Author: Andy

As a result of its attitudes towards copyright law, The Pirate Bay is without doubt the most blocked ‘pirate’ site in history.

The notorious torrent index is already the subject of blocking orders in many countries worldwide, and others such as Australia are queuing up to add their names to the growing list. But for many citizens of Austria, where the site was blocked last year, the trend has just been reversed.

Following legal action that had dragged on for years, last year the Commercial Court of Vienna finally ordered local ISPs to block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay.

In addition to TPB, the court order also required the Internet providers to block three other “structurally infringing” sites – Isohunt.to, 1337x.to and the now-defunct h33t.to. Soon after, local music rights group LSG sent its lawyers after several other large ISPs urging them to follow suit, or else.

But now, a year on, the blocks appear to be unraveling after the Vienna Higher Regional Court overruled the decision of the Commercial Court. The ruling, which was handed down May 30 but only just made public, means that the ISPs are free to unblock the previously blocked sites.

Text from the unpublished ruling sent to TorrentFreak by FutureZone.at sees the court reference a case from Germany which concluded that ISP blocks are only warranted if copyright holders have exhausted all their options to take action against those actually carrying out the infringement.

In a press release, Maximilian Schubert, Secretary General of industry group Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA), welcomed the decision as “an important milestone” in the fight against entertainment industry blocking demands.

But despite the clearly uncertain legal waters and battles yet to be concluded, rightsholders still aren’t giving up.

ISPA reports that in the days following the judge’s decision yet more blocking requests arrived at several of the country’s ISPs. They contain demands to block streaming platforms movie4k.tv, movie.to, movie2k.pe and kinox.tv.

ISPA is not impressed with these calls and has criticized rightsholders for attempting to force ISPs into the “role of a judge” when deciding whether there’s indeed a sufficient basis for a block.

“A problem in this context is that the offending pages also have legal content and it is no longer possible to access that if barriers are put in place,” Schubert said.

In closing, Schubert also warned that rightsholders are unlikely to accept the decision and will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. Shortly after an appeal from the music industry was confirmed.

“The foundations for site blocking in Austria were clarified legally in a four-year procedure involving the European Court. In the present decision of the Vienna Higher Regional Court, we see the interests of artists and cultural producers ignored,” said IFPI CEO Franz Medwenitsch.

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

Back in April the U.S. Supreme Court approved a rule change that will allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to hack into computers and even phones anywhere in the world.

The changes affect Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which determines how the government investigates criminal complaints.

The changes will allow a judge to grant permission to law enforcement agencies enabling them to hack computers anywhere, provided the location of the target computer has been hidden by technical means. That means that users of TOR, VPNs, and proxies etc could all become vulnerable, regardless of why they are using such tools. But it doesn’t stop there.

“It might also extend to people who deny access to location data for smartphone apps because they don’t feel like sharing their location with ad networks,” the EFF previously warned.

“It could even include individuals who change the country setting in an online service, like folks who change the country settings of their Twitter profile in order to read uncensored Tweets.”

Also of concern is the second part of the proposal which would allow judges to issue a search warrant authorizing the hacking or seizing of computers that might be acting as part of a botnet. That means you, if your computer happens to have been infected with a botnet trojan.

Importantly, Congress didn’t vote through the changes to Rule 41, judicial approval was obtained by the Department of Justice instead. This means that unless Congress passes new legislation to block the changes, time will run out December 1, 2016.

With this deadline looming, a fresh push is underway to try and block what many see as a serious danger to computer users’ security worldwide. To that end a broad coalition of 50 organizations including public interest groups, privacy tool providers, and Internet companies have written to Congress opposing the changes.

In their letter, Google, EFF, Demand Progress, FightForTheFuture, TOR, VPN providers Private Internet Access, Golden Frog and Hide My Ass, plus many others, urge Congress to “consider and debate” the implications of the new rule.

“The changes to Rule 41 give federal magistrate judges across the United States new authority to issue warrants for hacking and surveillance in cases where a computer’s location is unknown,” the letter reads.

“This would invite law enforcement to seek warrants authorizing them to hack thousands of computers at once — which it is hard to imagine would not be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Noting that the changes would allow for the hacking of innocent computer users, the coalition describes the proposal as dangerously broad.

“It fails to provide appropriate guidelines for safeguarding privacy and security, and it circumvents the legislative process that would provide Congress and the public the critically necessary opportunity to evaluate these issues,” they continue.

