Author: Andy

On Thursday following a two-week trial, a Virginia federal jury ruled that US-based ISP Cox Communications could be held liable for piracy carried out by its users.

After failing to act on copyright infringement warnings sent by anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp on behalf of music publisher BMG, Cox was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered to pay $25 million in damages.

At the time of writing Cox is considering its options, including the possibility of appeal, but should the ruling stand the piracy landscape in the United States could be changed forever.

Internet service providers

Firstly, rival Internet service providers such as Comcast are likely to be somewhat nervous about how this decision will affect them and how they will be expected to handle copyright complaints in the future.

During the BMG case the judge found that Cox’s repeat infringer policy was lacking, so much so that it that meant the company lost its safe harbor protections under the DMCA.

It is now likely that if they haven’t already done so, major ISPs will be scrambling to have very clear repeat infringer processes committed to paper and have their employees follow them to the letter. After the decision this week, any one of them could be beaten with the same stick used to beat Cox.

The big question, however, is exactly how repeat infringers will be handled and what their ultimate punishment will be. In the Cox case the clear suggestion was that there needed to be not only suspensions, but also disconnections. That is not something that currently happens regularly in the United States.

Six Strikes

While Cox was one of the few large ISPs that refused to join, most major ISPs in the United States are already part of the so-called ‘Six Strikes’ (Copyright Alerts) scheme. Officially known as the Copyright Alerts System, the program sees pirating subscribers receive escalating warnings about their copyright infringing behaviors.

Along the way they may also face mitigation measures, such as a temporary break in service while having to fill in a copyright-related questionnaire. But then, after the sixth ‘strike’, it appears nothing much happens.

While terminations may be threatened by ISPs, there is no evidence to suggest they are being carried out on anything like a large scale. Certainly, the ‘Six Strikes’ deal itself does not mandate disconnections for repeat infringers, it merely makes the suggestion that could be an option for ISPs.

Nevertheless, if the Cox decision stands, ISPs across the United States will be more aware of the implications of handling infringers in the way that Cox has. At the very least they will be seeking to maintain their Safe Harbor protections under the DMCA so dealing with subscribers more firmly (or at least more clearly) seems the likely outcome.

Rightscorp

As it stands thus far, Thursday was a good day for Rightscorp. The company hasn’t been doing well for some time but its argument that ISPs must implement disconnections for repeat infringers now has more momentum than it did before. That positivity for the company also reflected in its stock Thursday, albeit it briefly.

But while on the surface the disconnection threat might seem good for Rightscorp, in practice things may not work out so well.

Rightscorp currently tries to negotiate with alleged pirates with the suggestion that the anti-piracy outfit won’t press for ISP disconnection as long as people pay the cash demanded in their settlement emails. However, if one assumes that the Cox decision stands then the power over whether to disconnect someone is now well and truly out of Rightscorp’s hands.

In the past Rightscorp might’ve pushed an ISP to pressure a subscriber, but with ISPs taking more of an interest in preserving Safe Harbor protections, subscribers paying Rightscorp won’t have any positive effect on whether a customer is disconnected or not. After all, one cannot simply pay a fine to a third party to absolve an ISP of liability under the law.

Granted, outfits like BMG might agree not to sue ISPs if they pass on Rightscorp’s threats and subscribers pay their fines, but ISPs will have to put policies in place across the board and it’s difficult to imagine any copyright holders getting special treatment. Furthermore, if ISPs have solid repeat infringer policies, there will be nothing to sue them over.

Finally, and perhaps crucially, disconnected former Internet users generate zero revenue for Rightscorp.

Internet users

Presuming that the Cox decision stands (and it may not after appeal), US Internet subscribers could be faced with a new reality, one that doesn’t simply allow them to pirate most online content with impunity. Sure, copyright trolls do snag a few thousand in their nets, but overall nothing currently happens to Internet pirates.

Presuming that “six strikes” is where the line is drawn in the sand, subscribers could be faced with not having access to the Internet, at least from their current supplier, after getting caught six times. That’s a lot of chances by almost any measure but will most users allow things to get that far?

Is it likely that many more subscribers, faced with a guarantee of disconnection, will take measures to protect their activities online by using VPNs or similar anonymity tools?

While that remains to be seen, the implications of mass anonymity could be intriguing. Not only will subscribers eliminate the threat of disconnection, but US ISPs will also have fewer concerns over disconnecting users. On top, trolls like Rightscorp will have much fewer people to chase for cash.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. With at least $25m at stake it’s likely that the Cox case will run for some time yet. And it could be quite a ride.

