Author: Andy

As chairman of The Institute for Development of the Internet, Herman Klimenko already had a prominent role in Internet related affairs. But when Russian president Vladimir Putin eyed the 49-year-old to become his personal adviser on the Internet, Klimenko really struck gold.

Last week Putin signed a decree that officially enlisted Klimenko and it didn’t take long for him to address the issue of Internet piracy. However, instead of tough talk, Klimenko criticized web-blocking and suggested that copyright holders should wait for a better economic situation before “terrorizing” on the issue of piracy.

“Consumption of copyright content increases with economic growth, and when the situation is very serious, I think people do not have to unnecessarily terrorize these issues,” Putin’s adviser said.

“Pushing hard now on this topic, I think, is not worth it. When the economy improves, you should return to this issue.”

While Klimenko’s comments at least in part sound reasonable, copyright holders would’ve been disappointed by his lack of support. What they will be even more disappointed over is the allegations now surfacing about Klimenko’s links to online piracy.

Sources close to Russia’s Vedomosti have informed the publication that Klimenko is the owner of Torrnado.ru, a locally operated torrent site. As can be seen from the image below the site has a familiar feel and unless hell has frozen over the studios behind Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and Terminator Genesis aren’t in agreement with their content appearing for free.

So how does someone like Klimenko end up with a torrent site under his belt? Well, it’s not being claimed that he’s the admin or sysop at Torrnado (that would be quite remarkable), but it appears that the site is indeed operated by a company owned by the Internet expert.

To begin, it helps to take a look at Torrnado’s WHOIS listing. We can see from the image below that the domain is owned by a company called ECO PC Solutions.

Checking out that company using company database SPARK Interfax reveals that the owner of ECO PC Solutions is Alevtina Jacobson. In December, ECO PC Integrated Solutions (with Jacobson at the helm) was announced as the operator of a brand new TV channel for MediaMetrics.ru, a service which measures Internet traffic to news stories from social media.

Completing the circle, MediaMetrics is owned by Herman Klimenko and he admits that Alevtina Jacobson was his employee.

Somewhat bizarrely, last evening Klimenko took to his Facebook page to comment on the reports that he’s the proud owner of a torrent site.

“An amazing story with torrents. On their own they are nothing illegal,” he wrote.

“You only need to cooperate with the creators and help them to fight for their rights.
Those who are not helping [rightsholders] are being punished. Those who are helping, are not being punished.”

A little later Klimenko posted again, listing various criticisms that have been made of him during his short time in power.

“Well of course the list of my sins is impressive,” he wrote.

“I’m shutting down [messaging app] Telegram. I’m building a Chinese-style Internet in Russia. I support the pirates. And i’m doing this all alone and at the same time.”

While Torrnado is hardly Russia’s most popular ‘pirate’ site (currently ranked 2,334 in the country by Alexa), the fact that it’s operated by a company owned by Klimenko is hardly something expected of a man in his position. Indeed, the law forbids those in “state service” to run a business, hence an announcement yesterday that his son Yuri would be taking control of some of his interests.

Whether the torrent revelations will affect Klimenko’s position as Putin’s adviser will remain to be seen but at the very least and at long last, someone in a position of authority actually understands how a torrent site works.

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

As the phenomenon of chasing down alleged movie pirates continues around the world, so-called copyright trolls are continually honing their techniques in order to pin down individuals to force settlement.

While those accused rarely get off lightly in any jurisdiction, in the United States the situation is particularly grim.

Companies that pursue pirates have the luxury of huge statutory damages at their disposal, meaning that a failed defense of a willful infringement claim could mean that a defendant is on the hook for up to $150,000 in damages.

While such large awards are rare, it does mean that companies are motivated to spend more time on a case than they would in other regions where statutory damages do not exist. To that end, when faced with accusations from copyright holders, people who merely pay the Internet bill at a residence sometimes face deposition.

In these cases a deposition is a pre-trial hearing during which a witness answers questions under oath about the alleged offense. The idea is to find out what the witness knows but ultimately depositions allow plaintiffs to gain ammunition towards achieving their key aim – cash settlement.

At this stage the account holder might be the assumed (putative) defendant while remaining an unnamed ‘John Doe’ as far as the lawsuit goes. All that could change after the deposition of course, which is why people are advised to obtain legal advice before taking part in one. Sadly, people’s financial situations often dictate this is not possible.