But perhaps most importantly, the proposed changes will undermine the security of those who need it most – those who have taken legitimate steps to protect their privacy with anonymizing tools such as VPNs and TOR.

“There are countless reasons people may want to use technology to shield their privacy. From journalists communicating with sources to victims of domestic violence seeking information on legal services, people worldwide depend on privacy tools for privacy, personal safety, and data security,” the letter reads.

“Many businesses even require their employees to use virtual private networks for security, especially during travel. Such tools should be actively promoted as a way to safeguard privacy, not discouraged.”

Finally, the groups encourage Congress to take action.

“The Stopping Mass Hacking Act offers a simple solution: it rejects the changes to Rule 41. Passing this bill by December 1 will ensure that Congress has time to fully consider the issue of government hacking before this practice becomes widespread. We urge you to support this bill and to reject the changes to Rule 41,” their letter concludes.

A petition to stop the changes to Rule 41 can be found here.

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

For the past several months the effectiveness of the DMCA has been under the spotlight from two separate but unavoidably linked perspectives.

Firstly, copyright holders are tired of the endless game of whac-a-mole which sees them taking down copyrighted content from pirates sites (and even search engines like Google), only to have it reappear in the future. They argue that game can never be won and the only solution is a “takedown, staydown” regime.

Secondly, entertainment industry companies – largely in the recording sector – feel that platforms such as YouTube gain an unfair advantage by monetizing infringing content uploaded by their users. The law does not currently require these platforms to proactively monitor uploads so the end result is wide availability of infringing content, unless creators take measures to have it removed.

In the meantime, an interesting situation emerges. While platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music must license content before it goes up, YouTube has it already, meaning that when it comes to negotiating licenses for official content with the labels, YouTube and Google are in a position to offer less money. That’s the stance of the labels at least, and they want the DMCA changed to make that impossible.

To that end the industry has been rallying support from the artists themselves. Earlier this year hundreds lobbied Congress and now they’re back again, with a new open letter from an all-star lineup featuring some of the biggest names in music.

The coalition, which features more than 180 artists, songwriters and bands, is a who’s-who of modern music. Taylor Swift, Sir Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga, Trent Reznor, deadmau5, U2, Garth Brooks and Kenny G are united with one voice – the DMCA is broken and needs fixing.

“As songwriters and artists who are a vital contributing force to the U.S. and to American exports around the world, we are writing to express our concern about the ability of the next generation of creators to earn a living,” they begin.

“The existing laws threaten the continued viability of songwriters and recording artists to survive from the creation of music. Aspiring creators shouldn’t have to decide between making music and making a living. Please protect them.”

The artists say that one of their biggest problems is caused by the DMCA. They don’t mention YouTube specifically, but it’s clear that the video platform and owner Google are their primary targets.

“[The DMCA] has allowed major tech companies to grow and generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters’ and artists’ earnings continue to diminish. Music consumption has skyrocketed, but the monies earned by individual writers and artists for that consumption has plummeted,” the artists write.

“The DMCA simply doesn’t work. It’s impossible for tens of thousands of individual songwriters and artists to muster the resources necessary to comply with its application,” they continue.

“The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law nearly two decades ago. We ask you to enact sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment. It’s only then that consumers will truly benefit.”

In short, the artists (and of course their paymasters at the labels) believe that YouTube is running a ‘protection racket‘ with their music. They’ll be hoping that Congress sees it that way too.

Tech companies, on the other hand, believe that the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA give them the protection they need to innovate. Only time will tell whose rights will be eroded, but the battle lines have been drawn.

The full letter can be found here (pdf)

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

Acting on intelligence provided by the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft, police in Northern Ireland raided a Londonderry home in May 2011.

Police were looking for evidence relating to streaming links site FastPassTV and discussion and linking forum BedroomMedia. FACT believed that the brains behind the operation was local man Paul Mahoney. He was arrested and police seized equipment and cash totaling £83,000.

Like many cases of this type, passage through the legal system was glacial and it took until February 2015 for Mahoney to be charged. At first he pleaded not guilty but that wouldn’t last.

In June 2015 the 30-year-old pleaded guilty to all four charges against him including allowing the public to view copyrighted movies without rightsholder permission, conspiracy, and generating up to £300,000 in advertising revenue.

Prosecutors initially argued that Mahoney had cost the movie industry around £120 million but that was eventually brought down to a large, although more reasonable, £12 million.

