Author: Andy

There are very few Internet service providers around the world who could be described as file-sharer friendly. Most will steadfastly do their bare minimum when aggressive copyright holders come calling, with the majority happy to throw their customers to the wolves, guilty or not.

The same cannot be said about Swedish ISP Bahnhof. CEO Jon Karlung has been at the forefront of several arguments over file-sharers for many years, particularly when their activities intersect with a right to privacy.

In 2009, Karlung threw a wrench in the works of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) by refusing to log the IP addresses of his customers. This meant that if a court came calling for the data, none would be available.

In 2011, Karlung was pleasing the masses again, this time by hosting Wikileaks and promising to route all customer traffic through an encrypted VPN service. And in April this year the Bahnhof CEO vowed to protect his customers from copyright trolls.

Now Karlung has turned his attentions to the Swedish government following an open hearing at the end of last month on the subject of piracy in the digital marketplace.

The published purpose of the hearing was to “share knowledge and gain a greater insight into how piracy and other infringements of intellectual property affects both businesses and consumers and society in general” but it appears Karlung was not impressed.

Servers at Bahnhof

Writing in Sweden’s SVT, Karlung said that the meeting was attended by representatives from the film and music industries who sat alongside police and politicians. He says that the atmosphere was good, with everyone in agreement.

“For several hours they repeated, with rising fighting spirit, the same message again and again: ‘We need to block illegal sites! We must strengthen penalties!’,” the Bahnhof CEO reports.

Eventually Sweden’s Minister for Justice took the floor and told those assembled that “theft is theft!” while championing tougher penalties for infringers. He also noted that his first meetings after he took over as attorney general had been with the film industry. This appears to have riled Karlung.

“It is symptomatic that no Internet service provider was invited to the meeting – or anyone else with a broader understanding of digital conditions,” he explains.

The Bahnhof CEO says the exchange reminded him of 2008 when he attended a meeting in Sweden’s Parliament on the topic of file-sharing. Back then too, a politician stood up, declared that “theft is theft”, and left without discussing the issue with the ISP. For Karlung, history is repeating itself.

“In 2016, Sweden wants to criminalize hundreds of thousands of citizens for file-sharing. Now?! When large parts of the film and music industry have already adapted to the digital landscape with services such as Spotify and Netflix?” he questions.

“Consumers are apparently willing to pay. How about adding resources to develop the right services instead of taking a large sledgehammer to the free Internet?”

Karlung says that Sweden used to be at the forefront in that respect, but things have changed.

“Now we are internationally renowned as a place where courts prohibit public art from being shared online,” he explains.

Whether Karlung’s words will have any effect on government policy will remain to be seen but in any event it is extremely rare for the CEO of an ISP to make his voice heard in the way Karlung has for the past several years. Certainly, privacy conscious customers could do worse than check out this ISP.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Website blocking applications are active in many countries around the world and they are often complex beasts, with negotiations drawn out over months and in some cases years.

Legislation passed last year in Australia aimed to formalize the process but that doesn’t appear to have detracted from the complexity of getting sites blocked under Section 115A of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015.

Two cases are currently testing the legal machine at the Federal Court. Roadshow Films (the movie division of Village Roadshow) and TV giant Foxtel are both seeking to have several pirate sites blocked at the ISP level. The latter wants to render The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, isoHunt and TorrentHound inaccessible while the former is targeting streaming portal Solarmovie.

The Internet service providers involved – TPG (including subsidiary iiNet), Optus, Telstra and M2 – have today confirmed that while they don’t intend to accept the blocking applications made by Roadshow and Foxtel they don’t intend to oppose them either, a move which leaves the matter in the hands of the Court.

But even with opposition out of the way, things aren’t necessarily progressing smoothly. Just as the issue of costs made a mess of Australia’s three-strikes regime and eventually shelved it, the ISPs are now insisting that they shouldn’t be forced to pay for the entertainment industries’ blocking efforts either.

While talks have been underway between the parties since last year, the ISPs feel that as innocent parties they shouldn’t be the ones picking up the bills. Quite how much those costs will rise to is also a matter for debate.

