Author: Andy

When it comes to the business model of turning piracy into profit, the name Voltage Pictures is never far from the action.

The Los Angeles-based movie outfit has tested the legal waters in several jurisdictions in an effort to extract cash settlements from alleged pirates, most recently in Australia with its movie Dallas Buyers Club.

In 2012, Voltage targeted Canadian ISP Teksavvy in a long drawn out battle to identify 2000 allegedly pirating users in order to force them to settle. Now, four years later, Voltage are back again with a new strategy.

This week the company filed an application in Federal Court, requesting certification of a reverse class action against an unquantified number of BitTorrent users who alleged shared five movies including The Cobbler, Pay the Ghost, Good Kill, Fathers and Daughters, and American Heist.

According to law professor Michael Geist, reverse class actions are very rare in Canada with only a few having been reported. The application of a reverse class action in a copyright case appears to be unprecedented.

“Class actions typically involve a representative plaintiff who represents many others who have suffered the same harms from the actions of the defendant. Reverse class actions feature a single plaintiff (Voltage) and multiple defendants (the alleged file sharers),” Geist explains.

According to the case documents (pdf) Voltage intends to build its case around a single and as-yet-unidentified customer of ISP Rogers. He or she is referred to as John Doe #1 and by the IP address allocated when the alleged offense took place.

“Through custom-designed software designed to track copyright infringements, and the online identities of those who commit such infringements (by way of IP address and time of infringement), the Voltage Parties have identified many thousand instances of their films (including the Works) being illegally offered for download from Individuals using the Internet,” the Voltage application reads.

“The proposed Representative Respondent, John Doe #1, as well as each member of the proposed Respondent Class….are persons whose names and identities are currently unknown to the Voltage Parties, but who have unlawfully, and without the Voltage Parties’ authorization or consent, infringed copyright in the Works, including by illegally uploading and distributing the Works for free, in full or in part, over the internet.”

Interestingly, Voltage is open about the reasons behind this new strategy, noting that widespread piracy and the high cost of litigation means it has sought a cheaper way to target large numbers of infringers at once.

“The Voltage Parties seek to certify this Application as a class proceeding as a way to address these issues and obtain reasonable compensation for the significant damages that each proposed Class Member has caused, in a cost-effective and fair manner for both the Voltage Parties and the proposed Class Members,” the application reads.

Voltage accuses the Class Members of three “Unlawful Acts” including making movies available for download via BitTorrent, advertising by way of the BitTorrent protocol that a work is available for download by each member, and failing to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that downloaders were authorized by law to do so.

But the big question remains – could such a strategy work? Professor Geist has his doubts.

“One of the biggest concerns involves questions of representation for the defendant class. Before certification [of the reverse class action], the court will want assurance that the interests of the defendants will be fairly represented. But who will represent those interests? Who will pay for the legal counsel?” Geist asks.

“Unlike a plaintiff-led class action, where lawyers are often willing to invest in the case, there is no payoff at the end of this case and finding someone to represent the class will be a challenge when the only named representative is John Doe #1.”

But the problems don’t stop there. Geist says that in a certified reverse class action defendants actually have the option to opt out of the class.

“In other words, after going through the process of trying to meet the requirements for class proceedings, all the defendants will be permitted to simply walk away,” he explains.

If they do, however, other questions are raised, including whether those who opt-out will be allowed to keep their anonymity. If they are not, this could play right into Voltage’s hands.

Copyright cases are complex in their own right but this strategy from Voltage will set in motion a vigorous scratching of heads. Definitely one to watch.

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

Every year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes its Special 301 Report highlighting countries that aren’t doing enough to protect U.S. intellectual property rights.

In 2016 the report sticks to a tried and tested format, with countries such as China, Russia, India and Ukraine all making the Priority List once again. However, just as the USTR wasn’t afraid to place Canada on the Watch List several years ago, this year it has added another ally.

Situated in the heart of Europe (although not part of the Union), Switzerland has long-standing ties with the United States and has acted as the protecting power between the U.S. and former foes Iran and Cuba. Nevertheless, when it comes to protecting copyright the USTR didn’t hesitate to add Switzerland to the Watch List in 2016.

“Generally speaking, Switzerland broadly provides high-levels of IPR protection and enforcement in its territory. Switzerland makes important contributions to promoting such protection and enforcement internationally, including in bilateral and multilateral contexts, which are welcomed by the United States,” the USTR writes in its assessment.

