Posts by Prophet

    Speaking at Midem yesterday, Andrus Ansip of the European Commission shared his vision for the Digital Single Market. Noting that geo-blocking is bad for business, Ansip said that opening up content across borders and providing good legal options is the best way to tackle piracy. "Our legislation is pushing people to steal," he said.


    Last month the European Commission adopted a new Digital Single Market strategy with the aim of improving consumer access to digital goods and services. Among other things the Commission says it plans to end the “discriminatory practice” of “unjustified” geo-blocking.


    “I want to see every consumer getting the best deals and every business accessing the widest market – wherever they are in Europe,” Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said.


    Another part of the strategy is to modernize European copyright law to enable consumers to more easily enjoy online content, such as accessing content they purchased at home in other countries across the EU.


    Speaking at music industry event Midem in Cannes yesterday, former Estonian prime minister Andrus Ansip who serves as Vice President for the Digital Single Market shared his vision for the strategy.


    “Our people have to get the possibility to buy content [across Europe] like they do at home and our businesses must get the possibility to sell across the European Union like they do at home,” Ansip said.


    “Today, we don’t have a Digital Single Market in the European Union. We have 28 relatively small markets and for small European companies it’s practically impossible to understand those 28 different [sets of] regulations.”


    Ansip underlined that what is possible in the offline world must be possible in the online world and key issues must be addressed if parity is to be achieved.


    “Today, the four basic freedoms in the EU – free movement of people, goods, services, capital – it’s a reality in a physical [world] but it’s not reality in the online world,” Ansip said.


    Describing the music industry as a “pioneer” that has grown out of disruption to largely abandon geo-blocking by enabling cross-border access, Ansip addressed concerns that the EU’s plans for modernization of copyright law are something to be feared by content creators.


    “I don’t think people here in this room or elsewhere have to be worried. Today, I would like to enjoy [film] masterpieces created by creators. I am ready to pay but because of copyright restrictions, because of geo-blocking, they are not accepting my money,” Ansip said.


    “Our aim is to create a win-win situation. I would like to enjoy, I will pay, creators will get more money. This is our way. We don’t want to destroy the whole copyright system based on a principle of territoriality. We have to allow cross-border access to digital content to all people, we have to allow portability.”


    Ansip said there are 100 million Europeans who would like to access content in other members states but they can’t because of geo-blocking. Around 271 million cross-border trips with at least one overnight stay are carried out by Europeans each year yet those people cannot always get access to the content they bought legally back home while doing so.


    This is just one indication that the law needs to change, but piracy itself will be challenged.


    “According to public opinion polls, 68% of film viewers say they are using [illegal] downloads. 20% of Internet users in the European Union are using VPNs to get access to digital content. That’s a huge amount of money that our creators are losing today, so of course we will pay more attention to ‘Follow the Money’ [anti-piracy strategy],” Ansip said.


    Assuring content holders that the EU Commission is not hostile towards copyright and rightsholders, Ansip asked the Midem audience to consider the 30% of Canadian Netflix users who use a VPN to access the U.S. version of the service.


    “In the European Union our creators are losing huge amounts of money because of piracy but honestly, somehow our legislation is pushing people to steal,” he said.


    “Take Spotify, for example. We can say that if somebody is able to provide services with better quality with higher speed, then people prefer to act as honest people. They are ready to pay. They don’t want to steal.”


    Highlighting the success of Norway in slashing piracy rates, Ansip says that was achieved by first offering access to quality legal services.


    “The European Commission wants to protect the rights of creators but first we have to provide legal access to digital content to all people. Then it will be more fruitful to tackle piracy,” Ansip said.


    When confronted with the reality that licensed services such as Spotify and Deezer exist while piracy persists, coupled with the perception that the EU Commission isn’t exactly “pro copyright”, Ansip responded enthusiastically.


    “I can’t agree with you! I’m talking about 68% of [film viewers who pirate] who couldn’t care about this copyright because we are not providing legal access to digital content,” he said.


    “Some people say that if [the EU] cares about copyright then let’s deal only with law enforcement. To put 68% of people in jail is not really a good idea. I think that reforms are really needed.”


