Author: Andy

Despite a reputation for not doing enough to thwart online piracy, Russian authorities have become unusually keen to make amends in recent years.

Site-blocking, for example, is now a common occurrence, with sites that infringe multiple times now being subjected to a permanent lifetime injunction, actioned by local ISPs.

But while users continue to flock to torrent sites and streaming portals, copyright holders and local authorities are concerned that social networking platforms are a potentially more serious threat.

In many cases, users are allowed to upload content at will, thereby creating huge libraries of infringing material, a serious headache for copyright holders.

To tackle this problem, authorities and entertainment industry groups are now in the process of drafting fresh legislation aimed at those social media platforms that allow users to upload content.

According to Izvestia, the Ministry of Culture and groups including the National Federation of the Music Industry (NFMI) and the Association of Producers of Cinema and Television (APKIT), believe that a change in the law will make it harder for social platforms to evade liability.

Under Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code, social media sites are considered “information brokers”, meaning that sites like vKontakte (Russia’s Facebook) can avoid being held liable for infringing content uploaded by their users.

Rightsholders would like that legislation to be removed or rewritten in a way that would provide them with more useful options to enforce their intellectual property rights.

Also under consideration are changes to the law that would further punish sites that have already been ordered to be blocked by the Moscow City Court. Currently, local ISPs currently put Internet blockades in place but rightsholders foresee a situation where the finances of infringing sites are put under pressure too.

On the table are proposals to ban those sites from carrying advertising. In the West, advertisers are working on voluntary schemes that aim to keep their funding away from ‘pirate’ sites but it appears that Russia is considering enshrining those principles into law.

Additionally, rightsholders are asking for sites that run on a subscription basis to be forbidden from accepting payments from their users. Again, voluntary agreements with companies such as Visa, MasterCard and PayPal are already in place in the United States and Europe, but legislation could compel Russian companies to comply.

Also continuing its path through the system is another bill designed to tackle the rise of so-called mirrors, sites that crop up after a site is blocked in order to facilitate access to the same content.

The draft bill, which also proposes an obligation to have search engines strip content from results and measures to tackle VPNs and proxies, has already been sent to the Ministry of Communications.

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

Over the years, many anti-piracy systems have ruffled the feathers of video game pirates but none have done so to the extent Denuvo has.

Not a DRM technology its own right, Denuvo is software that acts as an anti-tamper mechanism, thwarting the efforts of so-called crackers who want to make games available for free.

Before this weekend, just one Denuvo-protected title had appeared online. FIFA 16’s protection was bypassed, not cracked (a subtle but important detail), by Turk DM. Nevertheless, pirates never take even a bypass for granted – free games are free games, after all.

Then this weekend, the floodgates opened. A cracker known as Voksi found a loophole in Steam which allowed many Denuvo-protected titles to be played for free. It was another bypass, one powered by a secret sauce.

“His secret method for defeating Denuvo was beer, tons of it,” Voksi colleague Royalgamer06 told TorrentFreak.

Royalgamer06 confirms that Voksi hails from Bulgaria and the pair met on a forum where they shared a passion for cracking games.

“Voksi has been cracking for a number of years now. We met each other on [a Russian forum]. We both were releasing so-called ‘Steamworks fixed’, which allowed pirates to play cracked games online through Steam,” he says.

“Somehow he found out about this exploit. At first, he couldn’t believe it himself. But after several tests it really worked. And then he got really excited and released it. This got the whole piracy community excited, which motivated Voksi even more.”

And exciting it was too. After the Doom release came several other titles including Return of the Tomb Raider, Just Cause 3, Homefront: The Revolution, ABZU, INSIDE and Total War WARHAMMER.

“It’s a Denuvo bypass technically,” Royalgamer06 explains

“It relies on an exploit using the DOOM Demo Denuvo activation. Voksi had to make different memory patches for each game to work. But the principle remained the same. So many pirates have been able to play and finish these games.”

