Author: Andy

For many years Sweden was viewed as a world leader in various file-sharing scenes, not least due to the prominence of The Pirate Bay.

Perhaps inevitably, however, this attracted much unwanted attention from authorities in the United States, who felt that Sweden wasn’t doing enough to combat the problem.

These days the opposite is true. Hardly a month goes by without news of another arrest or court case, and December is no different. This week streaming dropped into focus, with police raiding locations in separate parts of the country.

The targets were the operators of Sweflix, one of the country’s most popular illicit streaming portals and a top 1000 site overall. According to IDG, police raided two homes on Tuesday, one in a city in southern Sweden and another in the Uppsala area.

“We have over time carried out surveillance against those who may be behind Sweflix. Then we received information that led to the crackdown,” said Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist.

Authorities initially reported taking three people in for questioning. While one was later released, two remained under arrest yesterday. Both are suspected ringleaders of the busy movie and TV streaming site.

“The two that have been detained know each other and one of them has a family relationship with the third,” Ljungqvist added.

As is usually the case, particularly in Sweden where rightsholder anti-piracy groups have a strong presence, the raid was prompted by complaints from local and international entertainment industry groups including Nordic Video and Disney.

Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist confirmed that some seizures had been made following execution of the warrants but refused to provide details. However, at the time of writing Sweflix remains fully operational, both at Sweflix.net and sweflix.to, an alternative domain that was introduced just a few months ago.

Tackling streaming sites by force is currently one of the few tools available to the authorities. Rightsholders had pinned their hopes on having sites like Pirate Bay and Swefilmer blocked at the ISP level, but a negative decision from the Stockholm District Court last month ruled that out, at least for now.

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

When it’s released on December 15, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is likely to become one of the most popular sci-fi films of all time. Even for non-fans, the anticipation can be felt around the entire web.

No surprise then that Disney and Lucasfilm, the two main companies behind the behemoth, are gearing up for an aggressive anti-piracy campaign should, heaven forbid, the movie leak onto the Internet.

While that is completely understandable, over the past 48 hours the companies have been taking action to aggressively protect their rights in a way that is probably not supported by the law.

The problems began earlier this week when fansite Star Wars Action News posted an update to its Facebook page. An excited Justin revealed that he’d just purchased an action figure of ‘Rey‘ from America’s favorite store.

“Have we known this figure was coming? I just found her at Walmart – no other new figures,” he reported.

Crucially, Justin also posted up a couple of pictures of the boxed figure, which he had legally purchased – not stolen – from the store. However, it didn’t remain up for long.

“These pictures were removed from the post,” Justin wrote in an update. “Facebook notified us they deleted the photos after someone reported them for copyright infringement.”

But this is the Internet and things travel – quickly. Jeremy Conrad at Star Wars Unity subsequently reposted the pictures and he too felt the heat, in a much bigger way.

“This morning I woke up to numerous DMCA takedown notices on the @starwarsunity Twitter account, the Facebook account, the Google+ Page, and my personal Twitter for posting the image of an action figure that was legally purchased at Walmart,” Conrad explains.

“My webhost also received a takedown email from them with a threat of a lawsuit of the image wasn’t removed.”

A lawsuit. For displaying an entirely legal photograph. The copyright to which is presumably owned by Justin at Star Wars Action News. But it didn’t stop there.

Acting on behalf of Lucasfilms, anti-piracy outfit Irdeto has been hitting Twitter, not only filing DMCA notices (below, edited) against people who posted the image, but those who dared to RE-TWEET those tweets.

DMCA Takedown Notice

Copyright owner: Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC.
Name: David Gamble
Company: Irdeto
Job title: Operations Manager
Email address: iiprod_ops@irdeto.com

Description of original work: Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Rey (Resistance Outfit) Figurine

Links to original work: n/a

Reported Tweet URL: https://twitter.com/supersorrell/status/674483899871928321

Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens

Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens

While taking down an image that they don’t own the copyrights to is certainly taking things too far, Lucasfilm appear to have their reasons for doing so.

We’re not Star Wars experts here at TF but from what we understand there is an item printed on the Rey toy packaging that fans of the series will not want to see. That’s why we’re not publishing that picture in all its glory.