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

February 1 2013, was a miserable day for five of the UK’s most prolific online movie pirates.

Following an investigation by the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft, police raided Graeme Reid, 40, from Chesterfield, Scott Hemming, 25, and Reece Baker, 22, both from Birmingham, Sahil Rafiq, 24, of Wolverhampton and Ben Cooper, 33, of Willenhall.

The investigation into the activities of these men had been running for three years as FACT attempted to identify and track the individuals behind several interrelated movie release groups including RemixHD, 26K, UNiQUE, DTRG and HOPE/RESISTANCE.

The five men were arrested and by January 2015 all had pleaded guilty to charges of Conspiracy to Defraud.

The extent of the infringement claimed by FACT was huge. The anti-piracy group said that between March 1, 2010 and January 1, 2014, the groups had together released more than 9,000 movies onto the Internet resulting in around five million unauthorized views.

FACT claimed that around £52m of Hollywood revenues had been “put at risk” – an amount that was detailed in our report last weekend.

Following a so-called Newton hearing that began in Wolverhampton Crown Court on Monday, the men finally admitted causing the industry more than £5 million in losses, around £1 million each.

Yesterday afternoon in Wolverhampton Crown Court Judge Nicolas Webb carried out sentencing and it’s a dismal result for the men.

Sahil Rafiq, accused of uploading more than 880 movies and causing 1.5 million illegal downloads as founder of 26K, was jailed for 4 years and 6 months.

Reece Baker, a member of DTRG and the founder of HOPE/RESISTANCE, was jailed for 4 years and 2 months after being accused of causing more than 226,000 illegal downloads. Baker aggravated his circumstances by continuing to release movies online even while he was on bail.

Graeme Reid, the founder of ‘RemixHD’ and with connections to ‘UNiQUE’, was accused of causing 1.1 million illegal downloads and was jailed for 3 years and 6 months.

Ben Cooper, a member of HOPE and the founder of release groups ANALOG and TCM, was jailed for 3 years and 6 months after being blamed for more than 150,000 illegal downloads.

Scott Hemming, who is said to have released around 800 movies online which together were downloaded a minimum of 2.6 million times, received a 2 year suspended sentence.

Following their most aggressive private prosecution to date, the Federation Against Copyright Theft is celebrating success.

“Today’s sentencing is a great success for FACT as it marks the first time a release group has been criminally prosecuted. Rafiq, Baker, Reid, Cooper and Hemming were all aware that they were engaging in criminal activity. Their actions have now cost them their liberty,” says FACT Director General, Kieron Sharp.

“The result of this case sends out a serious message to anyone engaging in online piracy to think twice or face getting caught, prosecuted and sent to prison.

A source very close to the case informs TorrentFreak that the sentences would’ve been greater had the men not pleaded guilty early. However, there was still a penalty for those who did not immediately accept FACT’s version of events in the group’s private prosecution.

Immediately before yesterday’s hearing, TF was informed that those who did not dispute anything would receive a third knocked off their sentence. Those that did dispute FACT’s evidence would receive only a quarter.

However, while the sentences are no doubt extremely aggressive, there could be light at the end of the tunnel. TF is informed that two of the men already had criminal records but the others could eventually, if not quickly, be moved to a low security prison. Yesterday morning, at least one was hoping for decent conditions.

“We will all be in an open prison so will probably only do a few months inside then be allowed home for visits. We will then probably be placed on tag [outside prison but monitored] due to the fact three out of the five had no prior convictions at all,” TF was told.

The inside track to this case is intriguing and will be detailed in a future TF report.

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

Millions of people use BitTorrent networks every day to obtain and share all kinds of media, from the latest movies and TV shows to music and even research papers. The majority do so from the comfort of their own home but that’s not always the case.

People who spend a lot of time at work, whether that’s in a regular office, factory, warehouse or even shopping environment, often get access to the Internet. And, if rules don’t explicitly or technically prohibit it, some will use that access to share files online.

This kind of activity isn’t always welcomed by employers, with concerns ranging from the productivity of staff to the security of networks, both from technical and legal standpoints.

This morning IT security rating company BitSight Technologies brought these issues into focus with a new report titled “Peer to Peer Peril: How BitTorrent File Sharing Impacts Benchmarking and Vendor Risk.”

According to the report, out of more than 30,700 companies and organizations rated by BitSight for security performance, 23% demonstrated some online activity using the BitTorrent protocol.

“Many organizations explicitly ban this activity, yet there is evidence that in some industries over a quarter of companies are currently sharing files over the BitTorrent protocol. While some of these files are likely legitimate, many of them are labeled as movies, games and other copyrighted material,” the company explains.