However, an interesting find by the troll-watchers at FightCopyrightTrolls reveals that putative defendants in Oregon won’t have to walk blindly into a potentially damaging deposition.

In response to a wave of lawsuits filed by notorious troll lawyer Carl Crowell, Chief Judge Michael Mosman has decided that targets of settlement demands should have legal assistance, whether they can afford it or not. A recently drafted standing order details his offer.

“Plaintiffs have subpoenaed the Internet Service Provider (‘ISP’) to obtain the identity of the party assigned the ISP account associated with the infringing activity, commonly called the subscriber. The subscriber may or may not be the same as the alleged infringer,” Judge Mosman writes.

“In order to find out whether the subscriber is an innocent third party and, if so, the identity of the alleged infringer, plaintiffs request the Court to enter Orders allowing them to take certain action, such as issuing a subpoena to the subscriber for a deposition.”

The Judge notes that if Internet subscribers fail to respond, plaintiffs could ask the Court for a default judgment. It is therefore advisable for subscribers to receive legal advice. To that end, subscribers will now get that support regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

“The Court has established a panel of lawyers who are willing to provide assistance and advice to subscribers in these lawsuits at no charge for up to 3 hours,” Judge Mosman writes.

The offer of support before deposition will be welcomed by subscribers while a case management order issued alongside should ensure that lawyers like Crowell are kept in line. The order mandates that multiple does can’t be filed in a single case and, crucially, subscribers must be informed of the free legal advice being made available.

“The ISP subpoena must include a copy of [the standing order] from the Court regarding the availability of pro bono counsel with any communications to the subscriber/account holder,” the order reads.

The prospect of a deposition will be a scary one for Internet subscribers so the fact they have this support should certainly lighten the load, especially for those who simply pay the bill and have played no part in any infringement.

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

BitTorrent is a formidably popular tool. More than 170 million people regularly use the protocol to share files of all sizes, with the majority using desktop software clients such as uTorrent and popular crowd-pleaser qBitTorrent.

Nevertheless, alternatives are available. For many years more advanced BitTorrent users have been using so-called ‘seedboxes’. These remote servers run torrent clients that allow people to share content away from their home machines. With expanded bandwidth at their disposal, sharing large quantities of data via seedbox is a breeze.

But while seedboxes aren’t particularly difficult to operate or understand (most use a familiar interface), the majority are hidden behind a paywall. Although relatively inexpensive, this lack of exposure ensures that people interested in remote torrenting aren’t exposed to the experience.

This is where Seedr steps in. Essentially a torrent client in the cloud, Seedr offers a free service to get people started and is ridiculously easy to operate.

On a basic level it’s as simple as making an account (just an email address is required) and either dragging or uploading a torrent to the service. Seedr is also fully magnet link capable and can even find a torrent when supplied with just the URL of a page.

Seedr then does all the downloading and sharing itself without a single byte hitting the user’s machine (great for those who want to get on with other things) and without any local IP addresses being exposed to a torrent swarm. This means the service helps to maintain user privacy too.

The Seedr interface

Once the download is complete (indicated by a basic progress bar) users can transfer the content to their own machine by hitting the download button while a right click reveals various other options.

In tests TF easily downloaded at a steady 25Mbps (even when limited by a VPN), meaning that a 1GB file took around five minutes to grab. Since downloads take place via HTTP, users can say goodbye to ISP throttling.

“Connections to the site are encrypted using SSL-256bit with strong ciphers, over HTTP/2 connections. All torrent traffic is done on our servers, and the identity of the users is never exposed. Security is up-to industry standards,” admin David informs TF.

But Seedr can do more.

“Once on the cloud you just see and manage your files – you can play them, stream them or download them if you want,” David says.

“There are many other small and cool features built into the system. For example, before you stream a movie you can seek for subtitles in any language and add them live. You can even sync them as you watch the movie.”

Streaming with Seedr

Since it’s browser-based, Seedr also works across devices – “anything but a sewing machine” according to David. Seedr also has a Chrome plug-in which enables users to add a download to Seedr in just two clicks – right-click on the link, left click on ‘Add to Seedr’. Done.

“The entire system was built to provide smooth streaming without wait-times for conversions ( even on phones ), and fast download speeds to home computers. All servers are 1000mbit or faster, and tuned for torrent, and file download traffic,” David says.