    It’s clear that the debate on the Digital Single Market is far from over and while it should end up as a positive for consumers, only time will tell how cooperative rightsholders will be throughout the process.

    The former operator of the SurfTheChannel streaming site who received a landmark four year sentence in 2012 is facing another lengthy stretch behind bars. Anton Vickerman was released in 2014 but must now pay back £73,000 his site is said to have generated in advertising. Failure to do so by June 16 will trigger a further 21 month jail sentence.


    Three years after its birth in 2007, SurfTheChannel.com was among the most-visited streaming link websites on the Internet. The site enjoyed more than six million visits a day from 400,000 users who were mainly looking for the latest movies and the most popular TV shows.


    The site soon became the focus of an MPAA investigation carried out by the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft. As previously documented the anti-piracy groups went to extraordinary lengths to pin down site operator Anton Vickerman and present their evidence to the police.


    After the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service declined to take on the case, the MPAA and FACT brought a private criminal prosecution against Vickerman. Accusing him of being involved in a Conspiracy to Defraud the Movie Industry, the tactic paid off. In August 2012 Vickerman was sentenced to an unprecedented four years in jail.


    6c13b7c96928daa9f914.png


    Following an unsuccessful appeal that was rejected a year after his conviction, Vickerman was eventually freed in August 2014. But for the MPAA the matter was from over.


    Just months later in December 2014, Vickerman was called before the courts again under the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). It was argued that the money Vickerman made from the site was a proceed of crime and whatever hadn’t already been disposed of must be forfeited to the state – if any could be found.


    While Vickerman insisted that all of the money was long gone, police financial investigators said the former site operator had placed money not only in the UK, but also other countries including Spain, Latvia, Cyprus and Tanzania.


    “Vickerman moved the money he made out of the UK and into accounts around the globe, but working closely with FACT we were able to unravel his trail of bank transfers running across international borders and demonstrate to the court that six years on this convicted criminal still had access to assets worth over £73,000,” said Claudia Celentano from the City of London Police Asset Recovery Team.


    Following a court ruling last December which ordered Vickerman to pay back £73,055.79, the clock has been ticking for the former site operator. He now has little over a week to repay the full amount or face being thrown back into jail for a further 21 months.


    In desperation, Vickerman’s family and friends have launched a GoFundMe campaign to try and raise the money.


    “As anyone who knows [Anton] personally will tell you he is a man who has been financially ruined by the legal battle with the powers against him and is not a man who has any money. Currently he lives on a council estate in the North West of England with his fiance working multiple jobs to try and put food on the table,” the appeal reads.


    “This means that on June 16 [Anton] will be sent back to prison for another ten and a half months which, when added together with his first unjust sentence brings the total to a six year prison sentence [Anton] will have served for the victimless ‘crime’ of owning and running a search engine.”


    If Vickerman can’t raise the money by next Tuesday, he will be sent to prison. However, that still won’t be the end of the matter. The 21 month sentence (with half deducted for good behavior) will not cancel out the requirement to settle the debt.


    “The debt is for life and survives bankruptcy, it never goes away,” his family explain.


    “On release [Anton] can look forward to being regularly dragged back before the courts to explain why he hasn’t paid in full, attachment of all earnings he makes, regular visits from bailiffs to seize any goods (not that he has any now having sold everything he could to pay some of the POCA debt) and, finally, further prison sentences if the UK Government decides that the interest on the debt has risen to a level that justifies more prison time.”


    FACT declined to comment for this article but Director General Kieron Sharp previously thanked police for their assistance in the confiscation proceedings.


    “FACT would like to thank the City of London Police for their assistance in pursuing confiscation proceedings against Anton Vickerman,” Sharp said.


    “This private criminal prosecution produced many difficulties, not least of which was how to uncover Vickerman’s hidden criminal assets without the authorized powers of a financial investigator.”


    Whether raising such a large sum of money in a week is a realistic proposition remains to be seen, but if Vickerman is to get any closure the debt (which is subject to interest at 8% per annum) simply has to be cleared. He’s managed to reduce it by £6,000 by “selling anything he owns of value” but that still leaves £67,000.


