Say Hola! to the newest route around web censorship

By Karl Schaffarczyk, University of Canberra

The ongoing copyright arms race between content owners and internet users has taken a new turn. Israeli firm Hola! has recently launched a suite of products that are variously designed to bypass geoblocking and accelerate internet-access speeds.

Hola! is the brainchild of entrepreneurs Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski. They have set out to fundamentally change the way the world wide web operates by creating software which makes the web more efficient and harder to censor.

Hola! is comprised of several products:

• Browser extensions which work on Windows and Mac with Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. These plugins only bypass geoblocking.
• Client software for Windows which functions as web accelerator, geoblock bypass, and censorship bypass service.
• An Android app which operates as a web accelerator only.

Hola! bypasses restrictions on sites which are usually geoblocked. http://www.Hola.org

BBC iPlayer, Hulu, Netflix … and VPNs

Catchup TV and online movie services such as BBC iPlayer, Hulu, Netflix and many others use geoblocking – and so are not available from within Australia.

But circumvention of these geoblocks is commonplace with the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or proxy server. During the London Olympics the media was awash with stories of people using these methods to access the BBC’s online coverage of the Games.

These VPNs and proxy systems are either subscription services, or they operate on a freemium model where a limited or ad-supported version of the product or service is given away in the hope of selling consumers a “full” version of the product.

VPNs were designed as a way of securely connecting a remote computer to a corporate network, and using a VPN is a rather clumsy method to access multimedia content. All traffic is routed through the VPN which may limit access to other services, and the VPN needs to be connected and disconnected to various servers to access content in different countries.

Hola! is different

Not only is Hola! free, but it’s different to other services because it utilises peer-to-peer technology, where traffic is not re-routed through central servers but via other computers which have the Hola! Windows client installed.

This peer-to-peer nature will make it difficult for Hola! to be blocked in the same way Hulu has blocked some VPN and proxy services.

The Hola! browser extension is also by far the simplest and most elegant method to bypass geoblocks. The inflexibility and complications which come with setting up a VPN or altering rarely-changed DNS settings can limit the function of a computer for everyday use.

Once Hola! is installed, its function can be toggled from an icon in the browser.

Is Hola! legal?

Most people are familiar with technological protection measures (TPM) in the form of region coding on DVDs. Those TPMs try to prevent the disc being copied and try to prevent playback in a place other than the market in which the disc was sold.

Region coding allows Hollywood to segment global markets, releasing movies to one market at a time, maximising the effect of promotional campaigns, for instance.

Geoblocking is used by the entertainment industry to perpetuate this same market segmentation online – which includes Australians paying higher prices. For example, the American service Netflix at $US7.99/month compares poorly with local Quickflix at $A14.99/month.

Geoblocking is a technological protection measure but due to a special exemption in the definition of TPMs in the Copyright Act, it is not illegal to break TPMs that prevent the playback in Australia of a film obtained from outside Australia – so long as it is a non-infringing copy.

While using a region-free DVD player clearly falls within this exemption, bypassing geoblocks remains an untested grey area.

In August 2012, consumer advocacy group Choice highlighted this grey area in a submission to the Attorney General’s Review of Technical Protection Measure exceptions.

The grey area centres on whether video streaming can be considered a “non-infringing copy”. When users sign up to a service – let’s take Netflix as our example – they agree to Terms and Conditions that include a clause on geographic limitations:

Geographic Limitation: You may instantly watch a movie or TV show through the Netflix service only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show …

The interpretation of this clause of the Terms and Conditions, and the weight given to respecting these must be weighed against the intent of the exemptions in the Copyright Act.

This is critical in deciding whether or not accessing movie content from Australia will be defined as a “non-infringing copy”.

Facebook in China, Twitter in Tehran, YouTube in Pakistan … or Gmail at the office

Social media services are censored or completely blocked in many countries, and most large workplaces limit access to various websites for security and productivity reasons.

The tools used to bypass these blocks to date include the US Navy-developed high security router software TOR, VPNs and other security software.

Hola! explained.

While these might be appropriate for some uses, they are complicated to use and are overkill for an individual who just wants the freedom to talk to their friends on Facebook.

The Hola! client software makes bypassing these blocks trivial. When a user wants to visit a blocked site, the Hola! client takes that request, encrypts it and sends it to another computer with Hola! installed.

That second computer works as a proxy by then decrypting the request and then accessing the relevant service. The resulting content is again encrypted by the second computer and forwarded to the original user.

For speed and efficiency, the Hola! client will use several proxies – with each handling a small part of the traffic.

The lack of a central server in a peer-to-peer model such as this means that Hola! is difficult to block – a successful blocklist would need to be constantly updated and could run to thousands of internet addresses as it would need to block every user of the Hola! client.

Bypassing government censorship is widely accepted as a good thing – at least in western democracies.

Hola! is yet another example supporting American innovator John Gilmore’s famous quote: “the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”.

