Posts by Prophet

Two weeks ago PayPal closed the account of cloud-storage service Mega, citing pressure from Visa and MasterCard. The ban has undoubtedly hurt Mega's business, and CEO Graham Gaylard is in Europe to discuss possible legal repercussions against a report that's partly responsible for the ban

mega_logoSeptember last year the Digital Citizens Alliance and NetNames released a report that looked into the business models of “shadowy” file-storage sites.

Titled “Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,” the report offers insight into the money streams that end up at these alleged pirate sites.

The research claims that the sites in question are mostly used for copyright infringement. But while there are indeed many shadowy hosting services, many were surprised to see the Kim Dotcom-founded Mega.co.nz on there.

For entertainment industry groups the report offered an opportunity to put pressure on Visa and MasterCard. In doing so they received support from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, who was also the lead sponsor of the defunct controversial Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Senator Leahy wrote a letter to the credit card companies claiming that the sites mentioned in the report have “no legitimate purpose or activity,” hoping they would cut their connections to the mentioned sites.

Visa and MasterCard took these concerns to heart and pressed PayPal to cut off its services to Mega, which eventually happened late last month. Interestingly, PayPal cited Mega’s end-to-end-encryption as one of the key problems, as that would make it harder to see what files users store.

The PayPal ban has been a huge blow for Mega, both reputation-wise and financially. And the realization that the controversial NetNames report is one of the main facilitators of the problems is all the more frustrating.

TorrentFreak spoke with CEO Graham Gaylard, who previously characterized the report as “grossly untrue and highly defamatory,” to discuss whether Mega still intends to take steps against the UK-based NetNames for their accusations.

Initially, taking legal action against NetNames for defamation was difficult, as UK law requires the complaining party to show economic damage. However, after the PayPal ban this shouldn’t be hard to do.

Gaylard is traveling through Europe at the moment and he notes that possible repercussions against the damaging report are high on the agenda.

“Yes, I am here to see Mega’s London-based legal counsel to discuss the next steps in progressing the NetNames’ response,” Gaylard informs TF.

Mega’s CEO couldn’t release any details on a possible defamation lawsuit, but he stressed that his company will fiercely defend itself against smear campaigns.

“Mega has been operating, and continues to operate a completely legitimate and transparent business. Unfortunately now, with the blatant, obvious, political pressure and industry lobbying against Mega, Mega needs to defend itself and will now cease taking a passive stance,” Gaylard says.

According to the CEO Mega is running a perfectly legal business. The allegation that it’s a piracy haven is completely fabricated. Like any other storage provider, there is copyrighted content on Mega’s servers, but that’s a tiny fraction of the total stored.

To illustrate this, Gaylard mentions that they only receive a few hundred takedown notices per month. In addition, he notes more than 99.7% of the 18 million files that are uploaded per day are smaller than 20MB in size, not enough to share a movie or TV-show.

These statistics are certainly not the hallmark of a service with “no legitimate purpose or activity,” as was claimed.

While the PayPal ban is a major setback, Mega is still doing well in terms of growth. They have 15 million registered customers across 200 countries, and hundreds of thousands of new users join every month.

Update: S.ky’s response to TF

“TCYK LLC successfully applied for a court order against S.ky, which means we have been ordered to supply the details of some of our account holders that match the list of IP addresses they have identified. We advise any of our customers who receive a letter from TCYK LLC to read it carefully and if they want any further help to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau.”

Update2: S.ky’s spokesperson would not reveal the number of letters being sent out to S.ky’s customers.

Anonymous is apparently fed up with Kanye West. It's random, but true.

The hacker group targeted West in a more than seven-minute long video Wednesday (March 11), because he “disgraces” what the group stands for.

A masked man with a British accent narrates the recording which opens with gripes over West’s showing at the Grammys. According to Anonymous, the 37-year-old doesn’t know when to be quiet, and continuously hijacks “the moment from others who work equally as hard for their recognition.”

All the obligatory low blows could very well get a response from Yeezy.

Kim Kardashian gets called out for her sex tape and that “Break the Internet” moment, and West’s mom is brought up. “I’m sure your mother would’ve been so proud of your behavior,” says the man.