    “Help us stop this never ending persecution of a man who just wants the chance to rebuild his life and start afresh,” his family concludes.

    An update has been posted on BitterWallet.com


    8th June, 4.26pm


    BT’s broadband customers have been getting BT Sport with no extra charge, but that looks like it is all about to change, with a £5 fee set to be introduced.


    Of course, this is BT trying to claw back some money after throwing it around for football rights. Sky, of course, coughed up £1.4bn for Premier League rights, which saw BT throwing £320 million per season, at it.


    Plans have been leaked and it looks like BT’s customers will soon have to pay a little extra, which is particularly galling if you consider that some of the money will end up in Robbie Savage’s pocket – is there no justice in the world?


    It isn’t clear if this money will be a blanket charge for all those wanting to watch BT Sports, or whether it’ll be for a premium service that includes the UEFA Champions League and Europa League matches, which of course, BT won the rights for last year.


    BT aren’t commenting on the rumours, saying that they will be revealing their plans “in due course”. That means they definitely want to announce something, and with money to make back, it looks like a price rise for those who want in.


    http://www.bitterwallet.com/bt-sport-no-longer-free/85831?

    4eb2c90e8b00a.jpg


    JUNE 8, 2015


    New Ultra HD content from SPI International and Anixe has provided Eutelsat with an ANGA COM boost.


    SPI International will be previewing its 4K FunBox UHD ahead on the HOT BIRD 4K1 channel, ahead of a full commercial launch on the Eutelsat Hot Bird (13 degrees East) later this year.


    The two channels are now broadcasting on Hot Bird 4K1 and will do so for the duration of the German trade fair (Cologne June 9 to 11). Assuming a suitable demodulator and HEVC decoder is installed, it will be possible to view the channels across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.


    SPI International previews “4K FunBox UHD” Ultra HD channel in advance of commercial launch at Eutelsat’s HOT BIRD position


    For SPI International, the demo represents the first preview of native Ultra HD content to be shown by 4K FunBox UHD.The channel is targeting Germany and other international markets.


    “With 4K FunBox UHD viewers will be able to experience more nuance, faster frame rates, exceptional contrast dynamics and extended colours,” says Berk Uziyel, Executive Director of Filmbox International Ltd..


    “In addition to wildlife documentaries, some of the eye-popping content we are showing includes the San Francisco skyline, an amazing study of cloud movements and skylight as well as the Ultra HD footage of Asian cities by night. We are also planning to add sports programming and musical events, all in 4K quality,” he adds.


    Anixe HD Television has also selected Anga Com to air 15 minutes of exclusive Ultra HD content on “Hot Bird 4K1”. The footage includes extracts of lifestyle and documentary magazines, a cooking show, a cinema magazine and spectacular outdoor productions filmed with Ultra HD cameras.


    “We see strong evidence of a vibrant Ultra HD environment taking shape, including an array of Ultra HD TV panel producers, broadcasting expertise by operators such as Eutelsat, a competitive price-performance ratio of 4K scanners and video camera, and potential for TV advertising. With the new measuring method developed by Smart TV Data and accepted by TV consumers we now have a solid base to work on from the first day of our venture into Ultra HD,” said Emanouil Lapidakis, managing director of Anixe HD Television.


    12 months ago Eutelsat ran a highly successful collaboration with Red Bull TV. The satellite operator’s test channel has become a focal point for the industry.


    Hot Bird 4K1 was launched in May 2014 as Europe’s first channel encoded in HEVC (High Efficiency Video Encoding) and broadcasting at 50 frames per second with 10-bit colour depth.


    Source : http://www.broadbandtvnews.com…dds-new-ultra-hd-content/

    The popular MP3 search engine MP3Juices has lost its domain name following a request from the UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. After yet another suspension, operators of other "pirate" sites are prepping for the worst and looking for new safe havens.


    03f74be.png


    Over the past few months City of London Police have been working together with copyright holders to topple sites that provide or link to pirated content.


