Author: Andy

For the past several years, one of the key educational strategies of entertainment industry companies has been to cast doubt on the credibility of so-called ‘pirate’ sites.

Previously there have been efforts to suggest that site operators make huge profits at the expense of artists who get nothing, but there are other recurring themes, mostly centered around fear.

One of the most prominent is that pirate sites are dangerous places to visit, with users finding themselves infected with viruses and malware while being subjected to phishing attacks.

This increasingly well-worn approach has just been revisited by consumer interest group Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA). In a new report titled ‘Enabling Malware’, the Hollywood-affiliated group calls out United States-based companies for helping pirate site operators “bait consumers and steal their personal information.”

“When you think of Internet crime, you probably imagine shadowy
individuals operating in Eastern Europe, China or Russia who come up with devious plans to steal your identity, trick you into turning over financial information or peddling counterfeits or stolen content. And you would be right,” DCA begin.

“But while many online criminals are based overseas, and often beyond the reach of U.S. prosecutors, they are aided by North American technology companies that ensure that overseas operators’ lifeline to the public – their websites – are available.”

DCA has examined the malware issue on pirate sites on previous occasions but this time around their attention turns to local service providers, including hosting platform Hawk Host and CDN company Cloudflare who (in)directly provide services to pirate sites.

“Are these companies doing anything illegal? No more than the landlord of an apartment isn’t doing anything illegal by renting to a drug dealer who has sellers showing up day and night,” DCA writes.

“But just like that landlord, more often than not these companies either look the other way or just don’t want to know.”

Faced with an investigative dead-end when it comes to tracing the operators of pirate sites, DCA criticizes Cloudflare for providing a service which effectively shields the true location of such platforms.

“In order to utilize CloudFlare’s CDN, DNS, and other protection services customers have to run all of their website traffic through the CloudFlare network. The end result of doing so is masked hosting information,” DCA reports.

“Instead of the actual hosting provider, IP address, domain name server, etc., a Whois search provides the information for CloudFlare’s network.”

To illustrate its point, DCA points to a pirate domain which presents itself as the famous Putlocker site but is actually a third-party clone operating from the dubious URL, Putlockerr.ac.

“From websites such as putlockerr.ac consumers are tricked into downloading malware. For example, when a consumer clicks to watch a movie, they are sent to a new screen in which they are told their video player is out of date and they must update it. The update, Digital Citizens’ researchers found, is the malware delivery mechanism.”

There’s little doubt that some of these low-level sites are in the malware game so DCA’s research is almost certainly sound. However, just like their colleagues at the MPAA and RIAA who regularly shift responsibility to Google, DCA lays the blame on Cloudflare, a more easily pinpointed target than a pirate site operator.

Unsurprisingly, Cloudflare isn’t particularly interested in getting involved in the online content-policing business.

“CloudFlare’s service protects and accelerates websites and applications. Because CloudFlare is not a host, we cannot control or remove customer content from the Internet,” the company said in a response to the report.

In common with Google, Cloudflare also says it makes efforts to stop the spread of malware but due to the nature of its business it is unable to physically remove content from the Internet.

“CloudFlare leaves the removal of online content to law enforcement agencies and complies with any legal requests made by the authorities,” the company notes.

“If we believe that one of our customers’ websites is distributing malware, CloudFlare will post an interstitial page that warns site visitors and asks them if they would like to proceed despite the warning. This practice follows established industry norms.”

Finally, while DCA says it has the safety of Internet users at heart, its malware report misses a great opportunity. Aside from criticizing companies like Cloudflare for not doing enough, it offers zero practical anti-malware advice to consumers.

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

In the most dramatic turn of events since the raid of The Pirate Bay in December 2014, KickassTorrents went dark yesterday.

Previously the world’s largest torrent site, KAT shut down following the arrest of its alleged founder. Artem Vaulin, a 30-year-old from Ukraine, was arrested in Poland after his entire operation had been well and truly compromised by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

When large sites are raided it is common for other sites in a similar niche to consider their positions. This phenomenon was illustrated perfectly when the 2012 raids on Megaupload resulted in sites such as BTjunkie taking the decision to shut down.

At this point, most other torrent sites seem fairly stable but there appears to have been at least one ‘pirate’ casualty following yesterday’s drama.

For many years, Solarmovie has been one of the most visible and visited ‘pirate’ streaming portals. Like many others, the site has had its fair share of domain issues, starting out at .COM and more recently ending up at .PH. However, sometime during the past few hours, Solarmovie disappeared.

