SchizoTorrent

A few days ago the latest uTorrent alpha release saw the light.

Among other things, the new version aims to make downloads even faster for users with high bandwidth connections.

But there was something else quite unique about the release. Those who took a peek at the ‘about’ section saw the name of a new mysterious company. BitTorrent Inc. wasn’t listed there, but Gyre Inc.

So had uTorrent been quietly sold?

TorrentFreak contacted BitTorrent Inc. to find out more, and we were told that Gyre Inc. was listed there because of a “coding error.” The company didn’t want to confirm or deny the existence of a rebranding exercise, but did say that they “regularly test new brand and product names internally.”

This vagueness encouraged us to research the “Gyre” brand and to speculate about BitTorrent’s future.

Let’s start with some details on Gyre Inc. first. The company was registered in January of this year and lists BitTorrent Inc. CEO Eric Klinker as the service agent. The company address is identical to that of BitTorrent’s San Francisco offices.

One of the signs that points in the direction of a rebranding effort is the fact that BitTorrent Inc. copied all their BitTorrent trademarks for the term Gyre. These three Gyre trademarks cover devices, software and licensing and are identical to the existing BitTorrent trademarks.

And that’s not all.

There is also some evidence to suggest that Gyre is more than just a front for a new product. The company name already appears in the “Terms of Use” for the “Share” app released by BitTorrent Inc. a few months ago. In these same terms there’s also a reference to “SoShare”, another term trademarked by BitTorrent recently.

BitTorrent developers are also referencing Gyre in their code. In the new plugin.btapp.js for example we see several mentions. This is part of a yet-to-be-released product where web browsers can talk to uTorrent/BitTorrent via a plugin.

And what about the unusual fact that “Gyrecorp” is selling uTorrent stickers and shirts?

But perhaps the strongest support for a possible rebranding is that BitTorrent didn’t deny this when we specifically asked about it. We were informed that uTorrent and BitTorrent will continue to be released under BitTorrent Inc. But it wasn’t specified for how long.

BitTorrent Inc. wouldn’t be the first of its kind to change names. Several years ago Azureus changed its name to Vuze. This rebranding also covered the name of the BitTorrent client, but there is no indication that the uTorrent brand will disappear.

The ultimate question is of course why BitTorrent Inc. needs a new brand name to begin with. Could it be the pirate stigma? Are investors pushing for something new? Is there a sale on the horizon?

All speculation for now, but something is up for sure.

Source: BitTorrent Set To Rebrand Itself As Gyre?

According to growing reports from India, subscribers of several large Internet service providers can no longer access The Pirate Bay, KickAssTorrents, BitSnoop and several other BitTorrent sites. In what appears to be a Government-ordered blackout, the websites in question are all being blocked at the ISP level.

Interestingly, torrent sites are not the only target. A similar block is also restricting access to the popular video sharing platform Vimeo, a site mostly used by indie filmmakers to share their work.

While there has been no official announcement, the blockade is currently affecting users of several large internet providers including Reliance Communications and Zylog Wi5.

Instead of gaining access to the sites above, subscribers are redirected to a message claiming that the site is “blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom.

While the exact reason for the blockade is unclear, the warning banner is the same as one users got when Megaupload, RapidShare and other popular cyberlocker services were censored last year.

This blockade turned out to be an overbroad implementation of a so called “John Doe order” which prohibited Internet providers from allowing subscriber access to unauthorized copies an upcoming Bollywood movie.

Whatever the reason for the current blackout, it’s clear that the Indian entertainment industries have access to tools Hollywood can only dream of. Either directly, of with help from the Government, allegedly infringing websites can be pulled down without a trial. Just last month more than 100 music sites were censored upon request from several music labels.

For the millions of filmmakers on Vimeo this new reality will be a rude awakening, but for the folks at The Pirate Bay it is hardly a surprise.

The notorious torrent site is already blocked in numerous countries, most recently the UK. And with the current pro-blocking climate, we doubt that India will be the last country to hop on the banwagon.

Source: India Orders Blackout of Vimeo, The Pirate Bay and More

By late 2010, the U.S. Government’s Operation in Our Sites was in full swing. Domain names, considered property under the same forfeiture laws used to seize material items connected to criminal activity, were being swept up left and right in the name of protecting American jobs.

Among them was DaJaz1.com, a hip-hop focused site from which a Special Agent Andrew Reynolds said he’d downloaded pre-release music. Of course, Reynolds didn’t find the site on his own. He’d been directed there by the RIAA who, for their own reasons, had chosen to target Dajaz1 over the thousands of other sites online.

The rhetoric was familiar. According to the authorities, who were being spoon-fed by the labels, Dajaz1 was a criminal enterprise sucking the lifeblood from the US music business by leaking tracks before their street date. But as later became clear, behind the scenes the site was being fed music to leak by the labels in order to create buzz and generate sales.

Last December, after lying in limbo for more than a year, Dajaz1′s domain was suddenly returned, astonishingly because the Feds had come to the conclusion there was no case to answer. But for the five months since up until this week, court papers have remained sealed, thus hiding the reasons the Dajaz1 case became such a disaster.

Now, thanks to pressure from EFF, the First Amendment Coalition, and Wired, the documents were unsealed Wednesday. They reveal an embarrassment for the US Government, the RIAA and due process.

For a year, DaJaz1 lawyer Andrew P. Bridges tried and failed to have the Dajaz1 domain seizure overturned. At every step he was obstructed and delayed. When he asked for copies of the documentation requesting the extension to the forfeiture procedure and the court’s documentation granting it, each and every time he was denied and told the papers were under seal.

It now appears that all along, despite claiming to have a good enough case to label Dajaz1 a criminal enterprise, the U.S. Government had no usable evidence. The proof was supposed to be supplied by the RIAA but it failed to arrive in quality or in a timely fashion.

In July 2011, the Department of Homeland Security asked for more time to build the case against the site, noting that content from the Dajaz1 website had been sent to rightsholders for “evaluation” but had not been returned.

But in September 2011 they were back again, seeking a further extension for exactly the same reasons. The RIAA, named in the newly unsealed court papers, weren’t coming up with the goods. Eventually the Government conceded defeat and handed the domain back.

“The records confirm what was already suggested by the initial affidavit used to obtain the seizure order: that ICE, and its attorneys, are effectively acting as the hired gun of the content industry at taxpayers’ expense,” the EFF said in a statement.

“Instead of relying on rightsholders to determine whether a seizure was appropriate, the government should have been conducting its own thorough investigation. If it had acted in anything like good faith, it could have determined that the site wasn’t a proper target even before the seizure, or at least could have discovered and rectified the mistake before a year had passed.”

In the whole copyright infringement / piracy debate there is a lot of fiery rhetoric from both sides but this case is truly scary. To have Dajaz1′s domain seized and the site effectively shut down without being in receipt of the proper evidence is unforgivable. Worst still, the parties that caused this to happen remain unaccountable, free to do the same again.

Source: RIAA Behind US Government’s Failed Domain Name Seizure

UK lawfirm Wiggin has delivered its 2012 Digital Entertainment Survey. The study, which polled 2,500 UK respondents representative of the
national demographic, is packed with lots of interesting statistics.

The study’s coverage is broad, but for the purposes of this summary we’ll take a look at the elements relating to unauthorized consumption of digital products.

The first section of the survey covers people’s entertainment activities such as watching TV, listening to music or reading ebooks. Despite the piracy crisis complained about by the entertainment industries, out of a Top 40 most popular activities list, it takes until position 34 for an unauthorized activity to appear.

Just 6% of respondents said they download movies or TV shows from linking and hosting sites. Even less – 5% – said they obtain video from regular file-sharing sites. When it comes to people acquiring unauthorized music online, the figure is a modest 5% of respondents. Just 4% said they obtain eBooks unlawfully.

Zooming in on the various age categories shows that file-sharing is mostly a habit of younger men. Of all men between 15 and 19 years old, 14% admitted downloading movies and TV-shows through file-sharing sites, compared to 2% of women. This percentage drops to 1% for both men and women aged 45 and up.

When it comes to those already consuming media from unauthorized sources, the survey indicates that they aren’t in any hurry to stop soon.

Of those confessing to an existing file-sharing habit, 29% said they would download more eBooks and 28% said they would download more games and software in the next 12 months. When it comes to downloading music from file-sharing sites and cyberlockers, the uptick is 28% and 26% respectively.

But overall respondents say they will use more legal alternatives too. Of those already streaming ad-supported music, 27% said they would do more during the next year. Of music fans already paying for a monthly streaming subscription, 36% said they would consume more music in that way.

Of current unauthorized movie and TV show downloaders, 26% said they would consume more from file-sharing sites during the next year, dropping to 24% for those who prefer cyberlockers. Of those already paying for their movies either from PPV or on-demand services, 34% said they would consume more over the next 12 months.

Interestingly, when it comes to a change of habits during the next year, between 15% and 19% of current downloaders said they would do less, a figure closely matched (18%) by those slowly abandoning DVDs. The good news for the movie industry is that 30% of current movie goers expect to go even more in the year to come.

For those who prefer to do their file-swapping offline with friends using USB sticks and hard drives, 26% said they would be doing more of that during the next 12 months, something that no ISP blockade can do anything about.

The Wiggin law firm counts many big entertainment companies as clients so expect some of the results of this survey to be quoted by the industry at a later date. One that stands out concerns the attributes of an online service that indicates to the user “that a site is legitimate and the content [offered by it] is legal.”

29% of respondents said that a site ranking high in Google’s results would make it stand out as legitimate. Of course, the entertainment industries are trying to pressure Google into downgrading sites like The Pirate Bay so this will add fuel to their fire.

On the thorny issue of regulating Internet content, 40% either “strongly” or “slightly” disagreed with the notion that the Internet should be regulated in the same way as TV while a total of 58% thought that it should.

When it comes to controlling the Internet in order to police unlawful downloading, a total of 53% said they thought greater regulation is required. Just 18% disagreed, a gift to the lobbyists.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf).

Source: 30% of UK File-Sharers Intend To Pirate More In The Next 12 Months

Mass-BitTorrent lawsuits have been dragging on for more than two years in the US, involving more than a quarter million alleged downloaders.

The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, allowing them to ask Internet providers for the personal details of the alleged offenders.

The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person.

Previous judges who handled BitTorrent cases have made observations along these lines, but none have been as detailed as New York Magistrate Judge Gary Brown was in a recent order.

In his recommendation order the Judge labels mass-BitTorrent lawsuits a “waste of judicial resources.” For a variety of reasons he recommends other judges to reject similar cases in the future.

One of the arguments discussed in detail is the copyright holders’ claim that IP-addresses can identify the alleged infringers. According to Judge Brown this claim is very weak.

“The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,” he writes.

“An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”

“Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”

The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously.

“While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals,” Judge Brown writes.

“Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.”

Judge Brown explains that the widespread use of wireless networks makes a significant difference in cases against file-sharers. He refers to an old RIAA case of nearly a decade ago where the alleged infringer was located at a University, on a wired connection offering hundreds to tracks in a shared folder. The Judge points out that nowadays it is much harder to pinpoint specific infringers.

Brown also cites various other judges who’ve made comments on the IP-address issue. In SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036 for example, the court noted:

“By defining Doe Defendants as ISP subscribers who were assigned certain IP addresses, instead of the actual Internet users who allegedly engaged in infringing activity, Plaintiff’s sought-after discovery has the potential to draw numerous innocent internet users into the litigation, placing a burden upon them that weighs against allowing the discovery as designed.”

Judge Brown concludes that in these and other mass-BitTorrent lawsuits it is simply unknown whether the person linked to the IP-address has anything to do with the alleged copyright infringements.

“Although the complaints state that IP addresses are assigned to ‘devices’ and thus by discovering the individual associated with that IP address will reveal ‘defendants’ true identity,’ this is unlikely to be the case,” he concludes.

In other words, the copyright holders in these cases have wrongfully accused dozens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands of people.

Aside from effectively shutting down all mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the Eastern District of New York, the order is a great reference for other judges dealing with similar cases. Suing BitTorrent users is fine, especially one at a time, but with proper evidence and not by abusing and misleading the courts.

Source: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

Last Friday the UK High Court ruled that several of country’s leading ISPs must censor The Pirate Bay website having ruled in February that the site and its users breach copyright on a grand scale.