“However, the decision to place Switzerland on the Watch List this year is premised on U.S. concerns regarding specific difficulties in Switzerland’s system of online copyright protection and enforcement.”

Although the USTR doesn’t go into much detail, the key problem that the United States has with Switzerland surrounds the so-called ‘Logistep Decision‘. Anti-piracy outfit Logistep built a reputation in the latter half of the last decade for providing tracking services for copyright trolls operating in Europe and the UK. However, things didn’t go entirely to plan.

In 2010 following several years of legal action, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ordered Logistep to stop harvesting the IP addresses of file-sharers. The Court ruled that IP addresses amount to private data, a decision that effectively outlawed the tracking of file-sharers in privacy-conscious Switzerland.

This apparent lack of protection for rightsholders is unacceptable, the USTR says.

“Six years have elapsed since the issuance of a decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which has been implemented to essentially deprive copyright holders in Switzerland of the means to enforce their rights against online infringers; enforcement is a critical element of providing meaningful IPR protection,” the report reads.

According to the USTR, since 2010 Switzerland has also become an increasingly popular host country for many pirate sites, a position highlighted in the 2015 Notorious Markets review.

While the USTR says that it welcomes the steps being taken by Switzerland to address its concerns, the tone of the United States suggests there is somewhat of a mountain to climb before the country gets a clean bill of health.

“[M]ore remains to be done and the United States continues to encourage the Swiss government to move forward expeditiously with concrete and effective measures that address copyright piracy in an appropriate and effective manner, including through legislation, administrative action, consumer awareness, public education, and voluntary stakeholder initiatives,” the USTR writes.

Canada

After being on the Watch List for some time now, Canada did not do enough in 2015 to get back into favor with the U.S.

While welcoming Canada’s amendment to its Copyright Act which extended sound recording protection to 70 years from date of recording, the U.S. has little other praise for its northern neighbor.

“[T]he United States continues to urge Canada to fully implement its commitments pursuant to the WIPO Internet Treaties and to continue to address the challenges of copyright piracy in the digital age,” the USTR writes.

Going on to condemn Canada on everything from counterfeit goods to pharmaceuticals and patents, there was not even a passing reference in the report to the long called for notice-and-notice anti-filesharing regime implemented by Canada in 2015.

Other countries with Internet piracy issues

India is criticized on a number of fronts, with the USTR calling for the implementation of notice-and-takedown procedures, statutory damages for infringement and the introduction of effective anti-camcording legislation.

Despite noting that anti-piracy legislation is evolving in Russia, the USTR saw no reason to take the country off the Priority List in 2016. Interestingly the USTR’s report praises the fact that “a Russian court shut down Rutracker.org”, when in fact the site was only blocked and remains fully operational today. Nevertheless, it appears that court orders are not enough for the United States.

“Issuing injunctions against infringing websites does not address the root of the problem; Russia should be investigating and prosecuting the operators of such sites. The overall number of raids, criminal charges, and convictions have declined in recent years,” the report reads.

Finally, Ukraine remains on the Priority List in 2016.

“With respect to improving the government’s response to online infringement, several attempts at legislative reform appear to have stalled,” the USTR notes.

“As highlighted in the 2015 Notorious Markets List, Ukraine continues to host some of the largest pirate sites in the world serving IP infringing content to a global audience.”

The full 2016 Special 301 Report can be downloaded here (pdf)

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

Search giant Google is facing massive copyright-related pressure in the United States on several fronts, not least the recent consultation on the efficacy of the DMCA and the FCC’s proposals to open up the set-top box market.

Over in Europe, Google faces other issues, including charges that it abused its web search dominance to push its own shopping products and its control of Android to corral users into using Google software. Piling on the pressure, Google is now set to face another European Commission grilling over alleged copyright infringement in Google Images.

This morning Washington-based Getty Images says it will file a complaint with the European Union’s antitrust commission over what it describes as Google’s piracy of its copyright content.

According to an FT report, Getty will accuse Google of undermining its business by harvesting Getty stock images in a manner that “siphons traffic” away from the company’s premium website.

The complaint says that pre-January 2013, Google displayed only low-resolution thumbnails of third party images in Google Image search. However, soon after the company switched to a large, high-resolution slideshow format. This, Getty says, was Google abusing its dominance of Internet image searches.

