Author: Andy

Despite criticisms emanating from both sides, it will be difficult to argue that New Zealand has skipped on the amount of time it’s dedicated to the Megaupload case.

Hundreds of hours of legal resources have been expended since the fateful raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in 2012 and with 2016 just a few short weeks away, it will soon be determined whether the Internet entrepreneur will be shipped to the United States.

That decision now lies with Judge Nevin Dawson, who today listened to the closing submissions in an extradition hearing that has lasted (some say dragged on) for 10 long weeks after being scheduled for just four.

Both sides have demonstrated only one common ground – each feels they have a solid case and that the other is dead wrong.

Prosecutors acting for the United States say that Megaupload was business built from the ground up for illegal purposes. They argue that Dotcom and fellow defendants Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk knew that their users were breaching copyright and even financially rewarded those who infringed the most.

Rather than removing content as the law requires, Megaupload merely removed the links, leaving content intact so that it could live to infringe another day, the U.S. claims. Communications between some of the company’s executives only served to underline the above, with admissions that Megaupload was profiting from 90% infringing files.

The former Megaupload operators see things very differently. From day one they have argued that their Internet business was a legitimate cloud storage service, originally setup to overcome the limitations of sending files via email.

Megaupload was not dissimilar to Dropbox, Dotcom et al argued, and had deals with copyright holders so that any content they wanted removed could be taken down in a timely fashion.

“Not only did Megaupload achieve 99.999% takedown compliance, numerous emails from major content owners thanked us for our compliance,” Dotcom reiterated today.

But despite complying with the laws of the land, Dotcom says that Megaupload was cut down in its prime by an aggressive and malicious U.S. government who from the very beginning has been doing Hollywood’s bidding. Those same authorities closed down his site, seized his funds and then denied him access to a fair trial.

“My defense team has shown how utterly unreliable, malicious and unethical the U.S. case against me is. They have exposed a dirty ugly bully,” Dotcom said this morning.

But allegations of dirty tricks aside, Dotcom and his former associates insist that the very basis of the U.S. case falls on stony ground, that the copyright infringement charges on which all of the other charges are based simply aren’t extraditable offenses. In any event, Internet service providers such as Megaupload can’t be prosecuted for their users’ crimes, they say.

Nevertheless, the reality remains. Dotcom and his former Megaupload operators face charges of copyright infringement, conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering in the United States and after putting up a colossal battle, U.S. prosecutors aren’t likely to be backing down anytime soon.

But for now the fate of the now famous quartet lies in the hands of Judge Nevin Dawson, the man who has sat patiently – sometimes less so – through ten weeks of hearings and hundreds of pages of submissions from both sides in this epic war of words.

“The 10 week extradition hearing has ended. My life is in the hands of Judge Nevin Dawson. He was the Judge who granted me bail. There’s hope!” Dotcom said after the hearing ended today.

When Judge Dawson will deliver his final decision is unclear, but when he does so it will be to an open court in the presence of men facing decades of jail time in the United States.

It will be an agonized wait for both sides but history shows us that no matter which side loses, neither will easily accept defeat. This show is definitely not over yet.

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

After beginning just beyond the mid-point of September, by now the extradition hearing of Kim Dotcom should be long over.

Instead, the hearing – which will decide the fates not only of the Megaupload founder but also colleagues Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk – has dragged on for some 10 weeks. It’s due to draw to a close sometime tomorrow but as usual things started normally and then went downhill.

“I’m back in court today listening to the last episode of Alice in copyright land. 10 weeks of U.S. copyright fiction are coming to an end,” Dotcom announced before setting off to court this morning.

However, Dotcom’s journey didn’t go smoothly and he was late to arrive after allegedly being detained by the police. The reasons aren’t clear but a report by TVNZ, which has now been deleted, had Judge Nevin Dawson asking if that was for speeding and lawyer Simon Cogan responding “I hope not, sir”.

Eventually Dotcom appeared in time to hear Crown lawyers began summing up their case against the Megaupload defendants. The defense had finished its arguments relatively smoothly last week but today there were surprises in store.