Indeed, according to stats provided by Voksi, an estimated 650K people used his bypass method over the weekend. It apparently somehow calls back home to him, hence the figures.

But then yesterday, as thousands of pirates celebrated the surprise fall of Denuvo, misery struck. Voksi’s workaround was defeated.

“Voksi’s exploit has been patched by Denuvo now,” Royalgamer06 told TF last night.

“They disabled activations for the DOOM demo, which the bypass relied on. It took them three days to do it. Seems the Denuvo guys don’t work at the weekend.”

But as the storm clouds gathered over pirate haunts everywhere and the sun beamed down on Denuvo in Austria, even bigger news appeared on the horizon. A single line of text on so-called pre-databases (sites that signal pirate releases) indicated that a big name in the piracy scene had made amazing progress.

‘Rise.Of.The.Tomb.Raider.READNFO-CONSPIR4CY’ references a release by a ‘Scene’ group known as CONSPIR4CY, a reported collaboration between CPY and CODEX.

More than a bypass of Denuvo, this release of the latest Tomb Raider game appears to contain the Holy Grail – a bona fide crack of Denuvo.

Predictably and despite its size, the 31GB file is now hot property on file-sharing sites. It comes updated with the latest patch and includes three DLCs including Baba Yaga: The Temple of the Witch, Cold Darkness Awakened and Endurance Mode.

But while CONSPIR4CY (whose motto is “Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned) have undoubtedly achieved something amazing in pirate terms, the Denuvo battle is probably far from won.

Thus far only Tomb Raider has fallen, and that was released in January this year, meaning that the title had more than six months clear run at piracy-free sales. That being said, no one knows when CONSPIR4CY began working on Denuvo.

In any event, optimism is high for more Denuvo titles being released soon.

“Who knows what more Denuvo games get released now,” Royalgamer06 says.

“Denuvo’s reputation will get crushed at this rate for sure. First they let this big [Voksi] exploit happen and now their infamous protection gets fully cracked by CONSPIR4CY.

“Seems like there really is no way to beat piracy,” he concludes.

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

An astonishing three decades have passed since Nintendo first unleashed Metroid on a still-young video gaming market. Debuted in Japan in 1986 on the now-classic Famicom system, Metroid gained a dedicated and passionate following.

For those interested in the game’s development, Kotaku has decent potted history. However, this weekend, with Metroid turning 30, another big event reignited the fires.

AM2R (Another Metroid 2 Remake) has been in development for more than 10 years. Based on Metroid II: The Return Of Samus, it’s a game written by fans, for fans. After a demo version was released in 2014, this Saturday the full version landed, free of charge.

“Finally. This is the first full release of AM2R. You’ll be able to complete Metroid 2 like you never did before,” a post by developer DoctorM64 revealed.

“It was a long journey. I grew up both as a person and as a developer along this project. Today I can start sharing with you the rest of the game. There’s lots of improvements and features planned for a near future.”

The release delighted the gaming press, with shouts of “brilliant” and “hot hot hot“. But now it appears that Nintendo is attempting to pour cold water on the flames using the DMCA.

According to an announcement this morning by leading Metroid fansite Metroid-Database, Nintendo took exception to the site hosting the game files and filed a complaint with its webhost.

Friends: Nintendo has hit us (meaning, our website host) with a DMCA takedown notice. We can no longer host the AM2R file. Sorry!

— Metroid Database (@MetroidDatabase) August 7, 2016

In a follow-up, Metroid Database lead designer Infinity’s Edge published the full email, which was sent to the site’s web host by a lawyer acting for Nintendo of America.

Dear Copyright Agent,

We represent Nintendo of America Inc. (Nintendo) in intellectual property matters. Nintendo recently learned that content hosted by SoftLayer at http://www.metroid-database.com/files/AM2R_10.zip infringes copyrights owned by Nintendo. This notice is provided pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC § 512, and SoftLayer’s DMCA Policy.