In Court today TPB/iiNet said it could carry out DNS blocking relatively cheaply at just AUS$50 (US37) per domain. M2, on the other hand, said its costs would be AUS$400 (US$295) per domain in the best case scenario and could climb to AUS$800 (US$590) in the worst.

While other ISPs have yet to put in their estimates (they will do so in the coming weeks), the sheer amount of blocking that will eventually take place in Australia must be a point of concern. After several years there are now around a 1,000 domains on the UK’s unofficial blocklist and that number is increasing every month. Deciding who pays at this early stage is definitely an important exercise.

As a result all parties will return to Court for an additional hearing on the blocking application on June 23. In the meantime, however, further discussion on site-blocking will continue in a parallel case brought by the music industry.

Last month members of the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Australasian collecting society APRA AMCOS teamed up to file their first site-blocking application at the Federal Court. Record labels Universal, Warner, Sony, and Albert & Son targeted KickassTorrents.

After describing KickassTorrents as the “worst of the worst”, they too demanded
a close to nationwide ISP blockade of the famous torrent site and its associated proxy sites. A case management hearing in that case will take place on June 6.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

After many years of targeting the operators of pirate sites, Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN is now turning up the pressure on some of the more prolific online file-sharers.

Naturally those individuals frequent some of the largest torrent sites and BREIN hopes that by tracking them down and holding them to account, others engaged in similar activities will reconsider their options, thus removing pirate content from the Internet.

As part of this project BREIN previously targeted 2Lions-Team, a release group that reportedly uploaded thousands of files to popular torrent sites including The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents and ExtraTorrent.

The group was involved in the spread of a wide range of content including popular TV show The Walking Dead and recent hit movie The Revenant. According to BREIN, 2Lions-Team were responsible for almost half a million pirate downloads.

Back in March BREIN announced that it had obtained ex-parte injunctions against three members of the torrent release group. As a result they faced fines of €2,000 per day fine if they infringed BREIN members’ copyrights in the future.

BREIN also reached out-of-court settlements of around €15,000 with five members of 2Lions-Team members, to a total of €67,500. But BREIN still wasn’t done. According to a new announcement from the anti-piracy group it has just caught up with a uploader and moderator for the group.

“The uploader posted frequent torrents for illegal English subtitled movies and TV series on illegal websites such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents,” BREIN announced.

“[After the other members were identified] the uploader in question stopped uploading and hoped in vain that he would be spared. He was still identified by BREIN.”

Just like his former colleagues in 2Lions-Team, the unnamed individual is now required to settle with the anti-piracy group. That amount has apparently been set at €7500 which is an uncomfortable amount for most people and could be devastating to others.

Furthermore, the individual will also have to remove all the torrents he uploaded to various sites, something other team members were also required to do. In some cases that will be possible but torrents tend to have a life of their own and can’t be stopped simply by the removal of a file.

BREIN says that in total it will now receive €75,000 in settlements from 2Lions-Team members, a not insignificant amount for people engaged in what was probably an oversized hobby project. And for those wondering about the future, these kinds of actions look set to increase.

Back in March the anti-piracy group was granted special permission from the national data protection authority to monitor torrent users on a large scale.

“I advise notorious uploaders to think twice, after all, forewarned is forearmed,” said BREIN chief Tim Kuik, who noted that VPN users might get even tougher treatment.

“VPN services can see what you do, you run a security risk and it is possible that you can still be identified, which will result in a higher ‘fine’,” Kuik said.

This week the anti-piracy group is reiterating its threats that important uploaders run the risk of significant punishments.

“BREIN again warns that the monitoring of initial and/or large-scale illegal uploaders is extensive and that settlement amounts could reach thousands of euros per case,” the outfit concludes

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Back in January the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) drew attention to a consumer-unfriendly situation in the United States which forces millions of cable TV viewers to access content through devices offered by their providers.