Grant Illingworth, lawyer for Bram van der Kolk and Mathias Ortmann, told the Court he’d been reading through the US summary of the case and had discovered that the prosecution intends to introduce new evidence before the case wraps up tomorrow.

In response to Mr Illingworth describing the 11th hour effort as “an ambush situation”, Christine Gordon for the prosecution offered to make the evidence available immediately. But Illingsworth declined and asked for the evidence to be stood down and the hearing stalled.

After ordering the evidence to be made available, Judge Dawson indicated he wouldn’t yet rule on whether it can be used by the prosecution. Gordon, meanwhile, accused defense lawyers of trying to bog the case down.

“[They’ve tried to do] what has been done in the last three-and-a-half years: to conduct their trial defense through the extradition process,” she said.

But distractions aside, Christine Gordon again reiterated that the aims of the extradition hearing are very simple ones.

While the men might argue on technicalities the Judge does not have to decide whether Dotcom and his former colleagues are guilty of any offense.

Judge Dawson only has to decide whether there is a case for them to answer in the United States covered by the extradition agreement with New Zealand. The threshold for that is low, Gordon said, and attempts to distance copyright infringement with extraditable fraud offenses would not work.

“There are millions of people whose lives are prejudiced by this type of behavior,” she argued, noting that the defendants even used the word “fraud” when talking about their activities among themselves.

So, after more than four years of legal argument, counter argument, appeals and delays (and further surprises aside), the fate of Kim Dotcom and his three co-accused will lie in the hands of Judge Nevin Dawson later this week.

Kim Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato all face extradition to the United States on charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering and together face decades in jail. The stakes could hardly be higher.

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

Over the course of several years, adult publisher Perfect 10 became less known for its love of women of a certain size and more for its desire to drag companies to court on dubious copyright grounds.

In fact, the company became so litigious that one of its main sources of ‘business’ was the suing of everyone from Google, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, to RapidShare, Depositfiles and hosting providers LeaseWeb and OVH.

Like most copyright trolls Perfect 10 prefers private settlements since court wins are harder to come by. However, when the adult publisher took on Usenet provider Giganews, a company that was never likely to fold, things went from bad to worse.

In November 2014 a court found that Giganews was not liable for the infringing activities of its customers and in February this year Perfect 10 received its biggest mauling so far, with a court handing Giganews victory and slamming Perfect 10 for the way it conducted its case.

In March 2015 came the icing on the cake, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the publisher to pay Giganews $5.6m in attorney’s fees and costs. However, the battle is not over yet.

According to various court filings in recent weeks, Giganews is having trouble getting money out of Perfect 10. In a request for a writ of execution last month, Giganews’ attorney outlined the situation.

“Judgment for $5,637,352.53 was entered on March 24, 2015 on the docket of the above-entitled action in the U.S. District Court, District of California in favor of Giganews, Inc. and Livewire Services, Inc. as Judgment Creditor, and against Perfect 10, Inc. as Judgment Debtor,” the request reads.

While $5.6m is indeed a large amount, the attorney reveals that in the past eight months Perfect 10 hasn’t paid the Usenet provider a single penny.

Furthermore, as Perfect 10 persists with non-payment the company’s bill is increasing. Although in this case limited to a rate of just 0.25%, Perfect 10 already owes an additional $8,610.03 in accrued interest.

With Giganews running out of patience, on Wednesday District Court Judge Andre Birotte JR granted the company’s request to appoint a process-server to serve a writ of execution on Perfect 10. In the meantime the countdown to another important date begins.

Following an order issued by Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth, Perfect 10 is now ordered to appear before the court December 10 to “furnish information” to aid in enforcement of the money judgment the company is currently ignoring.

“If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding,” the order reads.

Whether Perfect 10’s days as a going concern are numbered remains to be seen, but it’s trolling activities in the United States are certainly on life support following the company’s disastrous campaign against Giganews. Should the company launch a similar action in the future, Judge Andre Birotte Jr’s assessment of its business will almost certainly come back to haunt.

