Jump to content
News Ticker
  • Check out the official selling thread - Please use only Points for payments - Contact Rendition to buy Points - I am working on automatic Points Purchase and automatic Points exchange to crypto so you can sell them aswell, until then sell/buy them by contacting me.
  • General News Thread

    Recommended Posts

    • Replies 1.6k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality rules 'illegal'


    California is trying to enact its own set of strict net neutrality rules, and if successful, other states could (and probably would) use it as a blueprint for passing similar bills. The only problem is that it's "illegal" to do so, according to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.


    Pai's stance on issue does not come as a surprise to anyone who's been following the situation. For those who haven't, here's a quick recap: In a 3-2 vote earlier this year, the FCC effectively reversed net neutrality rules that were implemented during the previous administration, paving the way for internet service providers (ISPs) and wireless carriers to largely regulate themselves. The only real caveat is they have to be upfront about things like throttling.


    In the wake of net neutrality rules being rolled back, California and other states are attempting to restore the rules on a state level. The FCC foresaw this happening, and so it claimed the power to preempt state net neutrality rules in its Open Internet Order.


    Whether the FCC has the power to preempt state net neutrality rules is something the courts will ultimately decide. In the meantime, California has forged ahead with a bill that implements even tougher restrictions than the original net neutrality rules, and all that is required at this point is a signature by the state governor.


    "If this law is signed by the Governor, what would it do? Among other things, it would prevent Californian consumers from buying many free-data plans. These plans allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans. But nanny-state California legislators apparently want to ban their constituents from having this choice. They have met the enemy, and it is free data," Pai said in a speech (PDF) at the Maine Heritage Police Center on Friday.


    He also said that "efforts like California's are illegal," leaving little doubt that the FCC would challenge the state's bill. His comments didn't end there, however, as he further lashed out at California's lawmakers.


    "Those who demand greater government control of the Internet haven’t given up. Their latest tactic is pushing state governments to regulate the Internet. The most egregious example of this comes from California. Last month, the California state legislature passed a radical, anti-consumer Internet regulation bill that would impose restrictions even more burdensome than those adopted by the FCC in 2015. In a way, I can understand how they succumbed to the temptation to regulate. After all, I suppose a broadband pipe might look to some like a plastic straw," Pai said.


    California's bill prohibits ISPs from blocking or slowing down websites or "whole classes of applications," like video. It also specifically prohibits ISPs from charging online services access fees to reach customers, a practice known as paid prioritization.


    Those same consumer protections were part of the federal net neutrality rules that the FCC scrapped. However, California's rules takes things a step further by also disallowing ISPs from not counting certain content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps, a practice known as "zero-rating."


    Pai's comments can be viewed as him wanting to get ahead of the situation, and perhaps put pressure on Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, to not sign the bill.


    "Let me be clear: The Internet should be run by engineers, entrepreneurs, and technologists, not lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians. That’s what we decided in 2017, and we’re going to fight to make sure it stays that way," Pai added.


    Edited by Amias
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]International Day Against DRM Celebrates its 12th Anniversary[/h]

    The Free Software Foundation's Defective by Design campaign today celebrates its 12th annual International Day Against Digital Rights Management. DRM is the controversial practice of restricting what consumers can do with legitimately acquired digital media. Given its pervasive nature, is it possible for you to completely avoid DRM for the day?


    For creators of intellectual property, from movies, TV shows and software, through to the devices that allow them to be played, Digital Rights Management (DRM) is essential to control access to those products.


    Proponents argue that without the digital locks of DRM, rampant copying of their content and designs would ensue,
    reducing revenues
    and threatening the very business models that bring these products to market.


    On the flip side, DRM is seen as a huge hindrance by many consumers, particularly when its existence restricts, as it always does, what legitimate buyers of content and devices are able to do with
    their purchases.


    From copying a DVD or game disc for backup purposes through to a myriad of legitimate fair-use scenarios, DRM is an ever-present mesh of digital barbed wire laid down for the sole purpose of restricting freedom.


    While DRM aims to be its own protection (
    which can also backfire
    ), it is also supported by legislation. Circumvention is criminalized under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Copyright Directive, meaning those that choose to undermine it can
    face the wrath
    of the legal system.


    For these reasons and many others, the Free Software Foundation’s (FSF) Defective by Design (DbD) campaign has sought to draw attention to the anti-consumer effects of DRM. From its roots back in 2006, today the FSF celebrates its 12th annual International Day Against DRM, inviting supporters to protest against digital locks while envisioning a world without DRM.


    “DRM is a major problem for computer user freedom, artistic expression, free speech, and media,” says John Sullivan, executive director of the FSF.


    “International Day Against DRM has allowed us to, year after year, empower people to rise up together and in one voice declare that DRM is harmful to everyone.”


    The FSF and those who share their concerns over DRM believe that the addition of digital locks actually causes damage to a product. While offering no benefits to the consumer, DRM can fail catastrophically when those behind such systems are no longer able to maintain them, resulting in “massive digital book-burnings” when content is
    rendered inaccessible


    DRM also gives companies a reason and a route to spy on consumers and the use of their products. ‘Phoning home’ is commonplace, allowing media companies to conduct “
    large-scale surveillance
    ” over people’s viewing habits.


    For these reasons and many others, FSF has been fighting against DRM for more than a decade and today they’re calling on like-minded groups and individuals to support their mission to rid the world of DRM and return freedom to consumers. With that in mind, they have set a challenge for the day.


    “This year’s theme is
    A Day Without DRM
    – the FSF invites people around the world to avoid DRM for the day,” FSF writes.


    “DRM is lurking in many electronic devices we use, both online and offline, and you’ll find it everywhere from media files to vehicles. Its impact is echoed in the fight for the Right to Repair and the fight for the right to investigate the software in medical devices.”


    Key Day Against DRM supporters




    For online dwellers, going even a few hours without DRM today is likely to prove problematic, if not impossible. Users of Windows or any Apple device, for example, will find DRM baked into the system, meaning that the only option is to use
    DRM-free alternatives


    And if you’re thinking of enjoying your Kindle,
    or Spotify, DRM is part of the deal too. Even the now-infamous Kodi has
    joined the party
    , albeit in a limited way.


    The main aim of the FSF however, is to raise awareness of DRM and how it negatively affects consumers.


    Content with DRM is restricted by default yet by its very nature only affects legitimate purchases. Those who pirate their software, for example, are unaffected since piracy groups remove the DRM from content before release. Bizarrely, however, some pirates have even protected
    their work
    with DRM
    , signalling that no one is immune. There are
    great alternatives
    , however.



    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Japan Government Presents Pirate Website Blocking Proposals[/h]

    Unlike countries in Europe where legislation has already been tested, there is no legal basis in Japan to block 'pirate' websites and the country's constitution forbids censorship. Now, however, the Japanese government has presented a draft report which indicates that blocking websites on copyright grounds should be considered as a policy option.


    Back in March, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that the government was considering measures to prevent access to pirate sites.


    Manga and anime are considered national treasures and the government should consider “all measures” to prevent illegal downloading, Suga added.


    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the main option put forward was that of website blocking. In Japan, however, that’s not a straightforward option given the constitution’s support for freedom of speech and prevention of censorship.


    Despite the hurdles, a month later the government decided to introduce emergency measures to prevent access to websites hosting pirated manga, anime and other content. ISPs would not be forced to comply but would be asked to assist instead.


    NTT Communications Corp., NTT Docomo Inc. and NTT Plala Inc.
    by blocking access to three sites identified by the government – Mangamura, AniTube! and MioMio – adding that more sites could be blocked upon request.


    This interim measure proved controversial but it appears the government isn’t planning to step back from its plans to protect copyright. The Cabinet Office has now presented a draft report indicating that blocking websites to protect copyright could become a policy option for the government.


    According to
    , the proposal was presented at a meeting attended by experts, who criticized the draft as a move that would undermine citizens’ constitutional right to secrecy of communications.


    Intercepting users’ Internet requests have the potential to cause significant problems under Japanese law. The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.


    Cited by the publication, lawyer Ryoji Mori said that denying users’ access to blocked sites would enable Internet service providers to “collect information about users unrelated to the piracy issue.” Visitors to blocked websites should have warnings automatically displayed in their browser, the proposal adds.


    The draft also envisions pirate sites being removed from search engine results while preventing their operators from generating revenue from advertising. These are options being tested in a number of other countries to varying degrees but it appears that Japan faces more obstacles than most due to its constitution.


    Nevertheless, it appears the government could ask copyright holders to take the initiative instead. By applying for lawsuits that would force Internet service providers to take preventative action, constitutional difficulties could be avoided, the proposal notes.


    Whether that will satisfy hardline anti-censorship supporters is unclear, but in most other countries where blocking takes place, validation from the courts is seen as vital to ensuring that all parties are covered in the event of a challenge.


    Indeed, the voluntary blocking measures put in place earlier this year by NTT were immediately seen as problematic. Just days after the bans were implemented, local lawyer Yuichi Nakazawa
    launched legal action
    against the ISP, demanding that the corporation should end its site-blocking operations.


    A further session to discuss the proposals in greater depth is planned for later this week.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]qBittorrent v4.1.3 has been released[/h]

    qBittorrent v4.1.3 was released.