The blocks – to be implemented by Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media (BT are still considering their position) – are designed to cut off all but the most determined file-sharers from the world’s most popular torrent site.

On hearing the news a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that the measure will do very little to stop people accessing the site and predicted that “the free advertising” would only increase traffic levels.

It’s not possible to buy advertising “articles” from leading UK publications such as the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, but yesterday The Pirate Bay news was spread across all of them and dozens beside, for free. The news was repeated around the UK, across Europe and around the world reaching millions of people. The results for the site were dramatic.

“Thanks to the High Court and the fact that the news was on the BBC, we had 12 MILLION more visitors yesterday than we had ever had before,” a Pirate Bay insider informed TorrentFreak today.

“We should write a thank you note to the BPI,” he added.

The blockade, which was not contested by any of the ISPs listed above, will be implemented during the course of the next few weeks. While that time counts down, The Pirate Bay say they are viewing the interim period as an opportunity to educate site visitors on how to deal with censorship by bypassing it.

“Another thing that’s good with the traffic surge is that we now have time to teach even more people how to circumvent Internet censorship,” the insider added.

In court papers released today, Mr Justice Arnold said that since the terms of the court order (how the blocks would be implemented technically) had been agreed to by the ISPs in question, there was no need for him to detail them in his ruling. However, The Pirate Bay told us that by taking a range of measures, any blocking technique employed by any ISP can be overcome.

First off they advise that the most simple solution is to use a VPN, such as iPredator or other similar services that carry no logs.

These VPN providers cost money but there are free solutions too. Companies such as VPNReactor offer a free service that is time limited to around 30 mins per session, but that’s plenty of time for users to get on Pirate Bay and download the torrent files they need. Once users have the torrents in their client, the blocking has been bypassed and even with the VPN turned off, downloads will still complete.

Pirate Bay are also recommending the use of TOR but only for the initial accessing of their website and the downloading of the .torrent files. Torrent clients themselves should never be run over TOR, the system isn’t designed for it and besides, transfers will be pitifully slow. TPB also point to I2P as a further unblocking option.

While the above options will cut straight through any kind of blocking with zero problems, Pirate Bay are also advising people to change their DNS provider. By permanently switching to a DNS offered by the likes of OpenDNS and Google, users of UK ISPs that censor The Pirate Bay purely by DNS will have a free and effective work around.

As readers will recall, there are other simple unblocking solutions where domain names are blocked by ISPs but their related IP addresses remain unfiltered. These include the MAFIAAFire plugin and the simple action of typing a site’s IP address directly into a browser. However, in this UK case there is a problem with these solutions.

According to court papers made available today, it seems that on the advice of an expert and after being agreed to by the ISPs in question, IP address blocking of The Pirate Bay is now part of the injunction. This means that the techniques in the above paragraph simply won’t work.

To circumvent this kind of problem, The Pirate Bay can be accessed via a 3rd party – a so-called ‘proxy’. One of these purely for the job is being operated by the UK Pirate Party.

Quite how long this particular proxy stays up remains to be seen though. The Dutch Pirates tried a similar thing and were quickly pursued by rights holders. Nevertheless, there are countless free proxies online that can do the job just as well.

In just a few weeks the block of The Pirate Bay will be implemented and despite all the coverage and millions of extra visitors to the site, thousands of users will remain unprepared. Those patient enough to type a question into a search engine will regain access to the site in a few minutes.

But will the impatient start pumping more money into the pockets of the BPI? That’s the big question.

Update: Virgin Media just started blocking The Pirate Bay.

Source: Pirate Bay Enjoys 12 Million Traffic Boost, Shares Unblocking Tips

In recent months many people have been baffled by the US Government’s decision to shutdown and prosecute Megaupload.

While the Department of Justice proudly presented the case as one of the biggest criminal cases ever brought in the US, critics claim the Government has gone too far.

Many law experts agree with this assessment and point out that Megaupload is a lot less guilty than portrayed by the authorities.

This weekend Eric Goldman, a Prof. at Santa Clara University School of Law, joined in with his comments. His attack on the US Government is scathing, describing the Megaupload prosecution as a “depressing display of abuse of government authority.”

Siding with Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom who lashed out against the Government earlier, the Prof. claims that the shutdown of the world’s most popular cyberlocker was a gift to the entertainment industry.

“The government’s prosecution of Megaupload demonstrates the implications of the government acting as a proxy for private commercial interests. The government is using its enforcement powers to accomplish what most copyright owners haven’t been willing to do in civil court,” Goldman writes.

“The revolving door between government and the content industry” and the “Obama administration’s desire to curry continued favor and campaign contributions from well-heeled sources,” are the main motivations Goldman cites.

According to the Professor, Megaupload should have never been taken offline. He claims that it’s a modern-day equivalent of the printing press.

“Megaupload’s website is analogous to a printing press that constantly published new content. Under our Constitution, the government can’t simply shut down a printing press, but that’s basically what our government did when it turned Megaupload off and seized all of the assets.”

“Not surprisingly, shutting down a printing press suppresses countless legitimate content publications by legitimate users of Megaupload,” Goldman adds.

In addition, by shutting the site down and arguing that all data can be destroyed, the authorities are destroying evidence and ignoring the constitutional rights of the millions of US citizens who stored data on Megaupload.

“The government’s further insistence that all user data, even legitimate data, should be destroyed is even more shocking. Destroying the evidence not only screws over the legitimate users, but it may make it impossible for Megaupload to mount a proper defense. It’s depressing our government isn’t above such cheap tricks in its zeal to win.”

Professor Goldman continues by pointing out that the Government has to prove “willful infringement” when they want to hold Megaupload accountable for the infringements of its users. This is going to hard, he argues, as Megaupload has several strong potential defenses.

“Whether it actually qualified for these is irrelevant; Megaupload’s subjective belief in these defenses should destroy the wilfulness requirement. Thus, the government is simply making up the law to try to hold Megaupload accountable for its users’ uploading/downloading,” Goldman writes.

In his closing arguments, Professor Goldman points out that actions like the Megaupload prosecution will only make the public more skeptical about the Government’s attempts to control the Internet on behalf of a few multi-billion dollar companies.

“In the end, the Megaupload prosecution demonstrates that SOPA advocates are inevitably going to win. The content owners’ ire toward ‘foreign rogue websites’ combined with the administration’s willingness to break the law, if necessary, to keep content owners happy, leads to lawless outcomes like the Megaupload prosecution and ICE’s domain name seizures,” he concludes.

Source: Megaupload Prosecution Is Lawless and Unconstitutional, Law Professor Says

Last week the Creative Coalition Campaign hosted a conference on anti-piracy measures.

One of the key speakers at the event was Gerard Lewis, Vice President of Internet provider Comcast, who informed participants about the upcoming copyright alerts system that will become active in three months.

The system will be managed by the Center for Copyright Information, and is the result of a voluntary agreement between copyright holders and all major ISPs that was signed last summer.

Under the agreement a third-party company will collect the IP-addresses of alleged infringers on BitTorrent and other public file-sharing networks. The ISPs will then notify these offenders and tell them that their behavior is unacceptable. After six warnings the ISP may then take a variety of repressive measures, which includes the option to cut off the offender’s connection temporarily.

In his talk Comcast’s Vice President explained that the “six-strikes” system is needed because the DMCA law doesn’t work well for P2P infringements. Instead, the copyright holders and ISPs needed a more flexible approach, which culminated in the copyright alerts system and a historic memorandum of understanding.

Lewis went on to emphasize that the deal safeguards the privacy of subscribers, as copyright holders don’t get the personal details of alleged pirates. The warnings are mostly educational, informative, and point people to sources where they can download content legally. Additionally, Lewis said it’s important that the repressive measures don’t disrupt vital services such as phone calls.

He further noted that while ISPs are now playing a valuable role, more anti-piracy work can be done with other parties. Payment processors and search engines could be around the table as well according to Comcast’s Vice President.

Overall, Lewis said that a flexible and voluntary agreement is a good model to follow, but that they are still learning as the system is being rolled out. The effectiveness of the copyright alerts system remains to be seen.

In France a three-strikes warning system is mandated by the Hadopi law, and at the conference Marie-Françoise Marais of the Hadopi office shared some new statistics. Since the law was implemented late 2010 a total of 970,000 warnings have been sent out. 88,600 alleged infringers received a second warning and 270 are on their third strike.

The last group risks a 1,500 euro fine and Internet disconnection of up to a month, should a judge agree.

Marais used the above statistics to argue that relatively few people continue downloading copyrighted material after being warned. But, she also noted that it doesn’t always work, as one person begged to download one more episode of the US TV-show “24.”

The impact of the US “six-strikes” version will become apparent in the months to come.

While Comcast and the other partners are confident that alerts are an effective and reasonable way to deter online piracy, others have their doubts. For one, the monitoring system is relatively easy to bypass through a proxy or VPN.

Secondly, the multi-million dollar plan only covers a few of the many sources of online piracy. The millions of U.S. Internet users who download via cyberlockers and streaming portals are not affected by this agreement at all, as these downloads are impossible for third parties to track legally.

How ‘reasonable’ the “six-strikes” system turns out to be largely depends on what punishments Internet providers intend to hand out. Needless to say, a temporary reduction in bandwidth is less severe than cutting people’s Internet access. More details on this are expected to come out in the near future.

Source: Comcast Praises Voluntary BitTorrent Crackdown Agreement

Faced with the almost impossible task of physically restricting people’s activities online, during recent years authorities and copyright holders have sought to have legislation tightened up, to encourage citizens towards a path of “doing the right thing” through the fear of more and more serious consequences.

In Sweden, the results of intense lobbying are clear. Due to a combination of fat Internet pipes and its status as the spiritual home of The Pirate Bay, Sweden and file-sharing go hand in hand. As a result the country is being subjected to considerable online surveillance.

But according to new research from the Cybernorms research group at Sweden’s Lund University, an increasing proportion of the country’s population are taking measures to negate the effects of spying on their online activities.

The study reveals that 700,000 Swedes now make themselves anonymous online with paid VPN services such as The Pirate Bay’s iPredator.

A similar study carried out in 2009 revealed that 500,000 Swedes were taking steps to anonymize their connections. Today’s results therefore reveal a 40% increase in privacy service uptake in roughly 2.5 years.

Of particular interest is the response to surveillance by the younger generation. According to Cybernorms, 200,000 individuals aged between 15 to 25-years-old are now hiding themselves online. This figure represents 15% of the total group, up from 10% in 2009.

Måns Svensson, PhD in Sociology of Law at Lund and study manager, says that further uptake of anonymization services will only increase as new legislation is introduced.

“If the [recent] European Court of Justice opinion leads to an intensified hunt for file sharers, there is evidence that the use of these types of services for anonymity will grow even faster,” says Svensson.

While the researchers at Lund estimate that file-sharing is one of the key drivers behind the update of anonymity services, according to the foundation administering Sweden’s top-level .SE domain, monitoring of other kinds is also playing its part.

“Where monitoring is increasing, both from government and from private players like Facebook and Google, so does demand,” .SE president Danny Aerts told Svenska Dagbladet.

Whether it’s for file-sharing, domain blockage circumvention or freedom of speech, anonymization services are here to stay. Welcome to the encrypted Internet.

Source: Young File-Sharers Respond To Tough Laws By Buying a VPN

After the MPA won its blocking case against the Newzbin2 Usenet indexing site last year, it was only a matter of time before similar sites were targeted in the same mannner.

Indeed, after a few weeks a conglomerate of music labels filed a lawsuit against several Internet providers, demanding that they block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay.

Nine labels including EMI, Polydor, Sony, Virgin and Warner said that The Pirate Bay infringes their copyrights and that several ISPs including TalkTalk and Virgin Media should implement a blockade under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

In February the High Court agreed that The Pirate Bay and its users do indeed breach copyright on a major scale, and today this decision was followed by a court order.

ISPs Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must censor The Pirate Bay website in the weeks to come. A sixth ISP, BT, has asked for more time to consider its position.

A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that this measure is going to do very little to stop people from accessing their site, as there are many ways to circumvent it. “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”

The UK Pirate Party is also prepared for the block and is offering a reverse proxy which allows blocked Internet users to access The Pirate Bay.

Virgin Media responded to the BBC by saying that a blockade won’t be very effective unless the entertainment industry works on legal alternatives as well.

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behavior to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price,” their spokesperson said.

Music industry group BPI, on the other hand, sees today’s verdict as a major victory.