“Perfect 10’s undisputed conduct in this action has been inconsistent with a party interested in protecting its copyrights,” the Judge wrote.

“All of the evidence before the Court demonstrates that Perfect 10 is in the business of litigation, not protecting its copyrights or ‘stimulat[ing] artistic creativity for the general public good’.”

Then again, no one ever doubted that.

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

The Internet today is awash with millions of items of infringing content and links to the same and as long as Internet users have free will that position is unlikely to change.

Nevertheless, the situation for copyright holders is far from hopeless and those who feel their rights are being abused have remedies available. Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allow copyright owners to order hosts, websites and search engines to take down infringing content. And, to avoid being held liable, those providers must do so quickly.

However, copyright holders feel that the DMCA lets them down. They complain that despite sending millions of notices, sooner or later the same content reappears, having been reuploaded by humans or reindexed by automated systems. What is needed, they argue, is a system that requires content to remain down once it has been taken down.

The ‘Take Down, Stay Down’ movement even has its own website but campaigning for legislative change that erodes safe harbors for legitimate service providers is an extremely sensitive topic for all in the technology sector. Nevertheless, that’s what Hollywood and the major record labels want long-term.

So as companies including Google come under continued pressure to move towards a ‘take down, stay down’ response to copyright complaints, just how willing will they be to accommodate such a regime? Well, if comments made this week by a Google counsel are anything to go by, not very keen at all.

Speaking at the Academy of European Law’s Annual Copyright Conference, Google copyright counsel Cédric Manara poured cold water on the idea.

Manara told the conference that takedowns have a limited effect and when applied to search engines a ‘Take Down, Stay Down’ regime is “not a solution and just does not work,” IP Magazine reports.

Importantly, Manara explained that applying such a regime to search engines is problematic, since such intermediaries can’t block content they don’t host.

“The Internet is a game of ‘whack-a-mole’. Blocked and removed content will be reposted back online, which is a key problem. When one road is cut off, other roads will appear leading to other directions,” he said.

Also of interest is the whole concept of content staying down on a permanent basis following a copyright complaint. While content might be unauthorized today, it’s possible that it may not be so in the future. Equally, the process isn’t flexible enough to accommodate everyone’s legal status when it comes to using content.

“Take down stay down doesn’t understand an authorized user, so it can have an overreaching effect and go too far,” Manara said. “Additionally, stay down is forever, whereas copyright has a term.”

While it may not prove popular with frustrated copyright holders desperate to stop whacking moles, Manara has an excellent point. While Disney might be well within its rights to protect its content today, removing it from any number of providers on an infinite basis clearly has implications when such content falls into the public domain, for example.

Of course, stifling the future and legal use of copyright works probably isn’t what most small copyright holders are trying to achieve when they ask for content to stay down once taken down. However, the current conversation is very broad in scope and definitely has the potential to cause unintended consequences that some corporate giants will be happy to exploit.

As the discussion develops, Google and other stakeholders will be keen to tread very carefully.

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

According to Google more than half a million hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day. Although with ContentID the company tries, determining the copyright status of every single minute is an almost impossible task.

While identifying copyrighted movies, TV shows and music are all within the company’s abilities, when used in certain ways all of those things can be legally shown on YouTube, even without copyright holders’ permission.

Under U.S. law the concept is known as ‘fair use’ and it enables copyrighted material to be used for purposes including criticism, news reporting, teaching and research. However, some copyright holders like to contest the use of their content on YouTube no matter what the context, issuing DMCA takedown notices and landing YouTube users with a ‘strike’ against their account.

YouTube has been criticized in the past for not doing enough to protect its users against wrongful claims but now the company appears to be drawing a line in the sand, albeit a limited one, in defense of those legally using copyrighted content in transformative ways.

In a blog post Google’s Copyright Legal Director says that YouTube will showcase several user-created videos in its Copyright Center and cover all legal costs should rightsholders challenge how each uses copyrighted content.