    • FEATURE: Preselect name without extension when renaming files (thalieht)

    • FEATURE: Allow setting seq & first/last from context menu without metadata (thalieht)

    • BUGFIX: Show "N/A" if there is no scrape (thalieht)

    • BUGFIX: Save option about tracker favicons under correct key (sledgehammer999)

    • BUGFIX: When file data are unreachable pause torrent and show "Missing Files" status (temporary fix) (sledgehammer999)

    • BUGFIX: Don't disable DHT when using force proxy (Thomas Piccirello)

    • BUGFIX: Correctly save torrent queue position/state/priority changes in fastresume (glassez, thalieht, sledgehammer999)

    • BUGFIX: Fix icon height/width ratio (Chocobo1)

    • BUGFIX: Fix values sorted wrong in "Last Activity" column (Chocobo1)

    • BUGFIX: Replace png icons with svg (Chocobo1)

    • WEBUI: Allow WebUI sidebar filters to be hidden (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Increase WebUI Options initial height (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Adjust WebUI Options form alignment (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Fix WebUI unreachable issue (Chocobo1)

    • WEBUI: Require torrent category creation to be explicit (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Include category save path in web api sync data (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Add save path and editing to WebUI new category dialog (Thomas Piccirello)

    • WEBUI: Bump Web API version

    • SEARCH: Refactor in searchjob to always color visited entries (thalieht)

    • SEARCH: Set "enter" as shortcut to download the selected torrents in search job (thalieht)

    • SEARCH: Add regex option in the search filter's context menu (thalieht)

    • LINUX: Fix GUI scaling issue on Linux (Chocobo1)

    • LINUX: Fix regression that broke installing desktop file (Eli Schwartz)

    • OPENBSD: Better filesystem support for filewatcher (Elias M. Mariani)



    Edited by Amias
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]PIPCU Wins Piracy Enforcement Award From US Chamber of Commerce[/h]

    The City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit has been presented with the Intellectual Property Champions Award for Excellence in Enforcement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center. The award, handed for the first time this year to an international player, is in recognition for the unit's work in anti-piracy enforcement.


    First announced in the summer of 2013, the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) said it had a mission to tackle IPcrime wherever it may take place.


    With a special focus on online infringement, PIPCU has always been closely in step with the music, movie, and publishing industries and it didn’t take long for its presence to be felt. Even before its official launch in December 2013, PIPCU began writing letters to torrent and streaming sites, advising them to shut down – or else. But that was just the beginning.


    Over the past five years the unit has publicised various actions against alleged infringers including
    streaming arrests
    attempted domain seizures
    torrent site closures
    advertising disruptions
    . PIPCU also
    shut down
    several sports streaming and
    ebook sites
    plus a
    large number of proxies


    Now, however, with its fifth official birthday looming, PIPCU has received prestigious recognition from overseas.


    During the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center’s (GIPC) 6th annual IP Champions event in Washington, PIPCU was among 11 “innovators and creators” to be honored for their contribution to the intellectual property arena. Two key players from PIPCU were handed the IP Champion for Excellence in Enforcement award.


    Detective Chief Superintendent Pete O’Doherty, the head of the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Directorate, was recognized for his leadership at PIPCU which has “successfully swept millions of pounds’ worth of counterfeit goods off the streets.”


    Nick Court, PIPCU’s Acting Detective Chief Inspector, was credited for combating illegal online streaming and other digital piracy, while suspended 30,000 websites linked to the sale of counterfeit goods.


    The GIPC award is notable in itself but PIPCU will be particularly pleased that this is the first year that the award has been handed to an international law enforcement body outside the United States.


    “This is a significant achievement for the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) which has gone from strength to strength since its inception in 2013,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Pete O’Doherty.


    “The dedication of the officers in this unit is a credit to the force and it is an honor to have that recognized as the first recipient of this award within the international law enforcement community.”


    Dr. Ros Lynch, Director of Copyright and Enforcement at the Intellectual Property Office, congratulated PIPCU on their achievement.


    “I’m delighted to hear that PIPCU has won the Excellence in Enforcement award. To be the first international law enforcement body to win this award is a huge achievement,” Lynch said.


    “I’d like to congratulate and thank PIPCU’s officers for helping to protect UK industries and the public from counterfeit goods.”


    While PIPCU was initially very aggressive against torrent and streaming platforms, it later became involved in a number of cases against people selling streaming devices containing modified Kodi setups, free illegal streaming apps, and premium illicit IPTV subscriptions. It has been quieter on this front lately but the unit certainly hasn’t gone away.


    Last August, the Intellectual Property Office confirmed that PIPCU had received £3.32m in additional government funding, safeguarding the unit until June 30, 2019.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Cloudflare Ordered to Expose YTS, Showbox, and Popcorn Time Site ‘Operators’[/h]

    A recent DMCA subpoena has ordered Cloudflare to expose the people linked to various popular pirate sites and tools. The request, quietly submitted out of public sight, comes from a group of movie studios attempting to hold site owners responsible for piracy damages.


    As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe, some of which are notorious pirate sites.


    The company has taken a lot of heat from copyright holders over the past few years, who want it to expose the operators of these platforms.


    However, instead of taking a proactive stance, Cloudflare maintains its position as a neutral service provider. If copyright holders want it to take action, they have to follow the legal process.


    This usually means obtaining a subpoena, ordering the company to share the personal details of its customers.


    This is exactly what a group of movies companies, including Bodyguard Productions, Cobbler Nevada, Criminal Productions, Dallas Buyers Club, and Venice PI, recently did through a federal court in Hawaii.


    These companies are involved in a series of piracy lawsuits. Best known are the so-called “copyright trolling” cases against alleged BitTorrent pirates, but more recently they began expanding their horizons to the people behind piracy services, such as the popular streaming app Showbox.


    The subpoena was issued in the latter case after being
    filed last May


    The documents were not posted publicly but TorrentFreak managed to obtain a copy, which shows that the movie companies want details of the operators behind Showboxbuzz.com, Showbox.software, Rawapk.com, Popcorn-time.to, Popcorntime.sh, YTS.ag, and YTS.gg.


    From the DMCA subpoena




    Some additional digging revealed that no motion to quash was filed by Cloudflare, so it is likely that the requested information will be handed over.


    The subpoena itself doesn’t reveal anything about the intentions of the movie companies, however.


    The targeted sites are not listed in the original lawsuit, but it’s possible the owners are suspected of being linked to the defendants. In any case, it is clear that the movie outfits see the information as potentially valuable evidence in their legal battle.


    The question remains, of course, whether the information Cloudflare has on record will be of use. Many operators of pirate sites and services do their best to shield the true operators from being exposed.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    EU Publishes Research into Malware & PUPs on Pirate Sites


    The EU Intellectual Property Office has published a new study into malware and 'potentially unwanted programs' being made available on pirate sites. While many samples of malware and PUPs were found, the EUIPO concludes that copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware.


    As part of their strategy to deter the public from using pirate sites, entertainment industry groups have often painted these portals as havens for malware. A new study carried out by the EU Intellectual Property Office investigates the phenomenon.


    In the first phase of the research, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) collaborated with the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights to form an expert support group established to provide advice on methodology and to select the websites to be analyzed.


    The group was comprised of representatives from Observatory stakeholders, rights holder organizations, academia, law enforcement, and EU agencies. As research spanning all EU Member States wasn’t possible, 10 sample countries were randomly selected from the 28 in the block.


    Five movies, TV shows, music, and video games were selected (20 titles in all) for their popularity in one or more of the ten countries at the start of the collection period in June 2017. The titles were subsequently used in online searches to find infringing websites and applications.


    Websites suspected of offering infringing content (including streaming, linking, hosting, cyberlockers, and torrent platforms) were selected on the basis that they were popular in the ten sample countries or worldwide and were accessible by the “average user.” These were later studied for the presence of malware and “potentially unwanted programs”, such as those that provide advertisements.


    A concurrent analysis of malware and PUPs specific to Android devices focused on streaming, torrent, and hosting applications, providing they facilitated access to a broad range of “suspected” copyright-infringing content.


    “The data acquisition phase included two rounds of malware collection and analysis performed during the summer of 2017,” the report reads.


    “The first round of malware collection resulted in 1,054 unique domain names and the second round gave 1,057 unique domain names across 10 selected EU Member States. Malware was collected in both a manual and automated manner in order to simulate an average user’s experience.”


    The researchers used the Tor browser and a sandbox to collect the malware and PUPs and carried out searches “in a manner consistent with low security-awareness internet browsing.” No ad-blockers were used and all suspicious links and buttons were pressed.


    During the two rounds of analysis, the researchers checked their chosen infringing sites (none are named in the study) against VirusTotal’s database, to see whether they were already suspected of “performing malicious activities” or distributing malicious or otherwise unwanted software targeting the end-user. The table below reveals that around 8% had been previously flagged.




    “In addition, during the two rounds of malware collection from the identified copyright-infringing websites, several malicious and suspected-of-being-malicious files were collected,” the paper reads.


    “These were files directly downloaded from the websites. In addition, several files were acquired upon installation of the directly downloaded files. Those included any kind of side packages, software libraries, and other files that can pose threats to end-users wanting to use them.”


    The researchers found 4,000 files in their search, broken down into about 100 different types. (
    Note: The files for the second round contain only new unique files that were not discovered during the first round of malware collection)




    The report details a number of the techniques used by sites to deploy malware and PUPs, or to persuade users to part with personal details such as names, addresses, and email addresses. Some were contained in “useful” tools that may claim to block ads, provide installation or license key files, or facilitate access to infringing content.