The above URL provides access to a software file that makes unauthorized use of Nintendo’s copyrighted material from its Metroid video game franchise, including but not limited to the images and fictional character depictions from U.S. Copyright Reg. Nos. PA0000356142, supp. by PA0000547461 (Metroid); VA0000474073 & TX003221317 (Metroid II: Return of Samus); PA0000720157 (Super Metroid); PA0001275461 (Metroid Prime); PA0001275460 (Metroid Prime 2: Echoes); PA0001633666 (Metroid Prime 3: Corruption); PA0001915118 (Metroid Prime Hunters); and PA0001791606 (Metroid: Other M).

I have a good faith belief that this use is not authorized by the intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law. I hereby state that the information herein is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am authorized to act on Nintendo of America Inc.’s behalf.

We would appreciate your expeditious removal of all infringing content. Please contact me immediately with any questions.

This notice is not intended to and shall not waive or prejudice any rights and remedies that Nintendo may have at law, in equity, or otherwise. Any and all such rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved.

Best regards,

Brian Sniffen
Attorney for Nintendo of America Inc.

Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower | 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue | Portland, Oregon 97204
Office: 503.224.5858 | Fax: 503.224.0155

Why Nintendo appears to have targeted Metroid Database with a takedown and not yet the official site is unclear. However, the official site is currently only linking to files hosted elsewhere (Mediafire, Filedropper), so it could be that the third party sites will receive notices directly. That being said, no files have yet been taken down.

TorrentFreak has reached out to Brian Sniffen for comment but in the meantime a DMCA notice published by Kickstarter in June confirms that the lawyer has acted for Nintendo in earlier Metroid copyright cases.

Of course, fans of the remake and indeed the whole Metroid series are pretty upset that Nintendo appear to be spoiling the party, but with the game already widely distributed, Nintendo isn’t going to be able to do much to stop things now.

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

It’s been two and a half weeks since the shutdown of KickassTorrents, the world’s leading torrent site, but beyond the US criminal complaint and the arrest of its owner, little fresh news has been made available.

In the background, however, the wheels turn.

As revealed last week, Ira Rothken, Kim Dotcom’s lawyer, will be representing KAT founder Artem Vaulin in his battle with US authorities. Rothken sees parallels with the Department of Justice’s battle against Megaupload, so in some respects the cases will compliment each other.

But as Vaulin languishes in a Polish jail, the work of US law enforcement continues. Part of the KickassTorrents complaint supports seizure warrants against several of the site’s domains, as listed below.

KickassTorrents.com has already been seized and currently displays the familiar Homeland Security/Department of Justice seizure banner.

Kastatic.com, a domain utilized for some technical aspects of the site, is also in the hands of the United States government.

Thekat.tv has been taken too and is being directed to the familiar SeizedServers.com. It does not currently display the banner, however.

All three of these domains were under the control of the US-based Verisign registry, which might explain why they were seized so rapidly. That being said, the Tonga-based Kickass.to also fell quickly into US hands, despite the ccTLD being a famous hold-out for all kinds of pirate sites. It too displays the seized banner.

Others are taking longer to process, such as the Philippines-based Kat.ph. That domain hasn’t been used for some time though, despite being involved in earlier legal disputes.

Interestingly, Kat.cr, the site’s main domain, and Kickass.cr, a memorable backup, are both sitting dormant and not yet directing to a seizure banner. The Costa Rican domain registry in control of them is staying tight-lipped over their status, informing TorrentFreak that local legislation forbids them from providing details.

“According to the Republic of Costa Rica Law on Protection of Persons against the use of their Personal Data (Law No. 8968), we are not authorized to provide information of any kind about .cr domains to third parties who are not the owners of the domain,” the registry told TF.

However, we can see from the domains’ WHOIS entries that one of them is sporting an unexpected update.

Despite all its troubles, somehow Kickass.cr has been put up for sale. Those interested in purchasing the memorable domain are directed to the SEDO marketplace where they are invited to submit an offer. After two bids the price being asked is a ridiculously low $230, but anyone is free to offer as much as they like.