“YouTube will now protect some of the best examples of fair use on YouTube by agreeing to defend them in court if necessary,” Fred von Lohmann said.

“We’re doing this because we recognize that creators can be intimidated by the DMCA’s counter notification process, and the potential for litigation that comes with it.”

The first four titles showcased can be found here and each presents a classic demonstration of fair use. For example, the first uses game clips for the purposes of review, while the second offers a critique of third-party UFO videos.

Google hopes that by standing behind videos such as these, YouTubers and those seeking to take down content will become educated on what is and isn’t appropriate when it comes to using other people’s copyrighted content.

“In addition to protecting the individual creator, this program could, over time, create a ‘demo reel’ that will help the YouTube community and copyright owners alike better understand what fair use looks like online and develop best practices as a community,” Google’s Copyright Legal Director adds.

Perhaps needless to say, Google isn’t in a position to offer legal support to everyone uploading content to YouTube but it has pledged to “resist legally unsupported DMCA takedowns” as part of its normal processes.

“We believe even the small number of videos we are able to protect will make a positive impact on the entire YouTube ecosystem, ensuring YouTube remains a place where creativity and expression can be rewarded,” Fred von Lohmann concludes.

Of course, it’s unlikely that any video showcased by Google will experience any legal problems so the defense offer from the company is largely symbolic. However, the overall gesture indicates that the company is paying attention to the fair use debate and is prepared to help its users stand up for their rights. That will be gratefully received.

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

When it comes to enforcement of intellectual property rights, Brazil isn’t exactly a world leader. The country has long been criticized for its lack of progress in this area and has regularly found itself targeted by complaining authorities in the United States.

In 2009, former President Lula was even photographed cozying up to none other than The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde. But six years later and it appears that the tides have changed.

Yesterday Federal Police in Brazil launched Operation Blackbeard, a coordinated action to take down MegaFilmesHD.net, Latin America’s most popular pirate site.

Launched in 2010 and mainly serving the Portuguese-speaking market, MegaFilmesHD has grown to become one of Brazil’s most popular sites, with a reported 60 million visits per month.

Following a two month investigation, police executed 14 search warrants targeted at the alleged operators of the popular streaming portal.

A man and a woman believed to be a couple were arrested at their home on suspicion of copyright offenses. Four cars, two of them reportedly luxury (local media showed a $US58,000 Porsche SUV), were seized along with around US$5,300 in cash.

Police also questioned five alleged admins of the site and blocked seven bank accounts believed to be used for money laundering. Along with the site’s owners the admins will be indicted for running a criminal operation. Police say they face between three and eight years in prison on that count plus two to four years for copyright infringement offenses, plus fines.

Like many similar operations of its type, Mega Filmes HD listed thousands of movies and linked to files hosted on third-party cyberlocker-style sites. According to police the site generated around US$18,500 per month from advertising. Tests carried out by TF last evening revealed aggressive techniques, with most clicks resulting in the appearance of some kind of ad.

While it’s clear that the owners of Mega Filmes HD are now in serious trouble, the lawyer for the couple says that their arrest came as a complete surprise. Apparently one of his clients originally ran the business from Asia and expected no problems in Brazil.

“My client came from Japan and there the practice is common. He never imagined he would be arrested,” the lawyer told Globo.

Interestingly (although perhaps not surprisingly) figures reported by Brazilian police concerning Mega Filmes HD largely tie up with ones cited in a report the MPAA filed last month with the United States Representative.

“Megafilmeshd.net is a popular streaming linking site that currently offers more than 150,000 links to more than 6,000 illegally reproduced national and international titles including films, television series, and concerts,” the MPAA reported.

Also of interest is the current status of the site. Although its operators were arrested yesterday morning, until just a few hours ago Megafilmeshd.net remained operational. Currently the site is offline but that appears to be due to a massive influx of traffic following news of the raid.

Possibly complicating a shutdown is that MegaFilmesHD was only partially operated from Brazil. According to the MPAA the site had connections in both Poland and Bulgaria. Nevertheless, if it stays down the impact will be felt most locally. Police says that 85% of the site’s visitors were from Brazil, with an impressive 4.5 million followers on social media.