“The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them,” BPI boss Geoff Taylor said.

The Open Rights Group says the court-ordered block represents the thin end of the wedge.

“Blocking the Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous. It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for Internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism,” ORG Executive Director Jim Killock said.

“Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”

The UK is not the first country in Europe where the Pirate Bay is blocked by court order. Similar verdicts were already handed down in Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Finland previously.

Despite these blockades, The Pirate Bay continues to grow month after month.

Source: UK ISPs Must Censor The Pirate Bay, High Court Rules

When the Portuguese arm of IFPI first decided to bring file-sharing prosecutions to the country, their aims would have been simple – to scare Internet users away from file-sharing networks and into the shops. It didn’t work out that way.

Since 2006, the Portuguese Phonographic Association filed more than two dozen cases with the Attorney General’s Office. Only two bore any fruit at all – one in 2008 and another just over a week ago having dragged on for an epic six years.

The case was brought against a then 17-year-old teenager who allegedly shared hundreds of songs online without permission. However, for “technical and procedural reasons” (read: lack of evidence), those claims were reduced massively and in the end it was decided he shared just three, a pair from local artists and ‘Right Through You’ by Alanis Morrisette.

Now, the Lisbon Criminal Court has finally delivered its ruling in the case. For violating copyright, the now 23-year-old received a two month suspended jail sentence. The Court decided that since the man was just 17 at the time of the offense and has a completely clean record, the sentence should be changed to a fine of 880 euros – 640 euros plus 4 euros in lieu of each day not served in prison.

After having made 40 similar complaints against file-sharers since 2006, the Portuguese Phonographic Association says it will now give up on the strategy.

“At the time, it was believed that, in fact, through the application of existing law we could begin to control the problem of Internet piracy,” said Association president Eduardo Simoes.

Current legal framework, Simoes added, can not cope with online file-sharing. Inevitably he is calling on the government to introduce new laws that do away with prolonged prosecution periods that reduce the deterrent effects of bringing cases to trial. What the Association wants is a “3 strikes” style arrangement whereby file-sharers are sent escalating warnings and eventually punished.

As the local branch of IFPI, the Portuguese Phonographic Association controls 95% of recorded music in Portugal but it is currently facing a crisis. The Association reports that in the last decade profits have dropped by 80%, and in 2011 sales of physical products nose-dived 34.4%.

Interestingly, in addition to blaming the piracy bogeyman and the economic crisis for these reductions in sales, Simoes also cites an undeveloped digital offering and artists’ growing tendency to self-publish as additional factors compounding the problem.

Despite the apparent lack of legal support, Portugal’s movie industry say they are working hard to reduce piracy by other means. According the MPA-backed FEVIP, they shut down 302 local sites offering pirate material during 2011.

Source: Epic 6-Year File-Sharing Case Over Just 3 Songs Comes To An End

This week there are three newcomers in our chart.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is the most downloaded movie this week.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Source: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent

Imagine if you were able to write all the world’s news for a week. You would have no bounds in what you wrote, and nobody would question your news – it would be accepted as unconditional truth. What would you write?

The people who sit on this kind of power hold the power of narrative. They hold the ability to literally dictate truth from lies. If you are able to determine and describe the problems that society must solve, and perhaps even how to solve them, you hold the greatest power of all.

Some people, when faced with this thought experiment, think in terms of affecting public opinion on some favorite issue. Those who are a little more daring think in terms of getting rich. But it doesn’t stop there, far from there. If you held the power of narratives, you wouldn’t need money ever again in your life: you could be a god. You could quite literally be seen as a walking deity on the planet.

The ability to interpret reality and tell other people what is true and what is false is the greatest power that humans have ever held. The power of narratives.

In the Middle Ages, this power was held by the Catholic Church who interpreted the Bible in sermons all over Europe. The Bible was written in Latin, and you could even be sent into exile for unauthorized reading of that Bible in Latin.

The Church had no reason to fear any laws being made against their interest, for they controlled the entire worldview of the legislators. They defined the problems and they defined the applicable solutions.

In this day and age, some crazy guy named Gutenberg made it possible to bring Bibles by the cartload into the streets of Paris?. In French! Readable without interpretation! This tore down the church’s power of narrative like a house of cards under a steamroller.

In this, the Church saw themselves as the good guys and wanted to set the record straight, to prevent the spread of disinformation. They had learned that they were the carriers of truth and could not unlearn having this position. Thus, the penalties for using the printing press gradually increased all over Europe, until it hit the death penalty: France, January 13, 1535.

Yes, there has been a death penalty for unauthorized copying. Guess what? Even the death penalty didn’t work.

But as illustrated here, cracking down on the copying technology wasn’t really a matter of preventing copying. It was a matter of maintaining the power of narratives – the complete and total control over the world’s knowledge and culture.

Between the printing press and now, that power has been held by the operators of printing presses. They have observed, they have interpreted, they have retold the story of reality. Recently, the printing presses have received company from radio and TV broadcasts, but the model has remained the same: a small, small elite has determined what the world should know and how they should relate to the events going on.

The net changes everything.

All of a sudden, anybody can publish their ideas to the world in 10 minutes. And just like the Catholic Church, the previous powerholders of the narrative can’t deal with the situation this time around either, and see it as their job to restore order.

The gatekeepers of music – the record labels – are a very minor player in this game. It is much, much larger than that. The net redefines the entire previous classes of power. Those able to tell their story, rule. Those being arrogant enough to demand that people should just keep listening to them for no reason will lose their powers of influence.

Just like when the means of spreading ideas and information accurately, quickly and cheaply came along with the printing press in the mid-1450s, those who now hold the power of narrative are fighting the already-happened loss of their power of narrative with everything they have, and using any excuses they can think of. The actions are the same from every regime in the world – only the excuses differ.

In China, it is sometimes worded as “stability” or “morale of the nation”.

In some very religious Muslim countries, “sanctity of the Prophet” has been heard as motive.

In the West, it can be “terrorism”, “file sharing”, “organized crime”, and “pedophilia”.

Everywhere on the planet, the current regime – not necessarily meaning elected political leaders – choose locally acceptable excuses to crack down on the net. But the actions remain the same, and are aimed at preventing something much more fundamental.

The power for every person on the planet to observe, interpret, and tell their story is breaking the power of money. A fat bank account can no longer buy belief in a story. This equalization of humankind is something tremendously beneficial for about 99.99% of humanity – for the ones trying to destroy the net with every trick in the book are the very few that are being equalized downwards.

Just like in the 1450s. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Source: The Net vs. The Power of Narratives

As reported here on Friday, a lawsuit filed April 20th in the US District Court For The Middle District of Florida is targeting fans of American metal band All Shall Perish.

Up to a point it’s a familiar story. A total of 80 IP addresses are listed having been harvested from a BitTorrent swarm sharing the album “This Is Where It Ends”. The plaintiff, a company called World Digital Rights, wants to discover the real-life identities of the alleged file-sharers so they can be hauled into court or, as is almost guaranteed, settled with for a few thousand dollars instead.

After the news broke, predictably the band started to receive negative feedback. But according to All Shall Perish’s manager, Ryan Downey, neither he nor the band know anything about the legal action.

“The band wasn’t consulted whatsoever and none of us have ever heard of this company,” Downey told TorrentFreak. “I spoke to the US label manager and German label president who both are as confused as we are. We are digging deeper and looking into the legality of it all. We are thinking it’s perhaps a sublicensor or some digital aggregator or something?!”

In reality the answer seems more straightforward. All Shall Perish’s German label are Nuclear Blast who according to their site are “the largest independent heavy metal label in the world.” Even if Nuclear Blast’s president is confused by the lawsuit, people working for him are definitely fully in the picture.

According to the lawsuit, on March 12, 2012, Nuclear Blast signed over the rights to “This Is Where It Ends” to World Digital Rights, Inc., an act that made the Panama-based company the “exclusive licensee” of the album. Along with that came the right to sue and it seems the company are now making the most of that right. After conducting another search of court documents today, it appears that World Digital Rights actually filed two lawsuits against alleged sharers of the album, one against 80 Does and another against a further 100.

In both cases World Digital Rights demands that each defendant is held “jointly and severally liable for the direct infringement of each other defendant” and held liable for statutory damages of $150,000.

Downey, who told us that the band were totally blindsided by the revelations, describes this action against fans as “awful” and has promised to stay in touch with developments. Ideally these lawsuits will get withdrawn, not only for the sake of the Does but for the sake of the band. But if Nuclear Blast and World Digital Rights persist with this ridiculous project, All Shall Perish might have no choice but to personally intervene – their reputation could rely on it.

Source: Copyright Troll Causes Chaos By Suing Fans Without Band’s Permission

Spearheaded by the MPAA, Hollywood’s major movie studios continuously emphasize how copyright infringement costs them billions of dollars every year.

Pirates are ruining the industry and are the direct reason for the loss of thousands of jobs, they say. Better copyright protections are the solution, they conclude.

A recent example of this reasoning was displayed by MPAA boss Chris Dodd earlier this week at the CinemaCon meeting in Las Vegas. Dodd told the audience that copyright protection has always been vital to the US movie industry, and it’s copyright that has allowed Hollywood to thrive .

The MPAA used this to emphasize that the movie industry and the tech sector have a mutual interest in strong copyright legislation. Or put in his words:

The truth is that neither the content nor the technology industries could survive without strong protections for intellectual property.

Many of you are familiar with how the name Hollywood became synonymous with the birth of the American film industry. It was in Jacob Stern’s horse barn, at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, the story goes, that Cecil B. DeMille screened the first full length feature film 100 years ago.

Well, when it comes to the tech sector, replace “Jacob Stern’s horse barn” with “Mark Zuckerberg’s dorm room” at Harvard, and you have almost the same story with the birth of Facebook.

In these and countless other examples throughout our history, the ability to give birth to an idea and convert it into economic success, whether it is the content of a film or the technology of the internet, depends on copyright and patent protection

An interesting argument, but also an unfortunate one. Not only because Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has been accused of stealing the Facebook idea himself, which Hollywood turned into a movie recently. But also because it’s easy to argue that the American movie industry was built by copyright “thieves.”

In fact, Hollywood wouldn’t be what it is today if a bunch of rogue filmmakers hadn’t fled New York early last century. This “pirate” version of the movie industry history starts with one of America’s greatest innovators, Thomas Edison.

Little over a century ago Edison stood at the cradle of the filmmaking industry. He was the first to invent a device through which people could project film and obtained many movie related patents. To make money from his hard work he asked a licensing fee from those who were making movies with his technology.

This licensing requirement motivated a group of rogue filmmaking pirates to flee New York, including a man named William. They left for the then still wild West, where they recorded many films without a license until Edison’s patents expired. These pirates continue to do business there today in a place they named Hollywood. William’s last name? Fox.

So Edison got no money from these Hollywood pirates. While today’s Hollywood would be up in arms about this gross circumvention of intellectual property rights, we should mention that Edison himself wasn’t squeaky clean either.

In fact, in 1902 Thomas Edison himself copied “A Trip to the Moon,” a movie from Georges Méliès, without permission to show it in US theaters. This overt act of piracy eventually resulted in the bankruptcy of the French filmmaker.

The above shows that it’s not a stretch to argue that the movie industry was built by pirates. Or to put it in other words, if early 1900 filmmakers would have paid for their licenses, Hollywood would probably have never been built.

But you won’t hear that from the MPAA of course…

Source: MPAA Boss ‘Forgets’ Hollywood’s Pirate History

The New Zealand High Court has decided to return several items of property belonging to Kim Dotcom.

The Megaupload founder is allowed to keep his $20,000 a month spending budget and regains use of his Mercedes-Benz G55AMG, a luxury car worth $250,000 that sports “Police” on its license plate. A bank account containing $301,000 was also returned.

Dotcom’s wife Mona will have her expenses covered and can have use of a Toyota Vellfire.

Despite the partial success, Stuff reports that the High Court chose to uphold the majority of the US District Court seizure order. This means that most of Dotcom’s cars and other goods will remain with the authorities until further notice.

Dotcom’s attorney Willie Akel had asked the court to return all properties because the New Zealand authorities didn’t investigate the US request, but Judge Potter said that the Attorney General is not required to evaluate the legitimacy of the US order.

A significant portion of the new funds will be used to pay for legal expenses, both in New Zealand and the United States.