In September 2015, Mahoney was found guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison, two of which to be spent on license. However, with such a long sentence it was always likely that Mahoney would appeal the decision. That process is now complete and it’s bad news for the 30-year-old.

Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Northern Ireland’s most senior judge, presided over the appeal. He was unsympathetic to Mahoney’s arguments.

“On any view this was a case of very significant harm,” he said.

An aggravating factor were the actions taken by Mahoney since 2007 to avoid having his sites closed down. Sir Declan noted that cease-and-desist notices issued by FACT were ignored and despite police arresting Mahoney twice, he still continued.

“The website was clearly professionally structured and he retained staff to assist him with this,” the judge said.

“He was the driving force behind the criminal behaviour.”

At his earlier trial, Mahoney’s health issues including partial blindness and reclusive behavior were presented as mitigating factors. He never intended to get rich, his lawyer argued, it was a hobby that got out of control.

“There were no Rolex watches, no Ferraris outside and no evidence of an extravagant lifestyle. This enterprise took on a life of its own and became far more successful than this defendant ever envisaged,” he said.

Dismissing Mahoney’s appeal, the judge found that the mitigating factors had already been taken into consideration when the original sentence was handed down. He also said that Mahoney’s chance for a lighter sentence came and went when he failed to cooperate during initial interview and failed to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

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

For a decade, TorrentFreak has produced charts of the world’s most popular torrent sites. These annual lists provide a regular snapshot of a constantly changing and volatile landscape.

Back in 2007, torrent index Mininova was ruling the waves as the world’s most popular torrent site. Notably it became the first site of its kind to break into the Internet’s top 50 sites overall. Almost a decade ago The Pirate Bay was only big enough to take third place.

In 2008, TPB took the lead, pushing Mininova back into second place. A year later TPB was still maintaining the number one slot, followed closely by meta-search engine Torrentz. Meanwhile, a lesser-known site called KickassTorrents was sitting patiently in the wings.

The Pirate Bay was the runaway leader in 2011, posting an Alexa rank of 76, more than 90 places ahead of its nearest rival. But by this time KickassTorrents was closing fast, taking the #4 most popular torrent site slot just behind the original isoHunt and Torrentz.

A year later, KickassTorrents (by now also referred to as KAT) had improved its position yet again. Continuing the trend, in 2013 the site stepped up to take second place behind the mighty Pirate Bay.

For KAT, 2015 would become its most important year to date. After TPB suffered domain issues and an almost catastrophic raid on its datacenter, KAT took the coveted top spot as the world’s most popular torrent site.

At this point a much lower Alexa rank of 151 was enough to do the job but KAT kept its foot on the gas, building up to rank 85 by the start of 2016. However, in keeping with its meteoric rise, KAT still wasn’t done. This week the site entered the Alexa top 70, quite possibly the only torrent index to do so since Mininova in 2007.

So what’s KAT’s secret? That isn’t a question easily answered but it’s clear that the people behind the site really know what they’re doing. On a basic level the site’s uptime is impressive, especially given the difficult nature of running a torrent index. It also carries a massive library of torrents that somehow manages to remain useful despite the site complying with thousands of DMCA notices.

But while many other sites progress by doing the basics well, KAT goes much further. Firstly, it’s a very good looking site while also being easy to navigate. It has a good search engine. It’s quick to load. In fact, it does everything one would expect of a good regular website. As a result it’s relatively rare to hear users complain.

And that brings us to the special sauce that few other sites in this niche can offer.

Largely thanks to the way the site is designed, KAT has developed perhaps the best torrent-based community publicly available on the Internet today. The site’s forums are buzzing with the kind of activity one used to see on dedicated file-sharing discussion platforms back in 2005. Most of those have long since died out but somehow the Kickass community is thriving with the same spirit a decade on.

Of course, there are always a few rotten apples out to spoil the barrel, but KAT’s community is largely comprised of people seeking to help others. Comment is generally constructive and those who step out of line are swiftly dealt with. That, coupled with KAT’s special achievements awards (think Xbox achievements but for torrents), people are incentivized to contribute, thereby making the site better for all involved.

So for now, KickassTorrents is not only the world’s most-visited torrent site in the public space, it’s probably the most enjoyable one to use too. Additionally, KAT not only facilitates access to content but also provides an excellent social platform for its users. That means people feel at home when on-site and miss it when they’re away – even when they have nothing to download.