While someone may be tempted to offer real cash (rather than our Monopoly money), it seems unlikely any sale will go through to completion. Firstly, the US government is determined to get its hands on the domain but separately it also shows some unusual markers in its status which suggest any sale won’t be a smooth one.

In the meantime, many other KickassTorrents-owned domains appear to have been overlooked or are of no interest to the United States. At least a dozen separate domains owned by KAT-related entities remain active. Crucially, however, none point to a useful torrent website.

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

For closing on 20 years, online piracy has been the bane of the music industry. Starting off relatively small due to limited speed Internet connections, the phenomenon boomed as broadband took hold.

In the years that followed, countless millions of tracks were shared among like-minded Internet users eager to keep up with their favorite artists and to discover those they never knew existed.

But with 2016 almost two-thirds done, legal music availability has never been better and the excuses for obtaining all content illegally are slowly disappearing over the horizon, for those who can afford it at least.

Nevertheless, one type of piracy refuses to go away, no matter how well-off the consumer. By definition, pre-release music is officially unavailable to buy, so money is completely out of the equation. Such leaks are the ultimate forbidden fruit for hardcore fans of all standing, including those most likely to shell out for the real thing.

This means that the major labels regularly cite pre-release leaks as the most damaging form of piracy, as they are unable to compete with the unauthorized copies already available. Release plans and marketing drives are planned and paid for in advance, and record companies are reluctant to change them.

As a result, such leaks are often followed by extreme outbursts from labels which slam leakers and downloaders alike. That’s perhaps understandable but there are better ways of getting the message over without attacking fans. Last week, drum and bass, dubstep, breakbeat and house stars Noisia showed how it should be done after their long-awaited album Outer Edges leaked online six weeks early.

“Friday night, while we were in the final minutes of setting up the stage for our first ever Outer Edges show, we received the news that our album had been leaked. We think you can imagine how bad we felt at that moment,” the trio told fans on Facebook.

“We realize it’s 2016, and things like these happen all the time. Still, it’s quite a setback. All the plans we’ve made have to be scrapped and replaced by something less ideal, because we have to react to this unfortunate situation.”

In the DnB scene Noisia are absolutely huge but despite their success have chosen to stay close to their fans. The trio run their own label (Vision Recordings) so have more control than many artists, thus allowing them to give fans unprecedented access to their music.

“So far in releasing this album, we’ve made a conscious effort to make every track that’s available somewhere, available everywhere. If you pre-ordered the album on Itunes or our webstore, you received the new track the same day it was first premiered on Soundcloud,” Noisia continue.

“We believe that users of all platforms should be able to listen to our music pretty much the minute it’s available anywhere else. In this philosophy, the availability of our whole album on illegal download sites means that we have to make it available on all platforms.”

So, instead of going off on a huge rant, Noisia leapt into action.

“We have immediately changed all our previous plans and made the whole album available to buy on our web store right now,” the band announced on the day of the leak.

Sadly, other digital platforms couldn’t move as quickly, so most only got the release on Friday. Physical products couldn’t be moved either due to production limitations, so they will appear on the original schedule.

“Even though we are unhappy about this leak, we’re still really happy with the music. We really hope you will enjoy it as much as we’ve enjoyed making it,” Noisia said.

With this reaction to what must’ve been a hugely disappointing leak, Noisia showed themselves to be professionals. No crying, no finger pointing, just actions to limit the impact of the situation alongside a decision to compete with free, both before and after the leak.

Nevertheless, Thijs, Martijn and Nik are human after all, so they couldn’t resist taking a little shot at whoever leaked their music. No threats of lawsuits of course, but a decent helping of sarcasm and dark humor.

“Thanks to whoever leaked our album, next time please do it after the album is out, maybe we can coordinate? Oh wait, that wouldn’t really be leaking… And besides, we don’t negotiate with terror..leaking persons,” they said.

“No, instead we will fold, and adjust our entire strategy. Take that! We hope you get stung by a lot of mosquitoes this summer, and maybe also next summer.”