Among other things, the legal team will try to prevent Dotcom’s extradition. A court will review whether the Megaupload founder has committed an extraditable offense that violates New Zealand law. Earlier this week Dotcom’s US lawyer Ira Rothken said they are confident that this is not the case.

“According to our New Zealand counsel we don’t think that would be the case so we’re optimistic that Kim Dotcom will have a good result in New Zealand,” Rothken said.

The extradition hearing is scheduled for September. In the meantime Megaupload’s defense team is preparing a response to the US indictment, which is expected to be filed in the coming weeks.

Dotcom believes that they have a strong case against an indictment he describes as “nonsense.” The Megaupload founder previously shared several issues that the defense team will bring up in their reply, and he characterized the whole case as a political move.

“This Mega takedown was possible because of corruption on the highest political level, serving the interests of the copyright extremists in Hollywood,” he said.

Whether Megaupload will have to defend itself is still uncertain though. Last week Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that a trial in the United States may never happen because it is impossible to serve a foreign company with criminal charges.

Source: Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom Gets $750,000 Back

In December 2008, the RIAA announced that it would end its lawsuit campaign in which it targeted alleged file-sharers for cash settlements.

The venture, which lasted 5 long years, saw the group target some 18,000 individuals and generate some of the most controversial anti-piracy headlines of the last decade.

Recent years have seen the same strategy revived, largely by adult studios. With less of a reputation to preserve and possessing additional leverage as their victims fret over their taste in media becoming public, news of the lucrative schemes spread deeper into the porn industry and beyond.

Eventually mainstream movie companies such as The Hurt Locker’s Voltage Pictures chanced their hand, and even more recently book publisher Wiley jumped on board.

Now, after several years’ break, music lawsuits are back on the agenda.

As revealed by a lawsuit filed April 20th in the US District Court For The Middle District of Florida, American metal band All Shall Perish are seeking to identify dozens of their fans who allegedly shared their music on BitTorrent without permission.

Founded in 2002, All Shall Perish are on the Nuclear Blast label. Through their lawsuit, filed by World Digital Rights, they are seeking to convert 80 IP addresses, harvested from a BitTorrent swarm sharing their album “This Is Where It Ends”, into real-life identities.

“Upon information and belief, each defendant went to a torrent site to download a torrent file and then downloaded and uploaded the copyrighted Work within the BitTorrent network,” court papers read.

Among other things, the plaintiff demands that each defendant is held “jointly and severally liable for the direct infringement of each other defendant” and held liable for statutory damages of $150,000.

A jury trial is demanded but as everyone knows by now, no robustly defended case will ever get to court. Settlements of a few thousand dollars will be offered and paid by terrified individuals, whether or not they are guilty.

This is the second BitTorrent infringement case filed in recent days by the Dorta & Ortega law firm. Worryingly, both cases have their roots in Germany where lawsuits of this nature are running riot. If these succeed, more will surely come.

Source: US Music Pirates Face New $150,000 Damages Claims

“Today’s copyright legislation is out of balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned an entire generation of young people into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping technological development.”

These are the first words of a new book that two Pirate Party icons shared with all members of the European Parliament this week. In a time where copyright laws increasingly violate basic human rights, Pirate Party MEP Christian Engstrom and Rick Falkvinge want to break this trend.

Instead of merely pointing out what is wrong with current proposals such as ACTA, they’re going a step further by offering alternatives.

“We feel that there are many people who know that the Pirate Party is unhappy with copyright legislation as it stands today, but who are unaware that we have a constructive proposal as to how it should be reformed. We are not just complaining,” Christian Engstrom told TorrentFreak.

In the early years the Pirate Party was often jokingly characterized as a bunch of spotty nerds who simply want free stuff. While this perception has changed somewhat in recent years, especially when Christian Engstrom joined the European Parliament, there is still a need to clarify the Party’s position.

“We wanted to explain why this issue is about preserving fundamental rights on the internet, and not just about getting free films or pop music,” says Engstrom.

“The battle over ACTA has made many politicians aware of the fact that freedom on the internet is an issue that citizens (a.k.a. voters) care about, but most mainstream politicians are not very familiar with the issue.”

The book gives a broad overview of how the current copyright monopoly is starting to degrade free speech and people’s privacy. Internet censorship proposals have become commonplace and alleged pirates are punished without due process, all without any clear evidence that more stringent measures actually cause a decline in piracy.

Therefore, one of the key issues of the book is to offer alternatives. The Pirate Party doesn’t want to abolish copyright, they want to reform it. For example, the moral rights of authors would remain unchanged, but all non-commercial copying would be legalized. In addition, DRM woud be banned entirely.

“I am hoping that the book will be helpful in that respect, and that the timing is quite good right now. If we manage to stop ACTA, the natural question becomes ‘okay, so what should we do instead?’ Then we have a realistic and sensible answer,” Engstrom told us.

Those who are interested in reading the book can download it for free in several formats. A paper version is also available on the self-publishing platform Lulu.

Source: Pirate Party Presents ACTA Alternative to European Parliament

With help from the music industry’s biggest arch-rival The Pirate Bay, UK rapper Dan Bull is on course to get his first official ‘hit’ listed in various international single charts.

With a song titled “Sharing is Caring,” Bull is not exactly the type of artist music execs want to see in there. And that is exactly the point.

Dan Bull has no corporate promotion machine behind him. He has virtually no radio play and his music can’t be bought in bricks-and-mortar music stores. Instead, Bull is a self-confessed ‘pirate’ who relies on a crowd of like-minded people to earn a living.

“Sites such as The Pirate Bay do more to help unsigned artists than industry lobbyists ever have. Projects like The Promo Bay, which devotes The Pirate Bay’s home page, free of charge, to any musician who applies, creates overnight success stories,” Bull explained.

So instead of signing away his rights to a major music label, Bull is sharing his work with the public for free. That has worked well for the rapper thus far, but to show just how powerful the Internet can be he’s now aiming for a listing in the international singles charts. Not for the recognition, but to make a statement.

“The singles charts are worthless as an indicator of quality, and artists needn’t strive for the validation of reaching them. However, by taking a free song by an unsigned artist to the echelons normally reserved for the industry elite, I want to smash the glass ceiling and show that there is another way of doing things,” Bull said.

“We don’t need the protection of ACTA, CISPA or any other acronym. As long as our internet is free, creativity will thrive.”

And with a healthy boost from The Pirate Bay earlier this week this plan might just succeed.

After Bull introduced the goal here on TorrentFreak last Sunday, singles sales took off. When The Pirate Bay joined in a few hours later with a front page promotion, they skyrocketed. By Monday morning several versions of the “Sharing is Caring” single were on Amazon’s top 10 bestseller list.

Bull decided to release 10 different versions of the track because every individual download counts towards the eventual chart position of the single. In other words, the more versions people buy the higher “Sharing is Caring” will end up in the single charts.

After the initial boom the sales are now going on steadily. In the UK the most popular version of the single is currently listed at #75, with 4 others listed in the top 100 as well. In the rap category 8 versions are listed in the top 17, and in the Reggae chart “Sharing is Caring” is topping the chart.

While the above stats are encouraging, there is still some work to be done before the official single charts are released this weekend. Since the Pirate Bay promo campaign has now ended, it is now up to the public to spread the message further.

Help is still needed.

“The campaign has been going really well, although it’s much harder than I imagined to compete with the big-budget campaigns behind people like Jay-Z and Calvin Harris. I need absolutely everyone who can to contribute in order to get a place in the ‘official’ charts,” Bull told TorrentFreak.

To encourage people to buy all 10 versions of the single, Bull is going to thank all mass-buyers in an upcoming music video.

Those who want to help out can go to the campaign page where all the paid versions of the tracks are listed. Please don’t feel obliged to do so, but if “Sharing is Caring” doesn’t appear in the single charts this weekend we’ll have to blame all the cheapskate pirates, and declare an official victory for the major music labels. Sort of.

Source: Pirate Bay Boosts “Sharing is Caring” Into The Music Charts

During September 2011, TorrentFreak was tipped off that IMAGiNE, one of the Internet’s leading BitTorrent release groups, had been busted by the authorities following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation.

The year before IMAGiNE had launched their own private BitTorrent tracker that failed massively in its quest to stay under the radar. The site, UnleashTheNet (also known by its acronym UtN) attracted plenty of attention and it now appears it was the group’s Achilles’ heel.

As revealed by an indictment returned on April 18, 2012, and unsealed yesterday, four individuals have now been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia for their alleged roles in IMAGiNE.

Jeramiah Perkins, 39, of Portsmouth, Va., Gregory Cherwonik, 53, of New York, Willie Lambert, 57, of Pennsylvania, and Sean Lovelady, 27, of California, are all charged with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and two counts of criminal copyright infringement.

Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert are charged with two additional counts of criminal copyright infringement, and Perkins and Cherwonik are charged with a sixth count of criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for commercial distribution.

The indictment lists several movie titles that were reproduced, distributed and seeded on BitTorrent prior to the U.S. DVD release data including “The Green Hornet,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” and “Yogi Bear.” All films carried the group’s “IMAGiNE” tag.

According to the announcement from Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil MacBride and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert were arrested Monday. Lovelady reported to the authorities yesterday.

“These four defendants are charged with serious intellectual property crimes. Through IMAGiNE, they allegedly sought to become the leading source of pirated movies on the Internet,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.

“This Justice Department, working with our partners at ICE, has made fighting intellectual property crime a top priority, and we will continue to bring cases against individuals and entities devoted to cheating consumers and undermining artistic pursuits.”

Given the claims in the indictment and how the group’s activities are being portrayed, the IMAGiNE defendants are in serious trouble. First, it quite rightly points out that between 2009 and September 2011, IMAGiNE obtained video and audio for the latest movies from different sources, combined them, and then released them online.

But then, presumably because of their involvement with the UtN tracker, they are blamed for the subsequent infringing actions of UtN members. According to the indictment the four are responsible for the reproduction and distribution of “tens of thousands of illegal copies of copyrighted works.”

The maximum prison sentence for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and for each count of criminal copyright infringement is five years in prison. All four defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on May 9, 2012.

As reported by TorrentFreak last year, rumors persist that IMAGiNE were led to the slaughter by a rival group with a grudge.

Source: IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison

During the last decade the issue of so-calling ‘camming’ – taking a video recording device into a theater and filming the screen – grew out to the point where almost every major movie was online before its official release. Groups like maVen turned the act into an art form, turning out the latest movies in record time and with unprecedented quality.

In more recent times, however, the trend has been showing signs of reversal. These days cammed movies only make up less than 5% of the top 100 most downloaded movies and at this week’s CinemaCon 2012 convention, MPAA chief Chris Dodd said that instances of camcorder recordings had dropped by some 50% since 2007. “Almost all of this is due to your vigilance,” he told the NATO audience.

In several speeches since he took on the role of MPAA chief, Dodd has stressed that the absolute best way to watch movies is “in theaters, in the dark, on the big screen,” and millions of movie-goers agree with him. Unfortunately some of NATO’s MPAA-mandated approaches to combating camcorder piracy have sullied that experience.

Bag searches, pat downs, metal detectors, cell-phone confiscations, and even night vision goggles, have turned movie screenings (particularly early ones) into an experience more akin to that of a post 9/11 airport check-in than a relaxing evening out. But according to a presentation that took place yesterday at CinemaCon, all this has the potential to become a thing of the past.

PirateEye was developed with funding from Motion Picture Laboratories, Inc. (MovieLabs), a non-profit research organization funded by the major Hollywood studios. In development since 2006 and in new hands since 2010, $5m is said to have been invested in the technology to date.

The system involves the installation of cameras in theaters that scan the audience and have the ability to detect the lenses of camcorders and cellphones. PirateEye also records what it sees and retains “forensic quality” evidence for prosecutions.

While perhaps the natural reaction is to be concerned about yet more invasions of privacy in the name of protecting Hollywood, the people behind the technology say it is no more intrusive than other CCTV systems people encounter on a daily basis. They even say it could lead people to feel more comfortable.

“The purpose of PirateEye is to not have another person look at you suspiciously if you haven’t done anything wrong,” said Brian Dunn, chief executive officer of PirateEye. “If the cameras don’t catch a person trying to tape a film illegally, the images are destroyed.”

But it seems that PirateEye has more uses than simply cracking down on movie piracy. Earlier this week CinemaCon managing director Mitch Neuhauser revealed that someone had been detected at the convention not for partaking in movie piracy per se, but for recording Paramount’s presentation to exhibitors. That individual was apparently arrested and taken away by the police.

