Author: Andy

One might think that if a copyright holder would like to chase down alleged pirates in the UK it would be a relatively simple affair. Track their IP addresses and obtain their identities from ISPs, hire a lawfirm, send out the letters, and wait for the cash.

However, that’s been tried before and it has universally ended in tears for the lawfirms involved. As a result, copyright trolls are now deploying the new tactic of sending the letters via a limited company.

This is a pretty good idea. Not only do these companies avoid the scrutiny of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority but if it all goes wrong in a messy court battle, for example, the limited company can simply cease trading. It’s happened before.

The tactic is being employed by at least two sets of trolls and their partners in the UK. Golden Eye International, for example, is the front company acting for a number of porn copyright holders. By troll standards their operation seems relatively straightforward, but the same cannot be said of TCYK.

TCYK stands for The Company You Keep, a Robert Redford film that’s being used as a money generator by TCYK LLC, a US-based outfit attempting to turn piracy into profit. They’ve just accused an 82-year-old woman of being a movie pirate, which prompted intervention from her “disgusted” local MP.

However, instead of setting up in the UK themselves to chase alleged pirates themselves, TCYK employ the services of a company called Hatton and Berkeley. This is where things get messy.

According to the UK government’s Companies House database, the sole director of Hatton and Berkeley is a man called Paul Carter yet according to his various claims in the media and on his website, Robert Croucher says he is both managing director and owner.

In fact, according to public records Robert Croucher has never been listed as any kind of director of the company nor listed as having had any kind of shareholding. Croucher also claims to be personally based at 43, Berkeley Square in London while dozens of companies share the same address. It appears to be a virtual office.

Only complicating matters is that when alleged pirates receive ‘pay-up-or-else’ letters from Hatton and Berkeley on behalf of TCYK LLC, they aren’t told to pay either.

Instead they are told to send money to a third company called Ranger Bay Ltd, a company operated by a Marcus Auton. A former Bank of America employee and experienced accountant, Auton makes no mention of his copyright troll links on his Linkedin profile but TF has confirmed that his company is receiving money from suspected pirates.

Underlying the TCYK/Hatton and Berkeley/Ranger Bay operation are links with notorious copyright troll Patrick Achache, who is up to his neck in copyright litigation in the United States and elsewhere. Robert Croucher has made no secret of his affiliations with Achache, even posing with him for pictures while announcing a copyright troll invasion of the UK last October.

There can be no doubt that these kinds operations are set up in a complex manner, with some believing the tiered structure is deployed as a defensive mechanism in case everything goes wrong via a failed court action, for example. Of course, that is denied by those involved but not everyone is so keen to accept that at face value.

One of the most persistent troll-watchers in the UK is known as Joe Hickster. He runs the ACS Bore blog (Twitter) which was set up to undermine the activities of the now-defunct ACS:Law but has since expanded to cover any and all copyright troll-affiliated companies operating in the UK.

There’s no denying that Hickster is both persistent and at times abrasive, but he’s a man on a mission who feels it is his duty to help people wrongly accused by trolls. Indeed, Hickster is responsible for at least dozens (he doesn’t keep count) of people not paying companies like ACS:Law, GoldenEye and now Hatton and Berkeley/TCYK/Ranger Bay many tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of pounds.

Now, however, things are getting messy. It began last year when Robert Croucher weighed in on a four year old discussion on phone number database site WhoCallsMe about a company called Westone Business Services Ltd.

Westone (which has Hatton and Berkeley’s current director Paul Carter also listed as a former director) were being called out by reviewers as “scammers” who apparently took their money for business services and ran. Croucher stepped in with his opening lines.

“To whom it may concern, I am Robert Croucher. I have no affiliation to Mr Paul Carter,” he said.

As previous highlighted, Companies House begs to differ. In fact, the government database indicates the pair having been involved in several companies together – here, here, here and here.

All of this information came to the attention of Joe Hickster who stepped into the discussion on March 22 to add his opinion.

“Seems that CMI Business Group (t/a Hatton & Berkeley) are really a Speculative Invoicing outfit, in association with the notorious Patrick Achache, who assisted ACS:LAW and Tilly Baily Irvine, in their actions in sending thousands of letters to people in the UK demanding money for Pornography or other films and threatening to go to Court if they were not paid,” he said.