Noisia’s next album will probably take years to arrive (Outer Edges took six years) but when it does, don’t expect to be warned months in advance. The trio are already vowing to do things differently next time, so expect the unexpected.

Noisia make a lot of their music available for free on Soundcloud, YouTube and ad-supported Spotify.

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

Following a few hints dropped early last month, Kim Dotcom later confirmed he was working on a brand new file-sharing platform with a familiar name.

Now partially confirmed as Megaupload (or possibly Megaupload 2.0), the site is set to launch in January 2017, an event that will coincide with the 2012 closure of the original site and the massive police raid against its operators.

Over the past few days Dotcom has taken to Twitter to drip feed various nuggets of information about his upcoming service. The first came on Tuesday when he said that he couldn’t wait to launch “groundbreaking innovations” that will take Bitcoin “mainstream.”

After concentrating on his usual array of political tweets, a few hours ago Dotcom stepped on the Megaupload gas, underlining its links to Bitcoin.

Every #Megaupload file transfer will be linked to a tiny #Bitcoin micro transaction. Get ready for Bitcache. pic.twitter.com/0viV2sJ9ax

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 5, 2016

The suggestion that there will be currency changing hands for people sharing files using Megaupload 2.0 is certainly an intriguing one. Dotcom previously said the site will launch with Megaupload 1.0’s user database, which could amount to 100 million users. That’s a lot of users, a lot of files, and potentially lots of money.

The term ‘Bitcache’ also raises questions. A project of the same name already exists but Dotcom appears to have something else in mind.

“Nobody will upload to any other cloud after Megaupload’s Bitcache goes live. 100 million Bitcache wallets,” he said this morning.

For now, Dotcom doesn’t seem interested in revealing solid information about Bitcache. However, in response to a user who asked whether Dotcom had considered Bitcoin’s block size issues, the German suggested that ‘bitcache’ would solve the problem.

@CryptoGambleh The 'cache' in Bitcache solves the problem. It eliminates all blockchain limitations. Wait for it :-)

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 5, 2016

The links between the under-development file-sharing platform and Bitcoin are clearly ones Dotcom is keen to promote. The entrepreneur often suggests that his followers should invest in this, or avoid that, but this morning his message was clear. Buy Bitcoin. Now.

“Buy Bitcoin while cheap. Like right now. Trust me,” he said. “Bitcoin = $2000+ 2017.”

Further details will be revealed on January 20, 2017, during the launch of Megaupload 2.0, an event that is already developing an interesting guest list.

This morning, financial journalist and guru Max Keiser said he will be in attendance, declaring the project “Big news for Bitcoin.”

Also of interest is new information which suggests that developers will be able to build their open projects using the cloud-storage features of Dotcom’s new platform.

“Megaupload 2.0 will be available ‘white label’. You can use any domain, free of charge, for your cloud sharing needs. Bitcache enabled,” he adds.

The launch date for Megaupload 2.0 is a little over five months away so Dotcom and those collaborating with him certainly have their work cut out if they are to deliver as promised. That being said, if they can pull this rabbit out of the hat it could be the shot in the arm the file-sharing world has been longing for.

“Megaupload 2.0 takes decentralization, anonymity & encryption to the next level. A nightmare for those who want to mass surveil & censor,” Dotcom concludes.

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

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was viewed by many as the country’s leading anti-piracy outfit. Financed by the major Hollywood studios, AFACT was front and center of most major copyright battles Down Under since its inception in 2004.

Perhaps most notably, AFACT was the group that spearheaded the prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful legal action that aimed to force local ISP iiNet to disconnect Internet users for alleged piracy.

For several years, AFACT was headed up by Neil Gane, a former Hong Kong Police Inspector who had worked with the MPAA against piracy across Asia. In 2014, when AFACT became known by the more friendly name of the Australian Screen Association (ASA), Gane left the organization to return to Hong Kong.

There Gane headed up the newly created Asia Pacific Internet Centre (APIC), a regional anti-piracy, policy, research and training hub for the Motion Picture Association (MPA) Asia Pacific.