That being said, this story would not be complete without referencing the image that has caused all the fuss. With a double-helping of SPOILER WARNINGS and a DON’T BLAME US on top, those who wish to see the image can do so here.

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

Earlier this year the company behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club was granted permission to obtain the personal details of 4,726 Australia-based BitTorrent users alleged to have shared the movie online without permission.

However, DBC’s reputation for so-called “speculative invoicing” had traveled quickly, leading Justice Nye Perram to express concerns over the company’s plans for Australia. And after learning that DBC wanted to interrogate alleged infringers with the aim of extracting large payments from them, the Judge began narrowing the company’s options.

Justice Perram told DBC that it could claim for the price of the film and a proportion of the amount spent on tracking down an alleged infringer, but no more. On top, he ordered the film outfit to pay a AUS$600,000 bond before any subscriber information could be released.

In response, DBC tried a new direction. It asked for the personal details of 10% of the original 4,726 subscribers as a test run of sorts. In return, it asked for the bond to be reduced from AUS$600,000 to AUS$60,000.

Previously Justice Perram had rejected the company’s punitive compensation formula, ruling that DBC could only ask for the cost of the movie (perhaps AUS$20) and the costs it had incurred obtaining their identities from ISPs.

But today DBC were back in court and trying once again to convince the Judge to let them continue pursuing alleged pirates. Presenting a new formula, DBC said it would stop looking at each case individually on its merits and instead present the same settlement offer to all.

Dropping its controversial plan to formulate damages based partly on how many copies of OTHER copyrighted works had been downloaded by each alleged infringer, DBC hung on to its demands that each account holder should pay the cost of the movie. In addition DBC said it would demand a rental charge, a license fee for illegally distributing its copyright work, plus a payment towards its costs.

ITNews reports that DBC’s license calculations were based on a case in which a single unlicensed reprint of a stock photo resulted in a $12,500 damages award. DBC said that its claim was “modest by comparison”.

However, Justice Perram disagreed, describing a figure already presented by DBC in a confidential submission as “not modest”. Furthermore, since DBC had not provided evidence of its licensing arrangements, the Judge could not come to a conclusion on what a reasonable amount might be.

As a result DBC asked for an adjournment so that it could gather and present more evidence, but Justice Perram flat-out refused. Nevertheless, DBC did appear to make some ground today.

Last month the company said it intended to fight for additional damages, despite the Judge indicating that he did not wish to revisit the issue. Today, Justice Perram reluctantly admitted that he may have “misconstrued” the earlier additional damages claim.

“I’ve written four judgments about this case, and I must say, the love is gone … why must I keep deciding this case over and over again?” he said.

All eyes now turn to next week when Perram will decide whether DBC will be allowed to access the details of 10% of the original 4,726 subscribers and if the company will be given permission to appeal the earlier decision to limit claims for damages.

It’s not over yet but DBC still has its eyes glued to the big prize – thousands of dollars in settlements from thousands of Aussie Internet subscribers. And, if they’re successful, more of the same in future.

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

In the early 2000s, international and Danish entertainment industry groups came together to tackle piracy of movies, music and other media.

The resulting Antipiratgruppen (now RettighedsAlliancen / Rights Alliance) needed legal representation and local lawfirm Johan Schlüter was hired for the job, representing groups including the MPAA.

In the years that followed Johan Schlüter became involved in dozens of anti-piracy cases but after continually accusing pirates of being thieves, eventually the tables began to turn. Earlier this year it was reported that an investigation into the company’s accounts had uncovered financial irregularities amounting to millions of dollars.

Carried out by U.S. auditing giant Deloitte, the investigation found that while Johan Schlüter had been collecting rights revenues on behalf of several movie and TV industry groups, the lawfirm hadn’t been handing them all over. The black hole was thought be to around $15m.

Now, however, fresh leaks from the confidential study have revealed the true extent of the shortfall. According to data obtained by Finans.dk, Johan Schlüter failed to hand over around $25m.

The now-defunct Johan Schlüter lawfirm had three owners – Johan Schlüter himself, Lars Halgreen and Susanne Fryland. The latter was responsible for the management of the TV and film producer accounts and appears to be the partner most in the firing line.

Between 2011 and 2015 before Johan Schlüter went bankrupt, Fryland is said to have pocketed almost $2.4m in consultancy fees. In addition the lawyer gave jobs to family members, with one getting paid a salary of more than $94,000. Deloitte said it had difficulty finding out what this person was employed to do.