But despite the existence of MegaFilmesHD and a reported 41% of citizens downloading illegally from the Internet, legal services are thriving in Brazil. The country is now the fourth-largest market for Netflix behind the US, Canada and the United Kingdom, with Netflix chief Reed Hastings describing the country as a “rocket ship” for his company.

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

In 2010, U.S. authorities launched Operation in Our Sites, an anti-piracy campaign aimed at taking copyright-infringing sites offline.

After targeting thousands of domains linked to counterfeit goods and making several arrests connected to file-sharing sites, renewed efforts last year saw the closure of two large music sites.

During October 2014, RockDizFile.com and RockDizMusic.com were taken offline to be replaced by the ICE – Homeland Security Investigations seizure banner.

Founded in 2011, RockDizMusic had acted as an index for popular new music while RockDizFile was a file-storage site serving as a storage facility for the former.

During the period of quiet following their shutdown it transpired that their operator, Rocky P. Ouprasith of Charlotte, N.C., had been arrested following the execution of an HSI search warrant.

Papers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia last August claimed that both sites had been operated for profit, with Ouprasith sourcing pirated content online, uploading it to RockDizFile, and offering it for download on RockDizMusic.

According to the RIAA, in 2013 RockDizFile emerged “as the second largest online file-sharing site in the reproduction and distribution of infringing copies of copyrighted music in the United States.” Court documents placed the market value of the content pirated by the site at more than $6 million.

In response, Ouprasith entered a guilty plea, admitting one count of criminal copyright infringement. In return he risked five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. Yesterday the 23-year-old was sentenced and it’s bad, but not as bad it could’ve been.

According to the Department of Justice, Ouprasith was sentenced by Chief U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the Eastern District of Virginia to serve a total of 36 months in prison.

In addition, Ouprasith was sentenced to two years supervised release and was ordered to forfeit almost $51,000 and pay more than $45,000 in restitution. The latter will become payable 60 days after his release at the rate of $200.00 per month or 25% of net income, whichever is greater. No fines were imposed.

The DoJ said that Ouprasith admitted obtaining copyrighted songs and albums, some pre-release, and uploading them to RockDizFile while encouraging affiliates to do the same. Ouprasith further admitted that he paid those affiliates based on the number of times their content was downloaded from his websites.

Another apparently aggravating factor was how Ouprasith handled copyright complaints. Instead of taking down content as required, according to the DoJ he either ignored the requests or simply pretended to take remedial action.

Ouprasith’s attorney, Bobby Howlett Jr. of Norfolk, told the Washington Post that while he’s never happy with a custodial sentence, in this instance he’s satisfied with the conclusion of the case.

“I’m happy with the outcome — of course, I don’t want many of my clients to go jail and I hate that he’s a young kid with no criminal history facing this, but it could’ve been worse,” Howlett said.

The RIAA welcomed the sentence and said that Ouprasith’s incarceration should serve as a warning to others thinking of embarking on a similar venture.

“We congratulate the Department of Justice and Homeland Security Investigations and thank them for their diligence and hard work to bring to justice those who cause millions of dollars in damage to music creators,” said Brad Buckles, EVP of Anti-Piracy.

“This sentence should send a message that operating a flagrantly illegal business that steals from others by engaging in criminal activity online has real consequences.”

While three years is a long time inside for a young man, the Court did recommend that the Bureau of Prisons allow Ouprasith to “further his education towards obtaining his college degree” in a facility as “close as possible” to North Carolina.

The 23-year-old will also get time to put his affairs in order and spend Christmas with family and friends. His sentence is set to begin on January 4, 2016.

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

The idea is a relatively simple one. Every day millions of pirates are downloading content online without permission, so tracking them down and asking them to pay a fine should enable rightsholders to make a few extra bucks.

Of course, there are countless millions of infringements every day so those small payments soon add up, an attractive proposition for people doing business with Rightscorp, the US-based anti-piracy company hoping to turn piracy into profit.