According to the FCC, 99% of pay-TV subscribers are chained to set-top boxes that are supplied at inflated rates. On average, the average American household pays $231 in rental fees – a cool $20 billion a year for all U.S. consumers.

To reduce the effects of this problem the FCC approved a proposal that would allow consumers to swap expensive cable boxes for other devices and apps, a change that would boost competition and deliver a blow to companies such as Comcast who would suddenly be open to competition from companies such as Alphabet/Google.

Last month President Barack Obama came out in favor of the plan but that was soon followed by an opinion from the MPAA who warned that opening up the set-top box market to third party vendors would cause a piracy problem.

“No matter what you think about the pay-TV set-top box market, the FCC may not promote alternatives by taking the intellectual property of the content industry and giving it to some members of the technology industry, or by making it easier for pirate site operators to build a black market business by stealing that content,” the MPAA warned.

Part of the MPAA’s concerns center around the likelihood that new boxes will offer ‘cross-platform searches’, i.e mixing regular pay-TV content with that offered via the Internet. In other words, authorized premium content might potentially appear alongside pirate content in set-top box menus.

Those warnings appear to have resonated with two influential lawmakers who have written to FCC chief Tom Wheeler with their concerns.

Interestingly, the letter penned by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congress’s longest-serving current member John Conyers doesn’t merely reference piracy in general – they have a specific concern in mind.

“As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees our nation’s copyright laws, we recognize the harm to the American economy caused by the theft of copyrighted works,” the Congressmen begin.

“Creators have shared concerns that under the FCC’s proposed rule, future set-top boxes or their replacements could purposely designed to distribute pirated content obtained from sources that primarily offer stolen content.”

And the number one concern?

“For example, apps such as Popcorn Time that focus on providing access to piratical content have tried to match the format and ease of use of legitimate apps to mask the theft of copyrighted content,” they warn.

“Creators are legitimately worried about the prospect that future set top boxes, or their functional equivalents, could incorporate apps such as Popcorn Time or its functionality, or otherwise lead to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.”

At this point it’s far from clear what future set-top boxes and their software equivalents will look like but it is certainly conceivable that opening up such platforms to third-party vendors could potentially provide easier access to unauthorized content.

That being said, piracy-enabled set-top devices costing just a few dollars are already installed globally in millions of homes, a situation that is only likely to worsen in the months and years to come. Indeed, anyone with an Android phone or tablet already has their own nascent ‘piracy-enabled set-top box” complete with Popcorn Time functionality if they want it.

Public comment on the FCC’s proposals are open until May 23, so expect more pushback from copyright holders and their allies in the meantime.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Assisted by police in France and the Netherlands, in the summer of 2012 the FBI took down three unauthorized Android app stores.

Appbucket, Applanet and SnappzMarket all had their domains seized in a first of its kind operation. Several men were arrested and over the past four years have been slowly pleading guilty to various copyright infringement charges.

According to the Department of Justice, two more can now be added to the list.

Before his 16th birthday Aaron Blake Buckley launched Applanet, a service dedicated to the sharing of Android software. After being raided in 2012, Buckley attempted to crowdfund a defense against the U.S. government in 2014.

Now a 22-year-old, Buckley has just pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and to one count of criminal copyright infringement before U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. of the Northern District of Georgia.

Co-conspirator Gary Edwin Sharp II, 29, of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement in January.

“According to statements made in court, the conspirators identified themselves as members of the Applanet Group,” the DoJ said in a statement.

“From May 2010 through August 2012, they conspired to reproduce and distribute more than four million copies of copyrighted Android apps through the Applanet alternative online market without permission from the victim copyright owners, who would otherwise sell copies of the apps on legitimate online markets for a fee.”

In addition to his role within Applanet, Sharp also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement as the leader of SnappzMarket. Sharp admitted that along with two other members the group conspired to distribute more than a million pirate Android apps worth $1.7m.

Overall, the groups are said to have distributed Android apps with a retail value in excess of $17 million.

The guilty pleas come on the heels of several others (1,2) since the raids in 2012. Buckley and Sharp will be sentenced in August.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

With The Pirate Bay no longer the world’s most popular torrent site, attentions are increasingly turning to KickassTorrents (KAT).