To identify trends in each sector, BitSight has broken down industries into various categories including Media/Entertainment, Education, Government, Retail, Energy/Utilities etc. The rates of sharing are shown in the image below.

Unsurprisingly, educational establishments come out on top (or bottom, depending on perspective) when it comes to BitTorrent usage with around 58% of organizations demonstrating some level of participation. It’s worth noting that only one instance of sharing in the past six month is enough to appear in BitSight’s report.

That being said, BitSight reports that around 32% of government entities demonstrate some level of file-sharing with close to 28% on BitTorrent. The media and entertainment sector is also an eye-opener, with around 23% of companies showing BitTorrent activity. Whether that’s due to employees sharing content or spying on others while doing so is impossible to say.

The BitSight report goes into some detail when it speaks of the risks of file-sharing in the corporate space, not least the dangers of employees downloading copyrighted and potentially malware-infested content. The company carried out its own tests and concluded that “43% of applications and 39% of games were carrying malicious code.”

The big question, however, is BitSight’s motivation to produce this kind of report. Obviously threat analysis is its business but information accompanying the report provides a more immediate answer – BitSight has a new product to sell within its Security Ratings platform.

According to the company the module allows customers to “monitor and assess” BitTorrent activity on their own and third party vendor networks. In fact, the module goes a whole lot further than providing a basic outline of employee activity.

“An overview of observed file sharing activity including applications, books, games, movies, music, TV and other files is now available to all customers using the BitSight platform,” the company explains.

“Users can also subscribe to additional forensic information, allowing them to identify torrent names, event dates, peer IP information and other details.”

It seems likely that when employees know that they are being subjected to this level of scrutiny, many will seriously consider changing their behavior. That being said, BitSight still have to convince companies to install their software in the first instance.

The report (pdf), which also attempts to associate BitTorrent usage with botnet prevalence, might yet achieve that.

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

While karaoke might not be the pinnacle of original musical excellence, yesterday the UK’s leading police anti-piracy unit took action which suggests it takes karaoke every bit as seriously as other intellectual property.

And, somewhat interestingly, there could be more to this sing-a-long case than first meets the eye. First, let’s see what the police had to say.

Acting on a complaint initially filed by members of the BPI, City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) initiated an investigation during the summer against individuals allegedly uploading karaoke tracks to the Internet without permission.

That resulted in raids yesterday on three men aged 60, 53, and 50 at their homes in Devon and Bury in the UK.

“The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) has dismantled a gang suspected of uploading and distributing tens of thousands of karaoke tracks online, including artists such as Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Kylie Minogue and Kanye West,” PIPCU said in a statement.

While police use the term ‘gang’ here it’s not one frequently associated with karaoke fans and the further one digs into the activities of the men, the less it seems to fit.

Together the trio formed Karaoke RG (KRG), a release group specializing in karaoke tracks. Police say their activities on KickassTorrents piqued the interest of copyright holders – their still-active account has around 2150 uploads during the past two years.

However, Kickass wasn’t KRG’s home base. In recent times the group has operated from two domains, the first being Karaokerg.info. This Weebly-created site is probably the first indication that KRG aren’t necessarily in the kind of ‘gang’ the police usually have the displeasure of dealing with.

The second and catchily-titled freehomemadekaraoke.wordpress.com probably removes all doubt.

KaraokeRG publishes a master list of the tracks they offer (stored on Dropbox and Box) and there are indeed songs from major artists present. However, their description of what they are offering is certainly food for thought.

“The following is a list of all KaraokeRG homemade CD+G karaoke songs. They were created primarily because they are not available from any professional karaoke manufacturers. However, in some cases, some songs were made available by professional karaoke companies AFTER they were homemade,” KRG write.

That KRG were into the ‘DIY’ side of karaoke is underlined elsewhere too.

“Although our homemade karaoke tracks are free to download, they are time consuming and costly to produce. I.E. Paying for backing tracks (some backing tracks can cost up to £12).”

So, some important points. KRG claim they are servicing a gap in the market by hand-creating their own karaoke titles that aren’t commercially available. In this respect there are parallels with the fan-subbing communities surrounding anime, for example.

However, it’s likely that the backing tracks they’re using are subject to copyright restrictions so even giving those away are likely to cause issues, even with ‘homemade’ subtitling.