Gane was replaced as head of ASA/AFACT by Mark Day, a former regional legal counsel at the MPA and the group’s main representative in China. Between 2001 and 2009, Day oversaw multiple criminal and civil cases prosecuted by MPA members.

Now, however, Day’s career at the ASA appears to be over. After just a year in his new role, Day was fired from the top job. In response, he’s now suing his former employer and former AFACT chief Neil Gane for allegedly doing so illegally.

According to court papers filed in Federal Court and first reported by SMH, in 2015 the MPAA made a decision to significantly reduce ASA’s budget.

In response, ASA director Mike Ellis, a veteran of the MPA and its Asia Pacific president, decided to dismiss Day in November 2015 to take over the position himself. Day was on sick leave at the time.

Day later fought back, claiming through his lawyer that he’d been working in a hostile workplace and had been the victim of bullying. He’s now suing the ASA, Mike Ellis and Neil Gane, for discrimination and punishing him for exercising his workplace rights.

According to SMH, Day is seeking compensation for economic loss, psychological injury, pain, suffering, humiliation, and damage to his professional reputation.

While Day’s lawsuit could yield some interesting facts about the anti-piracy operations of the MPA, the dismissal of the former ASA boss in the face of MPAA cuts is the broader story.

As revealed in May this year, the MPAA is also set to withdraw funding from the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft before the end of 2016, ending a 30-year relationship with the group.

Local funding for FACT was withdrawn in favor of financing larger regional hubs with a wider remit, in FACT’s case the MPA’s EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) hub in Brussels.

In ASA’s case, it’s clear that the MPA has decided that its recently-formed Asia Pacific Internet Centre (APIC) will be its regional anti-piracy powerhouse and where its local funding will be concentrated in future.

The MPA’s regional hubs are said to offer the studios “a nimble local presence and a direct relationship with local law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, the MPAA’s head office remains in Los Angeles.

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

Music gets uploaded to the Internet every minute of every day, much to the irritation of recording labels. Largely these uploads are dealt with via takedown notices but occasionally there is a desire to track down the individual behind the unauthorized distribution.

One such case currently before the Supreme Court of the State of New York sees Atlantic Recording Corporation trying to obtain the identity of a person who uploaded some of their copyrighted content to the Internet in June.

The complaint concerns the track ‘Heathens’ by the platinum-certified band Twenty One Pilots.

“Prior to June 15, 2016, Atlantic had provided access to a digital copy of Heathens only to an extremely limited number of individuals,” the complaint reads.

“These individuals included members of 21 Pilots, their manager, Atlantic and [record label] Fueled by Ramen executives and members of Atlantic’s radio field staff. In each such case, the individual was barred from distributing the recording until the scheduled release date of June 24, 2016.”

Atlantic says that all of its employees who were aware of the impending release were “contractually obligated and/or under a fiduciary obligation” not to disclose its existence until June 24. However, things didn’t go to plan.

On or around June 15, someone with early access to the track posted it to a file-hosting service called Dropfile.to. Following that upload it’s alleged that the poster then advertised the track for download on Reddit.

“The Poster posted a link to the file he or she uploaded to Dropfile.to to the Twenty One Pilots subreddit (a publicly accessible message board, hosted by Reddit Inc.), with the title “[Leak] New Song – ‘Heathens”,” the complaint reads.

As illustrated in the image above, the Reddit thread was indeed started on June 15 and can still be found today. It was posted by a user calling him/herself “twentyoneheathens.”

That user account is still on Reddit but its solitary purpose appears to have been the advertise the availability of the track on Dropfile. No other actions are registered against the account, a hindrance to anyone trying to find out who is behind it.

After becoming aware of the leak, Atlantic says it tried to stop distribution but had minimal success.

“Upon becoming aware of the Posting, Atlantic attempted to have the illegally distributed copies of Heathens removed from the Internet. Despite expending significant effort and funds in this attempt, the removal efforts were ultimately unsuccessful in curtailing further widespread distribution,” the label says.