There’s little doubt that Rightscorp’s clients are making at least some money from the deal. To date the anti-piracy company reports closing more than 230,000 cases of infringement, so at $20 and more recently $30 a shot, that’s a bit more than chump change.

However, as Rightscorp’s most recent filing reveals, the numbers in the whole package simply don’t add up.

For the three months ended September 30, 2015 the company generated revenues of $215,196, that’s 13% down on the $248,387 it made during the same period last year.

Not great, but since copyright holders get roughly 50% of collected revenues, Rightscorp paid them $107,598, a nice little return for doing very little. That said, it’s less than the $124,194 they received during the same period in 2014.

After paying out 50% of its revenues, Rightscorp not only has to run a business with what’s left, but also turn a profit. To date the company has not been able to do that. Its latest filing reveals a continuation of that trend and a set of issues that could hinder the company on a long term basis.

The rot starts with the company’s basic running costs. For the three months ended September 30, Rightscorp’s bill for wages and related expenses stood at $345,449, an amount way in excess of its total revenues for the same period. That, however, is just the beginning.

As previously reported Rightscorp has managed to get itself bogged down in several legal battles and they are costing the company dearly.

“Legal fees related to various matters totaled $295,865 for the three months ended September 30, 2015, compared to $90,552 for the three months ended September 30, 2014,” the company reports.

Overall, Rightscorp’s general and administrative expenses for three months ended September 30, 2015 amounted to $1,116,589. That means that the company recorded a net loss of $424,168. Bad, but certainly an improvement over the same period last year when it lost $894,241.

The totals, however, paint a dismal picture. Although revenues were up in the first nine months of 2015 versus the same period last year ($756,916 vs $688,801), the company’s costs ($1,355,407 on wages, $3,967,527 general and admin) meant the company managed to lose substantially more money.

“During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, we recorded a net loss of $3,120,197 compared to a net loss of $2,299,522 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014,” Rightscorp reveals.

As noted above, legal fees are a major problem. After spending ‘just’ $326,985 in the first nine months of last year, during the same period in 2015 Rightscorp burned through $1,058,188.

But the costs incurred are only part of the problem. Rightscorp says the time being spent on legal matters is having a negative effect on its core business.

“The decrease in revenues [during the last quarter] was due to a disproportionate amount of time being spent by the Company supporting clients in legal matters,” the company says.

Overall, Rightscorp’s position this year thus far can be boiled down to one sad statistic – for every dollar paid in fines by pirates, Rightscorp loses $4. That’s definitely not turning piracy into profit.

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

All around the world entertainment companies are augmenting their traditional sales with revenue generated from alleged copyright infringers.

Known as copyright-trolling, the practice sees companies monitor file-sharing networks for people sharing their content. They then use IP addresses to track users down via their ISPs. What follows are threats of legal action and demands for cash to make it all go away.

The UK has a long history of ‘trolls’ but in more recent times a company called Golden Eye International (GEIL) has been the most active. Run by the individuals behind the ‘Ben Dover’ porn brand, the company has targeted hundreds of people with allegations they downloaded and shared adult content without permission.

Last week it became evident that GEIL is back again when Sky Broadband began sending out warning letters to its subscribers. A copy obtained by TorrentFreak sent to us by a concerned Sky customer details the situation.

“We need to let you know about a court order made against Sky earlier this year that requires us to provide your name and address to another company,” the letter from Sky begins.

“A company called Golden Eye International, which owns rights to several copyrighted films, has claimed that a number of Sky Broadband customers engaged in unlawful file sharing of some of its films.

“In support of this claims Golden Eye International says it has gathered evidence of individual broadband accounts (identified online by unique numbers called IP addresses) from which it claims the file sharing took place.”

Sky says that it was not involved in gathering any of the evidence and cannot comment on its accuracy. However, since the company was presented with a court order, it must hand the subscribers’ personal details to Golden Eye International.

Of course, like everyone familiar with these kinds of matters, Sky Broadband is only too aware why Golden Eye is sending out these letters. The company wants hard cash from Sky’s customers.