No official announcement concerning the site’s fate has been made but it’s clear from the criminal complaint filed against KickassTorrents that Artem Vaulin had close connections to Solarmovie.

As reported yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security obtained a copy of KickassTorrents’ servers from its Canadian host and also gained access to the site’s servers in Chicago. While conducting his inquiries, the Special Agent handling the case spotted an email address for the person responsible for renting KAT’s servers.

Further investigation of Vaulin’s Apple email account showed the Ukrainian corresponding with this person back in 2010.

“The subject of the email was ‘US Server’ and stated: ‘Hello, here is access to the new server’ followed by a private and public IP address located in Washington DC, along with the user name ‘root’ and a password,” the complaint reveals.

Perhaps tellingly, the IP address provided by this individual to Vaulin was found to have hosted Solarmovie.com from August 2010 through to April 2011. Furthermore, up until just last month, the IP address was just one away from an IP address used to host KickassTorrents.

“As of on or about June 27, 2016, one of the IP addresses hosting solarmovie.ph was one IP address away (185.47.10.11) from an IP address that was being used to host KAT (185.47.10.12 and 185.47.10.13),” the complaint adds.

While none of the above is proof alone that Vaulin was, for example, the owner of Solarmovie, it’s clear that at some point he at least had some connections with the site or its operator.

On the other hand, in torrent and streaming circles it’s common for people to use services already being used by others they know and trust, so that might provide an explanation for the recent IP address proximity.

In any event, last night’s shutdown of Solarmovie probably indicates that the heat in the kitchen has become just a little too much. Expect more fallout in the days to come.

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

While Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload has been the focus of thousands of headlines over the past half decade, the tech entrepreneur also had many other successful ventures in his portfolio.

Among them was Megavideo, a file-hosting service that allowed users to upload video in much the same way as YouTube does today. The ad-supported platform was free to use for any video up to 72 minutes in length, with content of longer duration requiring a subscription to watch in full without waits.

Megavideo disappeared in 2012 following the raids on Megaupload but that didn’t stop Italian TV outfit RTI (Reti Televisive Italiane) suing for copyright infringement. As reported yesterday, a Rome court has just ordered Megavideo to pay $13.4m in damages after the company reportedly failed to respond to takedown notices.

However, the decision is an extremely unusual one. In Megavideo’s absence the court found that the copyright holder’s takedown notices (which listed only TV show titles and contained no URLs) were sufficient for Megavideo to take action. The court also found that video categorization and ad placement undermined Megavideo’s safe harbor.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Megaupload/Megavideo lawyer Ira Rothken says that the ruling represents a real cause for concern for other companies operating in the same sector.

“The Rome court apparently ruled on this Megavideo case in a default context, unknown to us, and the result is unworkable caselaw on ISP secondary copyright liability,” Rothken explains.

“The court used user-generated categorization and garden variety ads like those found on YouTube and other mainstream cloud sites as adverse factors. Without categories and ads there likely could be no user-generated content sites.”

But unsurprisingly it’s the issue of the URL-free takedown notices that attracts the most attention. In the United States and across Europe, it’s an accepted norm that takedown notices must be specific about the content to be removed. That the Italian court decided otherwise presents a real danger for service providers.

“It was not explained in the Rome ruling why the copyright owners couldn’t provide URLs in the takedown notices and no burden analysis based on competent evidence was done by the Court,” Rothken says.

“The Rome Court’s ruling not requiring specific URLs in cloud takedown notices contradicts US caselaw in the United States in cases which permit ISPs to ignore takedown requests that do not contain a specific link.”

Rothken points out that in US courts the burden is on copyright holders to police their works online and that service providers are not responsible for deciding what is and is not infringing.

“The ISP has no duty to investigate and providing only a title without a URL would require investigation and the making of ad hoc copyright assessments,” he adds.

But that’s exactly what Megavideo would have had to do in the scenario outlined by the court. Without specific URLs being provided in takedown requests, Megavideo would have been left to trawl its databases for titles of videos that contained the same or similar words cited by copyright holders, a notoriously inaccurate method of detecting infringing content.

“Under the Rome Court’s ‘no URL’ requirement, some enterprising plaintiff can do a takedown notice for some video clips called “the Greek wedding” with no URL provided and no one will know what Greek wedding clips they are referring to,” Rothken says.