From there things went quickly downhill. People can read the full exchange here but in summary Hickster accused Croucher of being involved in a “smoke and mirrors” operation, Croucher took offense, and the gloves came off.

“Your previous accusations that Paul Carter is the owner and director of Hatton & Berkeley is flawed, I would advise scrutiny over any of your research from hereon,” Croucher said.

Again, Companies House lists Paul Carter as Hatton and Berkeley’s sole director. Nevertheless, Croucher continued.

“Due to the nature of your defamatory and unsubstantiated remarks above, I shall be seeking legal action against you should this continue,” he said.

The exchanges continued and then Croucher dropped the bombshell.

“You and others have been sending false and defamatory Tweets to myself and worryingly the more junior female members of my staff, this is being reported to the MET Police as it is continued harassment (see Malicious Communications Act 1988),” he told Hickster.

“I will be seeking that charges be brought against you should you not cease and desist from contacting myself, members of my staff or other officers of any of my operating companies. This is being taken very seriously and I believe you are underestimating the impact of your actions.

“To summarise; Please stop contacting me, any of my staff and certainly any of my clients, should you continue I will ensure that you are put to maximum task with respect to issuing legal proceedings against you for ongoing harassment and defamation,” he warned.

TorrentFreak caught up with Joe Hickster who denied harassment.

“I would not DREAM of harassing, ANY innocent person, whether they are young woman or men or pensioners. I would obviously leave that in [Croucher’s] more than capable hands, he has more experience at doing that than I,” he said.

While it’s not unusual for anti-troll activists to hold their battles in public, it’s quite extraordinary for their targets to duke it out on the Internet. Where this will go from here is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for certain. Robert Croucher’s business affairs (and those of the companies he’s involved with) seem far from straightforward and one way or another, with or without Joe Hickster, anti-troll activists in the UK remain intent on exposing them.

Robert Croucher did not immediately respond to TorrentFreak’s request for comment

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

Earlier this week, anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp published its results for 2015. They make for dismal reading, with the company recording a net loss of $3.43m, up from the $2.85m net loss recorded in 2014.

The company has a number of problems. First and foremost it has too few clients and somehow needs to expand the catalog of copyrights under its protection. With a wider spread and greater volume it could do better, but that’s only part of the problem.

Internet service providers in the United States aren’t generally fans of copyright trolls like Rightscorp. They prey on valuable customers who often incorrectly conclude that their provider has been spying on them. Of course the sting in the tail is the compensation that Rightscorp demands, all conveniently delivered to the Internet subscriber by their ISP.

In its filing this week Rightscorp blamed falling revenues on a reluctance by ISPs to pass on these automated fines. Nevertheless, the company isn’t giving up on improved cooperation with service providers since it has a plan that could streamline its business and more or less force users to pay up.

Rightscorp says this could be achieved via a “next generation technology” its developing called Scalable Copyright, which will shift warnings and settlement demands away from easily ignored emails and towards an altogether more aggressive delivery method.

“In the Scalable Copyright system, subscribers receive each [settlement] notice directly in their browser,” the company reports.

“Single notices can be read and bypassed similar to the way a software license agreement works [but] once the internet account receives a certain number of notices over a certain time period, the screen cannot be bypassed until the settlement payment is received.”

The idea of locking browsers in response to infringement allegations is nothing new. Users of some ISPs in the United States already receive these warnings if too many complaints are made against their account. However, to date no company has asked for money to have these locks removed and the idea of ‘wheel clamping’ a browser is hardly an attractive one, especially based on the allegations of a third-party organization.

Still, Rightscorp seems confident that it can persuade ISPs to come along for the ride.

“Its implementation will require the agreement of the ISPs. We have had discussions with multiple ISPs about implementing Scalable Copyright, and intend to intensify those efforts. ISPs have the technology to display our notices in subscribers’ browsers in this manner,” the company notes.

While ISPs do indeed have the ability to hold their customers to ransom on Rightscorp’s behalf, the big question is why they would choose to do so. On the surface there seems no benefit to ISPs whatsoever, since all it will do is annoy those who pay the bills. But Rightscorp sees things somewhat differently and says that the system will actually be both cheap and beneficial to ISPs.