Another, Fryland’s mother-in-law, was originally employed to deal with administrative issues. However, when Fryland left to have a child, her mother-in-law was given more than a year off while getting paid almost $84,000 to look after the baby.

Klaus Hansen, director at the Producers’ Association, says the report has left him speechless.

“I didn’t think I could be surprised over more in this case, but if it wasn’t so tragic, Deloitte’s report would be worthy of an absurd movie,” Hansen says.

While Susanne Fryland is refusing to comment on the latest allegations, Johan Schlüter maintains he was unaware of any wrongdoing.

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

When one legitimately acquires property, whether a car, a house or even a toy plane, it’s generally accepted that the item can be transferred, for money, to an interested third party.

In the digital domain, however, there are those who feel that things should be different.

For example, IFPI believes that people should not be able to sell their unwanted MP3s, because unlike physical media they don’t deteriorate in quality or require a trip to the record store.

And in 2014, the MPAA argued that allowing people to sell their used videos online would kill innovation, increase consumer prices, and decrease the availability of online film.

With this kind of opposition in mind it was no surprise that yesterday several media outlets began reporting that sellers of used eBooks in the Netherlands had received legal threats from aggressive copyright holders.

In an email titled “Illegal dissemination of digital books”, sellers of pre-owned eBooks were warned, apparently by Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, that their activities were illegal.

“The Brein Foundation acts against piracy of music, film, interactive software and digital books on behalf of rights and stakeholders such as authors, performers, publishers, producers and distributors,” the email begins.

“We’ve detected that you are distributing digital books without permission being granted by the copyright holders. This practice is unlawful towards the rights-holders and if you infringe you are liable for the damage they suffer as a result.”

Worryingly the email then goes off at the deep end, warning of extreme punishments if the sale of used eBooks continues.

“Intentional infringement is punishable as a criminal offense with 6 months imprisonment or a 19,500 euro ($21,200) fine.”

The email signs off in the name of Jan van Voorn, BREIN’s legal counsel, adding an air of authenticity to the claims. However, according to BREIN chief Tim Kuik the emails are nothing to do with his organization.

“We are concerned,” Kuik told nos.nl. “Someone is stirring up weird stuff.”

While BREIN are hardly supporters of people selling used product, the anti-piracy group says it only usually targets those attempting to sell large quantities of illegitimate products online. Indeed, after striking a deal with publishers in 2010, BREIN is now actively chasing down book pirates using Google’s services.

So who then is to blame for the threats? According to Kuik it’s possible that rival used-book sellers are trying to scare away their competitors.

While that does indeed sound plausible, whoever is sending these threats clearly has an understanding of the market, BREIN’s involvement in copyright enforcement, and how to construct a credible threat. Furthermore, the Dutch publishing group that BREIN represents also wishes to ban the sale of used eBooks.

Overall then, the timing of these ‘legal’ threats are coincidental if not curious.

Next week an important case involving the sale of used eBooks via local online marketplace ‘Tom Cabinet’ will head back to court in the Netherlands. Last year the Amsterdam Court dismissed complaints from book publishers, concluding that selling used eBooks sits in a legal gray area.

This time around the publishers will be looking for a more favorable result.

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

While sites such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents are viewed as the public face of large-scale file-sharing, hidden away behind passworded fronts lies the private tracker community.

Many hundreds – possibly thousands – of so-called ‘private trackers’ exist on the Internet today, each serving their own unique blend of users and often focusing on specialist mix of content.

Since these are closed-door communities, few make the headlines. But despite their growth being artificially restricted by strict rules on who can enter, some swell to a significant size. The Denmark-based tracker ‘NextGen‘ is one such site and is currently the country’s 225 most-visited site overall.

Those successes, however, are now in the past. For reasons best known to its operators the site (NG) has now closed its doors, but the notice handed out to more than 40,000 users suggests that all is not well.

“Due to much attention on NG and therefore its users recently, we have decided to shut down the tracker. This is done solely and exclusively for your safety, as during the last few weeks NG has attracted much extra attention,” the site’s operators said in a statement.

“This means not only a greater risk for the staff but also you as users. That is why we have decided that we will no longer take the risk that we or you must end up in a situation that none of us would like. We would like to thank you for the time we have had together, with the hope of a reunion soon.”