“Worse, to disambiguate the takedown request the ISP would need a legal copy of the alleged video for comparison purposes obtainable through no court-described method.”

However, even in the event that the original video was successfully obtained from the copyright holder, matters would not be straightforward.

“The ISP would need a warehouse full of folks that would need to watch the target video and thousands of cloud-stored videos and make ad hoc assessments on infringements versus third-party works versus fair use versus licensed uses to avoid overbroad deletions or copyright lawsuits,” Rothken warns.

Aside from the obviously curious details of the ruling, it’s a little surprising that other companies invested in the sector, YouTube for instance, haven’t become involved in a case that appears to have implications for them. Nevertheless, the court has spoken and Rothken says that its ruling poses a real cause for concern.

“This type of secondary infringement rule if allowed to stand arguably violates EU freedom of expression and copyright-related treaties, amongst other things,” he concludes.

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

Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload empire was shuttered in 2012 with dramatic raids in New Zealand and legal action on several continents. Nevertheless, the drama continues.

The entrepreneur and his former colleagues are fighting on several fronts, including extradition cases in New Zealand plus pending copyright, racketeering and money laundering charges in the United States. Interestingly, another case has just emerged out of the shadows in Europe.

Megavideo, Megaupload’s sister site, was focused on storing videos uploaded by its users. Predictably, however, thousands of these videos were movies and TV shows, for which Megaupload users held no copyrights.

Some of that content belonged to TV company RTI (Reti Televisive Italiane), a subsidiary of Mediaset, the media giant founded by former Italian president Silvio Berlusconi. In an effort to have that content removed, in 2010 RTI says it contacted Megavideo with takedown requests, takedowns which the company failed to act upon.

This prompted RTI to take Megavideo to court, claiming that the video hosting platform had infringed its broadcasting rights and engaged in unfair competition. RTI asked the court to order Megavideo to take down the unauthorized content and award damages of more than $110m.

The unfair competition claim gained no traction but the Tribunale di Roma has just handed down its decision and its bad news for Megavideo.

The Court found that the Hong Kong-based video hosting platform illegally distributed more than 16,000 minutes of RTI programming and ordered it to pay the equivalent of $13.4m in damages, plus more than $60,000 in legal costs.

In Megavideo’s absence (the company did not defend itself), the Court considered whether the platform could enjoy safe harbor as a hosting provider.

Megavideo failed on a number of points, notably by organizing content into various categories, placing advertising based on the geo-locations of its users, and lifting viewing limitations on users after they paid a subscription.

But perhaps the most curious element of the case surrounds the takedown notices RTI sent to Megavideo back in 2010.

While most DMCA-style efforts must include an offending URL so that platforms are easily able to identify the content in question, RTI offered Megavideo no such luxury. The TV company simply advised the hosting platform that its TV shows were on the site and ordered it to take them down.

Strangely the Court found that this was enough information for Megavideo to act on the allegations of infringement. In a partial translation of the ruling, IPKitten has the Court noting that “the information included in those takedown requests was sufficient to allow the defendant to take action to prevent the continuation of the infringement of [RTI’s] rights.”

Even in the absence of the takedowns, the Court added that “the defendant could easily and independently acquire knowledge of such infringements, both because of the notoriety of the TV programmes in question and the relevant broadcasting channels and, in particular, the presence RTI’s distinctive signs on all TV programmes’ extracts.”

In the overall scheme of things the ruling probably represents a minor setback for Kim Dotcom, but the notion that copyright holders can send extremely general takedown requests to hosting platforms and expect them to take action is a worrying one that might not be supported under EU law.

Kim Dotcom did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.

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

After years of being branded one of the world’s worst Internet piracy facilitators, social networking giant vKontakte has taken a huge step towards fixing its reputation.

As predicated last week, vKontakte owner Mail.ru has now signed a licensing agreement with Universal Music and United Music Agency which will see music and video content appear legally on the platform.

The deal also covers Mail.ru’s two other social networking platforms, Classmates (Odnoklassniki) and My World. Along with vKontakte, these sites are the three most popular social networking platforms in Russia.

With the agreement now signed, Mail.ru has licensing agreements in place with the three leading music rights groups – Universal Music Group (UMG), Warner Music and Sony Music.

In addition to allowing huge catalogs of music to appear on vKontakte legitimately, the Universal deal also puts to rest all copyright-related legal action between the companies. VKontakte has now settled its differences with all three music giants.