“We provide the data at no charge to the ISPs. With Scalable Copyright, ISPs will be able to greatly reduce their third-party liability and the music and home video industries will be able to return to growth along with the internet advertising and broadband subscriber industries,” the company explains.

That third-party liability is the requirement under the DMCA for service providers to terminate repeat infringers or face the prospect of losing their safe harbor protections.

“U.S. ISPs have a safe harbor that is conditional on terminating repeat copyright infringers. Rightscorp has the technology to identify these repeat infringers. ISPs either need to work with copyright holders to reduce repeat infringers identified by Rightscorp or face significant liability,” the company warns.

As the recent case between BMG and Cox Communications illustrates, ISPs do need to be cautious over the issue of repeat infringers and they must have policies in place to deal with them. However, the notion that a browser-lock system like this one needs to be deployed is unlikely to be on the agenda of many ISPs, especially considering Rightscorp’s track record.

While the MPAA/RIAA Copyright Alerts program limits the numbers of warnings that can be sent to single subscriber in order to avoid labeling them as repeat infringers too quickly, Rightscorp is on record as sending 112 notices to a single Comcast user in less than 48 hours over the sharing of a single torrent.

But despite all the rhetoric, these ambitious plans to hijack browsers to generate revenue will require ISPs to co-operate more with Rightscorp, not less, so the current downward trend in forwarding the company’s notices is hardly encouraging.

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

For those interested in the pressures placed on large sites by governments, law enforcement, litigious third parties and copyright holders, transparency reports are wonderful things.

Published on an annual or even daily basis in the case of Google, these reports disclose information to the public relating to court-ordered requests for user data through to the removal of allegedly copyright infringing content.

Here at TF we’re generally confronted with the latter, with Google’s Transparency Report providing a goldmine of information that would ordinarily be kept out of the public eye. In fact, it’s quite possible that the publication of this report will help to shape future legislation, with both Google and copyright holders currently relying on the data to lobby for change and/or the status quo.

With the importance of transparency reports established, it’s always nice to see new companies jumping on board. Following Google’s first publication in 2010, Twitter followed in 2012 and they’re now joined by a multitude of companies from Microsoft and Facebook to Cloudflare.

In early 2015, Reddit produced its first report covering the previous 12 months which revealed that the site rejects 62% of all copyright complaints. However, other than that the report was light on copyright data, something the site is now working to address.

Noting that in 2015 the site received a large number of requests to remove content under the DMCA, Reddit’s operators say they’re now working on tools to provide more transparency.

“To cope with Reddit’s rate of growth in 2015 and the subsequent spike in the number of takedown requests received, we have dedicated significant time and resources to build internal tools to allow us to accurately track the number and types of requests that we are receiving,” the site reveals in its latest report.

“This is an ongoing project, which we hope to be able to refine, so that we can be transparent with our users, on how much content we takedown on the site. For perspective, from January 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016, we received approximately 190 requests to remove content under the DMCA. 5% of these requests required us to remove content from the site.”

How sites respond to takedown notices under the DMCA is of huge interest at the moment, with copyright holders keen to tighten up the legislation and those on the receiving end often torn between taking content down to avoid liability while considering crucial issues such as fair use. For its part, Reddit likes to do things properly.

“Each DMCA takedown notice is reviewed carefully and, in circumstances where content is actually hosted on our servers, we assess whether the existence of the content on Reddit can fall under an exception, such as ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material,” the site explains.

“If we believe that the existence of the content can be defended or falls under an exception under copyright law, then we may request further information from the requesting party that will assist us in our review.”

More transparency is always a good thing as it helps to understand the dilemmas faced by those on all sides of the copyright debate. Reddit’s report will be a welcome addition.

“We are hopeful that our newly implemented method of tracking requests will put us in a position where we can provide you with confirmation of more accurate information regarding DMCA requests that are received throughout 2016 and how we responded to them,” the site concludes.

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

More than ten years ago when it became clear that piracy might never be stopped, anti-piracy outfits began to pursue alleged infringers for cash settlements in a bid to turn file-sharing into profit.

One of the most prominent companies employing this model today is US-based Rightscorp. By using ISPs’ responsibility to forward infringement warnings to users, Rightscorp attaches settlement demands to DMCA-style notices. When these reach the user they are currently invited to pay around $30 or face a potential lawsuit.