Getty general counsel Yoko Miyashita says Google’s reproduction of high-res images means that people searching for Getty content via Google have less reason to leave the search giant’s Images services, thus depriving Getty of legitimate traffic.

Google “promoted piracy,” Miyashita says, “resulting in widespread copyright infringement, turning users into accidental pirates.”

As evidence that it was Google’s decision, not outside factors, that caused the drop in traffic to Getty’s site, Miyashita says that traffic collapsed in 2013 immediately after Google made changes on its .com and .co.uk domains. However, Google did not immediately implement the features on its .FR and .DE variants from where traffic remained healthy.

Getty says that it reported its complaints to Google in 2013 but rather than make changes, Google told the company it could either live with the situation or completely opt out of its image search feature.

While offering a solution this is somewhat of a catch-22 situation. On the one hand Getty can accept Google’s use of its content in order to boost visibility on the web, or opt out altogether and face disappearing from search altogether.

In this instance Getty chose to stay on board with Google, describing a complete exit as not being “viable”. Today’s complaint envisions the EU leveling the playing field on Getty’s behalf.

“By standing in the way of a fair market place for images, Google is threatening innovation and jeopardizing artists’ ability to fund the creation of important future works,” Miyashita says.

In due course the European Commission will have to decide whether Google has broken competition rules. Google declined to comment on the case but denies any wrong-doing.

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

For millions of cable TV viewers around the world, the only way to access the content provided by broadcasters is through a set-top box. In many cases these boxes are provided exclusively by broadcasters, forcing out competition.

This consumer-unfriendly situation has attracted the attention of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States who report that 99% of pay-TV subscribers are chained to set-top boxes provided by suppliers at inflated rates.

“Lack of competition has meant few choices and high prices for consumers – on average, $231 in rental fees annually for the average American household. Altogether, U.S. consumers spend $20 billion a year to lease these devices,” the FCC announced in January.

According to the FCC, since 1994 the cost of computers, TVs and mobile phones has dropped by 90%. However, due to a lack of competition in the same period cable set-top box costs have risen by 185%.

“Congress recognized the importance of a competitive marketplace and directed the Commission to adopt rules that will ensure consumers will be able to use the device they prefer for accessing programming they’ve paid for,” the FCC said.

In February the FCC approved a proposal that would allow consumers to swap expensive cable boxes for other devices and apps, a change set to boost competition but deliver a blow to companies such as Comcast who would suddenly be open to competition from companies such as Alphabet/Google.

The proposal triggered a 60-day period in which cable providers and other stakeholders were invited to provide input and comment. Earlier this month President Barack Obama came out in favor of the plan but now the MPAA has weighed in with an unsurprisingly hostile opinion.

In a piece titled “It’s About Creators”, Neil Fried, MPAA Senior Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, accuses FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and even the President of “gloss[ing] over the harm the proposal will cause the creative community.”

Noting that the MPAA’s members are not in the set-top box market, Fried says that they’re in the vital content creation business, content which gets licensed to cable, satellite and other platforms such as Netflix, iTunes, Amazon and AppleTV.

“These distributors then profit from the content through equipment sales, subscription fees, advertising, and the monetization of viewers’ online profiles,” the MPAA says.

According to the MPAA, the FCC proposals will ‘take’ the intellectual property of its members and “give” it to the technology industry, effectively ignoring copyright law.

“[T]he FCC proposal requires pay-TV providers to transmit to third-party device manufacturers and internet application developers all the content that pay-TV providers license from programmers, without requiring those third parties to seek consent from the programmers or to compensate them,” the MPAA writes.

Interestingly, not only is the MPAA concerned about competition from third-parties such as Google, but is also suggesting that pirate sites could take advantage of the situation to begin offering new unauthorized services.

“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. Unfortunately, that’s what the proposal would do,” the MPAA warns.

Indeed, as one delves deeper into the MPAA’s statement, the scale of their concerns really becomes apparent.

The currently locked-down set-top box environment ensures that via strict licensing arrangements, entertainment industry companies have complete control over which content is offered to the subscriber. However, third-party set-top boxes are expected to provide content from both Pay-TV providers and also content being offered on the Internet. And according to the MPAA that can mean only one thing.

“We anticipate that video navigation device and application providers will rely on the proposed rules to offer ‘cross-platform searches’ and ‘recommendation engines’ that mingle pay-TV content with internet content,” the MPAA says.