    After obtaining 60 anti-virus reports from VirusTotal on the files acquired during the collection stage, the researchers decided on the following categories:


    • Benign — software that does not cause any harm to users, designed for specific good purposes, such as content-distribution platforms or office programs.

    • Potentially unwanted program (PUP) — software that provides advertisements, etc.

    • Malware — harmful software that tampers and steals personal data and accesses files on the computer without proper authorization.

    • Malware/PUP — a piece of software that can be included equally in both categories.




    All pieces of software collected by the researchers were further categorized.


    • Fake installers — software that lures users into disclosing personal information or providing payment card details by simulating game installation processes.


    • Streaming — software that provides free access to pirated video or audio content.


    • ‘Useful’ software — programs that may or may not improve something, yet promote a functionality that may be perceived as useful by some users.


    “Most of the programs are known as ‘useful’ software, which advertises various benefits to end-users, such as installing missing drivers and cleaning old files from PCs. Fake game installers and streaming services follow with a smaller share, yet one that is still considerable in comparison with the rest of the analyzed programs,” the study reads.




    “Four general categories [of malware] can be distinguished: Trojan, adware, backdoor, and agent. Additionally, ‘-’, in the figure below, means that there was no information available on community accepted malware type even though multiple anti-virus vendors marked files as malicious,” the report adds.


    “In this case, the labeling includes following general keywords such as ‘not trusted’, ‘unsafe’, ‘unwanted’, etc., which does not provide any additional semantic information about specific functionality or characteristics of malware. Therefore, in this study, such files were considered as generally malicious without a specific type.”




    The researchers say they found “no profoundly harmful” malware samples, such as ransomware, botnets or others. However, most of the collected malware samples were identified as trojans, with some potentially containing additional adware and/or backdoors. Additional analysis also revealed some malware with multiple payloads, including keyloggers, network tampering efforts, and rootkits.


    While the existence of malware on any site or service is a cause for concern, the report offers this relatively calming summary, with cautionary advice moving forward.


    “At present, suspected copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware or otherwise unwanted software distribution.


    “However, considering the increasing popularity of streaming services, increased bandwidth of broadband networks, and the deployment of 4G networks, it cannot be ruled out that they may pose a growing risk moving forward,” the report notes.


    The EUIPO notes that the study isn’t designed to provide an assessment of the likelihood of malware or PUP infection from using infringing sites, nor does it seek to offer advice to consumers. That being said, common sense deployed alongside a good anti-virus program and adblocker can nullify many of the threats on sites where the user is especially concerned about security.


    It’s also worth noting that the practices of the EUIPO researchers during the study – deliberately clicking all suspect links and buttons while deliberately installing suspect programs – should be avoided at all costs. Equally, users of Android software not distributed by Google Play or Amazon should carefully consider the permissions requested by each application and deny any and all that require access to personal information.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Edited by Amias
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]FAB IPTV Says it Has Shut Down Following Europol-led Raid[/h]

    FAB IPTV, one of the major providers of unlicensed streaming content in the UK, says it has shut down completely following a Europol-led raid. The statement follows raids and arrests in both England and Southern Ireland last week. Europol previously indicated that a warrant had been executed in Scotland, where FAB IPTV is reportedly based, but is yet to confirm the news.


    Last week it became evident that a new crackdown against IPTV providers based in the UK and Southern Ireland was underway.


    In the first
    wave of action
    , a 41-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman were arrested in Bursledon, Hampshire, and detained under suspicion of offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and money laundering. The pair were accused of illegally offering content from companies including Sky and BT Sport.


    Soon after,
    four more arrests
    were announced in Southern Ireland. Two men, aged 42 and 45, and two women, aged 37 and 40, were detained following house searches in Crumlin, Dublin and Ashbourne, Co Dublin. All were arrested and questioned under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.


    Shortly after, a Europol statement said the arrests had taken place after a complex year-long investigation involving the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Police Scotland, Trading Standards, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA) and Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT).


    The law enforcement agency also noted that a warrant had been executed in Scotland but provided no additional detail. A statement just published on the official website of
    , an IPTV provider known to operate from addresses in Scotland, appears to fill in the blanks.


    “On the morning of Tuesday September 11th a co-operation raid took place on one of the administrators homes whilst on holiday led by EUROPOL/Police Scotland and members from SKY/BT/Virgin/Possibly HBO and other Film/TV organizations. A number of devices were seized,” the statement reads.


    “It is on that note we will no longer be operational and will come to a COMPLETE close. Unfortunately nothing else is known right now as no information will be given on the case and that this will take many months.”


    FAB IPTV was incorporated in Scotland under the name FAB Hosting Ltd on February 22, 2017. A notice for compulsory strike-off was published on May 15, 2018. On July 30, 2018, the company was dissolved after filing no accounts.


    The service continued to operate but during August its operators advised customers that it would eventually shut down.


    “Unfortunately we are no longer accepting new subscriptions or renewals of current subscriptions due to closure. Any active subs will be honored until expiry,” the announcement noted.


    “We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused and we wish you luck with your future viewing.”


    The statement


    With some of FAB’s customers having purchased subscriptions that are yet to expire, many are going to be out of pocket following the closure announcement. Equally, resellers of FAB’s service, who will have invested much greater sums, will also find themselves in the red. However, FAB indicates that funds could be reclaimed.


    “I/We would advise that anyone whom would like a refund and are within 180 days as per PayPal limitations you should raise a dispute as we have zero access to any financial accounts associated with FAB,” the statement reads.


    Whether former subscribers and resellers will choose to elevate their heads above the parapet will remain to be seen, but given what FAB has to say next, the option to cut their losses might be easiest for most.


    “Please note this is an active investigation and doing so [asking for a refund] may bring action towards you so proceed with caution,” FAB warns.


    “I/We highly suggest taking precautions if you have used your REAL information with us or any IPTV service as this is only the beginning of what is a huge fight against illicit services. More information will come in due course no doubt on EUROPOL’s website and other IPTV related media sites. Thank you for being loyal to FAB and stay safe,” the announcement concludes.


    While it’s simplicity itself to fill in fake details when signing up to a service like FAB, many people use their real identities. However, the operator of a similar service previously told TF that they never check if names and addresses are real, meaning that people can fill anything in with no consequences.


    Finally, it’s worth noting that at least as far as TF’s previous investigations revealed, FAB IPTV and its administrators were extremely easy to track down and identify. Quite why such services operate with such a low level of security and privacy isn’t immediately clear but now the perhaps inevitable costs will have to be counted.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Canada’s Supreme Court Offers Hope to Falsely Accused File-Sharers[/h]

    In recent years hundreds of thousands of IP-addresses have been implicated in piracy lawsuits. But does that mean that the account holder is always liable? According to a recent comment by Canada's Supreme Court, merely being associated with a 'pirating' IP address "is not conclusive of guilt."


    Last week the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that ISPs are
    entitled to compensation
    for looking up the details of alleged copyright infringers.


    This verdict, a result of a dispute between Rogers and movie company Voltage Pictures, can have far-reaching consequences as it makes so-called “copyright trolling” more expensive.


    However, there is another nugget in the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion that may be helpful to people who are wrongfully accused. In his comments, Justice Russell Brown notes that the owner of an IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.


    “It must be borne in mind that being associated with an IP address that is the subject of a notice under s. 41.26(1)(a) is not conclusive of guilt,” he writes.


    While this comment doesn’t change the outcome of this case, it certainly carries some weight. And Justice Brown is even more specific, explaining why the person connected to the IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.


    “As I have explained, the person to whom an IP address belonged at the time of an alleged infringement may not be the same person who has shared copyrighted content online.


    “It is also possible that an error on the part of a copyright owner would result in the incorrect identification of an IP address as having been the source of online copyright infringement,” Justice Brown notes.


    From the Court’s ruling


    The comments were
    highlighted by
    Law Professor Michael Geist earlier this week, who notes that this is good news for accused file-sharers. The Supreme Court comments clearly suggest that an IP-address alone may not be good enough to build a case.


    In other words, future defendants have a powerful reference to highlight in their defense.


    “While some may feel that they have little alternative but to settle, the Supreme Court’s language sends a reminder that IP address alone may be insufficient evidence to support a claim of copyright infringement,” Geist says.


    “Those that fight back against overly aggressive notices may find the claims dropped. Alternatively, contesting a claim would require copyright owners to tender more evidence than just an allegation supported by an identifiable IP address.”


    For an on-the-ground analysis, TorrentFreak reached out to
    James Plotkin
    of law firm CazaSaikaley, who represented two defendants in file-sharing cases recently.


    He also sees Justice Brown’s statement as favorable to defendants who have not shared any infringing works themselves.


    “When one reads the first two sentences of paragraph 41 together, it appears Brown J. is intimating, though not outright saying, that only the person who shares the work might be liable for infringement,” Plotkin tells us.


    While it’s good news for defendants, the attorney also notes that the Court’s comment is made “obiter dictum.” This means that it’s part of the non-precedential part of the opinion, which is open to debate.


    “That said, it still holds persuasive value, especially since it was stated on behalf of eight members of the Supreme Court,” Plotkin adds.