How many notices the company sends out is unclear but it’s likely to be millions overall, since according to the company’s most recent filing around 230,000 people have settled. It sounds like it should be a lucrative business but ever since the company was incorporated in 2010 the numbers haven’t added up. Indeed, Rightscorp’s latest filing, its 2015 Annual Report, indicates a crisis at the company.

The report begins with a positive, noting that in September 2015 Rightscorp entered into a representation agreement with Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC. But that’s where the good news ends.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, Rightscorp generated revenues of $832.2K. That’s down 10% ($98.5K) when compared to the $930.7K generated in 2014. Not a great start and gets worse.

To begin, all of those revenues aren’t for Rightscorp to keep. The total is split with rightsholders, roughly 50/50, meaning that in 2015 Rightscorp paid almost $439K to its copyright holder partners, down from the $465.3K paid out in 2014. Sadly for Rightscorp the $392K in revenue left over isn’t enough to make ends meet, not by a long way.

In 2015 the anti-piracy outfit burned through more than $1.67m in wage and related expenses plus $216.3K on sales and marketing. Also causing problems are the costs mounting up due to various legal battles (1,2,3). In all, Rightscorp spent more than $951K on legal proceedings in 2015, up from $465K the year before.

When combined Rightscorp’s general and administrative expenses were close to $4.5m in 2015, up almost $737K on the previous year. As a result the company recorded a net loss of $3.43m, up from the $2.85m net loss recorded in 2014.

Furthermore, the company’s precarious position is only underlined with the revelation that 72% of its revenues are attributable to just two rightsholder customers, with one alone accounting for 58% of revenues.

While it’s fairly obvious that this model isn’t currently working, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Not only are Rightscorp’s costs going through the roof but its revenues are falling too, despite the company’s insistence that piracy is as prevalent as ever.

So how does Rightscorp explain the drop in settlements achieved? Well, this is where it gets interesting.

According to the company’s annual filing there are three key reasons, including an unwillingness by Internet service providers to forward Rightscorp settlement demands to their customers. If that is the case then the anti-piracy outfit has a huge problem, since without that mechanism it cannot cheaply contact alleged pirates with an offer to settle.

But while the ISP dilemma is clear, the other reasons provided by Rightscorp for falling revenues are less so.

The anti-piracy outfit additionally blames “changes in the filesharing software intended to defeat detection of copyrights being illegally distributed.” For a company specializing in anti-piracy technology this statement is terribly uninformative and gives the impression of a riddle designed to confuse.

So, since there have been no real changes in the way BitTorrent software operates since its inception, the truth must lie elsewhere. Reading between the lines this seems likely to be a reference to people using anonymizing techniques (VPNs, proxies etc) which make it impossible for Rightscorp to track them down. Not a good situation for shareholders.

Oddly, the language used by Rightscorp to explain the third reason behind its drop in revenues in no more clear. Blaming “the shutting down of some filesharing network infrastructure” for achieving fewer settlements, the company gives no hint as to what that might mean, especially since according to them file-sharing traffic is only on the increase.

With file-sharers seemingly hiding, ISPs passing on fewer notices, coupled with Rightscorp’s inability to control its costs, it seems unlikely that the company has much of a future.

“Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing,” the company concludes.

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

While the UK continues its aggressive pursuit of those who run or even facilitate access to sites offering copyright infringing material, its efforts to deal with consumers of pirated content have been painfully drawn out.

With the provisions of the Digital Economy Act now somewhat of a distant memory, using force to deal with Internet subscribers has been largely overtaken by plans to re-educate the masses.

To that end the government-funded, rightsholder-supported Creative Content UK (CCUK) initiative has been trying to gather momentum since its somewhat subdued debut in December last year. Though various PR campaigns the project hopes to change the public’s attitude towards Internet piracy.

Currently CCUK is running “Get It Right from a Genuine Site”, a campaign that hopes to deter people from using sites like The Pirate Bay in favor of licensed services that ensure that creators are properly paid.

The campaign has been largely inoffensive and quite colorful thus far but has struggled to achieve mainstream exposure. However, the latest video in the “Get It Right” series hopes to change that with a properly “grown up” attempt at reaching out to would-be pirates.

Featuring bookseller Nic Bottomley and his real-life book store ‘Mr B’s Emporium Of Reading Delights’, this Bookseller Association-supported video is a somewhat refreshing and calming anti-piracy short that’s a million miles away from “You Wouldn’t Download“.