Moreover, Kickass makes users feel at home and when people feel at home, they look after what they have. The resulting loyalty is a recipe for success, and there’s no sign that the site’s popularity will fade anytime soon.

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

In 2013, anti-piracy prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad filed a motion targeting two of The Pirate Bay’s oldest domains, ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se.

Ingblad filed a complaint against Punkt SE (IIS), the organization responsible for Sweden’s top-level .SE domain, arguing that since The Pirate Bay is an illegal site the domains are tools used to infringe copyright. On this basis they should be suspended, Ingblad said.

The case was heard in April 2015 and a month later the Stockholm District Court ruled that The Pirate Bay should forfeit both ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se.

The case went to the Court of Appeal and last month the ruling of the District Court was upheld.

But as is so often the case with Pirate Bay legal action, the show isn’t over yet. Following the ruling, site co-founder Fredrik Neij indicated he would take an appeal to the Supreme Court. That has now been filed.

“Fredrik Neij moves that the Supreme Court, by the modification and elimination of the District Court and Court of Appeal’s decision, should reject the prosecutor’s request for Fredrik Neij’s forfeiture to the right of the domain names piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se,” Neij’s lawyer Jonas Nilsson writes in a translation sent to TF.

The situation is somewhat complex. In 2012, Neij transferred the domains to a person named Supavadee Trakunroek. However, the Court of Appeal found that transaction to be mere ‘paperwork’ and that in real terms Neij had retained control of the domains.

With that in mind the question remained – should the domains be ‘seized’ from Neij or from IIS, the organization responsible for Sweden’s top-level .SE domain?

The Court found that domain names should be considered a type of intellectual property, property that is owned by the person or organization that purchased the domain. Therefore, in this case IIS is not the owner of the Pirate Bay domains, Neij is.

It is this aspect of the ruling that Fredrik Neij is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

“Fredrik Neij argues that the District Court and the Court of Appeal wrongly concluded that a domain name is a type of intellectual property that can be confiscated in accordance with copyright law,” his appeal reads.

With the appeal now filed it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to take the case. Domains used for illegal activity have been seized in Sweden before, but none have been fought as actively as this one.

Meanwhile, The Pirate Bay is operating from the .org domain it began with, all those years ago.

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

Copyright holders have a problem with their content appearing on the Internet without permission. They argue that if they do not remove that content and the links that connect to it, anyone is able to access it for free, thus undermining their business model.

As a result, every week millions of takedown notices are sent to countless platforms demanding that unauthorized movies, music, TV shows, software and images are removed for breaching copyright law.

But regularly, copyright holders say, after being taken down that same content reappears after being re-uploaded or reindexed by offending sites. This results in a circular and never-ending game of whac-a-mole.

To solve this problem entertainment industry groups are suggesting changes to the DMCA that would dictate that once content is taken down, it should never again appear on that same platform. While easily said, the mechanics of that dream are not straightforward.

The latest organization to express concerns is the Wikimedia Foundation, the group behind the ever-popular Wikipedia service. Wikimedia feels that its current handling of copyright issues would only be hindered by changes to the DMCA.

“On the Wikimedia projects, particularly Wikimedia Commons, the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown process plays only a small role in preventing copyright infringement,” says Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel, Charles M. Roslof.

“The community members who voluntarily enforce project policies do the heavy lifting by removing files that infringe copyright. As a result, we receive very few valid takedown notices — only 12 in all of 2015.”

Roslof says that the operation’s current processes work well to keep infringement to a minimum, with volunteers taking care of the majority of copyright issues before rightsholders even notice.

“When something does stick around long enough, the notice-and-takedown process is an effective backstop. This system can exist because of the current legal regime,” Roslof notes.

Wikimedia believes that if the DMCA is tightened to include a “takedown, staydown” mandate – effectively a requirement for platforms to proactively filter all uploaded content – that could negatively affect non-profits and the service they provide to the public.

“[It] is costly to implement such systems well — and it would be exceptionally hard on nonprofits like us,” Roslof says.

“First, the variety of content and file types hosted on the Wikimedia projects makes it an incredibly difficult technological challenge to build such a tool that both works effectively and doesn’t over-remove files and chill speech. Second, being forced to monitor for infringement ourselves would reduce the Wikimedia communities’ ability to govern the projects.”