Finally, in his speech to the convention, Chris Dodd praised NATO for scheduling sessions on how to engage movier-goers through social networking, but interestingly one of the stated aims of the PirateEye system is to cut down on ways film fans might choose to promote their experiences with each other. In addition to curbing full-film professional piracy, their technology also aims to deter “social piracy” – the casual recording, storage, sharing of movie clips online.

According to its creators, thus far the system has already resulted in more than ten arrests and prosecutions in the U.S. However, thanks to aggressive US legislation, the uncompromising attitudes of theater staff, and the lack of discretion they are encouraged to show to anyone recording any part of a movie, Pirate Eye will suck in professional pirates and innocents alike.

Source: Movie Spy Cameras Attack The Dying Art of Camcorder Piracy

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty aimed at harmonizing global copyright enforcement, received yet another serious setback today.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament have just announced that they will reject the controversial treaty.

“Although we unambiguously support the protection of intellectual property rights, we also champion fundamental rights and freedoms. We have serious concerns that ACTA does not strike the right balance,” announced Guy Verhofstadt, ALDE group leader.

Verhofstadt said that ALDE continues to support multilateral IP enforcement efforts, but only those with a transparent, publicly discussed mandate. He added that ALDE shares the legitimate concerns of those who participated in the anti-ACTA protests in recent months.

“Civil society has been extremely vocal in recent months in raising their legitimate concerns on the ACTA agreement which we share. There are too many provisions lacking clarity and certainty as to the way they would be implemented in practice,” Verhofstadt noted.

One of the key problems raised by anti-ACTA activists is the way the treaty has morphed and grown since its inception. From its roots as a mechanism to deal with counterfeit goods, ACTA grew to encompass the unauthorized sharing of digital media online. This means that from targeting strictly criminal enterprises, ACTA now risks sucking in the man in the street. This one-size-fits-all approach is opposed by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats.

“Furthermore, ACTA wrongly bundles together too many different types of IPR enforcement under the same umbrella, treating physical goods and digital services in the same way,” said Verhofstadt. “We believe they should be approached in separate sectoral agreements, and following a comprehensive and democratically debated mandate and impact assessment.”

Yesterday the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) said that ACTA may have unacceptable side effects on fundamental rights of individuals.

“While more international cooperation is needed for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the means envisaged must not come at the expense of the fundamental rights of individuals,” assistant European data protection supervisor Giovanni Buttarelli said in a statement.

“A right balance between the fight against intellectual property infringements and the rights to privacy and data protection must be respected. It appears that ACTA has not been fully successful in this respect.”

This is a breaking news story and will be updated

Source: Liberals and Democrats Announce Rejection of ACTA

The legal battle over Internet censorship is reaching new heights in the Netherlands, as the local anti-piracy group BREIN is now asking the court to gag the Pirate Party.

The lawsuit is the next move in BREIN’s attempt to deny Dutch citizens’ access to The Pirate Bay.

In January, a Dutch court ruled that Ziggo, the largest ISP in the country, and competitor XS4ALL, must block access to The Pirate Bay. As a result hundreds of individuals setup proxy websites allowing subscribers to route around the blockade, effectively rendering the order useless.

In a countering move BREIN obtained an injunction from the court to shut these proxies down, including one operated by the Pirate Party. However, the Pirates are determined to put up a fight and have taken BREIN to court to get the order overthrown.

The case, in which the Pirate Party asked the court to lift all censorship restrictions, was heard by the court yesterday. BREIN, however, did exactly the opposite by submitting a rather broad set of new demands essentially asking the court to gag the political party.

In short BREIN’s demands are as follows.

1. The Pirate Party should be banned from operating a reverse proxy for Pirate Bay

2. The Pirate Party should be banned from operating a generic proxy service

3. The Pirate Party should be banned from linking to third-party proxies

4. The Pirate Party should be banned from listing new IP-addresses / domains Pirate Bay registers

5. The Pirate Party should be banned from encouraging people to circumvent the Pirate Bay blockade

If the Pirate Party violates the above terms BREIN asked for a penalty of €10,000 per day, up to a maximum of €250,000.

Needless to say, the demands of the anti-piracy group are unprecedented for a copyright related case. It is essentially a gag-order to enforce a previously obtained court verdict. If the court sides with BREIN this will have rather far-reaching consequences for people’s freedom of speech. It may also invite other parties to consider making similar demands.

The question is also how far BREIN wants to take this. Should other generic proxy sites be banned as well? And what about VPNs or the TOR network? All of these services allow the public to bypass the court-ordered blockade.

Meanwhile, the popular Dutch weblog Geenstijl is making some noise as well, as they launched a redirection site (FuckTimKuik.org) that forwards people to available proxies. BREIN has yet to respond to this initiative, but it shows that it will be quite difficult to root out all circumvention methods.

The court’s decision in the case between the Pirate Party and BREIN is expected to be published in two weeks. This verdict will coincide with BREIN’s case against two other Dutch Internet providers that are still allowing access to The Pirate Bay.

Source: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court to Gag The Pirate Party

The Aussie police are clearly not setting the right example when it comes to copyright infringement. In 2008 computers of the South Australian police force’s IT branch were found to contain hundreds of pirated movies.

There is, however, an even ongoing bigger case in which the New South Wales police are accused of massive software piracy involving its criminal intelligence database.

The software in question, ViewNow, is developed by the UK company Micro Focus. While the company licensed its software to the police in the past, it discovered nearly two years ago the police were using thousands of unauthorized copies.

Even worse, the police also shared the software with third parties such as the Ombudsman’s Office, the Department of Correctives Services and the Police Integrity Commission. All without permission from the software company.

In an attempt to get compensated for several years worth of mass piracy, Micro Focus has filed a lawsuit in which it’s demanding more than $10 million in damages. Micro Focus’ managing director Bruce Craig says they saw no other option than to sue, as they can’t go to the police.

“When someone pirates your software you think who am I gonna call, the police? In this case, they’re the pirates,” Craig comments on 7.30.

“This is potentially a crime that has to be handled as a civil matter because everybody’s got their hands dirty,” he added. “The victims can’t go to police – it’s the police who are doing the stealing.”

At the center of the legal battle is a dispute over the licenses for the ViewNow software. Micro Focus says the police had licenses to install ViewNow on up to 6,500 computers, but in fact more than 16,000 copies were installed. In addition, the police shared copies with other organizations without permission.

“The licenses were for police only. Yet police were out there handing out our software like confetti,” Craig says. “They did not pay for those extra licenses. It’s incredible. It shows an organization that’s completely out of control.”

The police on the other hand claim that they are not aware of any restrictions. Instead, they claim that they could use as many copies as they want according to their interpretation of the contract.

To make matters even worse, Micro Focus is now threatening a new lawsuit as they suspect that the police have replaced the ViewNow software with an alternative called NetManage Applet. This application also belongs to Micro Focus, and they have not licensed the police to use that without restrictions either.

Who’s right and who’s wrong will eventually be decided by the court, but there is already one losing party – the taxpayer. The police have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the case has barely begun.

Source: Australian Police Accused of Mass Software Piracy

Sheridan Cleland describes himself as an independent filmmaker with his own small production company. In addition to making music videos he also has a passion for hunting down and studying movie screenplays.

From its roots three years earlier, in 2009 Cleland created myPDFscripts, a platform which enabled him to share his passion with others. In recent months, however, things have not been easy. To cut a long story short, Cleland has been plagued with DMCA takedown requests from movie studios, one in particular.

November last year Cleland was forced to take down the site after Universal issued complaints against more than a hundred scripts. One of them, at position #69 on the list, was from the classic movie ‘Repo Man’. Interestingly, its creator Alex Cox contacted Cleland about the takedown directly.

“I believe you have received a ‘takedown’ notice from Universal to remove the script. I do not agree with this. I’m very pleased you have my script on your site and would like to see it remain. If you would like to add any other of my scripts, get in touch. You are welcome to post them,” Cox wrote.

But given the direct interest of a powerful company such as Universal, Cleland was concerned of the consequences should he simply repost the script. So he contacted the studio for clarification.

“Mr. Cox is the author of the Repo Man screenplay; however, his rights to and interests in the screenplay for the film were granted to Universal Pictures, which is the exclusive owner of Repo Man throughout the world in perpetuity, including, without limitation, all copyrights in the film and in the underlying screenplay,” the studio responded. “Accordingly, Universal stands by its request that you take-down the Repo Man screenplay from your website.”

So, if posting the actual script was off limits, maybe it would be OK for Cleland to post a link to the copy of the script that Alex Cox hosts on his own website? Apparently not.

“Please don’t post the links,” advised Universal. “I don’t believe Mr. Cox is authorized to post the script on his personal website either.”

Cox disagrees.

“Universal are both right and wrong. Right because in many cases writers do cede all their rights to a purchaser, and lose them. Wrong because REPO MAN wasn’t a work for hire, and in three years time all rights to the script will revert to me under an obscure provision of US copyright law. This may be why they haven’t sent me a takedown notice: but it’s disgraceful that your site has been kneecapped in this way,” Alex told Cleland.

“Have you thought about transferring all the material to a server outside the US — in Brazil, perhaps? I know of others who have done this to keep valuable sites alive.”

But Cox doesn’t end there. After giving Cleland permission to post up every script he’s ever written (he’s already given everyone permission to download his films), he finishes up with an alarming broadside against the studios.

“The studios, including Universal, are pretty clearly a criminal enterprise, operating an illegal blacklist and functioning as a price-fixing cartel. They actually have legislation which permits them to operate as a cartel abroad (the law is called Webb-Pomerene) but absolutely no right to operate as a cartel domestically. They do so because they’re powerful and have politicians in their pockets,” Cox notes.

“If the cops ever went after them using the RICO statutes the whole studio cartel would collapse like a pack of cards, and individuals like their ‘litigation counsel’ would have to look for honest work. It’s unlikely that this will happen, but we can dream,” he concludes.

At the moment myPDFScripts is suffering a bit of a crisis after Mediafire blocked the site’s locker account so whether Repo Man and the other scripts will ever appear there remains to be seen.

Source: Repo Man’s Alex Cox: Move Sites Overseas To Kill Copyright Complaints

Every single week new lawsuits are filed aimed at discovering the identities of individuals who allegedly share copyright material online without the permission of rightsholders.

Most often these lawsuits are filed by porn companies, independent movie studios such as the one behind The Hurt Locker, and more recently book publishers such as Wiley. In almost all cases the aim is to identify users and get them to settle out of court, a strategy dumped by the major labels of the RIAA several years ago.

Now, however, there has been an interesting development in northern Europe. The case involves an album from a very young artist called Robin Packalen, a child sensation who appears to be Finland’s answer to Justin Bieber.

On 22nd February 2012, Packalen, who’s signed to Universal Music, released his first album. Unsurprisingly the official street date was beaten by two days thanks to an uploader on The Pirate Bay. This didn’t go unnoticed by his label.

After monitoring the swarm, IFPI and Teosto, the Finnish Composers’ Copyright Society, went to court to obtain the personal details of the individuals behind a total of 82 IP addresses.

IFPI and Teosto convinced the Helsinki District Court that the pre-release leak cost them significant sums of money. The Court subsequently ordered two ISPs, Telia Sonera and Elisa, to provide the names and addresses of the alleged infringers to the rightsholders as requested.

Telia Sonera, to which 34 of the IP addresses relate, said it would comply with the Court and had no further comment. Elisa (30 IP addresses) also indicated it would comply if it could, but it may not have the information being requested.

The news has spooked one individual who contacted TorrentFreak this afternoon. He told us that he was one of the file-sharers in the swarm when the album was released and after seeding for a long time he’s “99% certain” his IP address will have been tracked.

“It happened to be my little sister’s birthday and guess who is her idol? Yep, you guessed right. As I’m such a nice big brother, I decided to download for her Robin’s newest album as a birthday present,” he told us.

“Well, it now seems like that present is turning out to be quite expensive, should they decide to send me a letter asking for money. If they do, I guess I have no other option but to pay. I’m just a poor student that can’t afford an expensive legal adviser to help me out.”

The question now is what IFPI and Teosto (or perhaps Universal directly) will do with the identities once they have obtained them. According to Antti Kotilainen of anti-piracy group TTVK (the outfit that conducted the investigation), the responses will vary.

