An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A popular GitHub repo and over 120 forks containing Switch emulation tutorials have been targeted by Nintendo. While most forks are now disabled, the main repository has managed to survive after being given the opportunity to put things right. Whether Nintendo appreciated the irony is unclear, but it appears that use of encoding as a protection measure to obfuscate links, was no match for the video game company's circumvention skills. [...] The Switch Emulators Guide was presented in the context of piracy, something made clear by a note on the main page of the original repo which stated that the tutorial was made, in part, for use on the /r/NewYuzuPiracy subreddit. Since the actions of Yuzu and its eventual demise are part of the unwritten framework for similar takedowns, that sets the tone (although not the legal basis) in favor of takedown. When asked to provide a description and URL pointing to the copyrighted content allegedly infringed by the repos, Nintendo states that the works are the 'Nintendo Switch firmware" and various games protected by technological protection measures (TPM) which prevent users from unlawfully copying and playing pirated games. The notice states the repos 'provide access' to keys that enable circumvention of its technical measures. "The reported repositories offer and provide access to unauthorized copies of cryptographic keys that are used to circumvent Nintendo's Technological Measures and infringe Nintendo's intellectual property rights. Specifically, the reported repositories provide to users unauthorized copies of cryptographic keys (prod.keys) extracted from the Nintendo Switch firmware," Nintendo writes. "The prod.keys allow users to bypass Nintendo's Technological Measures for digital games; specifically, prod.keys allow users to decrypt and play Nintendo Switch games in unauthorized ways. Distribution of keys without the copyright owner's authorization is a violation of Section 1201 of the DMCA." Nintendo further notes that unauthorized distribution of prod.keys "facilitates copyright infringement by permitting users to play pirated versions of Nintendo's copyright-protected game software on systems without the Nintendo Technological Measures or systems on which Nintendo's Technological Measures have been disabled." Since the prod.keys are extracted from the Nintendo Switch firmware, which is also protected by copyright, distribution amounts to "infringement of Nintendo Switch firmware itself." Given that the repo's stated purpose was to provide information on how to circumvent Nintendo's technical protection measures, it's fairly ironic that it appears to have used technical measures itself to hinder detection. "The reported repositories attempt to evade detection of their illegal activities by providing access to prod.keys and unauthorized copies of Nintendo's firmware and video games via encoded links that direct users to third-party websites to download the infringing content," Nintendo explains in its notice. "The repositories provide strings of letters and numbers and then instruct users to 'use [private] to decode the lines of strings given here to get an actual link.' The decoded links take users to sites where they can access the prod.keys and unauthorized copies of Nintendo's copyright-protected material." The image below shows the encoded links (partially redacted) that allegedly link to the content in question on third-party sites. To hide their nature, regular URLs are encoded using Base64, a binary-to-text encoding scheme that transforms them into a sequence of characters. Those characters can be decoded to reveal the original URL using online tools.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

TorrentFreak's Ernesto Van der Sar recalls the rise and fall of Napster, the file-sharing empire that kickstarted a global piracy frenzy 25 years ago. Here's an excerpt from his report: At the end of the nineties, technology and the Internet were a playground for young engineers and 'hackers'. Some of them regularly gathered in the w00w00 IRC chatroom on the EFnet network. This tech-think-tank had many notable members, including WhatsApp founder Jan Koum and Shawn Fanning, who logged on with the nickname Napster. In 1998, 17-year-old Fanning shared an idea with the group. 'Napster' wanted to create a network of computers that could share files with each other. More specifically, a central music database that everyone in the world could access. This idea never left the mind of the young developer. Fanning stopped going to school and flanked by his friend Sean Parker, devoted the following months to making his vision a reality. That moment came on June 1, 1999, when the first public release of Napster was released online. Soon after, the software went viral. Napster was quickly embraced by millions of users, who saw the software as something magical. It was a gateway for musical exploration, one that dwarfed even the largest record stores in town. And all for free. It sounds mundane today, but some equated it to pure technological sorcery. For many top players in the music industry, Napster's sorcery was pure witchcraft. At the time, manufacturing CDs with high profit margins felt like printing money and Napster's appearance threatened to ruin the party. [...] At the start of 2001, Napster's user base reached a peak of more than 26.4 million worldwide. Yet, despite huge growth and backing from investors, the small file-sharing empire couldn't overcome the legal challenges. The RIAA lawsuit resulted in an injunction from the Ninth Circuit Court, which ordered the network to shut down. This happened during July 2001, little more than two years after Napster launched. By September that year, the case had been settled for millions of dollars. While the Napster craze was over, file-sharing had mesmerized the masses and the genie was out of the bottle. Grokster, KaZaa, Morpheus, LimeWire, and many others popped up and provided sharing alternatives, for as long as they lasted. Meanwhile, BitTorrent was also knocking on the door. "Napster paved the way for Apple's iTunes store, to serve the demand that was clearly there," notes Ernesto. "This music streaming landscape was largely pioneered by a Napster 'fan' from Sweden, Daniel Ek." "Like many others, Ek was fascinated by the 'all you can play' experience offered by file-sharing software, and that planted the seeds for the music streaming startup Spotify, where he still serves as CEO today. In fact, Spotify itself used file-sharing technology under the hood to ensure swift playback."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Some of the most infamous so-called shadow libraries have increasingly faced legal pressure to either stop pirating books or risk being shut down or driven to the dark web. Among the biggest targets are Z-Library, which the US Department of Justice has charged with criminal copyright infringement, and Library Genesis (Libgen), which was sued by textbook publishers last fall for allegedly distributing digital copies of copyrighted works "on a massive scale in willful violation" of copyright laws. But now these shadow libraries and others accused of spurning copyrights have seemingly found an unlikely defender in Nvidia, the AI chipmaker among those profiting most from the recent AI boom. Nvidia seemed to defend the shadow libraries as a valid source of information online when responding to a lawsuit from book authors over the list of data repositories that were scraped to create the Books3 dataset used to train Nvidia's AI platform NeMo. That list includes some of the most "notorious" shadow libraries -- Bibliotik, Z-Library (Z-Lib), Libgen, Sci-Hub, and Anna's Archive, authors argued. However, Nvidia hopes to invalidate authors' copyright claims partly by denying that any of these controversial websites should even be considered shadow libraries. "Nvidia denies the characterization of the listed data repositories as 'shadow libraries' and denies that hosting data in or distributing data from the data repositories necessarily violates the US Copyright Act," Nvidia's court filing said. The chipmaker did not go into further detail to define what counts as a shadow library or what potentially absolves these controversial sites from key copyright concerns raised by various ongoing lawsuits. Instead, Nvidia kept its response brief while also curtly disputing authors' petition for class-action status and defending its AI training methods as fair use. "Nvidia denies that it has improperly used or copied the alleged works," the court filing said, arguing that "training is a highly transformative process that may include adjusting numerical parameters including 'weights,' and that outputs of an LLM may be based, at least in part, on such 'weights.'" "Nvidia's argument likely depends on the court agreeing that AI models ingesting published works in order to transform those works into weights governing AI outputs is fair use," notes Ars. "However, authors have argued that 'these weights are entirely and uniquely derived from the protected expression in the training dataset' that has been copied without getting authors' consent or providing authors with compensation." "Authors suing Nvidia have taken the next step, linking the chipmaker to shadow libraries by arguing that 'these shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community because they host and distribute vast quantities of unlicensed copyrighted material. For that reason, these shadow libraries also violate the US Copyright Act.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.