Currently the most visited torrent index on the planet, KAT is also one of the most-blocked sites on the Internet and the focus of legal action in increasing numbers of countries. With cases pending as far away as Australia, the latest European addition to the list is Finland.

A decision just handed down by the Market Court, a specialist venue hearing IP, competition and market law disputes, compels a total of seven Internet service providers to begin blocking KAT. They include the three largest providers DNA, Elisa and TeliaSonera Finland plus Anvia, Kaisanet, Lounea and MPY Palvelut.

The decision follows June 2015 amendments to copyright law that allow sites which are run by people who conceal their identities and are “clearly” set up to infringe copyright to be blocked at the ISP level.

But despite the important ruling, rightsholders are disappointed that the mechanism of blocking requested in the original application has been diluted by the Court. Although ISPs will be expected to block KickassTorrents’ URLs there will be no obligation to block the site’s IP addresses.

“Unfortunately the Market Court granted the rightsholders behind the initial application a considerably more limited blocking order, which in the rightsholders’ view will make the blocking partially ineffective,” says Jaana Pihkala, Executive Director at the Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Center (CIAPC).

CIAPC says it will take time to consider the decision and may in time seek an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Once the KAT blockade is put in place it’s expected that users of the site will either try to circumvent the ban with VPNs and/or proxies or will simply migrate to other sites. That will likely trigger more applications to the court in which rightsholders will seek to block even more domains. As the UK example shows, that is likely to descend into a seemingly never-ending game of whac-a-mole.

The Pirate Bay is already blocked in Finland following a process that dates back to May 2011 when the Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Center (CIAPC) and music industry group IFPI filed a lawsuit at the District Court.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

With infrastructure often spread around the world and multiple domains in backup, shutting down access to torrent and streaming sites can be a complex affair. Even when national legal systems provide the necessary tools, the process can be extremely drawn out, not to mention ineffective.

The case of The Pirate Bay provides a perfect example. Deemed illegal just about everywhere, the site has remained online despite the efforts of law enforcement, countless legal professionals, and courts around the globe. The world’s most notorious torrent site doesn’t play by the rules, a point certainly not lost on Paul Pintér, Sweden’s national coordinator for IP enforcement.

Pintér, previously a computer crime and forensics investigator with the Stockholm County Police, has headed up a specialist anti-piracy unit since 2010. He feels that the police need more powers to shut down sites such as The Pirate Bay.

In a memorandum submitted to the Government, Pintér says that websites that violate copyright or trademark law should be blocked by Internet service providers. Furthermore, while preliminary investigations are underway, domain names should be seized by the authorities.

“They commit crimes, they should be removed from the Internet. I see it as an additional tool to combat piracy,” Pintér told IDG.

Pintér understands the problems only too well. The process to seize The Pirate Bay’s .SE domain has dragged on since 2013 and now sits with the court of appeal. A decision was due this week but Punkt SE (IIS), the organization responsible for Sweden’s top level .SE domain, informs TorrentFreak that the decision has been delayed again.

“If we have a site selling counterfeit clothing or an illegal streaming site, and you can seize its domain during the investigation, it is gone during that time. It is a good preventive measure if nothing else,” Pintér says.

Being able to quickly seize a ‘pirate’ domain would certainly be an asset to the police but there are those who will question whether that would trample due process. Pintér suggests that wouldn’t be the case.

“I want the law to be technology neutral. We carry out seizures in many, many other cases, everything from computers to money,” Pintér says.

Nevertheless, adjustments would have to be made. In his memorandum to the government Pintér calls for changes in the law that would allow police to seize not only tangible items such as physical property, but also intangible items such as domain names.

Furthermore, rather than relying on entertainment industry companies to take their own legal action, Pintér would like amendments to the law that would allow copyright or trademark infringing sites to be blocked by ISPs.

