CNBC. For residential users, Starlink costs $110 a month plus a one-time hardware cost of $599. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...xs-objections/ ![]() Cheating Carriers could Cost Web-Starved Americans Billions in Subsidies And the FCC ain't exactly helping, senators say Tobias Mann Major US carriers are exaggerating the availability of fixed wireless services and leaving under-served communities at risk of missing out on billions in federal funding that would pay for improved services. The findings, detailed in a Bloomberg report this week, found that T-Mobile and Verizon routinely claimed to offer fixed wireless services where no such service was actually available. The incentive to do so is obvious from a competitive standpoint: marketing is marketing after all. According to Bloomberg, the carriers' coverage maps claim services are available before they've actually built the necessary infrastructure. But if they have plans to build the infrastructure eventually, what's the harm? The harm is that if carrier maps show that particular cities and towns already have broadband access they won't be eligible for a share of the $42.5 billion in federal infrastructure funds the Biden administration allocated to improve internet service across the US. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that 42 million Americans lack access to broadband internet – which it defines as offering download speeds of 25Mbit/sec and uploads of 3Mbit/sec – and the money is earmarked to fix that. Internet-starved citizens are missing out not only on the broadband they've been promised, but also the funds that could get it set up. The Register has reached out to Verizon and T-Mobile US for comment on the accuracy of their coverage maps and we'll let you know if we hear anything back. This is not the first time the carriers have been caught massaging maps to make their service appear more widespread. In late 2019, the FCC took T-Mobile, Verizon, and US Cellular to task for overstating their coverage. As part of the FCC investigation, the agency dispatched field agents to put the carriers' claims to the test. After 24,649 tests spanning 12 states and 10,000 miles, the FCC found that only 64.3 percent of tests achieved the minimum download speed predicted by coverage maps. And it's not just carrier maps that are problematic. By the FCC's admission, its own maps haven't always been the most accurate. "The FCC's older maps collected data at the census block level, meaning that if a single home was served in a census block, the whole block would show up as served on our maps," FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel admitted in a statement last year. "With these new maps, the FCC has integrated the information from broadband providers with hundreds of location-specific data sources, giving us a far more detailed and accurate picture of fixed broadband availability." But almost immediately after the maps were published, the agency faced criticism from state leaders who called into question the maps' validity. In December, Vermont's Community Broadband Board issued a call to action, asking citizens to check their addresses against the FCC maps and to file challenges if the information was incorrect. "I hope my fellow Vermonters will join us in making the FCC National Broadband Map as accurate as possible so that Vermonters in every corner of our state can receive high-speed, reliable broadband," senator Bernie Sanders implored at the time. The state estimates the FCC maps inaccurately claim broadband availability in more than 60,000 locations. And where coverage is available, the maps overstate the quality of that service. That same month, Nevada senators Jacky Rosen and Shelby Moore Capito called on the FCC to fix the maps before using them to make decisions about how to allocate funding. "We have heard from constituents, state and local governments, and service providers alike of continuing concerns about the accuracy of the maps, ranging from persistent issues with missing or incorrect serviceable locations to potentially overstated claims of coverage by providers," the senators wrote in a letter to the FCC. "To ensure the map can be used to make decisions about where to direct tens of billions of dollars for broadband deployment, it is critical that these issues be examined and addressed in a systematic and thorough manner. The Register asked the FCC how it is ensuring equitable distribution of federal funds to under-served communities. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is tasked with distributing the funds, plans to begin awarding grants by the end of June. https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/..._usa/?td=rt-3a ![]() AMC Theatres to Change Movie Ticket Prices Based on Seat Location Rebecca Rubin At your next visit to AMC Theatres, getting a prime seat may cost you a little extra. The country’s largest exhibition chain is rolling out Sightline at AMC, a ticket pricing initiative based on seat location within the auditorium. Similar to music concerts, sporting events or Broadway, moviegoers will have the option to pay more or less for admission depending on where they choose to sit in the venue. In effect, front row seats will be available at a lower price, while seats in the middle of the theater will be available at a higher price. The initiative kicks off on Friday at select AMC locations in New York, Chicago and Kansas