“We are not contesting cross-platform searches of authorized content — but we must oppose any regulation that would import the piracy problem from the internet search world into the pay-TV world by mixing pirated content with authorized content, causing further harm to content creators and the creative economy.”

Of course, even if not referenced by name, no MPAA piece of late would be complete without a negative reference to Google. Hollywood blames Google for falling to curtail Internet piracy, a situation that could bleed into the living room with the FCC’s set-top box proposals.

“[O]n the Internet, search engines frequently prioritize search results for sites offering stolen content over those offering authorized content, and searches for film and TV programming almost always yield results that mingle the two types of sites,” the movie industry group complains.

Noting that some have suggested that if the content providers don’t like the situation they’ll just have to litigate under existing copyright law, the MPAA says that is “cold comfort” to content creators.

“[T]he regulation would fundamentally undermine copyright law, create a piracy problem that does not exist today, and place new burdens on content owners to police the app and device market for stolen copies of their works, forcing them to undertake time-consuming, costly litigation, and sustain additional lost revenue to piracy,” the MPAA concludes.

The FCC’s proposals certainly have the potential to open up a huge can of worms. That being said, it’s inevitable that the Internet will eventually dominate the living room, it’s only a question of how controlled – if at all – its pipe will be.

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

Last week we reported on what appears to be serious animosity between Kim Dotcom and the company he founded, MEGA.

Just three years ago the MEGA file-hosting platform was the apple of the Megaupload founder’s eye, but for reasons best known to the warring parties, that warmth has turned to aggression.

Dotcom has previously made derogatory statements about MEGA, a company he no longer has a stake in, but last week’s outburst was unprecedented.

Referencing comments made by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key that key MEGA shareholder Bill Liu is close to the top of China’s extradition list, Dotcom described the businessman as the “5th most wanted criminal in China”.

Adding that MEGA has diminishing ways to process payments from customers, Dotcom hinted towards impending doom and warned users to back up their files.

MEGA chairman Stephen Hall responded quickly, informing TF that his company has “significant funding” and that Dotcom’s comments are “factually incorrect.”

“Mr Liu has a shareholding interest but has no management or board position so he certainly doesn’t control Mega,” Hall said.

“This year, MEGA has already committed 24 PB additional storage capacity to service our 40 million registered users, and we will continue that expansion,” the company later added. “MEGA users are able to pay subscriptions through a variety of methods, depending on their country of residence.”

Over the weekend, however, things got much more personal. First MEGA attacked Dotcom’s political ambitions with the Internet Party, noting that the endeavor had “badly damaged his credibility with the New Zealand public.” Now, in a surprise twist, MEGA is claiming that Dotcom tried to reinvest money in MEGA as late as last year.

“In 2015 the [Dotcom] family trust twice subscribed for new shares in MEGA. In December 2015 Mr Dotcom applied to the New Zealand Court for approval to personally borrow $0.7 million for his family trust to subscribe for further shares in MEGA. The Court declined approval. Since then he has made negative comments about MEGA that have no factual basis,” MEGA says.

Finally, in a clear attempt to discredit Dotcom’s predictions that it’s only a matter of time before MEGA folds, MEGA’s operators published many of Dotcom’s earlier tweets in which he heralded the arrival of MegaNet, a non-IP address based network utilizing blockchain technology.

Just two are shown below, with each already crossed out in red by MEGA.

“It is good practice to have a backup of your files but we strongly disagree with Dotcom’s scaremongering. If you follow his tweets about ‘MegaNet’ you may have less confidence in his predictions,” MEGA says.

But not even that was to be the end of the matter. Responding in a serious of tweets over the weekend, Dotcom stuck by his guns – and turned up the pressure.

“What I’ve shared with you about Mega is true. Mega is losing $1 million per month. No credit card processing = no business. #BackupYourFiles,” he said.

“Mega CEO in December admitted to me that Bill Liu controls Mega. The 5th most wanted criminal in China controls board & puppet shareholders.”

It’s a somewhat unprecedented situation to have two men, Dotcom and Liu, connected to a single company while both being wanted for extradition by powerful foreign governments. Still, Dotcom says he’s clear why he’s attacking MEGA in public.

“Why do I care? I founded Mega,” he continued. “On-the-fly file encryption was my idea. I asked you to join Mega. It’s my obligation to warn you now.”