The Karaoke Anti-Piracy Agency UK (KAPA UK) which counts the top five karaoke producers in the country among its members (Sunfly, Zoom, Mr Entertainer, SBI, Abraxa), is tasked with cracking down on the unlicensed use of backing tracks in karaoke venues around the country. KAPA UK works closely with the BPI.

Also causing KRG problems is their claim that their activities are protected under copyright law.

“These tracks are NOT FOR SALE. They are provided as a service to singers everywhere under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (The ‘Fair Use’ section). The tracks are made available for private use only and not intended for commercial use. There will be no ‘vocal suppression’ tracks ever included in this list,” they write.

Sadly for KRG, the section cited above is a component of United States copyright law and is not available as a defense (even in the unlikely event it could be applied in this instance) for residents of the UK. In fact, in this case the BPI characterizes the infringement as “commercial scale”, despite money not being a key motivator.

“The Release Groups which set themselves up to gain Kudos from the early release of music repertoire need to understand that this behavior is harmful to the industry that they claim to support. Actions like this send a strong message that this should not and will not be tolerated,” says John Hodge, BPI Head of Internet Investigations.

For their part, PIPCU see groups like KaraokeRG as just another part of the piracy machine costing the music industry “millions of pounds” while threatening thousands of jobs.

“PIPCU will continue to target the individuals and the organized crime gangs facilitating these crimes, working with key partners like the BPI to ensure that those most responsible are brought to justice,” says PIPCU’s Detective Constable Ceri Hunt.

This morning PIPCU confirmed that the “karaoke gang” had been released on bail but whether any more will be heard about them will remain to be seen. Although PIPCU have made many file-sharing related arrests over the past couple of years, no cases have yet ended up in court.

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

The company behind Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) has made a business not only from making movies, but also chasing down those alleged to have shared content online without permission.

In several jurisdictions the company has been bringing in cash settlements from alleged pirates but an attempt to do so in Australia is now close to total collapse.

Earlier this year the company was given permission to obtain the personal details of 4,726 alleged pirates. However, concerns over DBC’s tendency to engage in so-called ‘speculative invoicing’ alarmed the court and resulted in Justice Nye Perram restraining the company’s actions.

Instead of a lucrative business plan, DBC was faced with only being able to claim for the price of the film and a proportion of the amount spent on tracking down an alleged infringer. And, to ensure the company didn’t pull a fast one, the Judge ordered the payment of a huge AUS$600,000 bond.

DBC responded by watering down its claim to just 10% of the original subscribers in return for a AUS$60,000 bond. Then last month the company tried to re-convince Perram that it should be able to claim a licensing fee from alleged pirates too.

In a judgment handed down this morning, Justice Nye Perram made it clear that DBC would not be able to do so. Despite having had plenty of opportunity to do so, DBC has not provided any evidence of what a reasonable license fee might be, the Judge explained.

Furthermore, should such evidence be forthcoming it is unlikely to be straightforward. DBC claim that pirates need to pay a fee to obtain a worldwide distribution license but the Judge said that fathoming the cost of a hypothetical BitTorrent license would be laborious.

However, even if that process was undertaken (Perram likens it opening Pandora’s Box), it might then lead to iiNet, whose customers are being targeted, seeking to put a value on a license itself. That would risk further prolonging the case and could possibly trigger a trial within a trial

“It needs to be kept in mind that what is before the Court is a preliminary discovery application, not Ben-Hur,” Perram’s ruling reads.

“The interests of justice are not served in comparatively modest procedural litigation such as the instant case by permitting no stone to go unturned. The enterprises of the parties must be kept proportionate to what they are arguing about.”

After considering legal argument put forward by DBC and its recent maneuvering to change how compensation would be sought, Justice Perram said he saw no reason to deviate from the ruling he handed down during the summer.

“I do not accept that DBC should be permitted to do anything beyond what I indicated in the August Judgment. Since that is not what it is proposing to do, I am not going to lift the stay,” he wrote.

“As a matter of logic this means that the question of whether I should permit a lower bond to be posted because DBC now only proposes to pursue the smaller class of iiNet customers does not arise.”

In addition to throwing out DBC’s most recent application and ordering the company to pay costs, this morning the Judge set the clock ticking on the entire case.

“The present application must be dismissed with costs. Some finality must now be brought to these proceedings,” the Judge said.

“What I will do is make a self-executing order which will terminate the proceedings on Thursday 11 February 2016 at noon, unless DBC takes some step before then.”

Since DBC has shown an impressive amount of determination since the beginning of proceedings, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the company tried to pull something out of the hat, even at this late stage.