When attempting to stream to our Android test device there was an initial delay while the file converted but viewing was seamless after that. The black window that first appears needs to be tapped to reveal the playback controls.

Seedr collects anonymous data for bug fixes and the company says that all additional statistics are anonymized after 60 days. When users ask to have their accounts deleted, Seedr wipes their statistics along with the accounts within 48hrs.

Seedr offers a free tier and several packages for advanced users.

Free tier

– 2GB of free storage + more space for inviting friends
– Unlimited bandwidth, video playback support, high-speed downloads
– 1 parallel torrent download and 1:1 seeding ratio on public trackers

Premium

– 100GB-250GB of storage (1TB packages coming soon)
– Unlimited parallel downloads, HD streaming and API access
– 1:1 seeding ratio on public trackers
– Private trackers support with up to 5:1 or 5 days seeding ratio

In respect of copyright action, if Seedr receives a DMCA notice the company removes the offending torrent and advises the user. That is the end of the matter.

Overall

Easier to operate than uTorrent (by a long way), Seedr’s beauty lies in its simplicity. It’s hard to imagine anyone other than complete novices needing to revert to the site’s tutorial. However, those that do won’t be disappointed as it reveals ways to integrate the service into Kodi/XBMC.

Free tier aside (which is a steal) it’s not cheap at $9.95 per month (two months free on annual rates) so the service might benefit from having a more limited lower-tier premium package around the $6 to $7 mark.

Those who obsess over the minutiae of their torrenting might prefer a full-blown seedbox experience, but Seedr knows its target audience and appears to serve them well.

Seedr can be tested here for free.

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

The Institute for Development of the Internet is an entity created to promote discussion between representatives of the Russian government and Internet-focused companies. Typically the platform is used to iron out differences on contentious issues.

In February 2015 Herman Klimenko became chairman of the Institute but last December was called upon by Russian president Vladimir Putin to become his personal adviser on the development of the Internet. After consulting with his family on what he described as a “big decision”, the 49-year-old accepted Putin’s offer.

This week Putin signed a decree that officially enlisted Klimenko as his
Presidential Adviser on the Internet. It’s a big position for the expert who now has the ear of one of the world’s most powerful men on all Internet related matters from trade through to education and finance.

Not unexpectedly the Internet piracy controversy also falls within Klimenko’s remit and it didn’t take long for the newly-crowned heavyweight to weigh in with his opinions. Surprisingly, those opinions include pouring cold water on aggressive measures for dealing with piracy, website blockades for example.

Speaking with local TV channel Russia 24, Klimenko said that when copyright holders demanded that ‘pirate’ websites should be blocked on a permanent basis, none considered whether it would actually be possible.

“When rights holders pressed for measures such as eternal blocking, I think they did not consider that it would be unfeasible for technical reasons,” he said.

“If a method to carry out such blocking did exist, it’s another question whether it is necessary to use it or not.”

But while website blocking is a controversial issue that even some copyright holders don’t believe in, it’s likely that a few eyebrows would’ve been raised at Klimenko’s suggestion that aggressive anti-piracy measures should be aligned with the state of the economy.

While acknowledging that creators should be able to get a return on their products, Putin’s adviser said now might not be the right time to send in the heavies to “terrorize” the public on the matter.

“There is always the relevance of this issue,” he said.

“In fact, consumption of copyright content increases with economic growth, and when the situation is very serious, I think people do not have to unnecessarily terrorize these issues,” said the presidential adviser.

Turning to copyright holders, Klimenko said that he believes they should consider the economic conditions before demanding more action.

“Pushing hard now on this topic, I think, is not worth it. When the economy improves, you should return to this issue,” he said.

But with relations with the West still strained over Ukraine and all the financial pressures that brings, how long will copyright holders have to wait? According to Deputy Minister of Economic Development Oleg Fomichev, perhaps some time yet.

“The current economic situation is definitely not that good. The Russian economy is not in the best shape, but it is not as bad as it was expected one year ago,” he revealed this week.

“We are now relatively optimistic about economic dynamics for the next several months and the next year because we see from June, and more positively from September, we see an upturn in the Russian economy.”

So everyone will stop complaining about piracy until the fall then? Not a chance…..

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

Faced with an Internet awash with copyrighted movies and music just a few clicks away, some rightsholders have decided to let piracy continue with a view to monetizing it.