“Every case will be investigated separately. Consequences will vary from compensation to a criminal investigation,” he said.

But considering the artist in question here – none other than Finland’s Justin Bieber – the chances are that many children will be caught up in the sweep. What will happen to them?

“In those cases, we hope the families will have a serious conversation with their children about piracy,” Kotilainen added.

Jarkko Nordlund, CEO of Universal Music Finland, warned that more albums had been monitored and more action could follow.

“This is a constant fight against piracy. We want to make sure people know there are legal ways to buy music online. We will communicate with the TTVK and see if there are serious infringers that we want to take to court,” Nordlund concluded.

Update: Comment from Joonas Mäkinen, Pirate Party of Finland

Robin’s album has sold more than 80,000 thousand copies, and IFPI and the court handling the case see 82 downloads as notable financial losses? This is ridiculous. He can’t even get to the official top lists in the broken system because the album is low-priced in the first place. Simply the act of just going after these filesharers costs more money and time for the lawyers and courts than could be gained if those downloads were directly converted to physical album sales.

It’s now even in the official PR discourse that the millions of YouTube views of his music video are celebrated as a success. From the perspective of a fan and end-user, it often makes no difference if the musical pieces are available for listening on YouTube, streaming services or as downloaded files. 82 people thought the latter was a more convenient way for them. This is not a good enough reason to allow third party organization get their hands on private information of ISP customers.

Source: Court Gives IFPI Permission To Identify Pirate Bay Users

After being honored with an Oscar for Best Motion Picture in 2010, the makers of The Hurt Locker went on to sue thousands of people who allegedly shared the film online.

Movie studio Voltage Pictures was not only one of the first studios to sue BitTorrent downloaders in the US, it also secured the award for the biggest mass-BitTorrent lawsuit by listing 24,583 alleged infringers at once.

This case dragged on for nearly two years and after collecting an undisclosed number of settlements it was eventually closed last December. It remains unknown how profitable the lawsuit was for the movie studio, but since they haven’t given up on the scheme yet we assume that it wasn’t a financial debacle.

Last week the studio filed a brand new lawsuit in Florida against 2,514 John Doe defendants, who are all accused of downloading The Hurt Locker.

Through this lawsuit the studio wants to obtain a subpoena so they can order ISPs to reveal the identities of the alleged downloaders. These account holders will then receive a settlement offer that generally lies around $3,000, which means that the Hurt Locker makes can receive over 6 million dollars in damages.

While the complaint filed at a federal court in Florida is pretty standard, there are a few details that stand out when we look at the list of sued IP-addresses.

Firstly, all the defendants downloaded the film in 2010. This means that the movie studio has waited two years before filing a lawsuit against the alleged copyright infringers. On top of that, we see that all the 2,514 defendants are subscribers of the same Internet provider, Charter Communications.

It could be that the points above are related. For example, Voltage Pictures may know that Charter keeps IP-address records for more than two years while other ISPs don’t. Another reason for targeting Charter subscribers could be that the movie studio knows that the ISP is not going to object to handing over bulk subscriber details.

Whatever the case, this new lawsuit is worth keeping an eye on.

While The Hurt Locker is a prominent name, this mass-lawsuit is just one of many being filed every week. In total more than 250,000 alleged BitTorrent users have been targeted in the United States and this number continues to increase.

While most of the plaintiffs are adult film studios, more reputable brands such as the major book publisher Wiley & Sons have joined in as well. And last week the first game publisher filed a lawsuit as “Airbus X” makers Aerosoft GmbH targeted 50 downloaders.

Depending on the success of the current cases, the BitTorrent lawsuits may continue for years. Thus far there is no indication that the end is in sight.

Source: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users

This week there are two newcomers in our chart.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is the most downloaded movie this week.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Source: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent

This is a guest article from UK rapper Dan Bull.

Sharing Is Caring

Yesterday a young lad asked me, “Dan Bull in the charts? Is this a ‘fuck off’ to the record industry then?”

Good question, I thought. What do I really want to say to the entertainment industry?

When I released my first album “Safe” in 2009, I sent it to record companies and radio stations but they ignored it. When I telephoned Q magazine with a story, they told me they couldn’t write about it because they only feature artists with record deals.

In frustration at the glass ceiling that independent artists face, I started to publish protest songs on YouTube. To my surprise, they got much more coverage. I was excited, but thought “What if the labels see my tracks? They’ll never sign me now!”.

At that point, I realised something; if they didn’t want me, then the feeling was mutual. I didn’t need a record label telling me what to do, how to do it, and then keeping 80% of the takings for the privilege. I had the internet and I had my brain.

By embracing the free flow of information the internet allows, through filesharing and social media, I’ve found a worldwide fanbase without leaving the house. I’ve collaborated with artists across the globe without ever meeting them, and I can chat to my supporters whilst lying in bed eating pizza.

None of that would have been possible without file-sharing. If I followed the copyright law that lobbyists like the RIAA and the BPI insist is in the interest of artists like me, I would have no musical career. If pro-filesharing sites like TorrentFreak and The Pirate Bay didn’t share my work with you, you wouldn’t be reading this. I owe a debt of gratitude to every person that has ripped, burned, copied and shared anything I’ve done.

Sites such as The Pirate Bay do more to help unsigned artists than industry lobbyists ever have. Projects like The Promo Bay, which devotes The Pirate Bay’s home page, free of charge, to any musician who applies, creates overnight success stories.

The Pirate Bay stands defiantly in the face of corporate bullies who tout such nonsensical non-sequiters as “if you copy files, artists don’t get money, and if artists don’t get any money, they will stop making art.” This is an insult to the millions of dedicated amateur artists around the world.

What’s funny is that I’d have more respect for major labels if they just admitted what we already know – their bottom line is nothing but profit. There’s nothing wrong with that; there’s no need to hide it. But there is a need to play fair.

Entertainment lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it – they accumulated massive wealth through exploiting a free market when the means to distribute recorded art was scarce. This scarcity no longer exists – the market has moved on; and now they’re fighting to enforce artificial measures which will recreate those fleeting economic and technological conditions which allowed them to flourish.

Art has always been about sharing, adapting, and re-interpreting what you experience. Our children deserve to grow up in a world where they can enjoy this freedom without the fear that a pack of corporate lawyers will circle in and extradite them overseas.

People born in the late 80s have now lived more of their lives in the 21st century than the 20th century. A new generation has arrived for whom sharing information online is as easy and reflexive as breathing.

This generation isn’t going away; it’s growing larger all the time and to them, defunct business models developed by greying monopolists are utterly irrelevant. But these kids aren’t freeloaders or criminal masterminds, they are normal, decent people. When they hear a song or see a video that they like, they’ll post it to Facebook; they’ll Tweet it. They might remix it, or poke fun at it. This very behaviour which big entertainment claims to be the death knell of creativity, is the same behaviour that I believe will make my single a success.

“Sharing Is Caring” is a satire on this age of instant communication. It’s about what happens when things go wrong, and whether we are using the power of online communication to its full potential. Hidden somewhere in the track you can hear me urinating on a printout of the Digital Economy Act.

There are three main versions of the song – each about a different social network (Facebook, Twitter and Google+). There’s also a dubstep remix by Benny Aves and a reggae-tinged reworking by Animal Circus. I’ve also provided instrumentals and acapellas for you to remix and re-imagine at will.

I invite you to download “Sharing Is Caring” for free. If you like it, and want to support the campaign, you can choose to buy it. Each version you buy will count as a sale towards the charts. There are ten versions in all, meaning a single person can create ten sales towards the charts.

The singles charts are worthless as an indicator of quality, and artists needn’t strive for the validation of reaching them. However, by taking a free song by an unsigned artist to the echelons normally reserved for the industry elite, I want to smash the glass ceiling and show that there is another way of doing things. We don’t need the protection of ACTA, CISPA or any other acronym. As long as our internet is free, creativity will thrive.

And so, to answer the original question – I’m not shouting “fuck off” to the entertainment industry.

I’m saying “excuse me, but I think you’re in my seat”.

Links to the torrent or paid version of “Sharing Is Caring” are available here.

Source: Dan Bull & Pirate Bay Attack the Music Charts With “Sharing Is Caring”

Digital filesharing has come a long way since the early days of the floppy disk, starting with a 79.7 kB storage capacity in the early 1970s.

Two decades ago 3.5″ disks were the most sought after medium to distribute files. At the time, their massive 1.4 MB file size was more than enough to distribute files. But things got really interesting when people started to swap files on the Internet.

In just 2 score years, filesharing has evolved into an amazingly efficient process which has enhanced lives everywhere. It has brought great exposure to underexposed types of media and democratized distribution, making it possible for individuals to share files with the rest of the world at virtually no cost.

Let’s briefly examine how filesharing has become what it is today in a non-exhaustive overview.

BBS: The Early Days (70s-90s)

The BBS, or Bulletin Board System, has been largely attributed with the beginning of contemporary digital filesharing. Beginning with the Hayes Smartmodem, Bulletin Board Systems became automatic enough that Sysops (or administrators) were able to own and operate these mediums from their own homes as both a hobby and, later, as a business. Typically, the BBS was almost like an intranet in which users would dial-in with their modems to read/send messages, access news, and most importantly for us, share files.

Shareware became incredibly popular through the distribution provided by Bulletin Board Systems. From Wolfenstein to Commander Keen, users were able to learn about a BBS by word of mouth and, in its pinnacle, through printed magazines focusing on BBS’s. Many well-known software packages, including PKZIP, were made popular through the BBS. Many users today still use PKZIP’s .zip algorithm when compressing and decompressing archives.

There are still many traditional Bulletin Board Systems in operation today.

Usenet: Beginnings of Decentralization (Late 70s-Present)

Usenet or Newsgroups were similar to Bulletin Board Systems. However, they operated using UUCP and were able to transcend beyond the centralization of a BBS. Essentially, Usenet servers were able to receive files and re-distribute them amongst other Usenet servers effectively creating multiple copies of messages and files across hundreds upon thousands of servers. Usenet was the medium for discussions which gave birth to several projects, including the World Wide Web, Linux, and Mosaic, amongst other amazing projects.

While Usenet has been in existence since the late 70s, major filesharing did not typically occur until much later. In 1993, Eugene Roshal created RAR which allowed users to split files into multipart archives. Given the decentralized copy-nature of Usenet, this helped distribute files much faster and more efficiently, as corruption in file transfers no longer required files to be re-uploaded in their entirety.

Although many may disagree, Usenet is still very much in use today. However, it is used mostly for filesharing rather than for its original purpose of messaging, which has been mostly replaced by contemporary web forums and IRC.

FTP and FXP: Topsites and the ISO Scene (90s-Present)

Soon after, the underground filesharing scene gave birth to an intricate private network of FTP sites known as Topsites. These networks were based on invite only systems and adopted many of the features of Usenet.

Generally, release groups would upload new media to their release servers and create various kinds of announcements thereof (generally, IRC bot based). Then, couriers who had access to the release servers, as well as other servers, would transport or “race” new releases from one server to another, typically with the use of FXP. By doing so, they would earn credits (typically 1:3 ratio) for uploading files as long as the file was considered to be appropriate and unique (not a dupe — hence the racing).

Through this culture and rewards system, files eventually would make their way to topsites all over the world in this decentralized nature. Much like Usenet, split-file or RAR archives were utilized in order to further enhance the racing culture.

Of course, due to the private and closed nature of this distribution network, it was difficult for many users to gain access to these topsites. Topsites are very much still in existence today.

IRC (90s-Present)

IRC has been around for a long time and has played quite a role in society, both in filesharing as well as politics. Many IRC clients feature a DCC (direct client to client) protocol which allows users to do exactly as the name implies.

Through DCC, and later with advancements and bots known as XDCC servers, filesharing took yet another turn. Distribution groups who were able to get their hands on releases were able to serve files to the masses using these XDCC servers, which were typically hosted anywhere from powerful machines, brute forced Windows NT computers, personal computers, and university computer labs.

XDCC is still quite popular and a quick search through Netsplit.de shows many active channels across many active IRC networks still utilizing XDCC for distribution. Additionally, IRC is still widely used for its original purpose of chat as well as a bootstrap mechanism for filesharing mediums which sprouted later.