However, at this point DBC’s position is one of a gambler, heavily down on his luck, losing more money by the second, but still with an eye on the jackpot. Even now it still might be worth doubling down but with the Judge’s patience and now timing running out too, the odds are not looking great.

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

Taken for granted by hundreds of millions of Internet users on a daily basis, domain names are part of the crucial glue holding the Internet together.

Websites can exist without domains but finding sites using IP addresses alone represents a huge step back for most humans who find words more convenient than long sequences of numbers.

Last week The Pirate Bay had a serious issue with one of its key domains, when the original ThePirateBay.org was suspended by its registrar EuroDNS due to an ICANN verification complaint.

That problem was fixed several days later with a switch to a new registrar but the site has issues affecting a much broader range of domains.

First up and illustrated below, ThePirateBay.com is now under suspension following action by EuroDNS. Once again the problems appear to stem back to verification issues with domain governing body ICANN.

Since January 1, 2014, ICANN has required that the contact details provided to register a domain are verified annually. If this doesn’t happen, problems like those now facing The Pirate Bay can occur.

As a result, similar suspension pages are now also displayed on several other Pirate Bay related domains including ThePirateBay.net, PirateBay.net and PirateBay.org. While none of these domains are currently being utilized as main domains for the site, all were being held as backups in case of an emergency.

Also affected today are domains related to Pirate Browser, the TOR-based anti-censorship tool released by The Pirate Bay during August 2013.

Less than a year after its release the tool had been downloaded more than five million times but earlier today its three main domains – piratebrowser.com, piratebrowser.net and piratebrowser.org – were all reporting suspensions.

It’s somewhat ironic that one of the most popular website/domain unblocking tools has itself become blocked due to a domain issue. However, for those keen to download PirateBrowser the site still exists at its less-memorable IP address of 151.80.2.54.

All seven domains identified by TorrentFreak as being under suspension are registered to the same person, Pirate Bay co-founder Fredrik Neij. He is also the official registrant of dozens of other Pirate Bay-related domains but the others are not registered with EuroDNS and don’t appear to be affected by the current issues.

Since last week’s problems with ThePirateBay.org were solved by transferring the domain to Canada-based EasyDNS, it’s likely that a similar process will bring the currently suspended domains back to life in the not too distant future.

In the meantime The Pirate Bay sails on, almost as if nothing had happened.

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

Following a series of High Court orders obtained since 2012, six of the UK’s major ISPs are required to block access to dozens of the world’s most popular ‘pirate’ sites.

It started off simply enough, with rightsholders targeting the main domains used by sites such as The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents, Torrentz, ExtraTorrent and other major players.

Soon video streaming portals and MP3 download sites were also added to the equation and the list of blocked domains began to expand at a rapid rate. However,
what happened next is perhaps best illustrated by the now popular image shown below.

In an effort to circumvent blocks, dozens of proxies, mirrors and clones of all the popular sites began to appear. While not having the credibility of the sites’ main domains, for most casual pirates these provided a simple way to keep using The Pirate Bay and many other sites.

As a result, entertainment companies in the UK are now engaged in the largest whac-a-mole game ever seen online. Having blocked pretty much every site’s main domain, they’re now attempting to block every ‘circumvention’ site. The task is not only enormous but never ending.

In October alone dozens of new domains were added to the UK’s rapidly expanding blocklist. In November, Hollywood and the labels were back again, taking down another 170 domains. And with December only half done, yet another wave has just hit the UK’s shores.

Implemented by BT, Sky, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, O2 and EE, more than 85 domains are in the latest batch. Detailed in full below, it reads like Groundhog Day for the entertainment industries.

The vast majority represent yet more attempts to stop people accessing The Pirate Bay and one has to wonder who is winning this war and whether it will ever end. No soon as copyright holders add dozens of Pirate Bay-connected domains to its blocklists, dozens more appear.

Making matters worse is that they are both easy and cheap to buy, making domains a temporary and ‘throwaway’ item. Furthermore, since these days all major ‘pirate’ players eventually become demoted in Google’s search results, fresh and relatively unknown proxies make it to the top with greater ease than ever before.

The same is true for sites facilitating access to other large torrent sites. The latest batch directly and indirectly targets KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, BitSnoop, LimeTorrents, Torrents.net, Monova, Torlock, TorrentCrazy, TorrentFunk, TorrentHound, TorrentReactor, to name a few.

Directly or via their clones, imitators, proxies or mirrors, this month various key MP3 sites are also in the firing line. They include emp3world, mp3clan, mp3raid, mp3skull, stafaband and newalbumreleases. All of these sites have been targeted several times before and each time new ways of accessing them have appeared.