    For now, file-sharing cases in Canada
    will continue
    , but perhaps the Court’s comments will inspire defendants and their attorneys to push back a bit more, when appropriate.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Illegal Anthony Joshua v Alexander Povetkin Boxing Streams Will Be Blocked[/h]

    Sports promoter Matchroom Sport has obtained a High Court injunction in the UK enabling it to block illegal streams of fights, including the Anthony Joshua versus Alexander Povetkin bout at Wembley this Saturday. The order is similar to the one granted to the Premier League earlier this year and will last for two years.


    In March 2017, the Premier League
    obtained a blocking injunction
    from the High Court which compelled ISPs including BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block unauthorized soccer streams under Section 97a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.


    A second order was
    handed down
    by the High Court in July 2017, running from August 12, 2017 to May 13, 2018. An extension
    was granted
    by the Court in July 2018.


    Given the claimed success of the blockades and the problem of live sports piracy generally, other sports organizations showed interest in the scheme. One of those was
    , the owner, manager, and promoter of various sporting events.


    Although the company has interests in darts, snooker, and poker, it is best known for its involvement in boxing. World champion Anthony Joshua and former champions Kell Brook and Tony Bellew have all featured in Matchroom bouts, and all of these events have been heavily pirated online.


    Now, however, Matchroom is hoping to put an end to that practice in the UK following a successful application to the High Court.


    Following in the footsteps of the Premier League, Matchroom applied for an injunction against ISPs BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media. None of the ISPs appeared to represent themselves and either supported or did not oppose the application. As a result, the application was considered “on paper”.


    Sky has an exclusive agreement with Matchroom to broadcast the company’s events. Matchroom owns the copyrights when Anthony Joshua fights and Sky owns them when other fighters appear. However, Joshua is fighting this Saturday night against Alexander Povetkin at Wembley so for the sake of these proceedings, Sky assigned the rights to Matchroom.


    Anthony Joshua is a huge draw and according to the High Court order, his previous fights have been heavily pirated, depriving both Matchroom and Sky of substantial pay-per-view revenue. Since Sky is losing money from piracy, the company supports Matchroom’s application as it did with the Premier League’s.


    While the blocking order sought was similar to those previously granted to the Premier League
    and later UEFA
    , there are two key differences.


    “First, because of the irregular timing of the Events, and in particular PPV Events, it is not possible for the Target Servers to be identified in quite the same way,” Justice Arnold writes.


    “Although the criteria are very similar, they are to be applied by a particular form of monitoring carried out in a seven-day period prior to each Event. The details of this are confidential, in order to prevent circumvention. While it creates a theoretically greater risk of over-blocking, Matchroom’s evidence is that in practice there should be no real difference.”


    Secondly, the Premier League and UEFA orders cover part or all of a season, dates that are already planned. In the boxing world, however, dates of bouts are fluid, so Matchroom has been granted the ability to notify the ISPs of upcoming events at least four weeks in advance.


    “[T]he order is proportionate. It does not impair the rights of the Defendants to carry on business,” Justice Arnold writes.


    “To the limited extent that it interferes with the rights of internet users to impart or receive information, the interference is justified by a legitimate aim, namely preventing infringement of Matchroom’s and Sky’s rights on a large scale, and it is proportionate to that aim.


    “It will be effective and dissuasive, no equally effective but less onerous measures are available to Matchroom, it avoids creating barriers to legitimate trade, it is not unduly complicated or costly and it contains safeguards against misuse.”


    The order handed down by the High Court in Matchroom’s favor will run for two years and will be in place to tackle piracy during this Saturday’s much-anticipated fight.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Dragon Box’ Changes Business Model Following Hollywood Lawsuit[/h]

    Facing serious legal pressure from Hollywood, the company behind the streaming device 'Dragon Box' is changing its business model. The company will officially introduce a subscription service called "Blend TV" next week, offering access to 65+ US Channels, including live sports streaming.


    Earlier this year, several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix
    filed a lawsuit
    against Dragon Media Inc, branding it a supplier of pirate streaming devices.


    Under the flag of the newly formed anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Dragon of using the Kodi media player in combination with pirate addons. As such, the company facilitates mass copyright infringement, it was argued.


    While the lawsuit remains ongoing, the legal pressure prompted
    Dragon Box
    to take a good look at its business. With ACE filing lawsuits against several ‘streaming boxes,’ the problem was not going away anytime soon.


    “It’s been a tough 9 months for the company and the industry,” the company writes in a Facebook message picked up by
    Cord Cutters News


    However, Dragon Box is not throwing in the towel. The company will change its business model and promises to continue serving the latest entertainment, albeit at a cost.


    “Instead of closing our doors and shutting down all boxes and riding off into the sunset we decided that it was in the best interest of you the customers and the company to change our business model..,” Dragon Box writes.


    The company adds that it will continue to try and bring customers “the best legal content we can and add in as many services we can to make Dragon Box the box that beats any competitors out there.”


    While the announcement isn’t very concrete, a company representative informs TorrentFreak that they plan to officially announce their “
    Blend TV
    ” subscription service next week.


    This service, which has a similar website design as the box seller, is operated by uMedialink LLC and works on various platforms and devices. However, it does come with a subscription, starting at $39.95 per month for access to 65+ US Channels, including live sports streaming.

    Blend TV’s channels


    While Blend TV is not exactly a household name, its FAQ section notes that it is perfectly legal.


    “Absolutely! BlendTV has the required rights and permission’s for the distribution of all our channels and movies on demand,” Blend TV’s website reads.


    Dragon Box has also put up their boxes
    up for sale
    again. However, these are completely different to the ones that were offered last year. They are configured for easy access to Blend TV, and no longer come with Kodi and infringing add-ons pre-installed.


    TorrentFreak spoke to someone familiar with the situation, who explained that this move was inevitable. The company believes that this change is in their own best interests and the interests of their customers.


    Dragon Box still believes that online streaming is the future. And they hope that, by partnering with Blend TV, they can continue doing business without legal trouble.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Broadcaster Wins Streaming Piracy Blocking Case in Australia[/h]

    Hong Kong broadcaster Television Broadcasts has won its site-blocking case in Australia. As a result, ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus, and TPG plus their subsidiaries must block access to 25 "online locations" connected to seven unauthorized Android-based streaming services. The blocks must be in place within 15 days.


    Last year, Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) applied for a blocking injunction in Australia against several unauthorized IPTV services.


    Under the Copyright Act, the broadcaster asked the Federal Court to order ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus, and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1, BlueTV, EVPAD, FunTV, MoonBox, Unblock, and hTV5.


    TVB’s application was unusual in that it not only required ISPs to block URLs, domains and IP addresses related to the technical operation of the services, but also hosting platforms akin to Google Play and Apple’s App Store that host the app.


    Back in May, due to the relative complexity of the application, Justice Nicholas
    reserved his decision
    , telling TVB that his ruling could take a couple of months after receiving his “close attention.”


    In a ruling handed down by the Federal Court yesterday, TVB discovered it had been worth the wait.


    Justice Nicholas notes in his judgment that the primary purpose of the illicit streaming set-top boxes is to facilitate the infringement of copyright by making such material available in Australia without permission from copyright owners. He also notes, however, that many people using these devices did not know they are infringing copyright.


    “Be that as it may, I regard as flagrant the copyright infringements of the persons who have made the TVB broadcasts available online, including those persons responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the target online locations that make it possible for users of the streaming devices to view the TVB broadcasts either in close to real time or at some later time using the VOD service,” the Judge writes.


    In an earlier hearing, TVB was confronted with the fact that some of the content it broadcasts has uncertain copyright status in Australia. While Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organization, it is not a party to the 1961 Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations.


    The Judge says that considering the low volume of that content, blocking would not be an issue.


    “I accept that access to some of content that was originally broadcast (ie. which was not pre-recorded) in which copyright does not subsist may also be blocked, but my strong impression from the evidence is that this is likely to constitute a relatively small proportion of the total content the subject of TVB’s television broadcasts in Hong Kong,” he


    “This is not a case, in my view, where blocking orders, if made, will significantly curtail non-infringing use of the streaming devices.”


    The Judge adds that other than blocking, TVB has no other practical remedies available to curtail infringement of its rights. This is due to the likelihood that the operators of the service are “almost certainly” based overseas and “impossible” to track down.


    “Obtaining any form of effective injunctive relief against them in Australia is not a realistic option,” Justice Nicholas adds.


    ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus and TPG now have 15 days to block the “online locations” supplying content and services to the infringing set-top boxes in Australia. Meanwhile, TVB continues its battle against pirates.


    “Actions are being taken by TVB in Singapore and other overseas markets to block piracy websites. We will keep in contact with the Hong Kong government to push similar site-blocking in Hong Kong,” a TVB spokesman said.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Reddit Gets Tough With Multiple Bans of Piracy Sub-Reddits[/h]

    Faced with communities that continually flaunt Reddit's rules on deliberately linking to copyright-infringing content, the site's admins have banned yet more piracy-focused sub-Reddits. The latest casualties are communities that have systematically posted links to movies, TV shows and software.


    While the DMCA contains a ‘repeat infringer’ clause, copyright cases filed in the United States are now helping to more accurately define what the term means.


    Multiple cases involving ISPs
    Grande Communications
    , and their
    , appear to be having a knock-on effect on platforms that rely on user-submitted content. No longer as vague as it was, the repeat infringer clause now means that platforms are quicker to take action against persistent pirates.