While it is fairly common for sites to shut down without giving much of an explanation, in the informational vacuum that follows rumors begin to fly.

For instance, in some quarters much is being made of Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm’s alleged connections to the site. As seen in the image below, his name is indeed present in the site’s domain listings.

But this fact alone is almost certainly not a sign of his direct involvement. In the past, NextGen had dealings with PRQ, a company historically owned by Gottfrid. Over the years countless dozens of sites opted to have PRQ and the Pirate Bay founder’s name as contact details on their domain instead of their own.

That being said, for a successful site to close down so quickly it’s likely that pressure from the authorities had been mounting for some time. As far back as 2011, Danish police arrested then 19-year-old law student Halfdan Timm, accusing him of spreading illegal information on a blog and suggesting he was the NextGen operator.

“At first, they tried to figure out whether I was leading the tracker, searching for hidden equipment in the apartment, but when they realized that wasn’t the case, they tried to get as much information as possible about the actual owners,” he told TF at he time.

For an earlier article, Timm had indeed interviewed an operator of NextGen in-depth, which led the police to believe there had been a connection. However, several years later potentially more damaging information began appearing online about the operators of NextGen and their alleged activities.

After it was alleged they were making upwards of $200,000 a year from the NextGen, two men were publicly linked to the site by anonymous critics. A document purporting to detail how NextGen accepted Bitcoin through a ‘front’ web-hosting company is now doing the rounds. If accurate (and it’s hard to say either way), that ‘doxxing’ certainly won’t have helped the security of the site – or its operators.

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

For millions of people around the world, Kodi – or XBMC as it used to be known – is one of the best pieces of software for viewing pirate content online. However, this capability is certainly not available ‘out of the box’.

Kodi, which is simply a media player at heart, is compatible with third-party addons that can turn it into a piracy powerhouse providing free access to movies, TV shows and live sports. This has made it one of the most popular tools for viewing streaming content.

For the XBMC Foundation, the people behind the legitimate Kodi app, this pirate association has developed into a thorn in the side. Last November the foundation began taking action against infringers, filing complaints with eBay over members who sold Kodi-loaded hardware for the purpose of viewing pirate content.

But no matter how hard the foundation tries to distance itself from piracy there are constant reminders, sometimes from the most unexpected of directions. Most recently it was the turn of Nvidia, one of the world’s largest graphics technology companies.

In an article titled ‘How to Install Kodi Add-ons on NVIDIA SHIELD’ and published late last month, Nvidia revealed that Kodi is “hands down” one of the most popular apps on the SHIELD Android TV.

“Where Kodi really shines is in the world of user-created add-ons,” Nvidia said.

“We’ll be posting a follow-up article soon highlighting the best Kodi add-ons. Until then, here is a quick How to on installing Kodi Add-ons.”

To be clear, Nvidia did not specifically advise users to install illegal software. What it did do, however, was to point its readers to a tool on TVaddons, a site that has become known not only for the promotion and development of totally legitimate software, but also a range of ‘pirate’ addons for Kodi.

The screenshot provided by Nvidia

Nvidia then proceeded to offer instructions on how to install Fusion, a package containing addons which allow the viewing of anything from user-uploaded content to the latest movies. Again, there is no indication that the company intended to directly advise people on how to access pirate content (note:in countries such as the Netherlands, facilitating the viewing of pirate streams is yet to be made illegal) but the software being installed certainly provided that capability in spades.

The faux pas might have gone unnoticed but soon complaining posts began to appear on Kodi’s official forums, made worse by the fact that Nvidia is an official Kodi sponsor.

“Didn’t want to post this, but since Nvidia is a sponsor and apparently Team Kodi does have a rapport with them, maybe someone should tell them that this isn’t helpful,” wrote one user while linking to Nvidia’s article.

These concerns were quickly addressed by Kodi Project Manager Nate Thomas.

“Already taken care of,” Thomas wrote.

By Tuesday this week the piece had gone (cache copy) but it soon reappeared in heavily edited form. Gone were the references to Fusion and TVaddons.ag to be replaced by a cautionary tale about staying legal.