Karl Schaffarczyk does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Can Kim Dotcom's Mega beat the law where Megaupload failed?

By Karl Schaffarczyk, University of Canberra

Just 12 months after being arrested for copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering for his involvement with now-defunct cyberlocker Megaupload, and despite facing extradition from New Zealand to the US to face such charges, Kim Dotcom has launched Megaupload’s successor: Mega.

The site went live on January 19 with more than 100,000 users signing up in the first hour and more than 1 million registrations in the first 24 hours.

While there are obvious similarities between Mega and Megaupload, a key point of difference, according to Dotcom, is the fact Mega and its users are protected by a solid legal framework.

So is Dotcom right? Will Mega be able to avoid the legal issues that led to Megaupload’s demise?

Wait, what is Mega even for?

Mega is a file storage service similar to Dropbox, Google Drive, and Apple’s iCloud.

The idea behind such cloud services is simple: users may upload data and then access that data from elsewhere. Most services (including Mega) permit sharing of the uploaded files with others.

It is through this sharing mechanism that users can commit acts of piracy by sharing copyrighted material such as music, movies, books and so on.

Engaging in or facilitating copyright piracy is outlawed in many countries, and offenders face sanctions including liability to pay damages or disgorge profits to rights holders.

Safe harbour

Content hosts and internet providers usually have access to “safe harbour” provisions limiting their liability when user behaviour infringes copyright. These provisions are generally conditional on the content host removing the infringing material as soon as they are aware of it, and having a policy of disciplining users who repeatedly break the rules.

The indictment of Kim Dotcom and others in the “Mega Conspiracy” claims instead that Megaupload actively supported users who used the service to share infringing material.

According to the indictment, Megaupload was the single largest piracy repository on the internet. And by facilitating piracy the service apparently cost copyright owners US$500 million in lost revenue while making US$175 million in profits.

Same, but different

One of the the features that sets Mega apart from its predecessor is the encryption of files during the upload process.

Encrypting files in this way means all files stored on Mega are useless to anyone who doesn’t have the decryption key. This means the administrators of Mega cannot view the contents of a file, and so they cannot determine whether a file contains business material or the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

A simple legal argument can then be made: if Mega doesn’t know what it’s hosting, then it cannot be held responsible if that content is infringing, or otherwise illegal.

But like most simple arguments, this one is wrong.

Infringement notices

Most content hosts have no idea what content they are hosting, but instead rely on notices from copyright owners to identify content which may be infringing. In the case of Mega, any links that are distributed for the purpose of sharing copyright material will still result in infringement notices being sent.

YouTube is an example of a site on which all uploaded content is checked via an automated content-matching process. This process is in place to detect unauthorised copies of video material or soundtracks. By providing this tool to copyright owners, YouTube avoids most claims of piracy.

Mega, on the other hand, uses across-the-board encryption, and because of this it is technically impossible to proactively filter or check content.

Without these automated tools, content owners are left with the Sisyphean task of locating and reporting infringing content to Mega.

Nothing has changed in the legal landscape with respect to liability of content hosts. In order to use the “safe harbour” provisions, Mega must remove infringing content as soon as it becomes aware of it, and must also discipline the person responsible. Without the “safe harbour” provisions Dotcom can expect another raid in the near future.

Legally watertight?

The Mega site help files and terms of service are very copyright focused. They require users to not infringe on anybody else’s intellectual property, nor do anything illegal.

All responsibility for content is with the user. The help files and terms of service also set out processes for the handling of copyright notices, and how to make counterclaims.

In all, it’s fairly standard legal boilerplate comparable to most other content services – with the bonus that it invokes Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is:

No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

In theory, Mega is a model content host which appears to comply with best practice. User content is kept private through encryption, procedures are in place to take down infringing content upon notices being filed, and Mega promises to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

What now?

Those with a stake in Hollywood and the music industry are furious with Mega’s launch. Anti-piracy lobby group StopFileLockers has already commenced a successful campaign to cut off funding to Mega. They claim that the new Mega is simply a re-launch of Megaupload.

StopFileLockers has highlighted that as Mega only holds encrypted files, automated processes cannot be used to locate infringing material, and so will be a haven for copyright pirates.

The behaviour of Mega over the coming months will send a clear signal to copyright holders and those who file-share. The question remains: can Dotcom’s latest venture stick to the rules, or will the entrepreneur again find himself in hot water?

Dotcom is using privacy as the reason to offer a service which automatically encrypts all content. While privacy is important, it appears that the purpose of the automatic encryption is primarily to provide Mega with excuses to not proactively co-operate with rights holders.

By structuring their service to technically preclude co-operating with rights holders, Mega is a distinctly copyright unfriendly service.

Karl Schaffarczyk does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

So what’s wrong with watching the Olympic Games over the internet?

By Karl Schaffarczyk, University of Canberra

Reports of people the world over watching coverage of the Olympics via BBC’s online streaming portal abound. The reasons for this behaviour vary in the detail, but the common feature is: local coverage of the Olympics stinks.