    With its tens of millions of users, Reddit is one such site. All content is submitted by users and while copyright infringements are dealt with following complaints from rightsholders, the site now appears to deal more swiftly with those who continually flout the rules.


    previously reported
    , Reddit has issued stern warnings to several communities after they were subjected to multiple complaints from rightsholders. It now appears the ban-hammer is being swung with increasing force.


    Several sub-Reddits connected to copyright infringing content have recently been banned from Reddit. One of those is
    , a previously 23,000-strong community that posted links to full movies hosted on external sites.


    How FullMoviesOnAnything used to look


    Following complaints, users are no longer greeted with a large index of links to infringing content. Instead, the sub-Reddit displays the familiar ‘banned’ screen indicating that the community has been shuttered for good.


    Permanently banned from Reddit


    Another sub-Reddit with a similar name and purpose has also been banned. FullMoviesOnAnything_ (note the underscore) was also nuked, apparently for spam. Like its namesake, however, the community also posted links to copyright-infringing content.

    How FullMoviesOnAnything_ used to look




    These aren’t the only ‘infringing’ sub-Reddits to be closed in recent times.


    , a nod to its namesake in the movie sector, has also been permanently removed from the site. The same thing happened to
    earlier this year.


    While Reddit doesn’t always display precise reasons for a sub-Reddit being banned on each individual landing page, one doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that copyright infringement was an issue in the above cases. In other instances, however, the site is more clear.


    The ‘banned’ notices on sub-Reddits including
    are crystal clear, with a specific note that the sub-Reddit violated the site’s repeat infringer policy and were shut down.


    Repeat infringer policy in effect


    As highlighted last month
    , sub-Reddits dealing with piracy-related topics need to be increasingly careful not to break Reddit’s rules. Tight moderation is the key, along with common sense from users.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]TTV Feeds EZTV ‘Fake’ Torrents… ‘Stop Taking Our Releases!’[/h]

    Popular TV-torrent distribution group ETTV is calling out one of its main 'competitors.' The group accuses EZTV of taking 'its' releases and branding them as their own, publishing fake torrents to prove their point. "If you want to be a distribution group you should be getting your source files privately," ETTV says.


    Online pirates are generally not known to be the most law-abiding citizens. However, they certainly have their own set of standards.


    Scene groups, for example, have to follow a
    strict set of rules
    which define how they are supposed to share their booty.


    Further down the piracy pyramid, we find P2P distribution groups. These operate out in public, making sure that scene releases find their way to the masses on a regular schedule.


    is one of these groups. Specializing in the latest TV content, it uploads dozens of scene releases to public sites, including their own. The group prides itself on its selection and speed, something appreciated by millions of pirates.


    While ETTV is running steady, the site’s operators have one major nuisance. EZTV, one of their main ‘competitors’, is releasing ‘their’ content without permission.


    While the original EZTV shut down following a hostile takeover, the people who took over are still serving torrents to millions of people every month. And according to ETTV, many of these torrents are sourced from ETTV.


    To show their discontent, ETTV recently added a fake torrent to their feed. Specifically, they uploaded a rather explicit adult film, disguising it as the latest “Taskmaster” episode.


    As can be seen below, the title comes with an additional message: “EZTV and TGX stop ridding our releases,” which made its way onto the EZTV site.



    The fake release has since been removed from EZTV’s website but ETTV didn’t stop there. Another fake release appeared on Thursday, disguised as a Mr. Mercedes episode.


    However, as
    several commenters noted
    , this was something entirely different.


    Looking at the various release feeds, it indeed appears that EZTV, in particular, is a near copy of that of ETTV. The main difference is that the torrents appear a few minutes later.


    TorrentFreak reached out to ETTV, who told us that they decided to take a stand because they are tired of EZTV’s antics.


    “They are always using our content and we are getting tired of it. If you want to be a distribution group you should be getting your source files privately,” ETTV says.


    While ETTV is a bot that operates
    mostly automated
    , this process is certainly not free. The group pays various sites which offer scene content, so they can access these files.


    Of course, ETTV itself also uses the ‘work’ of others, including scene groups (and movie studios), but it stresses that it’s not okay for one public distribution group to blatantly copy from another.


    “We owe them nothing and don’t want anything from them either,” ETTV says.


    “They can play the ‘sharing is caring card’ all they want, but only amateurs and freeloading scum think its ok to run their sites by [taking content from] other public sites.”


    The other group that was called out in the fake release is TGX. However, as far as we’ve seen these fake releases were not republished with their tag. TGX did use torrents from ETTV’s feed earlier.


    Whether EZTV will be bothered by the accusations is doubtful. The group doesn’t have the best reputation after the hostile takeover of the original EZTV, and copying YIFY and ExtraTorrent, but most of their visitors don’t seem to care.


    This isn’t the first time a ‘fake’ torrent has made its way onto EZTV’s website. A few weeks ago we already reported on a
    similar incident
    , which ETTV had nothing to do with.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Judge Sees No Evidence that Pirates Were Drawn by ISP’s Lack of ‘Policing’[/h]

    A group of RIAA labels has suffered a setback in their case against ISP Grande Communications. US Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin recommends denying their motion for an amended complaint, as there is no new evidence suggesting that pirates signed up with the provider due to its lacking repeat infringer policy.


    Last year several major record labels, represented by the RIAA,
    filed a lawsuit
    against ISP Grande Communications accusing it of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers.


    According to the labels, the Internet provider knew that some of its subscribers were frequently distributing copyrighted material, but failed to take any meaningful action in response.


    Grande refuted the accusations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The ISP
    partially succeeded
    as the claims against its management company Patriot were dropped.


    The same was true for the vicarious infringement allegations. The court saw no evidence that potential customers would specifically sign up with Grande because it did not police infringing conduct by its subscribers.


    The labels disagreed, however, and were not ready to let any claims go. In May they submitted a motion for leave to file an amended complaint including new evidence obtained during discovery. Among other things, they argued that Grande willingly kept pirating subscribers aboard, to generate more revenue.


    This week, US Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin issued his “report and recommendation” on the matter, which delivers a significant setback for the RIAA labels.


    Judge Austin sees no new evidence which shows that ‘pirate’ subscribers were specifically drawn to Grande. The new evidence may indicate that Grande failed to terminate pirating subscribers for years, but that’s not enough.


    “First, the original Complaint alleged essentially the same or similar facts,” the recommendation reads.


    “Second, the new allegations still fail to say anything about the motivations of Grande’s subscribers when they sign up with Grande. That is, Plaintiffs still fail to plead facts showing Grande gained or lost customers because of its failure to terminate infringers.”


    The alleged pirates used BitTorrent to share infringing works, which is something they could have done through any ISP, the Magistrate Judge adds.


    The RIAA labels also argued that Grande’s management company Patriot Media Consulting, which is also listed as a defendant, should be held liable too.


    However, the court previously ruled that, while Patriot employees were involved in policy making, they didn’t take any decisions or actions that led to the alleged infringements.


    According to the order, the labels’ new evidence doesn’t change this.


    “Though there is more detail in the proposed amendment, these allegations are “more of the same” when compared to the original complaint,” Magistrate Judge Austin writes.


    In conclusion, Judge Austin recommends denying the RIAA labels’ motion to file an amended complaint. If this recommendation is adopted by the District Court Judge, the case against Grande will continue based on the contributory infringement claim alone.



    Judge Austin’s full report and recommendations filing is available
    here (pdf)


    Source: Torrentfreak.com



    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Piracy is Booming in Russia, With Help From Online Casinos’[/h]

    The number of illegally recorded films in Russian cinemas is skyrocketing, cybersecurity company Group-IB reports. Nearly all films that were released this year have leaked. According to Group-IB, one particularly active group of pirates is financed by online-casinos, who advertise their logos in the videos.


    Piracy is very much a worldwide phenomenon, but there are some noteworthy differences between various regions.


    Earlier this year
    we reported
    that there’s a notable decrease in camcording piracy globally. However, in Russia, this trend is going in the opposite direction.


    This finding was corroborated this week by the international cybersecurity outfit
    . The company’s Anti-Piracy department reported that there has been a clear increase in locally camcorded movies.


    In 2016 there were ‘only’ 33 Russian cinema leaks. This increased more than 500% to 211 a year later and, during the first eight months of 2018, the counter has already reached 280 leaked recordings.


    “Almost every film released in 2018 has been pirated and leaked to the web. In 2017, the country’s cinemas showed 477 movies, and 211 of them were pirated, which is 6 times more than a year earlier,” Group-IB notes.


    TorrentFreak reached out to Andrey Busargin, Director of Brand Protection at Group-IB, who informed us that there is an organized group of “camcording” pirates which has been very active.


    “This group is financed by online-casinos, which support online-pirates as well. Online-casinos integrate their ads in the pirated copies and TV-shows in the form of logos, captioning or even as audio tracks,” Busargin says.


    These pirated copies than spread across the web. As an example, Group-IB provided screenshots of ads for “Azino 777” before and
    pirated movies, as well as a branded watermark, seen below.


    “This scheme allows online casinos to generate leads, wherever a user watches a pirated copy and whatever ads are displayed on a website with pirated copies,” Busargin adds.


    According to Group-IB, pirate sites are also profiting handsomely from the availability of infringing content.