Located in the beautiful city of Bath, the Emporium is a classic UK book shop and the video begins with its owner’s memories of repeatedly reading the Roald Dahl classic Fantastic Mr Fox. It’s warming stuff and a welcome change from the aggressive threats featured in other campaigns.

From the moment it begins it becomes clear that the aim of this short is to encourage the viewer to empathize with Bottomley, who together with his wife has built up a really decent book business over the past 12 years. And it works.

Bottomley’s tone is superb and doesn’t sound ‘preachy’ at all, and it’s genuinely nice to hear a little about what it’s like to run his shop and help out customers. But of course, that’s only possible if the public spends money with him and by extension, those writing the books.

“You know that when you buy a book from a high street book shop, or a book or an ebook from a legitimate website, that the creator of that content, in other words the writer of the book or ebook, has been properly rewarded for their work,” Bottomley tells the viewer.

But while it’s easy for those who grew up with mountains of real books to have the utmost respect for what Bottomley has achieved, it’s questionable whether his story will resonate so clearly with the ‘downloading generation’. Real books and real book shops are indeed beautiful, but increasingly digital downloads are taking over, with products like Kindle Unlimited (the Netflix of books) a more attractive proposition for those on the go.

Still, it’s hoped that booksellers of all kinds will get behind the initiative and spread the word that supporting writers (and sellers) is the right thing to do.

“We need to help the creative community to invest in creating more of content, and the development of new artists and writers and ideas as a result,” says Bookseller Association CEO Tim Godfray.

Finally, it will be interesting to see to what extent publishers, writers and book sellers will be supported when UK Internet service providers finally begin to send out warnings to alleged pirates in the months (years?) to come. The scheme has already been hugely delayed and thus far there has only been discussion of music, movie and TV show downloaders being targeted.

Also problematic is the manner in which ebooks are shared online. While torrents are the preferred method for larger files, books are much more likely to be distributed via hosting sites and forums. This kind of sharing cannot be tracked, so the education component is even more critical for the book sector.

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

Underlying a multitude of strategies designed to limit traffic to pirate sites, there is a strong belief among copyright holders that operators only keep their sites online due to how profitable they are.

Since most portals don’t make their motivations public it’s unclear as to how many sites this applies. However, it can’t be denied that the largest sites are pulling in decent revenues via advertising so with this in mind there is an ongoing and concerted effort by authorities to “Follow the Money.”

Part of this strategy is ensuring that major brands and smaller companies refrain from placing their advertising on infringing sites. In addition to funding the sites in question, copyright holders insist that having “household name” branding appearing alongside pirate content suggests that sites are not only legitimate but somehow endorsed by their advertisers.

While the US has its own initiatives underway, the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) maintains the Infringing Website List (IWL), a database of sites that police and copyright holders have deemed to breach copyright law.

PIPCU earlier claimed to have placed warning ads on these domains to deter would-be downloaders and is now receiving help from the government to reach more advertisers.

In a new video published by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the Internet is described as the most powerful communication tool ever invented, noting that by 2020 the total Internet advertising spend will outstrip that of TV. But while reaching billions of consumers has its benefits, the IPO says that advertisers need to be aware of the problems being caused by IP crime.

Starting with an image of a presumably unlicensed pharmaceutical site, the video quickly moves on to the world of torrents, with an image of a fake website called “Super Torrent”.

Somewhat ironically the screenshot from the video shown above is actually a copy of ExtraTorrent (the world’s 3rd largest torrent site) but with a name switch. In fact, those who look closely will see that on the left hand side of the image where ExtraTorrent displays its news feed, there’s even a link directing people to find more news on TorrentFreak.

“Illegal websites offering copyright infringing content, illegal websites facilitating fraud, organized crime, even terrorism,” the voiceover warns. “You wouldn’t want your brand, your client’s logo, your hard-earned reputation mixed up with that, would you?”

The video continues by stating that of the top 500 infringing websites, 294 carried advertising for recognized brands, 43 of which were businesses in the top 1000 for advertising spend. By placing ads on such websites, advertisers give them legitimacy while tarnishing their images by associating themselves with viruses and malware, the IPO adds.