One aspect of that approach is the rise of so-called John Doe lawsuits, copyright cases which target individuals said to be responsible for the unlawful sharing of content online. What copyright holders want from these people is a cash settlement, often to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Last year Matthew Sag, Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, published a report titled ‘IP Litigation in United States District Courts: 1994 to 2014′. It provided a review of all IP litigation in U.S. district courts over the past two decades to include copyright, patent and trademark lawsuits.

With 2016 now upon us, Professor Sag has provided an update to include stats from last year. As can be seen from the graph below, in 2010 suits against file-sharers were almost non-existent but year on year grew to dominate all copyright cases filed in the United States.

Indeed, following yet another rise in Doe cases during 2015, this year the record set by the RIAA in 2005 is at risk of being trumped.

In 2015 John Doe litigation made up almost 58% of all copyright cases filed (2930 cases out of 5076) in the United States. And, in common with recent years, a tiny number of plaintiffs are driving the majority of the action.

“In 2015 [porn company] Malibu Media was still the most significant individual copyright plaintiff in the US; in fact, it filed more suits than ever last year,” the report finds.

Malibu Media accounted for 41.5% of all copyright suits filed in the United States in 2014, and just over 39% in 2015. The slight reduction in share was due to other plaintiffs filing more suits than before.

While Malibu Media’s overall share is impressive, their lawyer Michael Keith Lipscomb is involved in an even greater number of cases.

“Lipscomb also represents two of the other plaintiffs on the top five list for last year — Manny Film and Plastic The Movie Limited — as well as two of the top five from 2014 — Good Man Productions, Inc. and Poplar Oaks, Inc,” the report notes.

This consolidation of legal resources suggests a more cost-effective approach to the volume trolling process. Indeed, considering the number of cases now being filed an industrial approach to the business is almost certainly required.

As column two in the table below shows, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of John Doe suits filed in the past five years, from 77 in 2010 to a staggering 2930 in 2015.

However, the massive number of suits filed has not resulted in an exponential growth in file-sharers being targeted, quite the opposite in fact. In 2010 a total of 43,124 ISP account holders were targeted in John Doe lawsuits yet last year that had dropped 84% to ‘just’ 6,700.

The report concludes that this fall is a symptom of increasing intolerance by courts towards single cases that target huge numbers of anonymous file-sharers.

“Filing suits [against thousands of IP addresses] enabled plaintiffs to economize on filing fees but courts have become significantly more skeptical of the legality and desirability of mass joinder in BitTorrent cases. Based on the data from 2015, it seems that the era of mass joinder is almost completely over.”

Nevertheless, by now it’s clear that copyright trolling is all about monetization of BitTorrent piracy and the report notes that despite having to file thousands more cases, the business model is still proving profitable for the plaintiffs.

“The filing fee for opening civil action in US district courts is now $400, so that means that plaintiffs associated with Mr Lipscomb have paid at least $936,800 in filing fees over the last year. Given the scale of this enterprise it seems reasonable to infer that Lipscomb and his clients have found a way to effectively monetize online infringement,” the report concludes.

The report can be downloaded here.

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

While increasing numbers of people are becoming tuned in to the joys of Netflix, growing numbers of subscribers are discovering a whole new world of content beyond what the service offers them as standard.

Netflix serves healthy libraries of content to many regions, but users in countries such as the United States get access to far more content than those located elsewhere. Likewise, not all European countries are served equally, with citizens of Italy falling short on content offered in the UK, for example.

As a result more and more customers of Netflix are bypassing restrictions designed to limit subscribers to content designated to their home countries. This is usually achieved by using a generic VPN or proxy service but some companies offer dedicated products to unlock Netflix on a global basis.

Even though Netflix admits it takes measures to try and limit the use of its service in this manner, the situation has traditionally seemed of minor interest to the company. However, in recent months Netflix has addressed the issue several times in the media and today has given the clearest sign yet that a crackdown is imminent.

In a post to Netflix’s blog today, Vice President of Content Delivery Architecture David Fullagar said that while the company would continue to break down borders in order to offer content to the broadest possible audience, measures will be taken to ensure that content licensing agreements are respected.

That means that circumvention devices – VPNs, proxies and similar tools – will fall further under the company’s spotlight.

“Some members use proxies or ‘unblockers’ to access titles available outside their territory. To address this, we employ the same or similar measures other firms do,” Fullagar says.