In the United States, NBC’s decision to delay coverage has resulted in significant backlash and ridicule. The hashtag #NBCfail has been trending strongly on twitter with constant complaints of the shortcomings of NBCs coverage.

Channel Nine’s excessive focus on swimming inspired this meme. Source: http://www.facebook.com/ch9fail / http://quickmeme.com

In Australia, Channel Nine’s coverage has not been significantly better. The main criticisms of Nine are: excessive focus on swimming, and maximising ad coverage.

A popular response has been to access highlights coverage and live streaming directly from the BBC sports portal.

To comply with the licensing requirements of the International Olympics Committee, the BBC has implemented geoblocking to permit access only to those located in the United Kingdom.

Accessing the BBC’s video content from Australia is denied. BBC

But all of this is old news: circumvention of these geoblocks is commonplace and trivial with the use of Virtual Private Networks and proxy systems. Popular services include strongVPN, Hide My Ass! (which is currently marketing a summer sports special, but dare not use the word “Olympic”), and the DNS/proxy based Unblock Us.

But how legal is this?

Are laws being broken? Should those of us watching the Olympics in this fashion expect the police at our door or a nastygram from our internet provider?

Keith Allison

The obvious answer is that the BBC has tried to prevent your access, you have circumvented their attempt and accessed their content anyway, and therefore watching their content is infringing copyright. It’s common sense – just like breaking past a locked door – right?

Australian copyright law is not quite so simple.

To begin with, it’s very difficult to shoehorn streaming video media into a definition contained within the Copyright Act. Classification as “cinematograph film” is tricky, unless copies are made by the viewer (the ephemeral copy in RAM which is used during playback does not count).

Classifying highlights and replay coverage as a “broadcast” is problematic due to its on-demand and point-to-point nature. Live coverage fits poorly into the definition of a television broadcast.

Working the first definition, the issue here is that the geoblocking (an access control technological protection measure) is being circumvented.

But a specific exemption applies:

if the work … is a cinematograph film … [and the protection measure] controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in Australia of a non-infringing copy … acquired outside Australia.

So it appears that bypassing geoblocks is permitted under Australian Law, so long as the content is non-infringing.

Is the content infringing?

The BBC’s terms and conditions for personal use explicitly deny certain content (such as video or live television services) from being accessed from outside the United Kingdom.

This contractual requirement seems to fly in the face of the exemption for circumventing technical protection measures. Although there is no case law to guide us whether Australian law overrides a contractual non-export condition, it is unlikely that a court would uphold this interpretation.

The copyright protections available for accessing protected broadcast material such as the BBC’s live content have been made only with Pay TV in mind. These provisions are limited to encrypted broadcasts only.

Further, the BBC’s terms and conditions also forbid access to live TV to anyone without a UK television licence. This is a critical point, as very few people outside of UK would hold one.

While this area of law is untested by courts, it is quite clear that bypassing the BBC’s geoblocks to access coverage of the Olympics has the potential to land someone in hot water. Despite the possible PR disaster that accompanies enforcement action by copyright holders, no-one wants to be the bunny prosecuted in order to clear up the “grey areas” of the law.

The Copyright Act

For many years the Australian Copyright Act was held up as an example of world’s best practice: written to be media neutral to avoid frequent revisions as technology progressed. Recent changes have introduced narrow, technology specific definitions that exclude live streaming TV content, and a general failure to cope with the new internet-connected world. It is clear that this legislation requires a major clean-up.

While this tweet is obviously satirical, it helps us to remember that no matter how we perceive our free to air coverage, some have it much worse. Twitter

Let’s watch the Olympics, not lawyers.

But should we be considering enforcement of copyright at all? Shouldn’t we asking our regulators and legislators to enforce better coverage and more choice for the people of Australia?

We have done it before: the anti-siphoning legislation is a clear attempt to keep certain sport coverage available on free to air television.

While some have turned to Foxtel, should the many who don’t want or can’t afford Pay TV be forced to risk breaking laws to watch what they want to watch – especially when it is available for free to people in the UK?

Channel Nine is reported to have paid A$120 million for the exclusive rights to bring the games to Australians.

Sadly, buying the rights to broadcast the Olympic games carries no responsibility to broadcast the Games well, or at all. Doing a bad job of it doesn’t reduce the rights of Channel Nine, the BBC or the IOC in maximising their profits and enforcing their copyrights.

So, when you are watching the Olympics tonight, whether via Channel Nine, Foxtel, or streamed from the BBC, stay tuned for the next episode in The Copyright Wars. Rights owners will move to strengthen protection through changes to Australian law that enshrine geoblocking. Civil society advocates can and should resist those changes in the public interest.

The IOC and its broadcast partners need to pull their heads out of the clouds and embrace global transparency.

Karl Schaffarczyk does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.