“I’m not talking about blocking everything. I’m talking about sites that contain criminal material. I don’t see a difference between child pornography, copyright infringement or trademark infringement – for me it is a crime,” Pintér concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

On April 21 the world lost one of its greatest musical icons. Aged just 57, Prince passed away at his Paisley Park home.

Having shifted just 1,400 albums in the 72 hours prior to his passing, the days that followed saw Prince dominate both the news and the hearts of millions of fans.

In the four days after his death Prince sold 650,000 albums plus 2.8 million songs, led by classics Purple Rain (330,000) and When Doves Cry (245,000).

Of course, not everyone was keen (or had the means) to put their hands in their pockets and as a result unauthorized downloading of Prince tracks was also brisk. The day after his death saw an estimated 100,000 people download a Prince torrent, with Prince music dominating the top five most-shared music file slots on KickassTorrents.

But while Prince may be gone his musical machine lives on. His tracks and albums remain available to buy and the anti-piracy protection they’ve enjoyed for years continues.

Famous for working with anti-piracy outfit Web Sheriff while he was alive, Prince’s instructions to protect his music from Internet pirates continue after his death. As part of a long-running campaign to make Prince music harder to find, Web Sheriff has been hitting Google with requests to remove thousands of URLs linking to unauthorized copies since 2014.

During the past year most Web Sheriff notices have included anything from a handful to a few hundred links per notice but in the days directly after Prince’s passing, Web Sheriff reporting to Google surged to a thousand in a single notice. One has to track back to 2014 to find similar levels.

As ever, the most popular targets are URLs on the hundreds of torrent sites in operation today. The content targeted includes anything from singles and albums, right up to entire discographies and full video collections listed on The Pirate Bay.

For keen Prince fans there are also some oddities that can’t be found anywhere else, legally at least. In addition to rare bootlegs, remixes and 12″ collections, there are torrents which provide access to live recordings, TV shows, rehearsals, outtakes and other unreleased tracks.

Finally, in February and March, Google received four Web Sheriff notices containing around 450 requests for URL takedowns. These are listed under the name of the Web Sheriff but with a warning sign next to each. For reasons that aren’t yet clear, Google believes that these notices were either sent by an imposter or amounted to some other abuse of the takedown system.

We pointed out these anomalies to the Web Sheriff on Thursday but by the time of publication we were yet to receive an explanation.

Update: Comment from Web Sheriff

“It seems to have been an error as to which Web Sheriff accounts [Google] have ‘accepted’ as being bona fide for complaints etc and which is being rectified,” the company said.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

One of copyright holders’ most-favored anti-piracy mechanisms in place today involves site-blocking. Censoring sites at the ISP level is effective, rightsholders insist, not to mention cheaper than direct legal action against pirate sites.

In most countries where site-blocking is already in place, authorities have previously determined that the legal system must be involved. In the UK, for example, existing legislation was deemed to offer rightsholders the tools they need. Australia, on the other hand, decided to introduce legal amendments to keep things on the straight and narrow.

Portugal decided to take a different approach, one that simply involved an agreement between rightsholders, ISPs and the government. Now, if a site is considered to be illegal by these parties, it can be blocked without stepping into a courtroom.

For copyright holders it’s the Holy Grail and they’re taking full advantage of the new system. This week during a conference in the capital, Lisbon, the Portuguese Association for the Protection of Audiovisual Works revealed the extent of the program and it’s as critics feared.

Executive Director Antonio Paulo Santos reported that Portugal is now blocking a vast range of file-sharing and related sites, offering movies, TV, shows and music to streaming sports and books. In total more than 330 sites are now being blocked by local Internet service providers.

The rate of blocking is unprecedented. In October 2015 more than 50 sites were blocked by ISPs, including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt and RARBG. The following month another 40 were added, including BitSnoop, YourBitorrent, SeedPeer, Torlock and Torrentfunk.

Since then another 240 sites have been quietly added to the list. This rapid growth means that along with the United Kingdom and Italy, Portugal is already a world leader in pirate site blockades. All this has been achieved without ever going near a court room.