“You can find Kodi add-ons in ‘repositories’ and we highly recommend only using the add-ons in the official Kodi repository as that’s the best way to make sure that you’ll not only have add-ons that the company trusts, but you’ll also find yourself on the right side of the law,” the new variant reads.

While the misstep by Nvidia has now been corrected, it appears the whole thing could’ve been avoided. Just recently the company was cautioned by the Kodi team against connecting its product with those who use the software for infringement.

“Only a few weeks ago we visited Nvidia and during the meeting we actually clearly discussed this topic on what they should include in their blog posts to stay out of the gray area and if they had any doubts or questions they could always ask. Still this happened,” Martijn from Team Kodi reports.

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

In August 2015, BREIN announced that it had reached a private agreement with members of ‘Dutch Release Team’ (DRT), a group that had uploaded movies to torrent sites including The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents.

The deal entailed them deleting their files from Kickass, paying a cash settlement, and informing on remaining members of the group.

Now BREIN has announced a new development which should herald the final nail in the coffin for another release group. According to the anti-piracy outfit it first identified and then settled with the last active member of DMT (Dutch Movie Theater).

According to BREIN the man uploaded mostly movies and eBooks on an almost daily basis to sites including KickassTorrents and The Pirate Bay. Revealing his alias as ‘ipod020′, BREIN says that overall around 5,000 torrents were uploaded.

On Kickass, where the man used to have an active account, all torrents have been deleted. In their place sits a warning message (Dutch, translated by TF) to other would-be releasers.

“Illegal uploading and downloading costs a lot of money to the film industry, but also to me. Do not do it. I had to settle with BREIN for thousands of euros,” the message reads.

Although BREIN hasn’t publicly made any connection, in November it announced that an injunction had been obtained following an ex-parte case against a 20-year-old student, who uploaded over 750 torrents to KickassTorrents.

He appears to have been connected to the same group and also reached a compensation agreement with BREIN. His KickassTorrents account displays a message too.

“We deal with increasingly prolific uploaders,” says BREIN chief Tim Kuik commenting on this week’s case.

“Some uploaders pretend it is a harmless hobby, while they’re causing extensive damage and illegal sites are profiting handsomely. If you run into trouble, it is an expensive hobby for sure.”

In closing, the anti-piracy boss warns of an active 2016 in which BREIN will continue to track down content uploaders.

“There are more investigations in the pipeline, and next year we’ll launch an even more comprehensive approach where we will use software to trace uploaders,” Kuik concludes.

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

While downloading content for later playback has been the mainstay of BitTorrent aficionados for well over a decade, streaming of content continues to gain popularity with many users.

More recently, torrent users have been getting in on the act too, with the streaming abilities of the popular Popcorn Time application. However, this software uploads too, meaning that users can be exposed to claims of copyright infringement. Streaming directly from a single source (often a website) rarely carries such risks.

As a result a whole new market as flourished, one which has seen highly modified versions of software such as Kodi installed on set-top boxes, offering free and almost risk-free streaming of movies and TV shows to the masses.

This availability hasn’t gone unnoticed by Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, who have been taking action on several fronts against this unofficial market. As part of those efforts the group filed a copyright case against Moviestreamer.nl, a site that sells hardware for the purposes detailed above. BREIN asked for an injunction against the site, claiming that its actions constitute infringement.

However, in a decision published this week, BREIN was informed by the Midden-Nederland court that it would not be handing down a ban on the sale of devices offered by Moviestreamer. The problem (and indeed the answer) lies in a separate case BREIN has pending against Filmspeler.nl, another vendor of similar devices.

Filmspeler.nl sold media-players bundled with XBMC and pre-installed addons which provided hyperlinks to unlicensed sites offering movies, TV shows, live sports and music. Filmspeler was clear on the purpose of its devices, marketing them with slogans such as “Never go to the cinema again”, “Netflix is the past” and “Never pay again.”

Another claim made by Filmspieler is that its devices are legal. “Downloading (from illegal source) is illegal but streaming is not,” the site said. This appears to be a reference to a decision by the Dutch government last year which banned the downloading of content from illegal sources but did not specifically mention streaming.

BREIN disagreed and asked the court to rule that the trader infringes copyright by linking to illegal content and that the streaming of that content also constitutes infringement. Seeking clarification, the court referred several questions to the EU Court of Justice, including whether the legal requirement of ‘lawful use’ is met if a temporary reproduction is made during the streaming of unauthorized content.