The rest of the video features clips of West's outbursts over the years, and more attempts to diminish his ego: “You’re just a new slave that the industry uses to help keep the population in a cycle of stupidity and distraction.”

French Minister of Culture Fleur Pellerin has presented the country's new framework for dealing with online piracy. In addition to the graduated response system and site blocking, draining the financial resources of pirate sites will become a priority through greater cooperation with advertisers and payment processors.

pirate-cardAcross Europe countries are continuing their struggle with online piracy but France was the first brave enough to introduce a system of warning file-sharers.

The so-called Hadopi law received widespread coverage, with praise and criticism arriving from many corners, but the big question of whether the process has been effective has never been definitively answered.

Whatever the program’s achievements, if any, the French are still looking to reduce online copyright infringement in an attempt to boost the creative sector. Now the government has announced the next wave in its continuing anti-piracy drive.

Fleur Pellerin, France’s Minister of Culture and Communication, has now presented a paper to the Council of Ministers outlining a plan of action against all sites involved in online piracy. The range will be broad, to include sites that not only stream or offer copyrighted material for download, but also those that “take advantage” of pirate content in other ways.

The first part of the program is a familiar one. In common with the United States and the United Kingdom (1,2)where similar programs have been in place for some time, France will seek to deprive piracy related websites of their revenue streams with a particular focus on those that utilize advertising.

On March 23 at the Ministry of Culture and Communication, advertisers and advertising agencies will come together with representatives from rightsholder bodies to sign an anti-piracy charter. The agreement will formalize a commitment to keep advertising off platforms deemed to benefit from online piracy.

The next phase also mirrors developments elsewhere, particularly in the United States under pressure from government. Being able to process payments is crucial for some online file-sharing sites, particularly those in the file-hosting sector that rely on subscriptions to stay afloat. Moves already taken by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal are already underway elsewhere and negotiations in France will now commence with a view to the signing of an agreement in June 2015.

Continuing on the financial front the French Government says it will mobilize to fight against those benefiting from illegal channels of revenue and will consider “all the tax consequences of these activities.”

Site blocking is another anti-piracy method utilized extensively elsewhere and it’s clear that the French wish to follow the same path. Blocks against a handful of sites already exist but the Minister of Culture says that enhanced judicial efficiency and a system to monitor the effectiveness of these and other measures will be introduced.

Effectively rightsholders will still have to go to court to get sites blocked, but unlike the UK where they are relatively free to keep adding sites to blocklists as and when they see fit, in France they will still have to go back to court for enhanced blocking, if a site moves domain or introduces proxies for example.

Also on the cards is a sharpening of coordination between departments responsible for dealing with online piracy. To this end the Ministry of the Interior will assume responsibility for the direction of the fight against cybercrime.

Finally, the government will look at the role that sites like YouTube play in the distribution of unauthorized content. Sites will be expected to streamline their processes in ways that make it easier for rightsholders to monitor and remove unauthorized material.

Whether these measures will prove to be a boost to the entertainment sector remains to be seen, but it’s now clear that a coordinated and revenue-attacking response to dealing with piracy is now developing on a global scale.

Pressure is mounting on companies that provide domain name services to alleged pirate sites. Following in the footsteps of Hollywood and the U.S. Government, the music industry is now demanding strict anti-piracy measures. The EFF, however, notes that companies are not obliged to take action without a valid court order.

cassetteIn recent years copyright holders have demanded stricter anti-piracy measures from ISPs, search engines, advertising networks and payment processors, with varying results.

Continuing this trend various entertainment industry groups are now going after companies that offer domain name services.

The MPAA, for example, has joined the domain name system oversight body ICANN and is pushing for policy changes from the inside.

A few days ago the RIAA added more pressure. The music group sent a letter to ICANN on behalf of several industry players asking for tougher measures against pirate domains.

The RIAA’s senior vice president Victoria Sheckler wants the Internet to be a safe place for all, where music creation and distribution can thrive.

“… we expect all in the internet ecosystem to take responsible measures to deter copyright infringement to help meet this goal,” she notes.