Hotline (90s)

For a brief period Hotline was a very popular medium for sharing files. At first, Hotline was very mainstream with many mega corporations participating in the Hotline network. However, it quickly faded away due to many complications, including but not limited to the encrypting of source files on Hotline computers which essentially crippled the company.

Napster (Late 90s)

Napster arguably brought MP3 and filesharing to the masses. There are very few netizens who haven’t used or heard of Napster. The software operated as a peer to peer filesharing network strictly used for music. Napster’s database, however, was centrally located, which eventually helped lead to its shutdown and subsequent demise. However, not before it helped to spread the idea of filesharing, in its entirety, to the masses.

Gnutella, eDonkey2000 and Kazaa (Early 2000)

The centralized nature of Napster gave way to a single point of failure – or single point of shutdown. As such, many gifted developers researched methods to avoid such complications. Gnutella, eDonkey2000, and Kazaa were different implementations which all did quite well in their heyday. While their protocols were all different, they were each very similar in that there was no central server. However, each protocol ended up “failing” as they were rooted in commercial (and corporate) interest – which ended up becoming an attack point.

Gnutella, originally created by the Nullsoft people, was once the most used network thanks to LimeWire. The LimeWire client was sued by the RIAA and shutdown in 2010, which turned Gnutella into a ghost network. The original eDonkey2000 from Jed McCaleb was toppled as well, but clones have kept the eDonkey network alive. The Kazaa team later created Skype, which is a widely used VoIP/IM platform.

DC++ and i2hub

DC++ and i2hub were popular methods of sharing files in closed-networks. Both were highly used within the university and college scene where students would share hub/server addresses with each other in order to share files at very high speeds within the local college networks. The advantages provided within these was that outside agencies and other various third parties could not access the content found within these networks.

However, the RIAA found a way into i2hub and was able to shut it down. DC++ is still in active development today, but is not as common or widespread as it once was.

BitTorrent (2001)

Bram Cohen created BitTorrent, which almost anyone with an Internet connection today has used, knowingly or not. BitTorrent essentially took on all of the greatest properties of its predecessors and packed them all into one, easy to use file sharing platform.

Taking on the concepts of breaking files into multiple chunks (Usenet, Topsites) as well as the decentralized peer-to-peer distribution mechanism (Napster, Gnutella, eDonkey2000, Kazaa), BitTorrent has catapulted into a mainstream filesharing mechanism which is fast, efficient, and difficult to stop.

Early versions of BitTorrent required centralized trackers to operate, but have later become able to utilize trackerless “torrents.”

Increasingly BitTorrent users have grown concerned with their privacy. Indexes such as YouHaveDownloaded.com have been able to maintain logs of every file downloaded by IP, which has raised significant awareness to whether it is safe to download files through BitTorrent. In addition, many ISPs have been known to cap speeds when detecting BitTorrent downloads.

As a result of these privacy concerns millions of BitTorrent users have signed up with Anonymous VPN services to mask their IP-addresses when downloading files

Filelockers and Forums (2000 to Present)

In recent years Megaupload, Rapidshare, Hotfile and other file lockers became quite popular. These file lockers provided the simplest means of filesharing when compared to all of their predecessors. Files are simply uploaded to the file locker, and a URL is provided to the file which is download through HTTP/HTTPS.

Generally, the URLs are shared through forums. Due to the affiliate compensations some cyberlockers offer to file uploaders on a per-file based download count, many files are distributed in split-file or RAR archives much like in the days of topsites and Usenet. This is mainly due to for-profit reasons as opposed to cultural or technical reasons as seen in the scene (topsites) or on Usenet respectively.

However, governments as well as special interest groups including the RIAA and MPAA have targeted file lockers leading to widely publicized lawsuits, including the arrest and destruction of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom.

Final Thoughts

Filesharing has come a long way, and with it, many industries have been born.

While it provides challenges to many of the big media conglomerates, it undoubtedly enriched the lives of many independent creators. Distribution is no longer something for the happy few, which shows as tens of thousands of artists share their work for free online every year.

Filesharing as a technology is good. Let’s make sure it stays around so that we may continue to share our thoughts, ideas, and art in order to better ourselves, our communities, and our earth. Anyone who is against that must obviously dream of world destruction, or at the least, wish for human progress to stop.

Source: The History of File-Sharing

With millions of daily visitors FilesTube is among the most frequently visited websites on the Internet.

Founded in 2007, the Polish-operated site is the largest meta-search engine for content hosted on cyberlockers such as Hotfile, 4Shared and Mediafire. FilesTube refers a significant amount of traffic to these sites, but not all of them are very happy about it.

In fact, Mediafire don’t want to be indexed at all, took action to block all incoming traffic from FilesTube last month.

“As a private service MediaFire was never designed to be indexed which is why we don’t have an index,” Mediafire co-founder Tom Langridge explains to TorrentFreak.

“Our meta tags for file access are set to not-indexable and services like Google, Bing and other search engines honor this. FilesTube was not honoring this and thus we were forced to block them.”

While the decision makes sense from Mediafire’s point of view, it would be naive not to relate the recent change to the increased debate about the legality of cyberlockers’ business models. After the Megaupload raids and arrests Mediafire and other file-hosting services have been publicly scrutinized by Hollywood.

Mediafire was among the five cyberlockers labeled as rogue sites by the movie studios recently. Mediafire was quick to refute the allegations and emphasize that they run a perfectly legitimate business.

This week the debate continues when RapidShare published a set of guidelines cyberlockers should follow to deter mass-copyright infringement.

While we assume Mediafire’s recent change is in part aimed at deterring infringement, it is no silver bullet.

The FilesTube block stops users from clicking through to Mediafire, but it doesn’t prevent links being indexed, as FilesTube gathers this information from third-party sources. This means that FilesTube users can still find content on MediaFire, but instead of clicking on a direct link they have to manually paste the URL in their browsers.

FilesTube points out this workaround on their Facebook page.

Update: The article was updated to make clear that Mediafire made these changes last month.

Source: Mediafire Starts Blocking FilesTube Search Traffic

Since the unexpected shutdown of Megaupload in January there has been significant realignment in the cyberlocker market, with many sites changing their business models and some pulling out of the business altogether.

For RapidShare, one of the market leaders, taking either of these actions wasn’t an option. The company has long insisted that it does business legally and has been trying extra hard in recent times to tackle infringement. Its scale means that closing down was never on the cards.

What RapidShare has been doing for some time now is promoting itself as a good digital citizen prepared to go that extra mile. A company appreciative of copyright holders’ needs but one that balances those requirements against subscribers’ rights.

This week RapidShare went even further when it published an anti-piracy manifesto containing guidelines on how responsible cyberlocker and cloud hosting sites should conduct their business going forward.

“RapidShare continues to work with all parties and wants to serve as an industry ‘best practices’ leader in accountability and transparency,” RapidShare CEO Alexandra Zwingli told TorrentFreak.

But while RapidShare’s proposals go far beyond file-hosting services’ responsibilities under the law, the response from rightsholders has been tepid at best.

In a comment to CNET a spokesman for the top four record companies made it clear that although RapidShare’s overtures represent a “commendable step forward”, the company will have to go even further if it is to meet the standards required by the labels.

“Unfortunately the new measures announced fall short if the goal is indeed to meaningfully and effectively reduce the massive amount of copyright theft occurring on [RapidShare's] service,” the unnamed spokesman added.

When comparing these comments and a statement given to us by RapidShare CEO Alexandra Zwingli, there is clearly a mismatch between the RIAA’s assessments and those of the Swiss-based file-hoster.

“Contrary to unverified ‘studies,’ RapidShare believes that by any practical measure, online piracy on its servers is very small,” says Zwingli. “Nevertheless, RapidShare has committed nearly one-third of its staff to policing and responding seven days a week to copyright infringement. DMCA take-down notices are instituted within one hour during regular business hours.”

But despite their efforts on takedowns (1 hour response is very impressive indeed), the RIAA still has issues and it’s interesting where their spokesman draws a line in the sand. The implication is that on one side are sites that provide personal storage lockers where users place their own files for their own use. On the other are sites that allow users to upload files for sharing with anyone online.

“RapidShare allows unlimited distribution of copyrighted files among millions of anonymous strangers without taking adequate steps to prevent this illegal activity,” the labels’ spokesman added.

Perhaps not surprisingly, RapidShare believes the measure of a responsible hosting site lies elsewhere.

“RapidShare fully agrees that the file hosting marketplace provides opportunities for providers and seekers of copyright protected files,” Zwingli told TorrentFreak.

“However, RapidShare believes that a distinction must be made between legitimate companies providing above-board services to users, the vast majority of which are engaged in lawful activity, from illegitimate entities for whom revenue is linked to the purveyance of illegal, copyright infringing activity.

“Unlike other file hosting sites, RapidShare maintains no incentive programs whatsoever, the likes of which reward users for the number of times their files are downloaded. The RIAA and Policymakers need to create distinctions between those companies, such as RapidShare, that are cracking down on abuse and ‘shadow actors’ that tacitly encourage copyright infringement.

“RapidShare welcomes an open dialogue with the RIAA as RapidShare believes they share goals to combat piracy and foster technology,” Zwingli concludes.

Source: RapidShare Overtures Snubbed, “Must Do Better” Say Labels

Earlier today the news broke that a Megaupload trial may never happen because the US Government failed to serve the now defunct file-hosting company.

While some defendants might respond with relief upon hearing such news, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is only becoming more furious at the people who destroyed his businesses.

“The US government has terminated Megaupload, Megavideo and 10 other subsidiaries, including a company called N1 Limited that was developing a clothing line,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak.

“They destroyed 220 jobs. Millions of legitimate Mega users have no access to their files.”

If Judge O’Grady is to be believed all this damage could very well have been for nothing because the authorities simply can’t serve foreign companies. This could lead one to wonder whether the whole setup was to simply destroy Mega’s businesses.

This is certainly a theory Dotcom subscribes to, and it’s not the only dirty trick Megaupload’s founder believes the US Government is playing. The US is structurally denying Megaupload the chance to put up a fair fight.

“We are refused access to the evidence that clears us, we are refused funds to pay our lawyers, we are refused to pick the lawyers we want to represent us and have any chance for a fair trial,” Dotcom says.

For Megaupload the worst part is that the damage can’t be undone. The site has been completely destroyed as well as the plans to become a publicly traded company.

“We have already been served a death sentence without trial and even if we are found ‘not guilty’ which we will, the damage can never be repaired,” Dotcom says.

And why?

According to Megaupload’s founder it is quite clear that the Mega investigation was a ‘gift’ to Hollywood, facilitated by corrupt forces.

“This Mega takedown was possible because of corruption on the highest political level, serving the interests of the copyright extremists in Hollywood,” he says. “Mega has become a re-election pawn.”

Nevertheless, Dotcom is confident that these forces will eventually be exposed.

“It is just a matter of time until the truth comes out. We are working on that and we are making good progress,” Dotcom concludes.

Source: Kim Dotcom Lashes Out Against “Corrupt” US Government

The US Government accuses Kim Dotcom and the rest of the “Mega Conspiracy” of running a criminal operation.

Charges in the indictment include engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.

While the prosecution is hoping to have Megaupload tried in the US, breaking news suggests that this may never happen.

It turns out that the US judge handling the case has serious doubts whether it will ever go to trial due to a procedural error.

“I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter,” Judge O’Grady said as reported by the NZ Herald.

Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that Megaupload was never served with criminal charges, which is a requirement to start the trial. The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction.

“My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.

Megaupload’s lawyer adds that he doesn’t understand why the US authorities weren’t aware of this problem before. As a result Judge O’Grady noted that Megaupload is “kind of hanging out there.”

If this issue indeed prevents Megaupload from being tried in the US, it would be a blunder of epic proportions. And it is not the first “procedural” mistake either.

Last month the New Zealand High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.

The error dates back to January when the police applied for the order granting them permission to seize Dotcom’s property. Rather than applying for an interim restraining order, the Police Commissioner applied for a foreign restraining order instead.

The exact ramifications of the failure to serve will become apparent in the near future.

Update: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom responds, and he’s not happy.

Source: Megaupload Trial May Never Happen, Judge Says

The battle between YouTube and music rights group GEMA began in earnest when talks between the pair on the issue of royalties completely broke down in 2010. An earlier agreement with GEMA, which represents around 60,000 artists, had expired in 2009.