Only time will tell if Dotcom’s predictions will come true but in the meantime his advice (and that of MEGA) is clear. Keeping backups of files wherever they are is extremely important – the Megaupload fiasco should have underlined that.

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

When Steven Spielberg’s timeless classic E.T was released in 1981, those of us who were kids at the time wanted only one thing – to watch it on the silver screen. That, however, was easier said than done.

As alien a concept to today’s youngsters as E.T was to us back then, queues to watch the movie snaked hundreds of yards beyond our local cinema. The infrastructure simply couldn’t cope with the popularity of this cute extra terrestrial and after not making it to the doors after queuing for hours, some moms were reluctant to try again.

That’s when we learned about pirates. Us kids never saw one in the flesh but we knew they existed. Rumor had it that a friend of a friend of a friend knew someone who knew a pirate “who got stuff from America”. And he had a copy of E.T on both VHS and Betamax videotape. Like….wow.

After emerging from legend, slowly but surely the mythical tapes got passed around and although the quality was almost unwatchable, everyone agreed that this pirate guy must be someone special. Even then we knew that he was probably doing something at least a little wrong. None of the kids cared though. Pirates were mysterious – and fun.

Of course, pirates existed long before then. Pirate radio stations had been around for decades and in the eighties they gave us teenagers the only chance to listen to the imported house music that the big stations couldn’t be bothered with. To us that was very cool indeed and not for a second was it ever equated with theft.

Pirates operated outside the law, we knew that, so when the DJs suddenly went silent we understood that an 80s version of a Pirate Bay raid might have just taken place. Would they ever come back? We never knew. But whether it was E.T or community radio, piracy and pirates were undoubtedly exciting.

So with that in mind, have the entertainment industries picked entirely the wrong term to describe the analog and now digital buccaneers who take their products and give them away for free? Graeme Grant, head of anti-piracy operations at IFPI, appears to think so.

Speaking this week at the MarkMonitor Annual Spring Symposium in London, Grant said that referring to today’s illegal downloading as ‘piracy’ had “made it cool.”

“People think of piracy and think of action films about pirates,” Grant said. “In a sense calling it that has been a hindrance because people think they are doing something cool.”

While some might argue that much of the romance has ebbed away alongside piracy’s mainstream exposure, piracy probably remains reasonably ‘cool’ for millions of people. Thirty years on it still provides a way for people to access movies playing in cinemas and it still provides outlets for niche content that mainstream platforms can’t be bothered with.

But does the term “piracy” in itself help to sustain the magic? TorrentFreak contacted people who are all considered pirates by the entertainment industries to find out if the term helps, hinders or even annoys them. Spud17 of The Pirate Bay definitely doesn’t have a problem with it.

“I don’t mind people calling us a pirate site, we are The Pirate Bay and have a pirate ship as our logo after all,” Spud17 says.

“Everything is down to perception, and I personally don’t have time to argue with people who think piracy is bad, wrong etc, because they have no clue what we’re about in the first place.”

At the other end of the scale casual torrent site user ‘Paul’ told us that he doesn’t consider what he’s doing as being piracy and that the term should be reserved for more serious infringers.

“I think of myself as a downloader. I download music and films for my own personal use. I don’t see it as romantic or anything. I think people who run the sites are pirates and giving me the same name isn’t really fair,” he explains.

On the other hand, two seasoned music releasers told us that they have no problem with the term piracy. Both are happy to be called pirates with one conceding that there is a certain kudos attached to the label.

“We get accused of wearing the pirate label as a badge of honor and I’m guilty as charged. It makes it easy to call yourself a pirate [since the Pirate Bay do it] and it’s also more fun than being a ‘music thief’ or whatever,” one said.

Interestingly, the operator of another of the world’s largest torrent sites was a little less happy over the use of the term.

“I don’t care what anyone calls a site like mine. If they think I’m a pirate site, sure, I don’t really care,” he said.

“It’s a bad thing being branded as a pirate in front of the law without due process by a major conglomerate/any big company. Pirates steal. Sites don’t.”

It was a little unexpected to hear the releasers and the site operator both viewing each other as the pirates. However, the idea that ‘pirate’ sounds more appealing than “content thief” was definitely more predictable.

That latter phrase has been gaining popularity among copyright holders in recent years but ‘copiers’ being branded thieves is rarely well received, not least at The Pirate Bay.