TorrentFreak has been able to confirm a fairly broad takedown campaign which began with RIAA action on June 16. From there, the UK’s BPI appears to have taken over, sending hundreds of takedowns to Google referencing dozens of sites.

Fighting a losing battle, Atlantic took the decision to release the track on June 16, the day after its leak online and well ahead of its planned August 5 album debut. The track had been scheduled to appear on “Suicide Squad: The Album” this week to coincide with the release of the movie of the same name.

Atlantic says this early release frustrated its marketing efforts, something which directly hit sales.

“Following the June 16, 2016, release, sales of the Heathens single, which were unsupported by Atlantic’s carefully-planned marketing strategy, failed to reach predicted levels, causing substantial harm to Atlantic in the form of lost single and album sales revenue,” the complaint reads.

So now, as expected, Atlantic is on the warpath. In its complaint the company asks the Court to force Reddit to hand over the information, IP addresses included, it holds on the person who uploaded the link to the track.

Suspecting that Atlantic would also try to get information from Dropfile, TorrentFreak contacted the site’s operator for comment. He informs us that the label hasn’t made contact with him.

“[This news] comes as a surprise to me, we have not heard from anyone about it prior to this,” he says.

“I guess that Atlantic Records figured out it will be easier to get the poster’s data from Reddit or they will use official authorities to contact us in that matter (which might take months).”

Further complicating any retrieval of data from Dropfile are the site’s logging policies.

“Dropfile is a simple service for anonymous sharing of files that need to be placed online only temporarily,” the site explains.

“We keep no logs on our side whatsoever. We don’t use cookies, any kind of traffic tracking (Google Analytics), social media buttons that could track you (Facebook, Twitter) and have no ads that could track you.”

Furthermore, Dropfile is located in Slovakia where there is no mandatory requirement to log visitor data.

From Atlantic’s complaint, it seems clear the label is expecting the culprit to be close to home.

“If the Poster is not an Atlantic employee, then he or she likely obtained the Recording from an Atlantic employee, who would have breached his or her contract and/or fiduciary duties to Atlantic by providing the Poster access to the Recording. Atlantic is unaware of the true identity of the Poster and is unable to ascertain that information from any source other than Reddit,” the label adds.

It seems likely that Reddit will comply with the subpoena but only time will tell whether it will lead to the leaker. The original track uploaded to Dropfile has now expired.

“Files are physically removed from servers after 24 hours from their upload or when reported. After that, we have no clue what the file was. And we never knew who uploaded it,” Dropfile concludes.

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

Forcing Internet service providers to block access to ‘pirate’ content is one of the preferred methods of copyright holders dealing with online infringement.

How that should be carried out in practice is a matter for debate. In most cases thus far, sites that carry or index a large proportion of infringing content have been targeted by legal action, with rights holders arguing that whole domains should be blocked by ISPs.

In other cases, arguments have been made for pinpoint action against specific URLs, although this clearly has its problems. URLs are easily removed or replaced, and entertainment companies would much rather take out a whole domain for good instead of playing a game of cat and mouse.

Over in India, this debate has been playing out in a case involving Star India Pvt Ltd, an entertainment company owned by 21st Century Fox. Back in 2014, Star filed a complaint against more than 70 websites that were preparing to stream copyrighted sports broadcasts without permission.

The Delhi High Court considered the merits of the case and sided with Star, ordering local Internet service providers to block 73 websites which contained the specific URLs listed in the complaint.

However, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) filed an appeal early 2015, opposing the positioning of the government in the middle of a private copyright dispute and arguing that whole sites should not remain blocked once the events in question had concluded. The public should not be denied access to content that does not infringe Star’s rights, lawyers for the government added.

In March 2016, the Delhi High Court sided with the government, ruling that in the interests of free access to information only specific URLs carrying or linking to infringing content should be blocked. Star immediately filed another appeal, with success.