“This technology continues to evolve and we are evolving with it. That means in coming weeks, those using proxies and unblockers will only be able to access the service in the country where they currently are.”

A Netflix error several VPN users already see (U.S. server)

The news will come as a blow to those enjoying the best possible Netflix experience, especially those in countries where the local library is limited compared to that of the United States, for example.

However, blocking so-called ‘proxy pirates’ might be more easily said than done. Only this week Netflix’s chief product officer Neil Hunt told the Globe and Mail that while the company uses “industry standard technologies to limit the use of proxies”, it’s effectively a game of cat and mouse.

“Since the goal of the proxy guys is to hide the source it’s not obvious how to make that work well. It’s likely to always be a cat-and-mouse game,” he said.

“We continue to rely on blacklists of VPN exit points maintained by companies that make it their job. Once [VPN providers] are on the blacklist, it’s trivial for them to move to a new IP address and evade.”

Of course, many proxy and VPN providers have customers that only buy their services for the unblocking abilities they provide, so there is a serious commercial interest for these companies to spend time outwitting Netflix.

Only time will tell whether they will be able to do so long term, but history suggests it won’t be an easily won battle for the video service. In the meantime collateral damage is also a possibility if Netflix block the wrong people, but the company feels that won’t happen.

“We are confident this change won’t impact members not using proxies,” Fullagar concludes.

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

In the final days leading up to Christmas, DVD screener copies of some of the hottest movies began leaking to the Internet. Several, including The Revenant and The Hateful Eight, went on to become Golden Globe winners earlier this week.

There can be little doubt that the leaks generated significant additional publicity that otherwise the films would not have enjoyed, but still the big question remains. Will these movies eventually reap the financial benefits of word-of-mouth marketing as a result of their early (not to mention illegal) online appearances?

The battle lines in this debate were drawn early with Hive-CM8, the group behind the leaks, setting out its arguments (by way of an unusual apology) in the dying days of 2015.

“Since everyone is now talking about [The Hateful Eight] we don’t think the producers will [lose] any money [upon theatrical release]. We actually think this has created a new type of media hype that is more present in the news, radio and in the papers than Star Wars, and the promotional costs for this were free,” the group said.

Perhaps needless to say, Hollywood doesn’t share the group’s view on the promotional benefits of giving away free copies of the latest movies before their theatrical release. Last week the producer of The Hateful Eight aired his displeasure and now its the turn of the powerful Copyright Alliance.

Counting the MPAA, RIAA, ESA, BSA, NBA and Getty Images among its members, the Copyright Alliance has more heavyweight entertainment industry support than any other lobby group on the planet. It’s fair to say that the words of its CEO Keith Kupferschmid echo the sentiments of most in Hollywood and he is not happy with Hive-CM8.

In a piece titled ‘Sorry Not Sorry’, Kupferschmid refutes the group’s assertion that their leaks will help movies like The Hateful Eight and pours scorn on their recent apology.

“It’s pretty obvious that Hive’s statement is self-serving, not to mention patently false and ill-informed. Even fellow Redditors derided the group. And while refuting most of their assertions is probably unnecessary, perhaps this incident can be used as a teachable moment,” Kupferschmid begins.

“Specifically, the false notion that piracy amounts to ‘free advertising’ is persistent and widespread. As demonstrated above, proponents contend that piracy is a good thing because it generates buzz that leads to increased sales that more than offset piracy’s harms.”

While discussion around the leaks has indeed been fierce in recent weeks, it’s almost unprecedented for someone like Kupferschmid to respond publicly to comments made by a group like Hive-CM8. It’s doubtful that the group will officially continue the debate, but the Copyright Alliance CEO is certainly clear on his position.

“In reality, Hive’s free advertising justification for ‘The Hateful Eight’ leak represents a fundamental lack of understanding about the film business and the creative industries in general,” he asserts.

“If marketing a new film, album or book was as easy as leaking it online, movie studios, record labels and book publishers would do it themselves. However, when releasing new creative works, the success of these works depends on creating new markets and consumer awareness, which requires far more than just dumping content online.”

Detailing components of The Hateful Eight’s marketing plan, which included a roadshow and the pirate-impossible 70mm Ultra-Panavision format, Kupferschmid underlines the efforts expended by the movie’s producers on the promotional front. He also makes it quite clear that simply dumping content online is a blunt-instrument in today’s complex market place.