    “On average pirates earn $3 per 1000 views. Therefore, an average monthly income of pirated websites owners can reach $10,000. It would cost roughly $240 to create a pirated website, which allows owners to quickly recoup their ‘business’.”


    That sounds profitable indeed. However, an operator of a large torrent site told us, on the condition of anonymity, that it’s a rather optimistic estimate. While popups in countries such as Japan can indeed earn up to $3 per 1000 impressions, in Russia this figure is closer to $0.3-0.5, he said.


    Also, these popups are often restricted to one impression per unique visitor per day, not all website views. And then there are the ad-blockers, which take out roughly 40% of all traffic.


    This means that one million Russian pageviews, from 100,000 unique users, would bring in ‘only’ $20 per popup ad. This is, effectively, $0.02 per 1000 pageviews.


    Sites can run multiple ads at once, of course, but Group-IB’s figure appears to be optimistic. Even BitTorrent Inc, which is a legitimate company, doesn’t charge more than
    a few cents per 1000 views
    for its banners.


    The cybersecurity company further estimates that there were a massive 10 billion search queries for “free” movies and TV-shows in Russia in a year. The company directly translates this to 110 pirate movies views for all 90 million Internet users, but that may be a bit much as well.


    When we asked the company about this estimate, they told us that 110 movies per year shouldn’t be taken too literally and that it’s meant as a “snapshot” of the number of films people “intended” to watch.


    All in all Group-IB’s data is quite intriguing, especially the rapid increase in cammed movies and the allegation that casinos facilitate this activity.


    On that note, it’s worth mentioning that the aforementioned “Azino 777” casino was mentioned earlier this year as one of the top online advertisers in Russia. Despite a site blocking ban by Roskomnadzor, it
    beats the likes of
    Yandex, Coca-Cola, and Tele2.


    Group-IB infographic


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Tamil Rockers new domains and other 60 more linked to torrent site Blocked[/h]

    The Tamil Film Producers’ Council anti Piracy cell (TFPC ANTI PIRACY CELL) doing their great work against to piracy and also achieving some things daily. According to the report, there were more than 60 websites which all involved in releasing new movies online for free has blocked.


    Actor Vishal and Producer SR Prabhu team receiving wishes for their actions against piracy. Thier anti-piracy team has already filed more cases to enhance the growth of the film industry.


    The official twitter handle of TFPC Anti-piracy cell tweeted “Mammoth achievement by @TFPC_Antipiracy blocking 60 plus major websites . First Indian film segment to file 69 cases against websites and 93 cable piracy cases. 18 cases against theatres involved in piracy. 19 arrests. Much more efforts to #killpiracy @
    prabhu_sr @
    KOfficial. [sic]”


    Also, the list of websites which all blocked by the anti-piracy cell has out.



    • tamildbox.net, tamilrockers.tv, tamilrockerss.co, tnhdmovies.me, mytamilrockers.in, tamilstorm.com, tamilmv.yt, cooltamilhd.com, tamilrockers.ro, o2movies.in, mymoviesda.com, tamilhunter.net, tamilrockers.st, tamilkey.com, tamilrock.pw, highquality.biz, and more.


    The Maharashtra government’s Cyber Digital Crime Unit (MCDCU) also blocked 29 websites which all involved in piracy.


    The treasurer of TFPC SR Prabhu tweeted, “Already IPREC ( earlier Video Piracy ) is formed & through TFPC 40+ cases have been filed & many sites are blocked. TN govt. police dept. is supporting to their fullest power within the boundaries of the law#MoviePiracy @TFPC_Antipiracy. [sic]”


    TFPC antipiracy cell has also suspended two other new Tamil rockers domains recently,
    . And the team ready to take actions on the upcoming new domain of the website, which is the main and popular piracy site, affected all the movies in the South Indian and mainly Kollywood.


    Early on July 2018, the Central government has invited TFPC Antipiracy team to discuss technical drawbacks and assured maximum support to kill piracy. TFPC identified as the best antipiracy team in India.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Why Kodi Addons & Pirate Apps Are Disappearing…Quietly[/h]

    Since 2017, many Kodi addon and 'pirate' app developers have chosen to discontinue their projects and disappear into the shadows. Yet, unlike historical shutdowns of torrent and streaming platforms, most of these moves haven't made the headlines. The informational black hole is notable but can be explained. Those targeted are compelled not to say a word.


    It’s impossible to say how many lawyers have been deployed to shut down piracy-related projects over the years. Dozens would be a conservative estimate but just one beating down the door can be an intimidating experience.


    In the early 2000s and for at least the next decade and beyond, many efforts to shut down pirate sites and services were accompanied by triumphant press releases. Arrests, court appearances, and usually negative verdicts against pirates became a rallying point for the content industries, with the head-on-a-pike deterrent proving a valuable tool in the propaganda wars.


    Last year, however, a new tactic appeared to gain momentum. In addition to strategic publicized cases against larger-scale infringers, a steady undercurrent of threats became evident in the Kodi addon and pirate application community. Rather than breaking down doors, content owners approached developers quietly, warning that shutting down is the only real way to avoid punishing legal action.


    Most of the approaches were made by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the global anti-piracy coalition made up of 30 of the world’s most powerful entertainment companies. This fact has been made public by a number of developers, with some
    publishing correspondence
    on the web.


    Many others, however, simply announced their retirement and disappeared, often around the same time that other developers took the same course of action. When approached for comment most refused to offer details but it’s clear that decisions weren’t being made freely. It won’t come as a surprise to learn that many, in exchange for not having their lives ruined, agreed to take a vow of silence.


    After collating information from a number of sources, we can now reveal some of the tactics being used against developers involved in ‘pirate’ projects.


    While the details vary from case to case, most approaches begin with a detailed overview of the project the developer is involved in and various laws that ACE believe are being broken. This is followed up with details of a multi-point settlement deal which can potentially see the developer exit with a minimum of costs.


    previously reported
    , some of the terms are fairly unpalatable, including an agreement to report on associates and colleagues involved in the project and associated projects. We have no idea whether anyone targeted has done so but we know the settlement agreement contains such clauses. However, aside from ending all infringing activities, the number one insistence is that recipients keep their mouths firmly shut.


    In order to protect those who have disclosed information to TF, we aren’t publishing direct quotes from the settlement agreements. However, we can disclose that those entering settlements are forbidden from speaking to anyone (apart from their legal advisors) about the contents of the agreement, but it goes further than that.


    Those targeted are expressly forbidden from telling anyone that they have even been contacted or that discussions are taking place, something that really isolates people seeking to receive external help and advice.


    Furthermore, if the recipient’s case is discussed with ACE at all, no information – whether spoken or in written form – can be revealed to any third-party (outside legal counsel). As far as we can see from the documents available, this means they aren’t even allowed to discuss the terms with a close friend or family member.


    However, in return for their full cooperation, it appears that ACE will keep their identities a secret. If announcements to the press are made (which thus far hasn’t been the coalition’s modus operandi), ACE has told those who sign agreements that they won’t be named or identified in other ways.


    With this background, it’s not difficult to see why developers are choosing to shut down their projects and disappear quietly. While some will find the terms of ACE’s settlement agreement difficult, it’s undoubtedly better than the alternative. With billions of dollars up their collective sleeves, ACE members have unlimited access to legal weaponry and could drain the average person’s finances in a matter of months in legal fees alone.


    Quite why ACE has chosen to act against developers so quietly isn’t clear but given that most of their targets thus far have been bedroom-based Joe Publics, it’s possible that the “30 Goliaths versus David” imagery is something some its members would prefer not to be associated with.


    Finally, users worried by a potential hand over of information to authorities as highlighted by the
    Terrarium TV case this week
    (note: we have no confirmation that ACE was involved) shouldn’t be surprised when developers act to save their own skin. Privacy and security is the user’s own responsibility and in the Wild West of piracy, anything can happen.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 09/24/18


    The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'The First Purge' tops the chart this week, followed by ‘Solo: A Star Wars Story'. 'Sicario: Day of the Soldado' completes the top three.
    This week we have two newcomers in our chart.
    The First Purge is the most downloaded movie
    The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.


    RSS feed
    for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.
    This week’s most downloaded movies are:



    Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
    Most downloaded movies via torrents
    1 (…) The First Purge 5.2 /
    2 (2) Solo: A Star Wars Story 7.1 /
    3 (3) Sicario: Day of the Soldado 7.3 /
    4 (1) Skyscraper 6.1 /
    5 (4) Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom 6.5 /
    6 (5) Ocean’s Eight 6.3 /
    7 (…) The Meg (Subbed HDRip) 6.0 /
    8 (6) Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Subbed HDRip) 8.1 /
    9 (7) Deadpool 2 8.0 /
    10 (8) Avengers: Infinity War 8.7 /

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Demonoid Goes Down While Owner Remains ‘Missing’[/h]

    Semi-private BitTorrent tracker Demonoid has been offline for several days. The downtime follows a series of technical issues. More concerning, however, is the fact that the site's staff haven't heard from the site's owner for more than two months.


    As one of the oldest torrent communities around,
    has run into quite a few rough patches over the years.


    Whether it’s media industry pressure, lawsuits, blocking orders, hosting problems or police investigations, Demonoid has seen it all.


    The site has established a reputation as the “
    comeback kid
    ,” due to its tendency to go offline for weeks or even months, and then reappear in full glory as if nothing ever happened.