“The media portray users of our site as ‘broke teens,’ ‘digital thieves,’ and a range of other ignorant and uneducated terms,” Spud17 says.

“Theft is the permanent removal of something without consent; piracy, or filesharing/copying, is about copying something and sharing it with others, something that humans have done since we were invented. We have always shared culture with each other, our peers.”

To those who have grown up being serviced by helpful pirates in a massively under-served market, it’s no surprise that there’s still a little romance in the air. It’s certainly something that the folks at The Pirate Bay can relate to.

“Sure, you can find all the latest games, TV shows and movies on TPB, but you can also find shows and movies from around the world that would never be broadcast in your own country, or that have been censored/banned by your particular government. This is about free access to everything, for everyone,” Spud17 says.

“They can call us what they like, we’ve been doing it since before the digital age and we’ll continue. Pirate or file-sharer/copier, the terms aren’t important, what we do, is.”

That is something that people on all sides of the piracy debate will agree on.

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

Millions of Android apps are downloaded from the Play Store everyday which is hardly a surprise given the huge choice and massive userbase of the Google platform.

Many Android users happily go through life without spending a penny on software, mainly because there are adequate free or ad-supported versions available for many top titles.

Of course, millions of users prefer to bypass Google Play altogether by installing raw .APK files from third party sources. With this option they lose the convenience of Google Play but gain the ability to install premium software without paying for it, potentially at the risk of malware.

Strangely, not only do people pirate premium titles but they also pirate free software too. Case in point, Textra SMS from Delicious Inc. Self-described as a “seriously beautiful, feature rich SMS and MMS app”, Textra SMS is a smash hit having been downloaded between five and ten million times according to Google.

Nevertheless, plenty of people are installing Textra from third-party sources, largely to remove the ads that allow the software to be offered for free. However, those that have done so are being greeted with a surprise. Postings in dozens of locations around the web from what appear to be Textra pirates indicate that their activities haven’t gone unnoticed.

While anti-piracy notices in software are nothing new, the warning and ticking clock from Textra has a few people worried. One Reddit thread has a warning that pirating online apps is extremely dangerous.

“Pirating something that requires you to being online is a suicide mission. They will probs send a fine of $250 or something,” one commenter said, somewhat pessimistically.

This assessment is amusingly over-bleak but it doesn’t sit in isolation. In other discussions people question whether it is possible for Textra to track down pirates down through the app, whether they could be reported to their ISP, Google, and in one case even whether they could get in trouble with the police.

While finding the prospect of someone being reported to law enforcement for pirating a free app somewhat amusing, TF contacted Delicious Inc. for comment. Firstly, was the message their doing?

“Sure there are a bunch of ‘cracked’ versions of Textra available on the web. If you search on Google for cracked or pirated or ad-free you’ll find them,” Textra’s Max told TF.

“They are hacked in respect the APK has been modified and code injected to bypass the licensing checks. Periodically we check for these and send out a notification to users. Some of which may not even be aware of the fact, for example a friend downloaded it for them.”

So having established that the messages aren’t fake, we again pushed Max on the threats. The notice says that the company considers piracy a serious matter and has a policy to “report repeated violations.” It also suggests that users can avoid issues by downloading the official version of Textra from Google Play within three days.

TF asked what happens if users don’t comply with the deadline and the response we received suggests that Delicious would simply prefer that users install the official, free product.

“Legally there are a whole raft of options all the way from DMCA takedown requests to civil proceedings. It’s not a big issue for us, but on occasions we try our best to encourage users to ‘do the right thing’ that’s all,” Max said.

Of course, making absolutely sure of no action is literally just a click away (an install link is provided in the notice) and since Textra SMS is free, users have nothing to lose.

While there are probably better ways to get customers on board than threatening them, in this case it’s likely that the warning had plenty of pirates quickly installing the official version.

Textra wouldn’t be drawn on stats but it’s hard not to see pirating this excellent free app as unfair to the devs. We tested the official version and didn’t see any ads at all but apparently when they do appear they’re pretty unobtrusive.

“The app is free, so you’d wonder why a user would risk installing an APK that’s been modified (and the risks of injected code like key recorders, password sniffers etc). Why would you do that!?” Max asks.

It’s a pretty good point.

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

Yesterday the world had to come to terms with the fact that one of the greatest musicians of the modern age was no longer with us. As first reported by TMZ, Prince passed away at Paisley Park, aged just 57.