Of course, knowing which sites are considered a risk isn’t always easy for advertisers and that’s where copyright holders and the police step in.

“The Infringing Website List lists all known websites determined by the police to be illegal on the basis of copyright infringement. It’s the first of its kind in the world,” the IPO says.

“Sites are identified by the creative industries, evidenced and verified by the police. The IWL then provides an up to date list of copyright-infringing websites to enable advertisers, agencies and brands to cease advert placement on illegal websites.”

The idea is that ad agencies can integrate the IWL into their ad placement systems in order to boycott pirate sites, something which can prevent direct advertising on designated platforms. However, the advertising world isn’t as straightforward as that and the use of various middle-men ensures that advertising often makes it onto pirate sites, even though they have been ‘blacklisted’ in Europe and the United States.

Nevertheless, the IPO and PIPCU say they are making progress and in August 2015 reported that top UK advertisers were placing 73% fewer ads on pirate sites. More current stats aren’t presented in the video but the message from the IPO remains the same.

“Stop funding criminals, sign up to the IWL,” the IPO concludes.

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

If copyright holders had their way the world’s leading torrent sites would be blocked by Internet service providers in every country of the world. That goal remains in the distance but there can be little doubt that the process is moving forward.

Several countries around Europe are now blocking between dozens and hundreds of ‘pirate’ sites and surprisingly, given the country’s traditional attitude to infringement, Russia is also becoming a blocking front-runner.

But while copyright holders remain enthusiastic about the implementation of bans, millions of Internet users are only interested in circumventing them. VPNs, proxies and mirrors are all playing their part but it now appears that Russian torrent giant RuTracker is about to deploy an alternative system to beat the censors.

In addition to other counter-measures already being deployed, RuTracker is reportedly working on a bot system that will deliver torrents to users via the encrypted instant messaging service Telegram.

Financed by Russian Facebook (vKontakte) founder Pavel Durov, Telegram is a multi-platform messaging system that has grown from 100,000 daily users in 2013 to an impressive 100 million users in February 2016.

“Telegram is a messaging app with a focus on speed and security, it’s super-fast, simple and free. You can use Telegram on all your devices at the same time — your messages sync seamlessly across any number of your phones, tablets or computers,” Telegram explains.

The attractiveness of Telegram for RuTracker lies in its reach. In addition to sending any kind of file (doc, zip, mp3, torrent, etc), it can broadcast such content to an unlimited audience. It’s believed that the site will use Telegram to distribute magnet links, which makes sense after the site added them in recent months.

The big question now is how RuTracker will be received by Telegram’s operators. While the platform is generally anti-censorship and refuses to comply with local government restrictions on freedom of speech, it does have rules about infringing content.

Private chats between groups of users up to 5,000 members are strictly off-limits, so any exchanges there are not subjected to any takedowns. However, something more public could fall foul of the site’s rules.

“Our mission is to provide a secure means of communication that works everywhere on the planet. To do that in the places where it is most needed (and to continue distributing Telegram through the App Store and Google Play), we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public content (sticker sets, bots, and channels) within the app,” Telegram’s ToS reads.

While it remains to be seen how the service will view the transmission of magnet links, entertainment industry bosses are already beginning to chime in with their opinions. Alexander Blinov, General Director of Gala Records / EMI, told news outlet Izvestia that if Telegram doesn’t take action against RuTracker, his company will take the fight to Google and Apple.

“The appearance of RuTracker in Telegram is not good and if RuTracker continues to distribute illegal content through this channel, we will have to take the necessary measures, in particular filing complaints with Apple and Google,” Blinov said.

“Working relationships with these companies have already been established. However, response times are unpredictable: sometimes they act quickly, and sometimes they do not pay attention to complaints.”

According to Alexei Byrdin of the Internet Video Association, Telegram is an international project so will need to comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There are no mentions of that legislation anywhere on the Telegram site but it’s certainly possible that Google and Apple could inflict the terms of the DMCA upon the service.

In any event, the move by RuTracker is certainly an interesting one. The site hasn’t really concerned itself with too much innovation over the years but in recent months has responded aggressively after receiving a lifetime block in Russia. Necessity really is the mother of invention.

Image credit: John Palmer

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

In 1999, when Napster began drawing its first digital breaths, few users realized they were part of the dawn of a people-powered sharing revolution that would reach millions.