But while on a top-line level blocking seems almost futile, it will be having an effect. The constant hunt for new domains has the potential to frustrate users of ‘pirate’ sites and as highlighted before, blocking efforts are almost certainly diluting the brand value of major sites.

The big question that remains unanswered, however, is if any of this is actually translating into additional sales. If it is, thus far entertainment industry companies have kept well away from making the connection. One might exist, of course, but asking for more aggressive options from government and the courts is almost certainly the preferred strategy.

The latest batch of blocked domains

1337x.unblocked.pe
accessbay.link
arrr.xyz
bay-proxy.com
beemp3.unblocked.pe
bitsnoop.unblocked.pe
btdigg.unblocked.pe
btstor.cc
clubpiratebay.com
emp3world.biz
emp3world.unblocked.pe 14th Dec 2015
emtorrent.com
ettorrent.com
extratorrent.works
fastpiratebay.co.uk
kickass.cr
limetor.co
limetorrenturlhd.com
magnetsearch.net
magnetsearch.org
mirrorpirate.com
monova.unblocked.pe
mp3clan.club
mp3raid.unblocked.pe
mp3skull.la
mp3skull.unblocked.pe
my-pirate-bay.com
mymirrorbay.com
newalbumreleases.unblocked.pe
oldbayproxy.eu
pbproxy.com
pirate-bay-proxy.com
pirate-proxy.org
piratebay.host
piratebay.to
piratebaygurus.com
piratebayhunter.com
piratebaymirror.net
piratebays.co
piratebays.co.uk
piratehole.com
pirateproxies.net
pirateproxy.pl
pirateproxy.tf
pirateproxy.wiki
pirateproxybay.com
pirateproxyhk.qc.to
piratewiki.info
proxypirate.eu
proxypirate.pw
seedpeer.unblocked.pe
simplepiratebay.com
smartpiratebay.com
the-pirate-bay-proxy.com
the-pirate-bay.net
the-proxy-bay.com
thebay.tv
thefastbay.com
thepiratebay.casa
thepiratebay.cool
thepiratebay.cd
thepiratebay.eu.com
thepiratebay.expert
thepiratebay.link
thepiratebay.mk
thepiratebay.uk.net
thepirateproxy.co
thepirateweb.com
theproxypirate.pw
torlock.unblocked.pe
torrentbit.ee
torrentbit.unblocked.pe
torrentbush.com
torrentcrazy.unblocked.pe
torrentfunk.unblocked.pe
torrenthound.ee
torrenthounds.com
torrenthound.unblocked.pe
torrentreactor.unblocked.pe
torrentz.ee
tpb.dashitz.com
tpb.proxyduck.org
tpbay.co
tpbproxy.co
unblockbay.com
urbanproxy.eu
urbantorrent.com

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

On February 1 2013, the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft revealed they had joined police officers from the Economic Crime Unit to carry out raids at several addresses in central England.

As Hollywood’s enforcement arm in the UK, FACT were searching for five individuals believed to be behind several prolific and interrelated movie release groups. After a three year investigation, they finally had their men.

Graeme Reid, 40, from Chesterfield, Scott Hemming, 25, and Reece Baker, 22, both from Birmingham, Sahil Rafiq, 24, of Wolverhampton and Ben Cooper, 33, of Willenhall, were all arrested and questioned at length.

By January 2015 all had broadly pleaded guilty to charges of Conspiracy to Defraud. However, the extent of the infringement claimed by FACT in their private criminal prosecution was far in excess of that accepted by the accused.

As a result a so-called ‘Newton hearing’ will take place in a West Midlands court tomorrow, during which both sides will present their evidence to a judge who will try to work out which side is more credible. Information obtained by TorrentFreak reveals that the stakes could hardly be higher.

The numbers behind the prosecution

In order to come to a figure on losses, FACT appear to be relying on data presented publicly by ExtraTorrent, one of the world’s leading torrent sites. According to FACT the defendants were jointly responsible for around 4.2 million illegal downloads on ExtraTorrent alone.

The anti-piracy group will then take the average price of attending a cinema in the UK or buying a DVD or Blu-ray disc. Arriving at a figure convenient for all options, FACT will presume that the defendants’ actions “put at risk” at least £52,000,000 in studio revenues on ExtraTorrent alone.

However, taking into consideration that not every download is a lost sale, FACT is expected to disregard infringement carried out on all other torrent sites and settle on an overall “actual loss” of £4,200,000. Let’s see how this affects each defendant.