“We live in a world where consumers have never had more entertainment choices. While this competition is great for the creative community and for consumers, it also means that connecting with consumers is more difficult and expensive than it has been in the past, and requires a level of creativity and ingenuity far beyond just simply leaking the creative work online,” he explains.

“The notion that a faceless group of Internet outlaws drives audience buzz – more than a creative team’s marketing campaign, advertising, and promotions – is patently absurd.”

There can be little doubt that the level of sophistication required for a leak falls short of that employed by the seasoned professionals involved in the marketing of a major movie. Nevertheless, leaks of all kinds persisted throughout 2015 and the industry still turned in a record-setting $38 billion box office bonanza.

While those kinds of figures make it more difficult for Hollywood to sell the notion that piracy is killing cinema, the idea that piracy is actually good for sales is dismissed by the Copyright Alliance CEO.

“It’s time for the claims that piracy is free advertising and good for creators to fade to black,” Kupferschmid concludes.

For now, Hive-CM8 remain quiet and it seems likely that their screener run has come to an end. There was some excitement a few days ago when a file titled DVDSCR.PACK.2015.XVID.AC3.HQ.Hive-CM8 trickled around one or two secretive private sites, but ultimately it was found to contain no new material.

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

On December 9, 2014, the file-sharing world received a bombshell.

“There has been a crackdown on a server room in Greater Stockholm. This is in connection with violations of copyright law,” said Paul Pintér, police national coordinator for IP enforcement in Sweden.

More than ten police officers had entered a data center embedded into the side of a mountain in Nacka, just outside the capital. And with The Pirate Bay, EZTV and several other torrent related sites offline, it became clear this was no ordinary raid.

Days later it was revealed that police had held a still-unnamed key suspect in custody for a week.

“The suspicions relate to a violation of copyright law. Everything is being analyzed now and new hearings may possibly be held,” prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad said.

A major criminal investigation was clearly underway but months passed, seemingly without progress. In the meantime The Pirate Bay came back online, business as usual, leaving the authorities to try and pick up the pieces and join the dots.

But now, more than 13 months later, it appears that far from making significant progress, things are moving in the other direction.

In comments made to local media, Fredrik Ingblad says that the investigation into one of the key suspects in the case is now effectively over.

“Parts of the investigation are closed. And that’s because the police do not have the resources to analyze the seized hardware,” Ingblad says.

At least in part it appears that determination to leave no stone unturned contributed to the position police now find themselves in. During the raid police seized around 50 servers, some live, some from the datacenter’s storage rooms.

Also seized were computers and various servers owned by the former suspect but according to the prosecutor the task of analyzing the evidence they contain never properly got off the ground. Whether that’s due to sheer volume or possible encryption isn’t clear, but in any event it appears that very little has been done.

“These kinds of investigations take time, but in this particular case [the police] have barely begun to analyze the hardware and I have not received a plan when the police can start working again,” Ingblad says.

According to IDG, when questioned by Ingblad on their apparent lack of progress, police pointed to a lack of IT resources available to investigate the case. That, combined with a general lack of evidence to indicate that the suspect had committed any crime, means that the case against him was stood down.

Ingblad wouldn’t be drawn on questions of whether it’s common for cases to be dropped due to a lack of resources but conceded this was a first time for him. Describing his decision to drop the case against the suspect as unfortunate, Ingblad says the investigation into other suspects continues.

Precisely how many people remain on the police radar is unclear but it’s likely that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij remains a suspect.

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

While the actions of BREIN in the Netherlands and PIPCU and FACT in the UK have made it clear that neither country are safe havens for pirates, other regions around Europe are more permissive.

Although there are exceptions, the further south and east one travels the less likely it is that either site operators or consumers sharing copyrighted content will fall foul of entertainment industry action. Nevertheless, problems can occur.

In 2014, popular torrent site, streaming portal and warez link site SWZ (SpeedWarezZ / SWZ Torrent) was raided by authorities in Hungary following action from a local content distributor and national tax authorities. The site had been in operation since 2011 offering a wide of content but it was movies that attracted the most attention.

Now, more than a year later, four men said to be the key individuals behind the site face an aggressive prosecution almost unheard of in the country. According to an announcement from the district prosecutor’s office in Cegléd, the men face numerous charges relating to the unlawful distribution of copyright works.