While undoubtedly a musical genius, Prince’s relationship with the Internet was often a difficult one, with the entertainer even withdrawing all of his music from the major streaming services last year, leaving it only on Tidal.

But in file-sharing circles Prince was probably best known for his efforts to bring Internet piracy to an end. Almost nine years ago as part of an initiative to “reclaim the Internet”, Prince hired controversial anti-piracy outfit Web Sheriff to hit sites including YouTube, eBay, and of course, The Pirate Bay. The letter the site received on his behalf was ‘unique’ to say the least.

“Well, ‘way to go on losing all your fans’,” Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde told TF at the time. “I truly respect the son of a king’s work as a musician but he seems like he has some kind of problem in getting to deal with his fans.”

In the end that particular threat of legal action came to nothing but Prince’s fight against piracy never ended and sometimes pushed the boundaries of sensible. In 2014 Prince shocked almost everyone by threatening to sue 22 fans who posted links to videos of his concerts on Facebook.

“Prince has suffered and is continuing to suffer damages in an amount according to proof, but no less than $1 million per Defendant,” the lawsuit read.

Just a day later the lawsuit was withdrawn, adding yet another mystery to Prince’s life.

But whatever one might think of the man’s attitude towards the Internet and indeed piracy, one had to admire his commitment. While obviously keen to protect his own interests, Prince seemed to truly care about artists’ welfare. Interestingly, an extraordinary story that surfaced last night underlines just that.

When unauthorized content appears online, most artists and their labels rely on a chain of middle men to do the work for them, including taking content down and/or issuing legal threats. Indeed, Prince has relied on this mechanism himself many times in the past.

However, according to the operator of music hosting site YourListen, Prince wasn’t averse to dealing with things personally. After allowing only Tidal to stream his music, Prince discovered unauthorized music on YourListen – and decided to do something about it.

“I never thought in my life I would get a call on my cell phone from Prince,” Scott Goodman told The Frame.

“We never had the artist decide to physically call us and ask us to take that music down,” he said, noting that function was mostly carried out by automated bots.

Amazingly, Goodman says that Prince stayed on the line for almost 30 minutes to explain why he was determined to protect his music.

“His big picture and his goal and battle he’s been fighting for decades is stopping piracy. He truly believed that piracy could come to an end with people like him, who obviously had power and money. He told me, ‘Scott, we need to fight piracy. We cannot have musicians having their music stolen’,” Goodman says.

Having someone like Prince make a personal call to any kind of file-sharing site is absolutely unprecedented and it certainly appears to have had an impact on Goodman. Of course, one phone call is unlikely to change the world, but the thought that someone as reclusive as Prince believed in a cause enough to make that call himself is quite something.

“Prince fought the music industry, but also the internet (sued me at least once),” Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde said last night.

“He was a creative genius, deserves so much respect. RIP.”

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

In early 2015 a study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) concluded that criminal sanctions for copyright infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) should be amended to bring them into line with offenses such as counterfeiting.

The report triggered a proposal from the UK government that the maximum prison sentence for online copyright infringement should be increased to ten years. The current maximum of two years is not enough of a deterrent, it was argued.

In July 2015 the government launched a consultation aiming to gauge opinion on boosting penalties to ensure that online piracy is considered as “no less serious” than offline infringements.

This morning the government released its conclusions while confirming it will indeed be asking Parliament for a ten year maximum sentence.

In a published statement, Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Neville-Rolfe says that more than a thousand responses (pdf) helped to shape the government’s decision to stand by its earlier calls for increased penalties. Demands for additional clarity will also be addressed.

“As a result we are now proposing changes that include increasing the maximum sentence, but at the same time addressing concerns about the scope of the offense,” Neville-Rolfe says.

“The revised provisions will help protect rights holders, while making the boundaries of the offense clearer, so that everyone can understand how the rules should be applied.”

The minister says that a number of safeguards are already in place to “limit the risk” that a “very low level” infringer could be subjected to a high penalty, including that infringement must be proven to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Addressing concerns raised by the consultation that unwitting infringers might find themselves subjected to draconian sentences when they had no intent to cause any harm, the government references a system that has been in place for some time at the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

Without mentioning them by name, the report notes that “enforcement agencies and private prosecutors have a staged response system, encompassing education, ‘cease and desist’ notices, and domain suspension.”