    Over the past weeks, the site has hit some rough patches again. In August the site’s torrents
    mysteriously disappeared
    and while these eventually came back,
    more technical issues
    were around the corner.


    While technical troubles are nothing out of the ordinary, there was a reason for concern as the site’s owner, Deimos, was missing in action as well.


    Late last week things took a turn for the worse. Over the past few days, Demonoid has been completely unreachable, and its owner is still nowhere to be seen.


    Demonoid staffer Phaze1G informs TorrentFreak that it’s unclear what’s going on. The domain names work just fine, but in addition to Demonoid, the tracker’s sister site Hypercache.pw has also gone offline, which is unusual.


    “There’s nothing new, unfortunately,” Phaze1G told us yesterday, noting that all staff members are waiting in a small chat box, looking out for something positive to cling onto.


    At the moment both the site’s users and staff are completely in the dark. There has been come continued activity in the official
    Reddit forums
    , but other than that things have remained quiet.


    The site’s staff do want to highlight, however, that there are no proxies or other alternatives available. There are some copycats around, but these are all fake.


    “Users should be REALLY aware that there is no: .onion address, mirrors, alternative Demonoids and such. Especially to avoid demonoid.to,” Phaze1G says.


    The staffer believes that Deimos’ absence may be due to personal circumstances. However, the owner also made it clear that he would do his best to avoid legal issues if something concrete ever happened.


    That said, Deimos is not the kind of person to leave the site adrift without reason. He resurrected it back in 2014, hoping to rebuild the great community it was during the early days. In a way, it’s his baby.


    “In his vision, Demonoid is a place which helps the world to be just a tiny bit of a better place,” Phaze1G says.


    “For example, when a user had cancer and needed money for a surgery, the Demonoid and its members helped to pay the bills, and there were cases where users had car accidents and got all kinds of support.”


    Over the past several years, Demonoid was gradually expanding its userbase again. The current downtime is a major setback, but perhaps that’s part of the Demonoid’s spirit too. It’s the comeback kid after all.


    “Demonoid will most likely return, but for now, we have to wait,” Phaze1G concludes.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Google, Yandex Discuss Creation of Anti-Piracy Database[/h]

    Google, Yandex and other prominent Internet companies in Russia are discussing the creation of a database of infringing content including movies, TV shows, games, and software. The idea is that the companies will automatically query this database every five minutes with a view to removing such content from search results within six hours, no court order required.


    Every day, countless thousands of pieces of infringing content are uploaded to the Internet including most movies, TV shows, games, and commercial software.


    Rightsholders everywhere are struggling to the contain the influx, often having to resort to filing millions of takedown notices with Internet companies, the bulk of which target the world’s major search engines.


    While this doesn’t take down the actual content itself, there is a theory that citizens often turn to search engines to find their fix. These sites, in turn, direct users to sites hosting infringing content. To combat this facilitation, copyright holders want search companies to remove these results from their indexes.


    Takedowns like this are common in the West, with Google removing billions of links upon request. In Russia, however, search engine Yandex found itself in hot water recently after
    refusing to remove links
    on the basis that the law does not require it to do so. This prompted the authorities to suggest that a compromise agreement needs to be made, backed up by possible changes in the law.


    It now appears that this event, which could’ve led to Yandex being blocked by ISPs, has prompted both Internet companies and copyright holders to consider a voluntary agreement. Discussions currently underway suggest a unique and potentially ground-breaking plan.


    The initial meeting between telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor, Internet companies Yandex, Google, and Mail.ru, plus representatives of the Association of Producers of Cinema and Television (APKiT), the National Media Group, and Gazprom Media Holdings, took place September 19.


    According to news outlet
    , the topic of discussion was the creation of a special database holding the details of known infringing copies of content including movies, games, software and other pirated content.


    The proposals envision that once details of content are placed in the database, search engines and video hosting sites that sign up to a memorandum of understanding with rightsholders will automatically query the database every five minutes for updates.


    Once the details are fed back, search companies will remove links to pirate resources from their search results within six hours, without any need for a court process. This will run alongside the current database currently maintained by Roscomnadzor and utilized by ISPs, which contains links to sites that are blocked due to having multiple complaints filed against them at the Moscow City Court.


    If adopted, this new extrajudicial process will go some way to clearing up the problems caused by the current legal gray area, which led to Yandex removing links to content from its video portal to avoid a potential ISP blockade, even though the company believes that the law does not require it to do so.


    It’s suggested that the infringing resource database, should it go ahead, could be maintained by the Internet Video Association (IVA), which represents intellectual property rights holders. Alternatively, RBC notes, an alternative coalition of entertainment companies including legal streaming platforms could be put in charge of the project.


    Talks appear to be fairly advanced, with agreements on the framework for the database potentially being reached by the middle of this week. If that’s the case, a lawsuit recently filed by Gazprom Media against Yandex could be settled amicably. It’s understood that Yandex wants all major Internet players to become involved, including social networks.


    With the carrot comes the possibility of the stick, of course. Gazprom Media indicates that if a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, it will seek
    amendments to copyright law
    that will achieve the same end results.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Provider liability: First YouTube, now “uploaded” – next case before the CJEU[/h]

    Only two weeks ago, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) referred various questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the liability of the video platform
    YouTube. There, the court’s queries focused on who is actually responsible for unlawfully uploaded content – just the uploader himself or the service provider as well? Last week, the German judges yet again sat over a case dealing with this issue. Once again they decided to initiate preliminary proceedings before the CJEU in Luxembourg (see the decision of 20 September 2018, file no.: I ZR 53/17 –


    One might ask why the second case also had to be referred to the CJEU with fairly similar questions being asked. The answer is quite simple: one platform is not the same as another and one service does not necessarily reflect the features of the next. Since case law builds on and develops on the basis of judges handing down more than one judgment on a certain subject, it is crucial that the CJEU examines the matter and explains its views on such an important issue (the liability of service providers) on the basis of differing factual situations. In this respect, it is fair to say that these two German cases differ widely.


    It’s important to keep in mind that provider liability is currently also a major concern for the European legislator. In the course of the copyright reform pending in the legislative process, the Commission, Parliament and the Council are endeavoring to find a compromise as to the conditions under which providers could be held liable for uploaded content. Unsurprisingly, Article 13 of the current draft is one of the most controversial standards in the draft law.




    Instead of storing favorite holiday pictures, music or other files on their own private server, an increasing number of people use the services of host providers in order to store content in the cloud, i.e. on third-party servers. The advantages are obvious: no need for local space, online accessibility and easy sharing of content.


    The defendant in the current proceedings before the BGH offers such type of cloud service. The service is called “
    uploaded“. It offers storage space for the uploading of all sorts of files. For each uploaded file, a download link is automatically created and made available to the person uploading. The service does not include the compilation of a table of contents in which the links or uploaded files could be looked up, nor does uploaded offer a search function. However, users may place their own links in so-called “
    link collections” on pages outside
    uploaded. So, in the end there is a frequently used option to navigate through
    uploaded links on this kind of database enabling users to choose from the stored content.


    In general, the up- as well as the download of content is free. However, the free version of the service is limited in terms of storage volume and download speed. Users aiming for a higher download ratio and/or higher speed may register for a paid-for version. In addition, every user who uploads content receives a “
    ownload fee” from the service provider. For example 1,000 downloads are rewarded with € 40.00.


    Although, the general terms and conditions of the service prohibit users from uploading unlawful content, we see a large number of copyrighted works having been uploaded without adequate authorisation by the rights holders. This content has been illegally shared with countless other users. To give you a better impression, the parties to the main proceedings disagree as to whether more than 90% (!) of all available content was uploaded illegally onto the
    uploaded platform. This figure alone shows how substantial the potential for abuse is in the specific case at issue.


    Various publishers as well as film and music companies plus the German collecting society GEMA have taken legal action against the operator of uploaded. There are in total five court proceedings pending. The claims put forward relate to the unlawful act of making available to the public copyright-protected content within the meaning of Sec. 19a of the German Copyright Act [urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG]. The provision is based on Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive 2001/29. uploaded is accused of being the perpetrator of a copyright infringement. The lawsuits are aimed at injunctive relief, disclosure of information and payment of damages.


    In the appeal instances, uploaded was in all cases charged with indirect liability (under the concept of the so-called “Störerhaftung” which has been developed by German courts). Accordingly, uploaded was not seen as perpetrator or participant of copyright infringement. In consequence, the judges “only” granted injunctive relief (cf. Higher Regional Court of Munich, judgment of 2 March 2017, Case Ref.: 29 U 3735/16). The claims for disclosure of information and damages were denied


    The Questions submitted


    In the oral hearing, in which all five proceedings were handled jointly, the judges already made it clear that yet again a case would be referred up to the CJEU. In the end, the BGH submitted one of the five proceedings and suspended the remaining proceedings for the time being.


    Contrary to the previous referral, when the BGH expressed its opinion that YouTube was not liable for an act of communicating to the public, the judges this time are actually considering a declaration of liability for such act in respect to uploaded’s service. The reason for this is the fact that there are indeed recognizable differences when comparing both services. Uploaded is based on a concept of hyperlinking, there is also a greater degree of structural anonymity of the user and uploaded’s remuneration scheme is a clear differentiator. Accordingly, the German court posed a number of questions pointing to those differences( see particular the
    old print below).