“It’s likely that Golden Eye International will contact you directly and may ask you to pay them compensation,” the ISP warns.

As far as we’re aware, Golden Eye hasn’t yet contacted any Sky customers following this most recent warning from Sky but those letters probably won’t be too far off. However, the advance letter from Sky is already causing concern.

In the latter part of last week and over the weekend, TorrentFreak spoke with more than half a dozen Sky subscribers in receipt of the letter. We’re giving each one anonymity but most were concerned about what lies ahead. However, a couple had been reassured by an earlier article on the topic.

Michael Coyle, a Southampton-based solicitor with huge experience of these cases, says he’s also been receiving calls from worried Sky customers. Previously he’s handled such cases in return for a charitable donation but we understand that he’s now offering to help people for a fraction of the £400 to £600 usually demanded by GEIL.

Received a letter from Sky or GEIL? Contact us in complete confidence.

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

The music and movie industries love to poke the finger at Google and blame the technology giant for a world of woes, not least the appearance of ‘rogue’ sites in its search results.

Well, you know what? They’re not the only ones that can play that game.

Here at TF we do our very best to bring the latest file-sharing news to our readers and always try to bring something fresh to our reports, whether we’re the initial source or not. However, there are other sites who don’t appear to care much about the topics they cover, only the number of clicks they can generate.

I’m talking about headlines like this from the file-sharing experts at Christian Today.

“[W]ith reports saying that Microsoft’s new platform has more stringent security measures against torrents, fans are wondering if TPB and other sites will make it to Windows 10-enabled devices,” the site warns.

The article quotes fellow torrent-nonsense-farmers ‘Venture Capital Post‘ as the source, claiming that people upgrading to Windows 10 “will not have access to torrent sites, as Microsoft will reportedly actively block The Pirate Bay, Kickass Torrents and other file-sharing websites.”

These twisted accounts are based on erroneous claims about Windows 10 that date back to August and have been well and truly debunked. Still, both sites reported them only this week, with more misinformation and scaremongering thrown in for good measure.

Of further concern is how VCPost then links to International Business Times as the source of the story, a site known for its ‘advanced’ SEO techniques and its 2013 banning from Reddit.

Only adding to the hall of mirrors, IBTimes cites Christian Post as its ‘source’ with its totally baseless and speculative article titled “The Pirate Bay Update: After The Takedown Of YIFY, Is The Pirate Bay Next?”

That in turns links to a site called ‘Yibada’ with its article “The Pirate Bay (TPB) Last Man Standing After YTS/YIFY Shutdown: TPB Next In Line?” and home to other gems including (deep breath) “After Taking Down The Pirate Bay, Will MPAA Go Easy On TPB Like It Did With YTS/YIFY? Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom Cries Double Standard.”

Then, shock/horror, Yibada directs back to International Business Times as the source – are we noticing a pattern here? Yeah? Well, the end result when searching for Pirate Bay in Google search often looks something like this.

This sorry state of affairs is entirely the fault of Google. Instead of monitoring and reading every single story in its indexes and carrying out quality control of every opinion and claim linked therein, the search giant is blatantly sending unwitting visitors to uninformed sites which misleads the public and starves creators.

So, just like elements of the entertainment industry, we’re demanding a totally self-serving modification of Google’s algorithm to push this nonsense way down the results. We’re not going to accept no for an answer either. If Google can do it for child porn, malware, and wait – Hollywood and the RIAA, they can do it for us too, surely?

Oh, and apparently there are hundreds of other companies waiting in the wings with similar plights and demands. Each is keen to feature more prominently in Google’s results and each is prepared to endlessly wail over why its case deserves special attention and how Google must be to blame.

Sadly, and as the pettiness over the mind-bending Google-gaming articles listed above highlights, no one really gives a damn and it’s no wonder that Google doesn’t either. Now excuse me while I cozy up to a few politicians and go crying like a baby to the US government. Need to get in early, there’s going to be massive queue if Google becomes compliant.

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