Details on the UMG deal are scarce, but Mail.ru says that its social network platforms will “test various monetization models jointly with other market players” to find the best solution for artists and fans.

Insiders familiar with the negotiations told Russian news outlet Vedomosti that Universal has received a “minimum guarantee” that it will generate around $8m over the next three years.

VKontakte CEO Boris Dobrodeyev welcomed the deal between the companies and expressed optimism for the future.

“Following extensive negotiations, we have agreed terms with all of the major music rights holders, enabling us to draw a line under this process. This is a historic moment and a new milestone in VKontakte’s history,” Dobrodeyev said.

“Our constructive and mutually beneficial collaboration has put an end to earlier disputes with the record companies. Following the removal of legal barriers, we can now create new products based on VKontakte’s music service that users will value.”

Adrian Cheesley, Senior Vice President at Universal Music Group, said that the deal will ensure that artists will now be paid when their content is exploited on social networks.

“Music has tremendous value and we’re gratified to reach a commercial agreement that ensures UMG’s artists are fairly compensated for the use of their music,” Cheesley said.

“Russia is an important, and growing, market for UMG and with this important step we’re looking forward to developing more local artists, investing in growing the music scene and broadly licensing services.”

It is not yet clear how the terms of the licensing deal will affect how music is made available on vKontakte in future, but it’s likely it will be less of a free-for-all than it currently is. Music downloaded from vKontakte is an important fuelling element of the pirate content landscape so this is definitely something to watch in the weeks and months to come.

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

Music piracy in 2016 is a somewhat curious beast. Streaming platforms are readily accessible and the service provided by outfits like Spotify out-perform the vast majority of pirate sites.

With many legitimate platforms providing an ad-supported free tier, it’s even difficult to complain about the price. Still, some people prefer to pirate and this infuriates the labels, and understandably so. Sadly, however, their response is to blame people that have nothing to do with that infringement.

After being put under intense pressure by copyright holders, Google now feels obliged to let everyone know what measures it’s taking against this kind of piracy. This week it produced a comprehensive report covering every possible angle. Within minutes the record labels had responded, not with thanks, but with intence criticism.

On a personal level I’d like to think that Google is now pretty pissed off, and this is coming from someone who supports artists with subscriptions to Spotify, Deezer and Digitally Imported, and purchases from Beatport and Juno.

For the millionth time, Google does not engage in copyright infringement, yet faced with a problem they can’t solve on their own, the labels have adopted a strategy of painting Google as the villain. The contempt shown by the labels for a company that is already going way beyond what’s required of it under the law is quite unbelievable.

The maddening reality of it all really hits home when one reads a piece penned by the BPI’s Geoff Taylor and published in MBW this week. It begins with complaints that Content ID doesn’t work as well as it should and he invites Google to up its game.

“Despite its amazing innovations in mapping the Earth and inventing driverless cars, Google hasn’t managed to implement a Content ID system that people can’t easily get around,” Taylor complains.

First, Google had no obligation to make Content ID at all but it did and now artists are $2bn better off. Second, people invent systems, people get around them, everyone knows that. But apparently, Google is partly to blame for that too.

“Of course the fact that Google refuses to remove YouTube videos that show you exactly how to circumvent Content ID doesn’t help,” Taylor adds.

No, it’s not helpful, but what it does show is that Google isn’t prepared to stifle free speech, even if it does find it objectionable. Talking about circumventing Content ID is not a crime, nor a breach of YouTube’s terms and conditions. Those videos should stay up, no matter how annoying.

Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that when looking at any industry demands, history shows us that whatever is offered, it will never, ever be enough. Taylor’s piece demonstrates that with flying colors.

“Google should concentrate its formidable resources on making a Content ID system that is genuinely effective in protecting creators; and then apply a similar proactive system to Google search and its other services.”

Proactively censor existence of content on the web. Right. That should be both easy and completely problem free.

To be fair, it’s obvious why the music industry wants Google to go down this route, but the thought of any third party becoming permanent judge and jury over what we can and cannot see online is bewildering. And that’s ignoring the fact that Content ID works for material Google hosts. Applying that to content hosted elsewhere would be a minefield, if not impossible.

But it doesn’t stop there. Also bewildering is how the labels are trying to shame Google into paying them more.

“This isn’t strictly a piracy issue, but we can’t ignore the fact that YouTube pays 1/16th as much for each of its music users as competing services like Spotify,” Taylor writes.