    1- First, the question

    “whether the operator of a
    share hosting service, on which users communicate copyright-protected content to the public without the consent of the right holders, performs an act of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC if


    • the upload process takes place automatically and without prior viewing or control by the operator,

    • the operator points out in the terms of use that copyright infringing content may not be posted,

    • he earns revenue by operating the service,

    • the service is used for legal purposes, but the
      perator is aware that a considerable number of copyright infringing content (more than 9,500 works) are also available,

    • the operator does not offer a table of contents or a search function, but the unlimited download links provided by the operator are placed by third parties in link collections on the Internet, which contain information on the content of the files and make it possible to search for specific content,

    • he creates an incentive to upload copyrighted content that is otherwise only available to users for a fee by structuring the remuneration for downloads paid by him according to demand, and

    • the possibility of anonymously uploading files increases the likelihood that users will be held accountable for copyright infringements?”

    2- In addition, the Federal Court of Justice wants to know
    “whether the assessment of the above question changes if copyright infringing offers are made available via the share hosting service in an amount of 90 to 96% of the total use.”


    3- In essentially the same wording as the reference questions on YouTube, the BGH further asks whether – and if so, under what conditions – the liability privilege pursuant to Art. 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 applies in favor of the share hosting service and what possibilities of liability exist pursuant to Art. 8 (3) of the InfoSoc Directive and Art. 11(1) and Art. 13 of the Enforcement Directive 2004/48.


    Comment and Outlook


    The BGH’s latest referral does not come as a complete surprise. The judges’ decision to address a further set of questions to the CJEU resonates. When it comes to the discussion whether or not certain hosting providers shall be held liable for illegal content being uploaded to their platforms, one has to look closely at the specifics. There is no “one fits all” approach as the individual services are simply too diverse.


    For instance, service providers can make it harder or easier for users who primarily want to place unauthorized content on the Internet. The effort made by the provider is crucial in our view and only a completely “clean” service is utopian. Therefore, the legal assessment of responsibility must be linked to the structure chosen by the service provider and his measures taken to ensure an adequate level of legal conformity as regards the uploaded content.


    What all stakeholders need most is guidance as to what is required in this context. Thus, we need clear court rulings dealing with different platform settings. We therefore welcome that the CJEU now has the opportunity to clarify its position. Against this background, combining the two cases referred up to the CJEU by the BGH would be beneficial. Thereby, a stringent continuation of
    The Pirate Bay
    case law could be ensured.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Sky TV taking pirate sites to court[/h]

    Sky TV is stepping up its attack on piracy. The pay-TV operator says it will start legal action against some of the biggest websites offering pirated content before the end of the year.


    Today it released research showing 30 percent of New Zealand adults regularly pirate content and 10 percent do it on a weekly basis. Mark Jennings reports.


    The bosses at Sky TV have had a feeling that pirates were costing the company serious money. Now they know it’s the case.


    Three hundred thousand New Zealanders are regularly watching illegal streams of sports. The figure comes from a major research project Sky had carried out by Research Now in May this year.


    Research Now surveyed 1009 people aged 18 and over.


    It found 50 percent had viewed pirated content at some time in the past and nearly a third of the population do it regularly or at least every six months.


    Most (81 percent) gave “it’s not available in New Zealand” as the reason for their digital piracy. Nearly 70 percent said not being able to afford to pay for the content was a key reason for illegally downloading or streaming it.


    Sophie Moloney, Sky TV’s general counsel, accepts that cost is a genuine issue.


    “We have been trying to grapple with this problem and it is one of the reasons we have created a Neon package for $11.99. Socioeconomic factors do come into it but there is also a problem with higher income earners and these are the people we really want to have a conversation with.”


    Moloney, who says her experience working in the UK and the Middle East have made her passionate about “content protection”, wants people to understand the impact piracy has on the creative industry.


    “People say it is only Hollywood, but they don’t understand that there a lot of people involved behind the scenes in producing content.”


    She cites
    Game of Thrones as an example of what it takes to get a series to air.


    GOT there were 3589 people involved in getting the first episode from page to screen. With every All Blacks game 80 of our people are involved (getting it to air).”


    Moloney says people also need to realise that there are “criminals behind these websites” and it is risky to download movies and other content.


    “The pirate sites make money in a number of ways, but they also use spyware, malware and ransomware. I saw this when I worked in the Middle East. People paid the ransom, or they were never going to see their kids’ photos that had been locked up, ever again.


    “When you get material from these sites you don’t know what else you are getting.”


    Moloney said Sky had not quantified how much money it was losing from people pirating material but thought it would be “in the millions.” It planned to do some impact analysis later this year.


    SKY knows that it is fighting what has become “normalised” behaviour for a lot of people.


    The research showed that most pirates know others who watch pirated content and feel it is an easy thing to do. Still, Moloney believes the “group behaviour” also opens up an opportunity.


    “If we can get one person in a group (of pirates) to change their thinking, that could have a significant impact.


    “For instance, people wouldn’t go into a shop stocking a New Zealand clothing brand and steal something every couple of months, so we need to interrupt their thought process when they are looking at pirated content.”


    The “conversation” Maloney says she wants to have with people will be kick-started when Sky takes legal action in the next few months.


    It has two initial targets, big international operation
    The Pirate Bay and a sports streaming site it declined to name.


    Moloney said Sky believes the Copyright Act is being breached and a High Court ruling in its favour would mean it could get ISPs to block the pirate websites.


    “There would certainly be significant upfront legal costs for Sky but once the precedent is established it should be straightforward for the ISPs to block these sites and that includes the proxy and mirror sites of
    The Pirate Bay.


    “The research shows it is time to take this forward and we are in the process of that now. We have already begun discussions with the ISPs.”


    Site blocking has been effective in many overseas countries.


    A Motion Picture Association study from 2016 revealed that 32 countries in Europe have legislation for blocking overseas websites and 15 countries have successfully had cases processed through the courts.


    In the Asia Pacific region, South Korea has blocked 403 websites, Indonesia 215 and Australia 78.


    MPA says that without piracy, box office revenue would have been 14 to 15 percent higher.


    A UK case study shows “site blocking” had led to a 22 percent decrease in piracy for all users affected by the blocks and corresponding increase in the use of legal streaming sites like
    Netflix and


    Moloney says Sky’s research has indicated strong support for “site blocking” in New Zealand.


    Fifty-one percent of pirates and 68 percent of non-pirates would be happy for their ISPs to block piracy websites if were a court requirement.


    Sky is also trying a softer approach to go with the legal manoeuvring. It has licensing a video game called ‘Copycat Combat’ and is piloting an education programme called Kiwa in an Auckland primary school.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]Sky TV Wants The Pirate Bay Blocked in New Zealand[/h]

    New Zealand could become the next country to adopt pirate site blocking. Sky TV will take the matter to court this year, hoping to force local ISPs to block The Pirate Bay and an unnamed sports streaming site. New research released by the company shows that action is needed and also supported by the majority of the public.


    Earlier this year Hollywood’s Motion Picture Distributors’ Association stated that site-blocking was
    the only option left
    to beat online piracy.


    While it’s impossible to completely eradicate the phenomenon, rightsholders generally see ISP blockades as one of the most effective tools at their disposal.


    This is also true for
    Sky TV
    New Zealand. Last year the company took its first steps in this direction, and it is now pushing on. Newsroom
    that Sky hopes to file a lawsuit targeting The Pirate Bay and an unnamed sports streaming site before the end of the year.


    The company just released the results of an extensive piracy survey which shows that 29% of all New Zealanders have pirated sport and entertainment during the last month. The majority of pirates prefer streaming, but downloading and pirate boxes are popular too.


    “We’ve known that piracy is a problem for a while, but the scale is even bigger than we thought,” SKY spokesperson Sophie Moloney says.


    “If piracy remains unchecked, it risks really hurting the sports and entertainment industry in New Zealand, and our ability to create great content,” she adds.


    The lacking availability of legal viewing options is the main reason why people pirate, the research reveals. Legal content is either not available or it’s significantly delayed. Interestingly, non-pirates believe that people mainly turn to unauthorized offerings to avoid paying.


    Sky TV, however, believes that there are plenty of legal option and will push its blocking plans through.


    “Other countries are taking steps to stop piracy and encourage people not to steal content, and we want to do the same here in New Zealand, including by way of blocking pirate websites,” Sky TV’s Moloney says.


    Surprisingly, there is even support for this effort among self-proclaimed pirates.


    Just over half of all pirates agreed that they “would be happy for my ISP to block access to a piracy website if it was required by a court to do so.” This is also preferred over other options, such as tighter regulation or lawsuits against individual pirates.


    “Site-blocking is used in 42 countries around the world, including Australia and the UK. It’s good to see that many New Zealanders would prefer that these dodgy sites are blocked from view using this approach,” Moloney notes.


    Whether Internet providers feel the same way has yet to be seen. When Sky TV first announced its blocking intentions last year, local ISPs


    “SKY’s call that sites be blacklisted on their say so is dinosaur behavior, something you would expect in North Korea, not in New Zealand. It isn’t our job to police the Internet and it sure as hell isn’t SKY’s either, all sites should be equal and open,” said Taryn Hamilton of local IPS
    at the time.


    ISPs instead pointed out that rightsholders should focus on improving the legal options. And with Sky TV’s research revealing ‘limited legal options’ as the main motivation to pirate, they are likely to stick with this.


    Source: Torrentfreak.com

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    • Create New...