In other words, those likely to be targeted by the ten year sentence are given advance warning by the likes of PIPCU, FACT and the BPI, that they’re treading on thin ice.

The government also addresses concerns that the term “affect prejudicially” is too vague when used to describe the extent to which a copyright holder needs to be affected before an offense is committed.

“It was argued that a single infringing file could fulfil this requirement in some circumstances (if widely shared subsequent to the infringement for example) therefore setting an unacceptably low threshold for committing the offense,” the government explains.

The government’s position is that minor infringement does not lead to a criminal prosecution but it does concede that the term “affect prejudicially” has the potential to “give rise to an element of ambiguity.”

Perhaps predictably the consultation raised concerns that a maximum sentence of ten years would place infringement alongside serious offenses such as rape, firearms offenses and child cruelty.

Nevertheless, the government feels the sentence is warranted and uses the case brought against several release group members last year as an indicator that while ten years is a maximum, it would only be utilized in the rarest of cases.

“The Government believes that a maximum sentence of 10 years allows the courts to apply an appropriate sentence to reflect the scale of the offending. An example where copyright infringement was deemed to warrant longer than a 2 year sentence is where five defendants received sentences totaling 17 years for releasing more than 2,500 of the latest films onto the internet,” the government writes.

“They were prosecuted under the Fraud Act, where the highest sentence was four and a half years. Capping the maximum available sentence at a lower level would unnecessarily limit the ability of the courts to apply appropriate sentences in the more serious cases of copyright infringement.”

The government says it will now introduce its re-drafted offense provisions to Parliament at the “earliest available legislative opportunity.”

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

In 2012, a combined effort by the United States and New Zealand governments brought Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload empire to its knees. Coordinated raids in multiple locations carried out by heavily armed officers ensured that a clear message was sent to copyright infringers.

But despite the overwhelming show of force, Dotcom refused to lie down and just a year later he launched a brand new file-hosting service. Known simply as ‘Mega’, the platform launched to great fanfare in 2013.

Mega quickly became a force to be reckoned with in the hosting market, with Dotcom promoting the platform at every turn. Nevertheless, controversy was never far away.

In September 2014, Mega was branded a “piracy haven” in a Digital Citizens Alliance report into the activities of “shadowy cyberlockers.”

As a direct consequence and under pressure from the U.S. government, in early 2015 PayPal stopped processing payments for Mega. There can be little doubt that hurt the site.

But behind the scenes other matters were becoming a distraction. In May 2015, Mega’s bid for a stock listing fell through and just two months later Dotcom’s earlier praise for the company turned sour.

“Mega has experienced a hostile takeover and is no longer in the control of people who care about Internet Freedom. The New Zealand Government and Hollywood have seized a significant share of the company,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak.

“The combined shares seized by the NZ government and Hollywood were significant enough to stop our listing on the New Zealand stock exchange.”

Dotcom had already resigned as a director of Mega in September 2013 but now he was publicly warning people against using the site.

Today Dotcom repeated those calls, warning users of Mega over what he sees as the precarious position of the company.

“Mega had to survive without a credit card payment processor for almost 2 years now. The air is getting thin. Backup your Mega files,” he told users via Twitter.

But while a lack of payment processing options certainly won’t be helping Mega, Dotcom sees more danger in the reported controller of Mega, Chinese national and New Zealand citizen Bill Liu.

Back in 2009, Liu made headlines when it was revealed that despite being wanted for fraud in China, he was granted citizenship in New Zealand. Now it’s been revealed by kiwi Prime Minister John Key that Liu is ranked number five on China’s “Top 100” extradition list.

“I haven’t seen the list, but there is a list,” Key said.

“They’ve also put out a list worldwide of the Top 100. Bill Liu is number five on it,” he said of the Chinese government.

New Zealand police have already seized millions of dollars of assets that are believed to belong to Liu, including some held in Mega, although Liu denies all wrong doing. Dotcom, however, remains unconvinced.

“The 5th most wanted criminal in China is in control of Mega and he wants to float the business in HK? Good luck,” he said this morning.

As these situations go, the short history of Mega is utterly unique. Never before has a platform in the file-sharing space had two entrepreneurs each worth millions of dollars being pursued for extradition by two of the world’s most powerful governments for entirely different reasons.

It’s currently very late evening in New Zealand so we’re not expecting an immediate response from Mega to our requests for comment. We’ll add them here as soon as they arrive.

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