It’s alleged that between September 2011 to October 2014 at least 1,900 movies were made available without permission via SWZ. It has not been made clear precisely how the content was distributed but in addition to offering links from elsewhere, SWZ certainly operated its own tracker.

Aside from their interest in file-sharing, the accused are a disparate group. According to local media, one man is retired, another a student, while a third is currently unemployed. The fourth is the technical director of a German-Hungarian IT company.

While the men never met up in person they coordinated online, with the site’s social pages acting as a platform for promoting content and dealing with user issues.

As is common with most similar sites, users of SWZ raced in order to be the first to upload the most popular content. That material was then curated by the site and its operators in order to maximize traffic.

The prosecution claims that the site generated revenue from advertising while receiving payments/donations from users via PayPal and SMS, a popular mechanism for transferring cash in the region.

The upshot is that the men now face serious charges of distributing copyrighted content for which they held no licenses while profiting from the same. In addition to rightsholders claiming almost $1.2m in damages, the men also face up to eight years in jail, a harsh punishment compared to almost anywhere in Europe.

Whether this prosecution is an indication of things to come remains to be seen but it should perhaps be of interest to at least one of the world’s largest torrent sites which currently operates servers in Hungary.

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

Since this piece is about TorrentFreak content, we need to make it clear that any reader is free to do what they like with our material within the bounds of our Creative Commons license. Were not only happy for you to do that, we’re very proud that you’re sharing us with others.

However, some of our readers – those in the copyright lobby – like to make use of our content while doing their best not to give us credit. While hat-tips from them aren’t what we’re striving for here, it should be a concern to everyone when they’re prepared to throw the standards they impose on others out of the window.

In this instance i’m talking about the powerful Copyright Alliance, the US-based anti-piracy organization which counts the MPAA, RIAA and a who’s-who of industry companies among its members.

For weeks now the group’s Twitter account has been the cause of wry smiles behind this keyboard since despite the spending of the endless hours that go into producing TorrentFreak, the Copyright Alliance has gone out of its way to avoid crediting the site for its work.

At the very thin end of the scale, on several occasions TF has been the first to break news only to see the Copyright Alliance Twitter account promoting other sites reporting on the same stories much later. But all that really shows is that they’re slow to respond – big deal.

No, the major irritant is when the Copyright Alliance promotes our original content to its readers but then gives others the credit, which by their own standards is taking things too far.

As you can see, despite IBTimes clearly citing us as the source for their short summary of our exclusive on how the UK’s most prolific pirates were caught, the Copyright Alliance deliberately credited them, not us.

Nevertheless, that wasn’t the instance that caused the most eye-rolling.

While trying to ensure TF had fresh content every day over Christmas, we came up with a post debunking some of the most persistent piracy myths. Within hours another website took the piece, plagiarized it, and presented it as their own work.

But so what? If they can make a couple of bucks from it, good for them. It doesn’t hurt us and might even get file-sharing news out to a fresh audience somewhere. Perhaps more importantly, that site doesn’t claim to be “championing artists’ and creators’ rights.”

No, what actually lit the touch paper was the creators’ champions at the Copyright Alliance using their Twitter account to promote the plagiarized version over ours.

To be extremely clear, we aren’t looking for a pat on the back from the Copyright Alliance. But when they publish articles titled Giving Credit (and Hat Tips) Where Credit is Due containing the words “It’s a positive sign that people are recognizing the importance of crediting creative content and it’s origins…”, someone needs to hold them to their own standards.

And amazingly they’re standards they simply can’t maintain.

Just as this article was nearing completion on Friday, the Copyright Alliance did it again by deliberately linking to a piece in Metro covering our report from earlier in the week, despite that piece clearly citing us as the source.

Again, we aren’t getting any traffic from them and don’t want or need their support, but the Copyright Alliance are showing time and again that they do not practice what they preach. And this is only what we see in public.

Love them or loathe them, anti-piracy outfits have a right to exist and a right to go about their business. And, as annoying as it might be to some, governments across the world accept their legitimacy in a way that pirates can only dream of. As a result they tend to occupy the moral high-ground almost everywhere they tread.

But what this little episode shows is that unlike a site like this, which promotes both positive and negative news about copyright and piracy issues, organizations like the Copyright Alliance are only interested in pushing their own agenda in the way they see fit.

And if that means trampling on the rights of creators whom they don’t like (or don’t get paid by), so be it.

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