In time, founders Shawn Fanning, John Fanning, and Sean Parker would become both famous and infamous, with the latter surviving Metallica’s destruction of his business and emerging 15 years later as a Facebook multi-billionaire.

But while Parker is publicly living the dream with his pirate history all but forgotten, others on the receiving end of massive litigation have slowly but surely drifted into the background to pursue other interests. Like Gary Fung, for example.

As the former admin of torrent site isoHunt.com, Fung became a hero to many due to his extended battle with Hollywood’s MPAA. Year after year Fung defied the most powerful people in the movie industry to keep his site online, something that was well received among the file-sharing masses.

While it eventually came to a costly end, Fung’s battle was a true David and Goliath affair.

It inspired many, in part due to the way the Canadian was prepared to become a public figure whose face was well known to his fans. As a result he is still one of the most recognizable individuals to have emerged from the torrent world.

Of course, there are at least three other individuals who enjoyed even greater pirate infamy than Gary Fung. Like Madonna, Bono or Oprah, the trio of Gottfrid, Fredrik and Peter are recognizable by a single name, albeit when placed together. While moderately recognizable in the mainstream they are truly world famous among the technological masses.

Just like Fung, these Pirate Bay operators gained superstar fame due to their willingness to become recognized in public. During the height of the site’s popularity it was never a secret who was loading the servers and keeping fellow pirates happy. At every opportunity and even when on trial, one or the other was courting publicity in order to further the pirate movement.

The world’s most famous pirates (credit)

And, overall, people absolutely loved it. Unlike most of the faceless operators of dozens of similar sites, Anakata, TiAMO and brokep became icons, appearing in hundreds of mainstream publications around the world and even starring in their own movie. Throughout they stayed defiant, and remain so to this day.

While Napster may have been first and Fung was undoubtedly brave, these three renegades were in a class of their own and will go down in history as the most popular digital pirates the world has ever seen.

Fredrik addressing Pirate Bay fans in Sweden

Of course there have been others since, most notably Kim Dotcom. Although he’s never likely to embrace the Department of Justice’s claims that he’s the biggest intellectual property pirate the world has ever seen, to many Dotcom is still a pirate hero, regardless of whether he was responsible for the massive piracy on Megaupload.

The key factor is that like Gary, Gottfrid, Fredrik and Peter, rightly or wrongly Dotcom is facing similar persecution from Hollywood. And, just like them, he has remained strong, refused to fold and has indicated the studios can go forth and multiply. A lot of people like that.

Furthermore, what Dotcom has done is position himself as a freedom fighter. He’s placed a human face on what began as a fight over piracy yet has developed into a struggle for control of the Internet. That resonates with millions, even those who oppose other elements of his character.

But although it was fun while it lasted, in terms of public personalities the pirate movement has already enjoyed its ‘Concorde Moment‘. During the last decade and a half fearless pirates put their faces into the public arena, confident in the knowledge that they could never be touched, that somehow laws would never catch up with innovation.

Now, however, it’s clear that the only pirates with their faces being shown in public are those being raided, arrested, prosecuted or subjected to punishing civil litigation. No longer is it fun to prod the bear while shouting out one’s real name. The bears have learned to be patient and now return at a later date to inflict mountains of regret.

There might still be a surprise in store, a brave entrepreneur and entertainer might arrive prepared to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others. But for now the prospect of lawsuits, jail and extradition will ensure that the next generation of pirates will reject superstar status and accept something much more basic.

Their freedom.

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

During the latter part of every year, pressure builds as Internet pirates prepare for the inevitable.

Having been sent out to industry professionals “For Their Consideration”, so-called DVD Screener copies of the latest movies begin to hit the Internet.

Last year was a pretty memorable one with some massive titles hitting the web. Both The Revenant and The Hateful Eight were furiously downloaded on BitTorrent before their theatrical debuts, causing shockwaves and controversy as anti-piracy advocates took the opportunity to bemoan droves of “Internet thieves”.

But of course, these leaks have to originate somewhere and as revealed in February with a high-profile arrest, movie insiders are often to blame for content being made available online.

While Kyle Moriarty from Lancaster admitted to copying screeners of The Revenant and The Peanuts Movie while working on a movie studio lot, other DVD screeners do make it to their intended recipients. However, even though these people are supposed to guard the discs with their lives, some don’t appear to do so and are happy to let their friends view them in advance of their theatrical release.