    The police started by sending warning letters to site owners, asking them to go legit or shut down. Late last year this was followed by a campaign targeted at domain registrars, asking them to suspend the domain names of several “illegal” sites.


    Most registrars have denied these suspension requests because they lack any legal basis, but some are cooperating. Yesterday another site fell victim to the police’s campaign after MP3Juices.com had its domain name suspended.


    The MP3 search engine was relatively popular with well over a million visitors per month. For now, these visitors will have to find an alternative as the site currently displays a prominent police banner.


    “You have tried to access a website that is under criminal investigation by the UK: Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) This site is being investigated for online copyright infringement,” the banner reads.


    3fe4c7087e5d2c1.jpg


    The domain was suspended by domain name registrar Internet.bs, who previously suspended the domains of several other sites including Cricfree.tv. Interestingly, the latter was allowed to transfer its domain to another registrar after it threatened to take legal steps.


    TorrentFreak asked PIPCU for a comment on the latest domain suspension but we have yet to hear back. (Update: PIPCU says it has “no comment to make.”)


    TorrentFreak spoke with a source who has been following the response of site owners to the recent domain perils, and he suggested that bypassing registrars altogether may become a new trend.


    “Cutting out the registrar and going directly to the TLD’s registry is the best way. Through Iceland for example. ISNIC would only respond to a court order in Iceland, not threats from police,” we were told.


    Iceland’s ISNIC would indeed be a safe option. The organization previously told us that it will not take any action without a court order, and later condemned PIPCU’s domain suspension requests.

    Without any prior warning, Facebook has removed the official page of popular torrent site RARBG after a complaint from a copyright holder. The operator of the site scolds Facebook for the takedown, noting that they never posted any copyright infringing content on the social network.


    91455c18749.jpg


    With millions of regular visitors RARBG is one of the most popular torrent sites on the Internet.


    Like most sites of its size, RARBG also has a Facebook presence where it keeps its users informed about the latest developments, including new features and the occasional outage.


    However, a few hours ago RARBG’s official Facebook page suddenly disappeared.


    Initially, the operator assumed that there was some kind of error, but after logging into Facebook he was presented with the following message.


    “We have disabled or removed access to the following content you posted on Facebook because we received a report from a third party that the content infringes their copyright(s).”


    0ff7c68adc31d6a1cc.png


    TF spoke with the operator of the torrent site who informed us that they were careful not to link to any infringing material. In fact, until now they have never received any copyright complaints from Facebook.


    According to RARBG, Facebook simply took a copyright holder complaint for granted without any further investigation.


    “Once again Facebook proved that they are not fighting for freedom of speech and they will bend over to any company that makes any copyright complaint without even taking the time to send a warning or properly investigate the issue,” RARBG’s admin says.


    This isn’t the first time that Facebook has shut down a torrent site fanpage. Previously, the same happened to The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents and ExtraTorrent.


    For RARBG the removal was the last straw. The torrent site doesn’t plan to make a new Facebook page just to risk starting all over again a few months from now, so will simply be a little less social instead.

    The RIAA has scored an important victory against CloudFlare after the company refused to terminate services to a Grooveshark replacement. District Court Judge Alison Nathan ruled that CloudFlare actively helps the pirate site to spread copyrighted works, and ordered to company to stop doing so.


    89042be59a948.png


    Last month the long running lawsuit between the RIAA and Grooveshark came to an end. However, within days a new site was launched aiming to take its place.


    The RIAA wasn’t happy with this development and quickly obtained a restraining order, preventing domain registrars and hosting companies from offering their services to the site.


    This was somewhat effective, as Namecheap quickly suspended the original domain name. However, not all parties were as cooperative.


    Popular CDN-service CloudFlare refused to take action on the basis that it is not “aiding and abetting” piracy. The RIAA disagreed and asked New York District Court Judge Alison Nathan to rule on the matter.


    In an order (pdf) just published, Judge Nathan agrees with the music group.


    CloudFlare argued that they were not bound to the restraining order since they were not in “active concert or participation” due to the automated nature of its services. In addition, the company countered that even if it disconnected Grooveshark, the site would still be accessible.