City and will be expanded to all domestic AMC locations by the end of the year. There will be three different seat-pricing options. The first is Standard Sightline, described as the “seats that are the most common in auditoriums and are available for the traditional cost of a ticket.” Then there’s Value Sightline, referred to as “seats in the front row of the auditorium, as well as select ADA seats in each auditorium, and are available at a lower price than standard sightline seats.” (Value Sightline pricing is only available to AMC Stubs members, including the free tier membership.) The third option is Preferred Sightline, which are the “seats in the middle of the auditorium and are priced at a premium to standard sightline seats.” AMC Stubs A-List members will be able to reserve seats in the Preferred Sightline Section at no additional cost. Theaters that offer Sightline at AMC are expected to provide a detailed seat map that outlines each seating option during the ticket purchase process online, on the AMC app and at the box office. Sightline at AMC is applied to all showtimes that begin after 4 p.m. at participating locations. It’s not applicable on Discount Tuesdays, when all movie tickets are discounted to $5. “Sightline at AMC more closely aligns AMC’s seat pricing approach to that of many other entertainment venues, offering experienced-based pricing and another way for moviegoers to find value at the movies,” said Eliot Hamlisch, executive VP and CMO at AMC Theatres. “While every seat at AMC delivers an amazing moviegoing experience, we know there are some moviegoers who prioritize their specific seat and others who prioritize value moviegoing. Sightline at AMC accommodates both sentiments to help ensure that our guests have more control over their experience, so that every trip to an AMC is a great one.” https://variety.com/2023/film/news/a...on-1235514262/ ![]() After Ticket Flap, Springsteen’s Fan Magazine Shutting Down David Bauder A magazine and website that has served Bruce Springsteen’s fans for 43 years is shutting down, with its publisher writing that he’s been disillusioned by the debate over ticket prices for their hero’s current tour. Backstreets had been an unusually robust publication that imposed journalistic rigor on its writing and photography, while leaving no doubt of its fan worship. But the complaints about high ticket prices left people there “dispirited, downhearted and yes, disillusioned,” publisher Christopher Phillips wrote late last week in a post announcing the shutdown. “Disappointment is a common feeling among hardcore fans in the Backstreets community,” he wrote. Phillips did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Springsteen’s manager, Jon Landau, said that “we are very sorry to hear the news of Backstreets closing and want to thank Chris Phillips for his 30 years of dedication on behalf of Springsteen fans everywhere. “ There was an uproar among some Springsteen fans when tickets first went on sale last summer, particularly over Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing model, which sent tickets soaring to $5,000 or more when there was high demand. At a congressional hearing last month following the fiasco over Ticketmaster’s handling of Taylor Swift tour tickets, U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana suggested major artists like Springsteen and Swift should demand fee caps. Springsteen’s team has defended the prices as being in line with what is charged today by many of his peers. Like many artists, he says he’s annoyed when unscrupulous ticket brokers — not the musicians — benefit from high markups. Ticketmaster has said the vast majority of fans were able to buy tickets at face value, which averaged $202. The tour began Feb. 1 in Tampa, Florida. Many Springsteen fans have been with him for decades, appreciating his working class New Jersey roots, and can remember when a ticket for a four-hour, high-energy show on the “Darkness on the Edge of Town” tour in 1978 could be had for $7.50. That’s not reality anymore. Springsteen hasn’t backed down, telling Rolling Stone magazine that fans unhappy with the price after seeing the show can have their money back. “You certainly don’t like to be the poster boy for high ticket prices,” he told the magazine, but said you have to own your decisions and do your best. Phillips wrote that many Backstreets readers have lost interest because they can’t afford to go to the show. He said he hadn’t given up on being a fan of Springsteen’s music, and that others shouldn’t, either. “We simply realized that we would not be able to cover this tour with the drive and sense of purpose with which we’ve operated continuously since 1980,” he wrote. “That determination came with a quickening sense that we’d reach the end of an era.” https://apnews.com/article/bruce-spr...573521940555c5 Until next week, - js. ![]() Current Week In Review ![]() Recent WiRs - February 4th, January 28th, January 21st, January 14th Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved. "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 0 | 13-07-11 06:43 AM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 0 | 06-07-11 05:36 AM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 0 | 27-01-10 07:49 AM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 0 | 13-01-10 09:02 AM |
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 | JackSpratts | Peer to Peer | 0 | 02-12-09 08:32 AM |