This kind of reckless behavior is welcomed by pirates and almost guarantees a flood of titles hitting BitTorrent around the same time every year. At this point Internet pirates get all the blame yet it’s pretty clear that although the industry doesn’t really want to talk about it, those closer to home are main source of the problem

To see the scale of the issue one only has to turn to the world’s favorite online auction house. Known as a source for just about anything, it turns out that eBay is also a great place to buy DVD screeners, presumably being offloaded directly or indirectly by those who were expected to review them.

For example, for just US$16.53 one can currently buy a lovely Emmy ‘boxed set’ of TV show screeners including episodes of Bates Motel, The Returned, Intervention, Wahlburgers and Married at First Sight.

For those more interested in movies, eBay has plenty of treasures available. Around December 17 last year a DVD screener copy of Straight Outta Compton leaked onto the Internet. Just a handful of months later and it appears that screener recipients are looking to convert those discs into cash via the popular site.

And the more one digs, the more titles appear. A copy of Tom Hardy’s Kray’s movie Legend, for example, along with a vintage copy of Inglourious Basterds, and many, many more besides. Shame the Walking Dead screeners aren’t more recent.

Finally, if binge-watching is more your thing, Netflix screeners are also catered for on eBay. Apparently the company sends out huge box-sets for recipients’ binge-worthy consideration.

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

When it comes to file-sharing news, torrent sites usually grab most of the headlines and have done so for the last decade or more. However, a much older method of file-sharing continues in the background, one which facilitates the spread of huge amounts of copyrighted material every day.

Usenet (newsgroups) is a server-based sharing system that usually requires a subscription to access. Users download files (binaries) directly from servers run by their Usenet provider and no peer-to-peer sharing takes place. This means that downloads are very secure, almost immune from snooping, and generally very fast.

Certain prominent cases aside, Usenet providers have largely avoided prosecution but for one company in France the show is now over. Following a complaint filed by anti-piracy outfit SACEM two years ago, France’s largest independent Usenet provider Newsoo has just been shut down by the police.

“I just got back from custody after a search and seizure of Newsoo servers by the judicial police in Strasbourg. I announce therefore that the Newsoo adventure ends immediately and permanently,” Newsoo owner Cedric reports.

While the Newsoo operation was small by Giganews standards, for example, the service was definitely unique. Cedric (known online as Optix) was very public about his passion for his staunchly independent service, which was built up over the years by hand and backed up by personal customer support from the enthusiast.

An earlier thumbs-up from Optix in the Newsoo control room

But like many file-sharing services (and all Usenet providers), Newsoo had its problems with copyrighted content being uploaded to its servers and this week the authorities ran out of patience. In what was reportedly a relatively calm raid, Optix was arrested and his service dismantled.

“As to the ‘practical’ terms of my custody, rest can be assured. The staff were very courteous, kind and sympathetic, and there were no handcuffs and all that. I’m fine,” he explained in a statement.

While questioning whether the shutdown of his service was appropriate, Optix says that it actually came as a relief. Describing Newsoo as an addictive project in which he was responsible for everything, the combination of little time with his family and no financial incentive eventually became too much.

“Revenues were automatically fed back into the activity itself, I took no salary, no dividends, nada, niet, zilch – zero personal enrichment. In other words, everything earned [was always spent on] new machines, new fibers, and the network,” he says.

Newsoo celebrates 10Gbps fibre in 2015

While the raid effectively closed down Newsoo, Optix says the final decision lay with him. He will now place his company into liquidation, cooperate with the inquiry, and try to remember the good times.

“When I began two years ago, I started with barely two poor machines. I gained a lot of knowledge and I enjoyed sharing with you my successes, my problems and now my fall (well that is not really a pleasure),” he told supporters on the Warizens forum.

“It was really great to see that even if people were not fully in the project, most have made the effort to read all of my writings, because there is so much to say on a subject as exciting as this. In short, it is time to say goodbye.”

According to a Zataz report, the raid targeted 650TB of data and resulted in the seizure of 130 hard disks. One newsgroup connected to the service is said to have held 26 million MP3 files.

Optix has been told he will appear in court June 21, 2016.

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