Graeme Reid

FACT will allege that Reid was the founder and leader of ‘RemixHD’, a release group that specialized in DVD and Blu-ray rips. The anti-piracy group will also state that Reid had connections with another famous group known as ‘UNiQUE’.

FACT will accuse Reid of causing more than 1.1 million illegal downloads, although the anti-piracy group insists this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Value of property “put at risk” – £11m
Actual loss claimed – £1.1m

Reece Baker

FACT will allege that Baker used several online identities and was initially a member of a release group known as DTRG. Baker left DTRG to found a new group called HOPE which was later named to RESISTANCE. FACT claim that Baker also operated DEYA and was involved in sourcing, encoding and uploading movies.

It is understood that Baker will be accused of causing more than 226,000 illegal downloads on ExtraTorrent but was also involved in distributing other content alleged to be worth £15m.

Value of property “put at risk” – £17m
Actual loss claimed – £1.7m

Sahil Rafiq

According to FACT, Rafiq was also a member of DTRG who went on to become the brains behind release group 26K. He stands accused of collaborating with the other defendants in sourcing, encoding and uploading movies to torrent sites.

Our information suggests that Rafiq is being accused of infringement to the tune of 1.5 million illegal downloads.

Value of property “put at risk” – £15m
Actual loss claimed – £1.5m

Ben Cooper

It is believed that FACT will allege that Cooper founded two release groups known as ANALOG and TCM. It’s also claimed that he participated in HOPE alongside Reece Baker.

FACT will allege that Cooper is to blame for more than 150,500 illegal downloads.

Value of property “put at risk” – £1.5m
Actual loss claimed – £150,000

Scott Hemming

TorrentFreak has been unable to ascertain which groups Hemming belonged to. However, he is being accused of torrenting around 800 movies which together were downloaded a minimum of 2.6 million times.

Value of property “put at risk” – £26m
Actual loss claimed – £2.6m

The implications

As the figures above suggest, the stakes are extremely high for these five men. To find out just how high we have to turn to the sentencing guidelines for Conspiracy to Defraud which detail the sentences that can be applied given the amount defrauded.

– Less than £17,500 – up to 21 months imprisonment
– £17,500 to £100,000 – 2-3 years imprisonment
– £100,000 to £250,000 – 3-4 years imprisonment
– £250,000 to £1 million – 5-9 years imprisonment
– £1 million or more – 10 years + imprisonment

If the court accepts FACT’s version of events, all but one could be looking at a sentence of more than 10 years. To put that into perspective, firearm offenses, poisoning and cruelty to children carry the same maximum punishment.

That being said, the defendants are believed to have entered early guilty pleas which normally have the potential to reduce their sentences. However, TorrentFreak understands that since some defendants have taken their case to the Newton hearing (where evidence is disputed), it may mean that ‘credits’ for an early guilty plea may not be fully applied.

To view the defendants’ predicament from another angle, what they did online could easily be categorized as copyright infringement. However, punishment for online copyright infringement maxes out at just two years in the UK, which is why FACT rejected infringement charges in favor of Conspiracy to Defraud.

Only making matters worse is that FACT is expected to admit that none of the defendants made a penny from their actions.

It is not yet clear when the court will be in a position to carry out sentencing but the early indications suggest that after one of the most aggressive private prosecutions FACT has ever carried out, there’s a real possibility of the toughest punishments Internet pirates have ever seen.

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

When long-time software pirate Jakub F was tracked down by the Business Software Alliance, things were looking bleak.

After years of illegally sharing titles including Microsoft’s Windows, the Czech national faced a police raid at his workplace and the confiscation of a computer and related equipment. And that was only the beginning.

As previously reported, Jakub ended up with a three-year suspended sentence and the possibility of getting sued for more money than he could pay in a lifetime.

However, with little chance of collecting such a huge amount, the BSA made Jakub an offer he couldn’t refuse. Make an anti-piracy ad, reach 200,000 YouTube views, and get away with a financial slap on the wrist.

The deal was done and after a slow start the video suddenly went viral. At the time of writing and against the odds, it now has in excess of one million views.

While Jakub might look sombre in the image above, the (presumably) former pirate must be delighted at achieving his target. Two hundred thousand views was a pretty big ask and he must’ve wondered whether it would be possible. But once news began to spread, people seemed more than happy to help.

At the time though, many (myself included) dismissed Jakub’s video as propaganda. It was, after all, a pirate being paraded in public, humiliated even, for the pleasure of corporate giants. But the more one thinks about it, hasn’t this turned out well for everyone?