The music groups believe, however, that domain registrars don’t do enough to combat piracy. ICANN’s most recent registrar agreement states that domain names should not be used for copyright infringement, but most registrars fail to take action in response.

Instead, many registrars simply note that it’s not their responsibility to act against pirate sites.

“We […] do not see how it is an appropriate response from a registrar to tell a complainant that it has investigated or responded appropriately to a copyright abuse complaint by stating it does not provide non-registrar related services to the site in question,” Sheckler writes.

In what appears to be a coordinated effort to pressure ICANN and other players in the domain name industry, the U.S. Government also chimed in last week.

According to the U.S. Trade Representative, Canada-based Tucows is reported as “an example of a registrar that fails to take action when notified of its clients’ infringing activity.”

Despite the critique, it’s far from clear that Tucows and other registrars are doing anything wrong. In fact, the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that there is no law requiring registrars to disconnect pirate sites.

“Domain registrars do not have an obligation to respond to a random third party’s complaints about the behavior of a domain name user. Unless ordered by a court, registrars cannot be compelled to take down a website,” notes Jeremy Malcolm, EFF’s Senior Global Policy Analyst.

“What the entertainment industry groups are doing is exaggerating the obligations that registrars of global top-level domains (gTLDs) have under their agreement with ICANN to investigate reports of illegal activity by domain owners, an expansion of responsibilities that is, to put it mildly, extremely controversial, and not reflected in current laws or norms.”

Law or no law, the entertainment industry groups are not expected to back down. They hope that ICANN will help to convince registrars that pirate sites should be disconnected, whether they like it or not.

The Ultimate Ebook Library, TUEBL, is taking countermeasures against anti-piracy company MUSO for continued abuse of its DMCA takedown process. The ebook site is demanding the payment of a $150 fine, while threatening to ban MUSO's IP-addresses and restore previously removed books if the company fails to comply.

tueblLike many other Internet-based services, The Ultimate Ebook Library (TUEBL) has to process numerous takedown requests to make sure that pirated content is swiftly removed from the site.

Unfortunately, not all requests they receive are legitimate. According to TUEBL there’s one company that stands out negatively, and that’s the London-based outfit MUSO.

When browsing through the takedown notices TUEBL founder Travis McCrea stumbled upon several automated requests that were submitted by MUSO, each listing inaccurate information.

The takedown notices were not merely incorrect, according to McCrea. They also circumvented the site’s CAPTCHA system, which is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

This isn’t the first time TUEBL has noticed problems with MUSO’s takedown tactics. The company previously tried to remove several legitimately hosted titles, including a Creative Commons licensed book by Cory Doctorow.

“A year ago, after another issue where they were sending requests without any of the required information, they had filed a wrongful DMCA request for one of our featured authors Laurel Russwurm, and we sent them a warning,” McCrea tells TF.

“They further used our system to send a DMCA request for a book by Cory Doctorow. At that time we sent them an $150 invoice for our time reverting their improper DMCA request. When they didn’t reply, we let it slide… not wanting to make waves.”

MUSO never paid the $150 ‘fine’ and TUEBL initially let them get away with that. But after the recent mistakes McCrea decided that enough is enough.

On Sunday evening TUEBL sent the anti-piracy company an ultimatum. If MUSO fails to pay up, the company will be banned from sending further notices. In addition, hundreds of previously removed books will be restored.

“Today we are going to insist that your $150 fine be paid, or we will cut off all MUSO IP addresses, computers, and/or servers from accessing our DMCA page. Emailed requests will also be rejected as SPAM and all requests to be removed will have to come directly from the copyright holder instead of MUSO,” TUEBL wrote to the company.

MUSO has until 10PM PST today to respond, but thus far TUEBL hasn’t received a reply. The ebook library is still holding out for a peaceful resolution, but as the hours pass by this becomes less likely.

Despite the current problems, TUEBL’s founder says that the site respects copyright and notes that the amount of infringing material on its server is less than one percent of all books. However, wrongful takedown notices are making it harder to keep the site clean.