“It’s time that Google started sharing a fair proportion of the value it derives from YouTube with creators.”

In any other marketplace people simply don’t do business with a company if they don’t like the prices being paid, but apparently the labels are being held to ransom.

That being said, since we’re playing this game of “fair proportions”, consider this. YouTube makes pretty much no money. Does the BPI want a share of that?

But the complaint that is perhaps the most frustrating is that the BPI and others are still complaining that pirate sites are turning up in search results for music content.

Let’s be clear, the most popular pirate sites do not turn up in the first results because they’re all being downranked by Google’s anti-piracy algorithm. This means that sites that most people have never heard of get pushed up the list, apparently above legitimate offerings.

That raises the preposterous notion that the people behind many of these bottom tier pirate sites have better SEO skills than the world’s biggest music companies. That being the case, someone needs a kick in the ass – and it’s not Google.

Finally, Taylor criticizes Google for not going after sites that rip audio content from YouTube videos and convert them to MP3s.

“Although such sites breach YouTube’s terms of service and seem to contradict its business model – by turning ad-supported transient streams into permanent copies – Google continues to point to these sites in autocomplete and to host YouTube videos showing how to use them,” he writes.

Again, the BPI is asking for censorship of content that simply isn’t illegal. But more than that it’s yet again demanding action from YouTube when it could take action itself. If these sites are illegal, why aren’t they being added to the UK’s national website blocking list, for example?

The problem with this continual assault on Google is that it’s not only tiresome but it largely misses the point. Google already does way more than the law requires yet it only has control over content hosted on YouTube. No matter what actions it takes, it simply cannot remove illicit content from the web, it can only make it a bit less visible.

Google can look after itself, but copyright holders should be extremely cautious of treating its many overtures with this level of contempt. One volunteer is worth ten pressed men and one can only guess at how much patience Google has left.

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

After years of aggressive litigation against hundreds of thousands of file-sharers, by now the message should be sinking in. Peer-to-peer networks, BitTorrent included, are very public and anyone with the know-how can look in.

Commonly, most of the people doing the monitoring have anti-piracy motives. Some aim to assess how much business may or may not be disappearing due to unauthorized sharing. Others spy with the sole intention of extracting cash settlements from users. US-based Peerlogix has a different agenda.

“We formed the company in 2013 out of a need of independent film studios. The types you see with $100k to maybe $1M budgets. We wanted to show them how to sell their films better,” says Peerlogix CEO and Co-founder William Gorfein.

With no chance of a Netflix deal, Gorfein says these studios often relied on sales to foreign countries that had a demand for American films.

“The problem is, these guys are artists, not analytics pros. Where would the movie be popular? Germany? South Korea? Because these guys typically didn’t have a clue, we felt there would be room for us to step in. We’d be the analysis side,” he explains.

“A film would be released, we could see the countries it’s popular in, and we’d then make introductions to key people in international markets to help broker film distribution deals. That was the idea at least, and our business model was to make money on the analytics.”

In 2014, Peerlogix became a measurement company, similar to Nielsen and comScore, but one gathering data from BitTorrent networks, the only fully international means to obtain video and music content online.

“Going to plan a new tour for an up and coming artist? Let us use this information together to help plan the cities the artist should be in. Trying to produce and finance a movie for international markets? Let’s finally use this activity to see which A and B list actors are popular in foreign markets,” Gorfein says.

In the music sector, Peerlogix has undertaken digital advertising projects for music festivals, gathering consumption data from torrent swarms to improve sales.

“Our goal is to show artists that there’s an entire segment of fans they’re not reaching. That the demographics look great, and that extra tickets and merchandise can be sold as a result of reaching them,” Gorfein explains.

“Your YouTube efforts are garnering X ROI, your social media efforts are giving you Y ROI – but how about the fans on torrents? There are millions, so we’ve been showing artists that there’s an equivalent ROI that can be realized from torrenters (without lawsuits!) and that it’s a necessary strategy to incorporate.”

For those more interested in the mechanics, Peerlogix told us that they’re close to being able to monitor every publicly available torrent.

“As far as protocols go, this includes conventional tracker servers, DHT (and subsequent magnet links), and Peer Exchange (PEX). DHT, by and large, makes up the bulk of the incoming data we collect,” Gorfein says.

“The conventional tracker servers were the simplest to track and mine. We were able to get that ability launched and running after our first few months and with relative ease. DHT is far trickier.”