It is this kind of voluntary agreement that Hollywood and the major record labels are pushing for internationally, whether they’re with Internet service providers, domain registries or companies such as PayPal, Visa and Mastercard. The process in Portugal ticks all the right boxes for the entertainment companies so expect it to be championed elsewhere.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

When a government agency produces a report urging major changes to intellectual property laws, one often expects something heavily weighted in favor of rightsholders

Documents published today by the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission contain a more balanced set of recommendations, several of which are likely to provoke an adverse reaction from both local and international rightsholders.

The Intellectual Property Arrangements draft report is a 600 page epic covering everything from copyright and patent issues through to pharmaceuticals and plant breeders’ rights. Of most interest to readers will be the agency’s comments on infringement, fair use and copyright terms.

Bring on the VPNs

For years Australians have felt that when it comes to entertainment content they’re treated as second class citizens. Aussies believe that not only do they pay over the top for content, but they also have to wait longer for it to arrive.

As a result many access overseas services by using a VPN, something which is frowned upon by rightsholders and actively blocked by companies such as Netflix. Nevertheless, the Productivity Commission wants to do everything it can to open up options for consumers.

“Geoblocking results in Australians paying higher prices (often for a lesser or later service) than consumers overseas,” the report reads.

“The Australian Government should implement the recommendation made in the House of Representatives Committee report At What Cost? to make clear that it is not an infringement for consumers to circumvent geoblocking technology.”

But the Commission doesn’t stop there. In case any foreign country wants to pressure Australia into acting otherwise, the agency advises the following.

“The Australian Government should seek to avoid any international agreements that would prevent or ban consumers from circumventing geoblocking technology,” it adds.

Dealing with piracy

The Productivity Commission notes that enforcement is a key factor in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian IP system. It also acknowledges that copyright infringement is an ongoing issue. That being said, rightsholders probably aren’t going to like the draft’s conclusions.

“Online copyright infringement remains problematic for rights holders. Evidence suggests many people infringe copyright because of the ongoing difficulty and cost in accessing content,” the report notes.

“Evidence suggests infringement declines with better content availability and most consumers prefer paid, legal consumption. As such, an effective approach to reducing infringement is the timely release of content to Australian consumers. This requires action by rights holders and their intermediaries.”

It’s not difficult to see how these statements dovetail with the recommendation on VPN use and the pressure could eventually see Aussies getting a better deal. But for rightsholders hoping for more enforcement options in the meantime, only disappointment awaits.

“Changes to the law to encourage Internet service providers to cooperate with rights holders, as well as litigation, have only had a modest impact in reducing infringement. Further legislative change is unlikely to improve compliance with the law,” the report states.

Fair Use and Copyright Terms

In keeping with the positive response to increased consumer choice, proponents of expanded fair use provisions and diminished copyright terms also have something to celebrate.

“Australia’s copyright system has expanded over time, often with no transparent, evidence-based policy analysis demonstrating the need for, or quantum of, new rights. A new system of user rights, including the introduction of a broad, principles-based fair use exception, is needed to help address this imbalance,” the report notes.

“The Australian Government should amend the Copyright Act 1968 to replace the current fair dealing exceptions with a broad exception for fair use. The new exception should contain a clause outlining that the objective of the exception is to ensure Australia’s copyright system targets only those circumstances where infringement would undermine the ordinary exploitation of a work at the time of the infringement.”

And on copyright terms, yet more consumer-friendly advice.

“The term of protection for most works is now more than 70 years and considerably longer than necessary to incentivize creation of most works (with a commercial life less than 5 years). The current duration of copyright imposes costs on the community and access to works is restricted, particularly for works not commercially available but still subject to copyright protection,” the draft reads.

“While hard to pinpoint an optimal copyright term, a more reasonable estimate would be closer to 15 to 25 years after creation; considerably less than 70 years after death. Perpetual copyright protection of unpublished works should also be removed.”

Consultation period

The report is currently in draft and written submissions are invited up until Friday 3 June 2016. The final report will be handed to the government in August and published shortly after.

The full 603-page report can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.