In a decision handed down last Friday, the High Court found that blocking entire sites engaged in large volumes of infringement is a justified course of action for copyright holders.

“In relation to websites which have hardly any lawful business and which are in entirety or to a large extent indulging in piracy, merely blocking a URL where the infringing content is located not an effective solution,” the Court ruled.

The Court found that dozens of sites carried up to 2,000 infringing URLs, each linking to cricket matches to which Star owned the rights. Blocking each one individually would prove an arduous task.

“It would be a gargantuan task for [Star] to keep on identifying each offending URL and especially keeping in view that as and when the respondent identifies the URL and it is blocked by the ISP, the rogue website, within seconds can change the URL thereby frustrating the very act of blocking the URL,” the Court’s added.

However, in instances where sites contain infringing URLs but are not “entirely or to a large extent indulging in piracy”, requests can be made to block only the URLs in question.

In respect of the assertion by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology that government departments shouldn’t become involved in private copyright disputes, the Court found that it is the “duty of the government” to “assist in the enforcement of court orders.”

Star India welcomed the decision.

“We believe that this landmark judgment will have a positive impact as it creates a fair balance between rights owners and public interest allowing for rights owners to more efficiently protect their rights against outright rogue or pirate websites that blatantly infringe copyright and contain large extent of infringing content,” the company’s legal team said.

Whether this ruling will prompt a new wave of blocking requests remains to be seen but that seems the most likely outcome.

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

As reported last week, US-based photographer Carol Highsmith is locked in dispute with stock-imaging giant Getty Images.

The dispute began last year when Highsmith’s This is America! Foundation received a threatening letter from a company calling itself License Compliance Services (LCS).

Sent on behalf of Getty-affiliated Alamy it warned that Highsmith’s use of her own photograph was a breach of the company’s licensing terms for the content. The matter could be settled for $120, the letter said.

While the cash demand was later dropped, Highsmith discovered that Getty and Alamy were offering more than 18,000 of her other photographs on their websites. Highsmith had previously placed the images in the public domain but noted that Getty was misrepresenting them by stating that users must buy a copyright license from the company to use them.

The resulting $1 billion dollar lawsuit against Getty made the headlines last week but unusually the imaging company has now chosen to make a public statement in advance of filing a response in court.

“We are reviewing the complaint. We believe it is based on a number of misconceptions, which we hope to rectify with the plaintiff as soon as possible. If that is not possible, we will defend ourselves vigorously,” the company says.

While this suggests that Getty might be prepared to come to an arrangement with Highsmith, the wording makes it clear the company is also prepared for a fight. According to Getty, it has done nothing wrong, and the fact that Highsmith placed her content in the public domain supports that position.

“The content in question has been part of the public domain for many years. It is standard practice for image libraries to distribute and provide access to public domain content, and it is important to note that distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” the company adds.

Highsmith’s complaint, which was filed last Monday in a New York District Court, begs to differ.

“The Defendants are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees to people and organizations who were already authorized to reproduce and display the donated photographs for free, but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner and threatening individuals and companies with copyright infringement lawsuits that the Defendants could not actually lawfully pursue,” the complaint reads.

Getty doesn’t directly address the copyright-trolling aspect of the dispute, other than to shift the responsibility of that to Alamy and LCS, the companies that sent the original $120 claim to Highsmith.

“LCS works on behalf of content creators and distributors to protect them against the unauthorized use of their work. In this instance, LCS pursued an infringement on behalf of its customer, Alamy. Any enquiries regarding that matter should be directed to Alamy,” Getty notes.

“However, as soon as the plaintiff contacted LCS, LCS acted swiftly to cease its pursuit with respect to the image provided by Alamy and notified Alamy it would not pursue this content.”

That anyone, anywhere, has a business model which involves sending out threatening letters to people using public domain images is worrying and clearly what inspired Highsmith’s lawsuit.

However, both Getty and Alamy are more than capable of putting up an extremely spirited defense, especially when a billion dollars is on the table.

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