Once harvested, the data is crunched and shared with third party companies, typically agencies who target individuals with advertising on multiple platforms.

“Does a consumer products company want to advertise to all viewers of Modern Family on ABC? If so, they will need to incorporate the 20% of the viewers that choose to do so via torrents, and that’s where we come in,” Gorfein says.

In order to add value to their service, Peerlogix works with other companies to augment harvested torrent information with demographic and behavioral data. That has provided some valuable insights into the nature of BitTorrent users.

“A eureka moment occurred when we saw that the demographics behind torrent households are borderline incredible – well educated, large discretionary dollars to spend and tech-savvy,” Gorfein says.

“Did you know that homes watching Real Housewives on torrent also have high affinities for fishing? Or that downloaders of Tomb Raider have a 3.3x greater likelihood of watching Game of Thrones? Or that these same Tomb Raider players love the X-Men and Hunger Games series? Me neither but the numbers speak for themselves,” he concludes.

Being monitored for advertising purposes is a daily occurrence for everyone using the Internet, whether that’s on the web or even BitTorrent. Not everyone likes it, but when a timely job opportunity lands on the mat due to the latter, things might not be so bad.

More information on Peerlogix can be found here.

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

For many years, social networking giant vKontakte has been branded one of the world’s worst facilitators of copyright infringement.

The site, often dubbed ‘Russia’s Facebook’, has clashed with copyright holders everywhere, and has even found itself the subject of intense criticism from the U.S. Government.

One of vKontakte’s longest running disputes has been with Universal Music. Like several other recording labels, Universal has put the social network under intense pressure to curtail infringement on its platform.

Patience ran out two years ago when the label filed a lawsuit at the Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Region Arbitration Court. Since then the case has flipped both ways, first with a partial victory for the labels, then a Court of Appeal ruling in favor of vKontakte.

After Universal filed another appeal in May, the case looked like it might drag on, but according to a report from Russia’s Vedomosti, peace is on the horizon.

Citing two sources within vKontakte parent company Mail.ru, the publication says that negotiations to strike a licensing deal with Universal are advanced and an announcement is imminent.

According to the insiders, the companies are in the “final stages” of approval and confirmation of the deal could arrive before the end of the week.

The scope of the licensing/anti-piracy deal appears to be broad, encompassing not only vKontakte but other Mail.ru ventures including Classmates (Odnoklassniki) and My World. These sites are the three most popular social networking platforms in Russia and where millions of tracks are downloaded for free.

So what’s in it for Universal? Currently, it appears that the record label is being guaranteed a minimum fee of $8m over three years. However, there is also a revenue sharing arrangement under discussion which could see Mail.ru companies make money when their users sign up for a premium music subscription package.

There is some speculation that an announcement could take place during this weekend’s VK Fest music festival but the sources warn there are still some legal complications to be ironed out.

In the event that confirmation of the deal is pushed back, the suggestion is that the parties could announce an “agreement of intent” instead, with the final details to be hammered out during the next few weeks.

If Universal does indeed sign on the dotted line, it will be in good company. Mail.ru already has annual licensing deals in place with Sony Music ($2m), Warner Music ($2.5m), distributor The Orchard, plus a handful of local publishers. Adding the world’s largest music company into the mix would largely complete the circle.

Assuming the Universal deal goes ahead, Mail.ru is initially expected to spend around $7m per year on music licensing, a huge amount considering that the entire Russian digital music market was worth just $23.5m in 2015.

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

For the past several years, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has been pressuring Google to stop copyright infringing content and prescription medicines being made available in search results.

In November 2014, Hood issued an administrative subpoena which aimed to reveal inside information detailing Google’s efforts to curtail the appearance of illegal content in listings.

A month later and on the back of secrets revealed as part of the Sony email leaks, Google sued Hood’s office, claiming that the Attorney General was working with groups including the MPAA to undermine its business.

Indeed, evidence produced in court filings showed Hood’s office being coached by lawyers at the MPAA, who in their “cozy relationship” even went as far as helping with the drafting of letters aimed at pressuring Google over piracy.

In March 2015, a judge in the Southern District of Mississippi granted an injunction to stop Hood’s investigation into Google, finding that “interference with Google’s judgment…would likely produce a chilling effect on Google’s protected speech.” Hood was also ordered not to bring any criminal or civil charges against the company.