    In her order Nathan notes that she finds neither argument persuasive. The fact that CloudFlare is aware of the infringements and provides services that help the public to easily access the infringing site, shows otherwise.


    “Connecting internet users to grooveshark.li in this manner benefits Defendants and quite fundamentally assists them in violating the injunction because, without it, users would not be able to connect to Defendants’ site unless they knew the specific IP address for the site,” Judge Nathan writes.


    “Beyond the authoritative domain name server, CloudFlare also provides additional services that it describes as improving the performance of the grooveshark.li site,” she adds.


    The argument that the ‘new’ Grooveshark will still be around after CloudFlare suspends the account was found to be irrelevant. A third-party can still be bound by a restraining order even if terminating its services doesn’t render a website inaccessible.


    “… just because another third party could aid and abet the Defendants in violating the injunction does not mean that CloudFlare is not doing so,” the order reads.


    Finally, the Judge agrees that there may be other services that are not covered by the order. However, in this case CloudFlare is directly facilitating Grooveshark, with specific knowledge of the accounts that are responsible.


    For CloudFlare the ruling comes as a disappointment, opening the door for a slew of similar requests. The CDN has several of the largest pirate sites as clients, including The Pirate Bay, which is now a relatively easy target.


    At the time of writing Grooveshark.li is no longer accessible, suggesting that CloudFlare has already complied with the order.

    New research from Carnegie Mellon University shows that the UK Pirate Bay blockade had no affect on legal consumption. Instead, visitors switched to alternative sites, Pirate Bay mirrors, or started using VPNs. However, the same research also reveals that blocking several major pirate sites at once does boost the use of paid legal services such as Netflix.


    4a4fa39b2a.jpg


    The Pirate Bay is the most censored website on the Internet. Countries all around the world have ordered Internet providers to block subscriber access to the torrent site, with Russia being the latest addition.


    The idea behind these blockades is that they will help to decrease online piracy. However, a new study published by Carnegie Mellon University and Wellesley College researchers, suggests that blocking one site isn’t very effective.


    The researchers used data collected by an anonymous Internet consumer panel tracking company to compare the browsing habits of UK citizens, both before and after The Pirate Bay was blocked by major ISPs in 2012.


    After comparing the results to a control group and ruling out various other variables, the researchers conclude that there is no significant effect on legal consumption.


    Instead, Pirate Bay users chose to circumvent the measures by using VPNs, proxies, or switching to other pirate sites.


    “Our results show that blocking The Pirate Bay had little impact on consumption through legal channels — instead, consumers seemed to turn to other piracy sites, Pirate Bay ‘mirror’ sites, or Virtual Private Networks that allowed them to circumvent the block.”


    While the above findings support the many opponents of website blocking, it’s only part of the story. The researchers also analysed data after a subsequent blockade that covered more than a dozen large pirate sites at once.


    The results here were quite different, with a significant uptick in the number of visits (of ‘pirates’) to legal movie services such as Netflix.


    “…blocking 19 different major piracy sites caused users of those sites to increase their usage of paid legal streaming sites such as Netflix by 12% on average,” the researchers write.


    This effect was most pronounced for people who used the pirate sites most frequently. According to the researchers this makes sense as they were most affected by the blockade.


    “The lightest users of the blocked sites increased their clicks on paid streaming sites by 3.5% while the heaviest users of the blocked sites increased their paid streaming clicks by 23.6%, strengthening the causal interpretation of the results.”


    Overall the results show that blocking The Pirate Bay in isolation is futile. For website blockades to have a serious impact they should be directed at a broad selection of pirate sites, making it harder for people to find illegal alternatives.


    “Our results suggest that website blocking requires persistent blocking of a number of piracy sites in order to effectively migrate pirates to legal channels,” the researchers note.


    Perhaps just as importantly, the researchers add that copyright holders should also make legal content more attractive in order to convert pirates into paying customers.


    It has to be noted that the research was carried out as part of Carnegie Mellon University’s Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics (IDEA), which received a generous donation from the MPAA. However, the researchers suggest that their work is carried out independently.