After keeping up his side of the bargain, the BSA is finally off Jakub’s back and he can relax, free from the worries of financial ruination. Suspended sentence aside, that’s the best result he could’ve hoped for.

The BSA got what they wanted too. Getting a million views and a viral story for an anti-piracy ad is a really spectacular achievement that nothing has come close to matching in recent years. The UK’s Creative Content campaign, for example, has a lot of backing yet its video has only clocked up 123,000 views since October.

But there are other winners too. The campaign, whatever people thought of it, became a huge talking point for a few days, sparking interest in the whole copyright debate. Did Jakub get what he deserved? Did the BSA go too far? Where can I download Jakub’s stuff? Yes, there was some of that too.

Overwhelmingly though, people seem to come out in support of Jakub, the little guy getting picked on by bullies. While each YouTube click might indeed represent a win for the BSA, each view could also be viewed as an Internet upvote for a desperate man down on his luck. And with Adblock turned on, as some vowed, the BSA wouldn’t get a penny.

Nevertheless, to appreciate the true value of the video one needs to view it through forgiving eyes. While some may disagree, I believe that while a dramatized version of events, the video was a pretty realistic depiction of what can happen to some Internet pirates. They do get tracked, they do get raided, they do face prosecution, fines, damages and God knows what else.

In that respect the BSA video is not only cautionary, but educational. It’s intended as a scare piece, no doubt about that, but for many it will function as a useful and helpful reminder that any prolific sharer is in danger of being singled out online if precautions aren’t being taken. Clearly, some people need reminding.

In this instance everyone gained something from the experience and Jakub got off extremely lightly indeed. If you still have doubts, tune in tomorrow for a really shocking story about several young men teetering on the brink of having their lives changed forever. This BSA deal will look like a walk in the park in comparison and no will come out a winner.

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

While entertainment companies and their anti-piracy allies continue to try, removing copyright-infringing content from the Internet is a huge challenge.

Media can indeed be removed from file-hosting and storage sites, but removing content from BitTorrent networks is a daunting prospect that cannot be achieved by attacking one central point. It’s a multi-pronged effort that returns mixed results, at best.

To this end content providers are focusing on making pirated content harder to find. While it may still exist, if users can’t easily locate it then download numbers will drop – they hope. As a result, one of the focus points is the role that search engines play in helping people to discover infringing content and infringing sites.

While slow, progress has been steady in the United States and Europe, with Google now downranking sites in search results based on the number of DMCA notices filed against them. Now it is the turn of Russia to ramp up the pressure on search engines via local telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor.

This week the agency, best known for its work to have infringing sites blocked at the ISP level, announced it would create a working group to examine, among other things, the regulation of search engine results.

Just like in the US and elsewhere, rightsholders want search engines including market leader Yandex to either demote or entirely remove infringing sites from search results to make pirate content harder to find. Roskomnadzor agrees that things can be done, but note that it won’t be easy.

“I do not think that Yandex is on the side of the pirates,” said Roskomnadzor chief Alexander Zharov.

“Take a look at what will happen when the work begins on the permanent blocking of pirate sites. The position of rights holders is understandable, but this issue will not be solved today,” he said.

In comments to Russian news outlet Izvestia, Zharov said that the regulation of search results will be considered by a working group comprised of rightsholders, search engine representatives, and other online platforms.

In the meantime, however, Yandex suggests that rather than simply looking at how pirate sites could be attacked, perhaps legitimate content providers learn from their example to make legitimate products more visible.

“Maybe we should think about what could be done to promote legal consumption. The guys who tout the illegal content do an excellent job with their task. Maybe we should look on the positive side,” said Marina Yanina, Vice President of Corporate Relations at Yandex.

Perhaps unsurprisingly Yandex also mirrored sentiments previously held by Google. Since rightsholders have tools to remove content at its source, perhaps they should do so. When that is successful, content will not appear in search results.

“Copyright protection on the Internet is needed, and we encourage copyright holders to apply directly to the hosting providers [hosting the content]. If illegal content disappears from those sites, then the links disappear from search results,” Yandex said.

The working group will have other challenges too, including finding a solution to the problem of website block circumvention. According to Roskomnadzor the rise of mobile apps and other resources are enabling people to get around bans, despite aggressive action being taken by the Moscow Court.

Also, it appears that the country’s website blocking mechanism was ill-prepared to tackle so-called mirror sites – domains that spring up offering identical content to sites already blocked at the ISP level. The working group will be tasked to define in legal terms what a mirror site is, with the possibility of adding such operations to court orders when blocks are handed down.

The working group’s findings will be announced in February 2016.

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