Since the case against Moviestreamer is very similar to that against Filmspieler, this week the Midden-Nederland court found that as long as there is uncertainty over the legality of streaming from illegal sources, there would be no injunction against Moviestreamer.

The fact that questions are already with the EU Court of Justice shows that there is indeed “reasonable doubt” but that will necessarily change with a ruling. Indeed, the court said that if it is established that streaming from illegal sources constitutes copyright infringement, it is plausible that facilitating access to the same would also be unlawful.

Simply put, as long as streaming from illegal sources is not officially illegal, selling devices that offer that ability are not yet illegal either. While BREIN may prevail longer term after a potentially positive EU ruling, in the meantime the group intends to appeal.

“BREIN will appeal this verdict because it considers this facilitation to be very harmful, not only because it facilitates streaming from illegal sources but also because it facilitates the illegal offering itself and is therefore clearly unlawful,” the group said.

It is not yet clear when the EU Court will hand down its decision.

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

Whether it’s a nice discount here and there or a straight-up freebie, cash-strapped students are happy to be front and center. No surprise then that they’re often associated with obtaining a little media from unauthorized sources too.

As a result, in the middle of the last decade this penchant for lifting music from file-sharing networks grew into an international controversy when the RIAA forcefully targeted students with legal action. While it sent a message, it was also a PR disaster.

Almost a decade on and the landscape is somewhat changed, with official services now more cheaply available and often providing deep discounts for students. Nevertheless, students still like to download from P2P networks such as BitTorrent and today, just like a decade ago, they are getting caught in their thousands.

Data just released by Central Michigan University (CMU) shows that the number of copyright complaints received quadrupled between 2013 and 2014. But even with figures only available for the first 10 months of 2015, it’s already a record year.

As of the end of October, anti-piracy outfits had filed a total of 1,912 complaints at CMU. To put those numbers into perspective, CMU has around 20,000 students. However, it is the nature of the majority of those complaints that is most cause for concern.

While anti-piracy tracking companies such as IP-Echelon and MarkMonitor are contacting the university with their own DMCA-style ‘warning’ notices, the volume sent by them is being dwarfed by a company with a different agenda.

According to Mark Strandskov, associate director of the Office of Information Technology, piracy monetization company Rightscorp is now the dominant sender, accounting for more than eight out of every ten complaints received.

“You have agencies like Rightscorp where in the last two years account for over 2,500 complaints,” Strandskov told university publication CM-Life.

“They account for 81 percent of our total number of complaints this year and we didn’t receive anything at all from them two years ago. That sort of sticks out.”

In 2014 Rightscorp sent 899 complaints to CMU, around 65% of all complaints received. By the end of October 2015 the company had filed 1,648.

And, of course, for each of those notices Rightscorp demands cash. For example, Strandskov says that one student was asked to pay $30 after he allegedly downloaded The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from Warner Bros.

But while these ‘fines’ are nothing out of the ordinary, vice president for information technology Roger Rehm says that he believes that outfits like Rightscorp are deliberately targeting educational establishments.

“The fact of the matter is (monitoring companies) have targeted university campuses,” Rehm says. “There is no question that they treat us differently than other networking organizations.”

While the sheer number of people on site will mean that universities and colleges receive a lot of complaints, the reason they are being targeted is likely to be connected to the RIAA’s actions last decade and the pressure subsequently placed on the government.

In July 2010, the U.S. responded by putting in place a new requirement for colleges and universities to take action against illegal file-sharing. Failure to do so can result in the loss of federal funding so little wonder that campuses view the issue seriously.

As a result, not passing on complaints from outfits like Rightscorp could have serious consequences for universities like CMU and it’s more than likely the company understands that. With this in mind, students are probably easy targets but whether they’ll bear fruit long term is up for debate.

While Rightscorp asks them for $30 per offense, CMU has much harsher punishments in store. According to CM-Life, a second infringement notice results in a $150 fine being imposed by the university and a potential Internet access suspension. A third offense warrants a $300 fine and even expulsion.

However, while it might be difficult to avoid being fined by the university itself following a complaint, not paying Rightscorp is an easier proposition.

“We’re in the business of passing the complaint along,” Rehm says. “We do not identify [students] to the company.”

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