Of course, it will come as no surprise that a major underlying factor with “takedown, staydown” is the fear that by not complying each and every time, platforms such as those operated by Wikimedia could be held liable under copyright law and face stiff penalties.

“[S]tatutory damages — up to $150,000 for a single case of copyright infringement — create strong incentives for platforms to strictly comply with the notice-and-takedown process. Since any mistake in leaving up files that infringe copyright could cost tens of thousands of dollars, the section 512 safe harbors are crucial for platforms’ continued existence,” Roslof adds.

Finally, in the near future the US Copyright Office will again be inviting comments on Section 512 of the DMCA. Wikimedia hopes that its users and the general public will take the time to get involved.

“The fundamental purpose of copyright law is not to benefit authors but to ensure the public is able to enjoy new creative works. It is therefore important to ensure that the voices of the public and public interest are represented in these discussions,” Roslof concludes.

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

Content creators and distributors are some of The Pirate Bay’s most vocal critics, describing the platform as a piracy haven that deprives artists of their income.

However, in recent times criticism of the site has expanded to include one of the site’s founding members. Peter Sunde, aka brokep, is one of the most recognizable people in the file-sharing space yet he has openly called for the site to die, deriding it as a shadow of its former self.

But far from being able to leave the site behind as he physically did many years ago, Sunde – who has both Finnish and Norwegian ancestry – now finds himself in the midst of a new Pirate Bay related problem.

Following a ruling from the Helsinki District Court, the 37-year-old has been ordered to pay several major record labels around $395,000 (350,000 euros).

Sony Music Entertainment Finland, Universal Music, Warner Music, and EMI Finland sued Sunde claiming that the music of 60 of their artists has been shared illegally through The Pirate Bay.

Earlier court action means that Pirate Bay is blocked by Finnish service providers including TeliaSonera and Elisa but of course, this made no difference to the site’s operations.

Finland’s DigiToday reports that there is no accusation that Sunde shared anything himself but the lawsuit from the record labels held him responsible.

Sunde did not appear in Helsinki to defend himself so the Court handed down a default judgment. He is now ordered to pay the full amount to the local branch of IFPI plus costs of around $62,000 (55,000 euros).

He also faces a fine of one million euros if the content continues to be shared via The Pirate Bay but how he is supposed to do anything about that isn’t clear.

Sunde and Pirate Bay co-founders Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm owe large sums of money to copyright holders following adverse decisions in cases dating back years. None of those judgments have been satisfied and there’s no reason to believe this one will be any different.

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

The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill was introduced in the House of Lords during May 2016.

Among other things, the draft legislation (pdf) aims to protect companies and individuals from threats of expensive IP litigation where no infringement has taken place.

While aimed largely at patents, trademarks and other design rights, during a Lords Grand Committee hearing yesterday the hot topic of unfounded threats against Internet users was thrust onto the agenda. Lord Lucas, who previously tackled the infamous ACS:Law, was again at the forefront.

“The world is full of people who like to play a junior game of what this bill addresses. A few years ago I had a small role in the demise of ACS Solicitors which were thankfully sacked by the law society,” Lord Lucas began.

“They were shaking down Internet users for allegedly infringing copyright on pornography and other low grade media. Their evidence was extremely suspect and was never tested in court. ACS made its money from their threats and never took anyone to court, though it used the courts to target its victims via Norwich Pharmacal Orders.”

But while ACS:Law is well and truly dead, others in the UK have now resumed shaking down Internet account holders with the aim of securing fast cash settlements. From his speech yesterday it’s abundantly clear that Lord Lucas is unhappy at this unwelcome development.

“Some careless person has dropped blood onto the ashes of ACS and the same scam is alive again. The same thin evidence. They have an IP address, they have not revealed how they get that IP address. But, given that IP address, they go through the same Norwich Pharmacal [ISP disclosure] procedure,” he told those assembled in the Moses Room, the main venue for grand committees.

Lord Lucas in the House of Lords yesterday

As has become clear during the past few years, companies involved in so-called Speculative Invoicing in the UK have learned from ACS:Law’s mistakes. Probably quite sensibly (they tend to feel the wrath of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority) no lawyers are involved in the threats being made to Internet subscribers. This fact has not escaped Lord Lucas.