    The results may not help efforts to demand isolated Pirate Bay blockades, which is common in most countries. However, they can be used as ammunition to demand wider website blockades, which is arguably even better from a copyright holder perspective.

    Is it a cline you have purchased from somebody or is it a server you have setup yourself


    Might help us to give you a better answer

    5b5bb49bde1fc629b6.jpg


    Officers from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) have arrested a man on suspicion of selling card sharing satellite receivers that provide viewers access to premium pay channels without a subscription.


    The 26-year-old man was arrested by detectives from the City of London Police unit in Southall, London at his place of work where it is believed he is selling the devices for close to £200 each.


    Card sharing is a method that allows protected encrypted television broadcasts to be viewed without a valid subscription to the broadcast provider.


    The suspect was taken to a local police station where he was questioned and later received a caution.


    Head of PIPCU, Detective Chief Inspector Danny Medlycott said the specialist team was the only police unit in the world dedicated to combating intellectual property crime. “Working closely with our partners and other law enforcement agencies, we are committed to tackling criminals who exploit other’s intellectual property for their own greed and financial gain,” he confirmed.

    55ba9b00e01e7f.jpg


    Eurosport has acquired the exclusive TV and digital rights of the Rugby World Cup 2015 for Germany.


    The agreement contains live and time-shifted games coverage as well as highlights and news reports. Eurosport will show at least 20 games live including the opening match and the final game.


    The coverage will also be available on OTT streaming service Eurosport Player for PCs, smartphones, tablets and connected TV sets.


    On a non-exclusive basis, Eurosport will show the competition in neighbouring Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.


    The Rugby World Cup 2015 will take place from September 18 to October 31 in England and Wales.


    Source : http://www.broadbandtvnews.com…-2015-rights-for-germany/

    Hoping to find out more about the secret Internet censorship plans Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood was pushing, Google is now taking the MPAA to court. After several subpoenas remained largely unanswered, the search giant is now asking a New York federal court to ensure that the MPAA other parties hand over the requested information.


    35b5ae8436441c8.jpg


    Helped by the MPAA, Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood launched a secret campaign to revive SOPA-like censorship efforts in the United States.


    The MPAA and Hood want Internet services to bring website blocking and search engine filtering back to the table after the controversial law failed to pass.


    In response to the looming threat Google filed a complaint against Hood last December, asking the court to prevent Hood from enforcing a subpoena that addresses Google’s failure to take down or block access to illegal content, including pirate sites.


    This resulted in a victory for Google with District Court Judge Henry Wingate putting the subpoena on hold. At the same time Google requested additional details from the Attorney General and various other parties involved in the scheme, including the MPAA.


    Thus far, however, these requests haven’t proven fruitful. In a motion to compel directed at the MPAA (pdf), Google explains that the movie industry group and other petitioned parties have yet to hand over the requested information.


    “To date, the subpoenaed parties have produced nothing,” Google’s lawyers inform the court.


    “They have inexplicably delayed producing the few documents they agreed to turn over, and have objected that many of their documents, including internal notes or summaries of meetings with AG Hood, are irrelevant or protected by some unsubstantiated privilege.”


    In addition to the MPAA, Google has also filed similar motions against the MPAA’s law firm Jenner & Block, Digital Citizens Alliance, 21st Century Fox, NBC Universal and Viacom.


    All parties thus far have refused to hand over the requested information, which includes communication with and prepared for the Attorney General, as well as emails referencing Google.


    According to the MPAA this information is “irrelevant” or privileged, but Google disagrees.


    “The relevance objections are meritless. As Judge Wingate has already held, there is substantial evidence that the Attorney General’s actions against Google were undertaken in bad faith and for a retaliatory purpose,” the motion reads.


    According to Google’s legal team the documents will shine a light on how the MPAA and others encouraged and helped the Attorney General to push for Internet censorship.


    “Google expects the documents will show that the Attorney General, the Subpoenaed Parties, and their lobbyists understood that his actions invaded the exclusive province of federal law,” the motion reads.