However, in a blow to Google, just over a year later the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the ruling, noting that the federal judge’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction was made in error (pdf).

While this meant that Hood was free to pursue the administrative subpoena, shortly after the Court of Appeals decision he sent a letter to the court withdrawing it. However, Hood wasn’t quite done, noting that Google still needed to preserve documents demanded under the subpoena, just in case they were needed in future.

In response, Google demanded a rehearing before the Fifth Circuit panel. That was denied but the panel issued a slightly modified opinion which allowed Google to pursue a court ruling declaring that it can not be held liable for content posted by third parties.

But now, however, it appears that from conflict, some kind of peace has broken out. According to a court filing Wednesday, Google has backed down from its efforts to block Hood from investigating its copyright infringement and illegal content practices.

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties to the above captioned action, by their undersigned counsel, that…….all of the claims that have been asserted in this action are hereby dismissed without costs to any party,” the filing reads (pdf).

The document, signed by lawyers representing both Google and Hood’s office, is short on detail and offers no clear explanation as to why Google decided to discontinue its complaint. However, it does suggest that some kind of agreement has been reached over the core issues at the heart of the dispute.

“[T]he Attorney General and Google endeavor to collaborate in addressing the harmful consequences of unlawful and/or dangerous online content,” the document reads.

While Google will be pleased with the outcome, the case was seen by some as a golden opportunity to see just how far Hood and the MPAA had collaborated on ‘Project Goliath‘. Now that an agreement of sorts has been reached, future revelations seem much less likely.

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

The vast majority of publicly available ‘pirate’ sites rely on some kind of advertising to generate revenue. With millions of visitors per month, some are reported to make significant sums.

As a result, copyright holders have been investing considerable resources into initiatives that try to persuade advertisers to stop supporting them. If advertising is removed from these sites, they will cease to exist, entertainment companies argue.

But despite immense pressure on mainstream advertisers, it is still fairly common to be presented with gambling adverts when visiting unauthorized torrent and streaming portals. Just months ago, Bet365, Coral and Sky Bet in the UK were called out over the practice.

However, it’s now clear that if UK gambling operators want to keep their valuable licenses clean, they will have to ensure there is no repeat of these mistakes.

The Gambling Commission is a government-sponsored body with a mandate to keep the gambling business clean in the UK. Its responsibilities include protecting children and other vulnerable people while ensuring that gambling is fair and open. It is also charged with keeping all aspects of crime out of gambling.

In September 2016, the Commission consulted on amendments (pdf) to licensing conditions that would compel licensees to ensure that advertisements “placed by themselves and others” do not appear on websites providing unauthorized access to copyright content.

That consultation was published in May (pdf) followed by a supplementary consultation this month. All respondents agreed in principle that gambling operators should not advertise on pirate sites but there was less consensus on how that could be achieved.

While not advertising directly is less of a problem, some respondents indicated that they use affiliates to place adverts on their behalf, so monitoring them all could prove difficult. Others noted that special software designed for the task might prove expensive.

Overall, however, the Gambling Commission says that something still needs to be done since ads for gambling companies continue to appear on pirate sites.

“Although adverts placed on such websites are not criminal in themselves, they contribute to funding the websites, and are therefore associating gambling with crime. They also frequently appear next to other adverts and links containing malware or viruses,” the Commission says.

As a result, the Commission is now taking action. Due to the perceived seriousness of the situation, the implementation of a ‘social code’ often employed by the industry was rejected. Instead, a new licensing condition is being introduced which will require licensees to ensure that their marketing does not appear on pirate sites.

Licensees will be free to choose which preventative measures they take but they are being advised to make use of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s ‘Infringing Website List‘. Operators are also advised to tighten their agreements with affiliates, making it clear that “robust action” can be taken for any breaches. The use of proactive monitoring software is also advised.

There were some objections from operators, mostly concerning the difficulty of the task ahead, but help will be at hand. Licensees will able to draw on the experiences not only of PIPCU, but also the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the BPI.

“We have decided to implement the new licence condition requiring operators to take responsibility for preventing digital adverts advertising their brand from appearing on websites providing access to unauthorised content,” the Gambling Commission said in response to the consultation.

“We have taken account of respondents’ views and have amended the wording of the licence condition to make clear that in the case of third party advertising operators should implement all reasonable steps to prevent marketing appearing on such websites, and to react quickly and effectively if they do appear.”

The new licence condition (shown below) will be implemented in the autumn/fall.

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