“This time, to remove the vulnerability that ACS found, the solicitor involved, Wagner and Co, withdraws after obtaining the Norwich Pharmacal Order, so they’re not involved in the threat processes which are undertaken by shell companies. There doesn’t seem to be any redress for people threatened or for ISPs who are asked to comply with Norwich Pharmacal orders,” he said.

Up until this point no live companies had been named, but there would be no escape. A well-briefed Lord Lucas covered them all and had some advice for anyone whose path they cross.

“If anybody comes across the names of Hatton and Berkeley, RangerBay, GoldenEye International, Mircom International and TCYK …I really urge them to put [their correspondence] in the bin. The current scammers aren’t pursuing anyone [in court] they’re just after threats, and extortion, and shaking people down,” he said.

“I applaud our government for helping businesses avoid unjustified threats but I would really like to know what they intend to do to help the granny [accused by TCYK recently] who is being threatened by their smaller, nastier cousins with allegations that she has been downloading illegally.”

Describing the companies above as “villains laughing at and abusing the system”, Lord Lucas called for citizens to be given the ability to respond to trolls with a “sue or desist” letter, which would render any further threats (short of court action) punishable by law.

“Wouldn’t that be a good right for citizens who are being threatened in any circumstances?” he said.

Joe Hickster, the administrator of troll-watching site ACS:Bore, welcomes Lord Lucas’ comments.

“Lord Lucas has lent legitimacy and sobriety to a cause of much concern for those in receipt of letters from the likes of Hatton & Berkeley, Goldeneye International, Ranger Bay, TCYK and Mircom,” Hickster told TF.

“This may be a real turning point in the fight against copyright trolling in the UK. With the ISPA shortlisting TCYK as ‘Internet Villain of the Year’ this week, lets hope this intervention from Lord Lucas will embolden them to send guidance to their members, to stand up and say NO! to these trolls.”

Only time will tell how the government will react to Lord Lucas’ calls, but more than ever something needs to be done to force the UK’s copyright trolls to either put up, or shut up.

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

Founded in 1995, the Internet Services Providers’ Association is the UK’s first trade group for ISPs. In addition to helping to found the anti-child abuse Internet Watch Foundation, ISPA roles include the promotion of competition and innovation, plus self-regulation for the industry.

ISPA is currently headed up by a 10 person council, which includes representatives from some of the country’s largest Internet Service Providers such as BT, Virgin and Sky. More broadly, ISPA has 134 members including telecoms giants AOL, AT&T and EE, plus technology companies Google and Microsoft.

Each year ISPA holds the ISPA Awards, a ceremony during which the group honors entities they believe have contributed to make the Internet a safer and more secure place for consumers.

This year’s nominees have just been announced and in common with previous outings, surveillance and privacy are dominant themes. Apple, for example, is nominated as an ‘Internet Hero’ for its commitment to encryption and privacy. The FBI, on the other hand, is recognized as an Internet Villain for its efforts to undermine it.

Sadly, Villains are thick on the ground this year. Donald Trump has been shortlisted for his calls on the industry to ‘close down parts of the Internet’ while Mossack Fonseca are nominated for their poor cyber-security.

But perhaps of most interest to readers is that ISPA, an influential industry group, has chosen to short-list a notorious copyright troll for the coveted position of Internet Villain of the Year 2016.

The activities of TCYK LLC have been well documented in these pages. The company represents the makers of the Robert Redford movie The Company You Keep and for some time has been sending threatening letters to Internet account holders in the UK demanding cash settlements for alleged file-sharing.

“TCYK LLP are nominated for their ‘speculative invoicing’ campaign aimed at alleged copyright infringers that an MP described as ‘ludicrous’,” ISPA announced this week.

But this isn’t the first time that ISPA has shortlisted a copyright troll for the most corrosive award of the year. In 2011, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley was nominated and later went on to win Internet Villain Of the Year.

Crossley was eventually made bankrupt and barred from practicing as a solicitor, but even winning this award probably won’t deter TCYK LLC from its activities. Many believe the company and its allies in the UK were setup with Crossley’s demise in mind, and have hardened themselves from attacks and scrutiny. A flick of a switch and TCYK could be gone from the UK, no matter how rocky things become.

So, while nominating TCYK as Villain of the Year would be nice, it would be much more effective if ISPA actually used its power to stand up to shadowy copyright troll operations in order to protect consumers. Until that happens, customers will continue to be subjected to their unique brand of bullying.

The winners of the ISPA awards will be announced on Thursday 7th July 2016 in The Brewery in the City of London.

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