    “More fundamentally, the documents are likely to show that the Attorney General’s investigation was intended not to uncover supposed violations of Mississippi law, but instead to coerce Google into silencing speech that Viacom, Fox, and NBC do not like…”


    District Court Judge James Boasberg has referred the case to a magistrate judge (pdf), who will discuss the matter in an upcoming hearing. Considering the stakes at hand, the players involved will leave no resource untapped to defend their positions.

    Kim Dotcom has booked a significant victory in his battle against U.S. efforts to seize assets worth millions of dollars. In a decision handed down this morning, Justice Ellis granted Dotcom interim relief from having a $67m forfeiture ordered recognized in New Zealand. Dotcom informs TF that the victory gives his legal team new momentum.


    In the long-running case of the U.S. Government versus Kim Dotcom, almost every court decision achieved by one side is contested by the other. A big victory for the U.S. back in March 2015 is no exception.


    After claiming that assets seized during the 2012 raid on Megaupload were obtained through copyright and money laundering crimes, last July the U.S. government asked the court to forfeit bank accounts, cars and other seized possessions connected to the site’s operators.


    Dotcom and his co-defendants protested, but the Government deemed them fugitives and therefore disentitled to seek relief from the court. As a result District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ordered a default judgment in favor of the U.S. Government against assets worth an estimated $67m.


    Following a subsequent request from the U.S., New Zealand’s Commissioner of Police moved to have the U.S. forfeiture orders registered locally, meaning that the seized property would become the property of the Crown. Authorization from the Deputy Solicitor-General was granted April 9, 2015 and an application for registration was made shortly after.


    In response, Kim Dotcom and co-defendant Bram Van der Kolk requested a judicial review of the decision and sought interim orders that would prevent the Commissioner from progressing the registration application, pending a review. The Commissioner responded with an application to stop the judicial review.


    In a lengthy decision handed down this morning, Justice Ellis denied the application of the Commissioner while handing a significant interim victory to Kim Dotcom.


    Noting that the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine forms no part of New Zealand common law, Justice Ellis highlighted the predicament faced by those seeking to defend themselves while under its constraints.


    “The application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to a person who is exercising a bi-laterally recognized right to defend an eligibility hearing, with the result that he is deprived of the financial means to mount that defense, is to put that person on the horns of a most uncomfortable and (the plaintiffs would say) unconstitutional dilemma,” Justice Ellis writes.


    Recognizing that Dotcom and Van der Kolk have a “substantial position to preserve”, Justice Ellis says there would be “very real consequences” if they were unable to do so.


    “If the provisional view I have formed about the unavailability of post-registration relief is correct, authorizing the registration application to proceed now might deprive the plaintiffs of any ability to defend the extradition or to pursue their appeals against the forfeiture order in the United States,” Justice Ellis said.


    “I have little hesitation in concluding that interim relief should therefore be granted.”


    The New Zealand Commissioner of Police is now barred from taking further action to register the U.S. forfeiture orders until the court indicates otherwise.


    Kim Dotcom informs TorrentFreak that his New Zealand legal team are “relieved” by the decision and can’t wait to “get back to work and beat this bogus extradition case.”


    Elsewhere, the battle continues. Dotcom says that the decisions handed down in New Zealand will be presented in Hong Kong in an attempt to get more assets unfrozen there. Over in the U.S. there is also much work to be done.


    “Our US lawyers are still bound by the US forfeiture judgment and won’t be allowed to accept funds from my unfrozen assets without a significant risk to them, unless the US government allows that, which is unlikely. But we have appealed the US Forfeiture judgment in the US and the team is optimistic that we will prevail,” he notes.


    Megaupload’s U.S.-based lawyer Ira Rothken joined Dotcom in welcoming today’s ruling.


    “We are grateful that the NZ court ruled in favor of fairness, natural justice, and due process today by stopping US efforts to take Kim Dotcom’s NZ assets for doing nothing more than opposing extradition to the US – a country he has never been to,” Rothken said.


    In closing, a fiery Dotcom reiterated his intention to keep battling.


    “The big fights are yet to come and I can’t wait to expose the US government and Hollywood for the most unlawful and corrupt law enforcement action ever taken against an Internet service provider. US attorney Jay Prabhu, the DOJ clown who lost control of the Megaupload domain recently, will only find a job at the MPAA after we are done with him,” Dotcom concludes.