Rather than come to the negotiated settlement preferred by YouTube, GEMA commenced legal proceedings on copyright grounds against the Google-owned video site. The action concerned 12 specific music videos uploaded by YouTube users to which GEMA owns the rights but for which YouTube paid no royalties. GEMA argued that YouTube hadn’t done enough to monitor content submitted to the site.

Today a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is indeed responsible for the material its users upload to the site, despite the site having state-of-the-art filters which aim to detect and remove infringing content.

Presiding Judge Heiner Steeneck said his ruling gave both sides a reason to declare victory. GEMA wanted YouTube to take responsibility for videos uploaded in the past as well as those uploaded in the future but that was denied.

“YouTube isn’t the perpetrator here, it’s those people who illegally upload songs,” Steeneck said. “That’s why YouTube doesn’t have to search all videos uploaded in the past. It only has to help detect videos from the moment it is alerted about possible violations.”

Although YouTube operates its ‘ContentID’ anti-piracy system which detects infringements by way of digital fingerprints, the court ruled that in isolation that is insufficient. In addition YouTube must now filter by keyword too.

Both sides say they are considering their options and are yet to announce whether they will appeal the ruling.

Source: YouTube Liable For Copyright Infringements, Court Rules

For more than a year Google has been filtering “piracy-related” terms from its ‘Autocomplete‘ and ‘Instant‘ services.

Google users searching for terms like “torrent”, “BitTorrent” and “RapidShare” will notice that no suggestions or search results appear before they type the full word. The underlying idea is that Google will curb piracy by driving fewer visitors to these sites.

Last November several Pirate Bay related keywords were added, and to a certain degree Google’s efforts have been remarkably effective. If we inspect the search volumes for “The Pirate Bay” and “Pirate Bay” we see that the number of searches has been cut in half.

However, the real question is whether this actually does something to prohibit people from using The Pirate Bay website.

It could be that fewer people accidentally stumble upon the notorious torrent site than before. Previously “The Pirate Bay” showed up as the top suggestion when people typed in “The,” which probably led to a few hundred curious visitors a day. This is no longer the case.

However, the majority of the people who search for “Pirate Bay” are existing users who use this as a shortcut instead of having to type the full URL. It is doubtful that these people suddenly stopped using the torrent site.

Indeed, as is usually the case with censorship, the net routes around it. In this case Google’s algorithm picked up a new popular search that allows Pirate Bay users to access their favorite site with just three keystrokes. Where searches for “Pirate Bay” plunged, the alternative “thepiratebay.org” skyrocketed.

As a result, Google now suggests “thepiratebay.org” when users type in “pir”.

That is, for as long as it lasts, since Google may now add this new search to their piracy filter as well. And so the inevitable anti-piracy whack-a-mole continues as usual.

A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that they are not in the least bit hurt by Google’s half-baked attempts to keep people away from their site. They haven’t noticed a decrease in referrers from Google, and even if that was the case it wouldn’t be a problem as only a tiny percentage of The Pirate Bay’s traffic comes from search engines.

The real problem, according to The Pirate Bay, is that Google is willing to censor its search functions on behalf of the copyright lobby.

Google, on the other hand, is determined to continue and expand their anti-piracy efforts. Aside from adding more “pirate” keyword to the ban list, they will also prioritize authorized media in the search results and prevent rogue sites from advertising their services through AdSense.

Source: Google’s Piracy Filter Cuts “Pirate Bay” Searches in Half, But…

In what became known as the iiTrial, the marathon four-year legal battle that began in November 2008, a consortium of Hollywood Studios with token Australian representation going under the banner of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) took iiNet to court.

The case navigated several layers of the Australian court system, with iiNet winning the initial ruling and all subsequent appeals, before finally ending up in front the High Court in December last year.

The thrust of the case hung on whether iiNet had willingly authorized the copyright infringements of its customers. Lower courts found that iiNet had no duty to police its own networks, even when AFACT supplied so-called proof of infringement by its customers.

Just moments ago, the High Court unanimously dismissed AFACT’s final appeal.

“The Court observed that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright,” a summary of the Court’s findings read.

“Rather, the extent of iiNet’s power to prevent its customers from infringing the appellants’ copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers.”

The High Court further noted that the warning notices previously sent to iiNet by AFACT when the ISP’s customers allegedly infringed copyright “..did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts.”

Since the notices were inadequate, iiNet could not be considered to have authorized the infringements of its subscribers when it did not act on them.

The High Court sits at the pinnacle of Australia’s legal system and its rulings cannot be appealed. Today’s decision forms a binding legal precedent on all lower Australian courts and will be taken into consideration by judges in countries with comparable legal systems such as India, Canada and the UK.

All of this factored into the reasoning of AFACT and its chief sponsor the MPAA to take legal action against iiNet, as revealed by US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in November 2011. The US Ambassador to Australia in 2008, Robert McCallum, reported back to Washington that iiNet was chosen because it was judged too small to put up a decent legal fight. In the cable, the Ambassador prophetically cautioned the coming legal tussle could be perceived as “…the giant American bullies [versus] little Aussie battlers….”

AFACT could never have known Wikileaks would out the plot, or that the legal case would so spectacularly backfire. Today’s decision will hurt Hollywood’s copyright enforcement agenda on multiple levels. Alongside the setting of an unwanted legal precedent, AFACT has been dealt a significant public relations blow in its ongoing lobbying efforts in Australia.

Prior to the decision, AFACT’s Managing Director Neil Gane told TorrentFreak via email, “Regardless of the outcome [today], the landscape has changed. In the three years since the case commenced, legislators, regulators and courts around the world have recognized that ISPs must play a central role in preventing online copyright theft.”

Anticipating a loss in the case, AFACT began lobbying government and ISPs behind closed doors last December. The process has been widely criticised for a lack of public consultation. While the Australian government has suggested it prefers an industry agreed model for combating copyright infringement to legislation, leaks have revealed AFACT and its lobbying partners have been pressuring for an outcome that forces ISPs into a policing role.

The option of having ISPs forced into that role through the courts has been blunted by today’s High Court decision and it can be expected AFACT will step up their lobbying efforts of law-makers directly.

Update: Both parties held separate conferences following the emphatic 5-0 High Court decision. The mood in the iiNet camp, who stand to recoup $6 million in legal fees, was jubilant.

“We’re very pleased with the results announced in the High Court,” iiNet Chief Regulatory Officer Steve Dalby said. “The five-nil judgement puts us in a much stronger position.”

AFACT’s Neil Gane was expectedly downbeat. “Both judgements in this case recognize that copyright law is no longer equipped to deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of authorization was last tested,” he said.

iiNet CEO Michael Malone was keen to stress the importance of the win. “This is a world first case. No case has gone to judgement in the highest court in the land. I’ve had text messages and emails from people from all over the world,” he said.

Mr Malone said he looked forward to finding solutions to content piracy, but said a large part of the problem was content creators’ unwillingness to make their products available in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Expressing a personal fondness for hit US TV series Game of Thrones, Mr Malone lamented he was not able to access the latest episodes of the show legally in Australia.

Both Mr Malone and Mr Dalby expressed concerns about AFACT’s methods for collecting data on alleged infringers. “I dont’ have any confidence in the notices [of alleged infringement] that we’ve seen,” Mr Dalby said.

Mr Malone added that by standing up to AFACT and its Hollywood backers iiNet had enhanced its reputation in the Australian marketplace. “I’d argue [the court case has] positively impacted our reputation … Our role is to connect customers to the internet and with each other. We’re not going to remove your access without some sort of independent review,” he said.

Source: iiNet: ISP Not Liable For BitTorrent Piracy, High Court Rules

In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, people have been keeping a close eye on other file-hosting services, RapidShare included.

As a company, RapidShare sees itself operating in the “cloud hosting” business, offering a service comparable to the likes of Dropbox. And since people are moving data from local drives to the cloud at an increasing rate, these companies will undoubtedly host some copyrighted material too.

During the past several years RapidShare has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. The Swiss-based company is trying to position itself as a front-runner when it comes to responsible dealings with copyright infringers.

Emphasizing this role, the cyberlocker has just published an anti-piracy manifesto for cyberlockers, or a “responsible practices for cloud storage services” as they call it.

“RapidShare has always embraced our obligation to protect the intellectual property and copyright interests of creators. Today’s announcement takes that obligation to a new level,” said RapidShare’s general counsel Daniel Raimer commenting on the release.

The four page document is a summary of what RapidShare believes cyberlockers should do to assist copyright holders in preventing copyright infringements. While some of the suggestions are already baked into the US DMCA, several of the suggestions go above and beyond existing law, with inevitable consequences for the privacy of users.

It includes basic recommendations such as making files private by default, but it also goes further by granting copyright holders the power to get account holders disconnected when they are merely suspected of copyright infringement.

“Services should terminate account holders or subscribers not merely upon proof that they are infringers but when sufficient copyright holders have called their conduct into question,” RapidShare writes. Or in other words, account holders are guilty until proven innocent.

In addition, RapidShare also makes it mandatory for account holders to use valid email addresses, so these can be shared with copyright holders when there’s a legal dispute.

“Services should require valid e-mail addresses of subscribers and account holders in order for them to register new accounts. In the event a copyright holder seeks account holder information through valid legal procedures, the service should have access to valid e-mail address information to furnish in response, which may facilitate an inquiry to the e-mail service provider. “

The above is bad news for privacy loving anons, but there are more concerns on this front. RapidShare also suggests that all cyberlockers update their privacy policy to make it possible for them to inspect the personal files of those who are accused of copyright infringement.

“Privacy policies should establish that service providers retain the right to inspect files of repeat accused infringers or accused violators of the service’s terms of service who, after reasonable notice to them by the service provider, have made no good-faith counter notifications or efforts to justify their conduct as non-infringing or as not violating the service provider’s terms of service.”

Also, RapidShare recommends that cyberlockers operate from countries that respect copyright law.

“Service providers should either reside in a country that belongs to the Hague Convention for the Service of Process Abroad or should voluntarily comply with requests to waive service of process with respect to subpoenas for user information. They should also reside in a jurisdiction that shows respect for copyright law.”

In his announcement of the manifesto Raimer once again emphasized that his company is doing all it can to eradicate piracy.

“We want all stakeholders in the debate over online copyright infringement [...] to understand that RapidShare recognizes that piracy is a serious problem, that we’re reinforcing our efforts to eradicate it, and that we’re calling on other data logistics companies to do the same,” he said.

The company itself goes even beyond its own recommendations, by monitoring third-party sites and forums that post links to infringing material on RapidShare. In addition, the cyberlocker also decreased the download speeds of free users to drive pirates away.

Thus far the entertainment industry is quite content with RapidShare’s efforts, but whether the average RapidShare user is happy with these changes is doubtful.

Source: RapidShare Publishes Anti-Piracy Manifesto for Cyberlockers

Not long after Sweden’s controversial IPRED legislation became law in 2009, five book publishers handed a request for information to a local court.

The rightsholders, represented by anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån, wanted to force local ISP ePhone to hand over the personal details of a subscriber who allegedly stored more than 2000 audio books on his server, 27 of which breached the publishers’ copyrights.

In June that year the court ordered ePhone to provide the information but the ISP felt it would be wrong to comply, and instead took their case to the Court of Appeal. The ruling of the lower court was overturned on appeal and the case was sent to the Sweden’s highest court.

In the event even the Supreme Court couldn’t decide and it in turn forwarded the case to the European Court of Justice. A few moments ago the ECJ released its decision, one that is sure to please rightsholders.

The ECJ decided that there are no EU barriers which stop ePhone being ordered to provide the information as requested by Antipiratbyrån and the book publishers. The Court said that Swedish law strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright holders and citizens’ rights to privacy.

Having obtained the decision from the ECJ, the case will now head back to Sweden’s Supreme Court.

“We feel very satisfied with this judgment. It is extremely important that we have received this message,” said Kristina Ahlinder, president of the Publishers’ Association.

“The important next step is that the Supreme Court gives us the authority, that the evidence is sufficient and that we have the right to share this information. The illegal publication that has occurred from this IP address is comprehensive,” Ahlinder added

If Sweden’s Supreme Court indeed decides that ePhone must hand over the information, it is not clear if the publishers are even ready to continue with a civil case against the alleged infringer. But of course, other entities such as the music and movie industries have been watching closely too, since it clarifies their position going forward. IFPI, among others, are welcoming the ruling.

Source: ISPs Have to Identify Alleged Pirates, EU Court Rules