    The PR disaster for geo-unblocking software Hola has deepened with a report from cybersecurity firm Vectra. In addition to revealing a console within the software that allows an attacker to "accomplish almost anything", Vectra has discovered that Hola had already been exploited by "bad guys" before reports surfaced against the company last week.


    777d4ed290a2b602.jpg


    After a flurry of reports, last week the people behind geo-unblocking software Hola were forced to concede that their users’ bandwidth is being sold elsewhere for commercial purposes. But for the Israel-based company, that was the tip of the iceberg.


    Following an initial unproofed report that the software operates as a botnet, this weekend researchers published an advisory confirming serious problems with the tool.


    “The Hola Unblocker Windows client, Firefox addon, Chrome extension and Android application contain multiple vulnerabilities which allow a remote or local attacker to gain code execution and potentially escalate privileges on a user’s system,” the advisory reads.


    Yesterday and after several days of intense pressure, Hola published a response in which it quoted Steve Jobs and admitted that mistakes had been made. Hola said that it would now be making it “completely clear” to its users that their resources are being used elsewhere in exchange for a free product.


    Hola also confirmed that two vulnerabilities found by the researchers at Adios-Hola had now been fixed, but the researchers quickly fired back.


    “We know this to be false,” they wrote in an update. “The vulnerabilities are *still* there, they just broke our vulnerability checker and exploit demonstration. Not only that; there weren’t two vulnerabilities, there were six.”


    With Hola saying it now intends to put things right (it says it has committed to an external audit with “one of the big 4 auditing companies”) the company stood by its claims that its software does not turn users’ computers into a botnet. Today, however, an analysis by cybersecurity firm Vectra is painting Hola in an even more unfavorable light.


    In its report Vectra not only insists that Hola behaves like a botnet, but it’s possible it has malicious features by design.


    “While analyzing Hola, Vectra Threat Labs researchers found that in addition to behaving like a botnet, Hola contains a variety of capabilities that almost appear to be designed to enable a targeted, human-driven cyber attack on the network in which an Hola user’s machine resides,” the company writes.


    “First, the Hola software can download and install any additional software without the user’s knowledge. This is because in addition to being signed with a valid code-signing certificate, once Hola has been installed, the software installs its own code-signing certificate on the user’s system.”


    If the implications of that aren’t entirely clear, Vectra assists on that front too. On Windows machines, the certificate is added to the Trusted Publishers Certificate Store which allows *any code* to be installed and run with no notification given to the user. That is frightening.


    Furthermore, Vectra found that Hola contains a built-in console (“zconsole”) that is not only constantly active but also has powerful functions including the ability to kill running processes, download a file and run it whilst bypassing anti-virus software, plus read and write content to any IP address or device.


    “These capabilities enable a competent attacker to accomplish almost anything. This shifts the discussion away from a leaky and unscrupulous anonymity network, and instead forces us to acknowledge the possibility that an attacker could easily use Hola as a platform to launch a targeted attack within any network containing the Hola software,” Vectra says.


    Finally, Vectra says that while analyzing the protocol used by Hola, its researchers found five different malware samples on VirusTotal that contain the Hola protocol. Worryingly, they existed before the recent bad press.


    “Unsurprisingly, this means that bad guys had realized the potential of Hola before the recent flurry of public reports by the good guys,” the company adds.


    For now, Hola is making a big show of the updates being made to its FAQ as part of its efforts to be more transparent. However, items in the FAQ are still phrased in a manner that portrays criticized elements of the service as positive features, something that is likely to mislead non-tech oriented users.


    “Since [Hola] uses real peers to route your traffic and not proxy servers, it makes you more anonymous and more secure than regular VPN services,” one item reads.


    How Hola will respond to Vectra’s latest analysis remains to be seen, but at this point there appears little that the company can say or do to pacify much of the hardcore tech community. That being said, if Joe Public still can’t see the harm in a free “community” VPN operating a commercial division with full access to his computer, Hola might settle for that.