“DMCA abuse is a real threat to not only community websites like Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and our own… but it also makes it more difficult to successfully process legitimate DMCA requests by authors who have had their copyright violated,” McCrea says.

“We have decided to fight this, not in spite of authors and their rights regarding their work, but rather to protect authors and to ensure our automated system remains open for them to use for the rare cases that copyrighted material make it onto our site,” he adds.

TF contacted MUSO for a comment on the allegations, but we haven’t heard back from the company at the time of publication.

Bayern Munich v Shakhtar Donetsk (Champions League) - FTA HD Feed

3.1 east - 10961 - H - 10000 - DVB-S2 HD

Chelsea V PSG (Champions League) - FTA HD Feed

3.1 east - 12571 - H - 10000 - DVB-S2 HD

(comes up as Aries Auxerre)

Awesome guide Jim, top man and top work, thank you !!

Awesome guide Jim, top man and top work, thank you !!

Awesome guide Jim, top man and top work, thank you !!

THE DÁIL IS to sit late tonight to pass emergency legislation in order to reclassify certain drugs, including ecstasy and magic mushrooms, as illegal following a court ruling this morning which has temporarily made them legal.
A ruling in the Court of Appeal on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 this morning effectively means that the possession of certain drugs, which had been illegal, is currently legal.
The court ruling found that the 1977 Act was being added to via ministerial order without recourse to the Oireachtas, in violation of article 15 of the Constitution.
Ministerial orders had been used nine times since the Act’s inception to outlaw the possession of drugs like ecstasy, ketamine, magic mushrooms, benzos and other drugs.

Speaking to reporters today, Health Minister Leo Varadkar explained: “It is still the case that the sale, supply, export or import of such substances remains illegal, even now today.”
The ruling could impact on a small number of current court cases that are being prosecuted under the 1977 Act. It will not impact on existing convictions under the Act.
The ruling means that TDs must pass emergency legislation tonight in order to make these drugs illegal again. The bill will then go to the Seanad tomorrow.
The new bill includes a provision that says it can only take effect on the day after it’s signed into law, meaning that the law will not come into force until 12am on Thursday.

It’s understood that party whips were informed of the potential need for emergency legislation last week but were told it was “highly confidential” until the court ruling was handed down.
The need for emergency legislation means that Sinn Fein’s private members’ bill, which calls for emigrants to be allowed vote in presidential elections, has been postponed to tomorrow evening between 6.30pm and 9.30pm.
It’s now understood that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill will be taken in the Dáil by Health Minister between 8pm and 11pm tonight.

The UK website blocking bonanza has started to move in a dubious direction. Several Internet providers are now blocking access to websites that provide a list of Pirate Bay proxies. The sites in question do not host or link to any infringing material themselves and are purely informational.

Following a series of High Court orders, six UK ISPs are required to block access to many of the world’s largest torrent sites and streaming portals.

The blocks are somewhat effective, at least in preventing subscribers from accessing the domains directly. However, there are also plenty of workarounds.

For many sites that are blocked one or more proxy sites emerge. These proxies allow people to access the blocked sites and effectively bypass the restrictions put in place by the court.

The copyright holders are not happy with these loopholes and have asked ISPs to add the proxies to their filters, which they have done on several occasions.

However, restricting access to proxies did not provide a silver bullet either as new ones continue to appear. This week the blocking efforts were stepped up a notch and are now targeting sites that merely provide an overview of various Pirate Bay proxies.

In other words, UK ISPs now restrict access to sites for linking to Pirate Bay proxies.

Among the blocked sites are piratebayproxy.co.uk, piratebayproxylist.com and ukbay.org. Both sites are currently inaccessible on ****** Media and TalkTalk, and other providers are expected to follow suit.

baac1df6578af0dec.jpg

TF spoke with Dan, the operator of UKBay.org, who’s baffled by the newly implemented blockade. He moved his site to a new domain to make the site accessible again, for the time being at least.

“The new blocks are unbelievable and totally unreasonable. To block a site that simply links to another site just shows the level of censorship we are allowing ISP’s to get away with,” Dan says.

“UKBay is not even a PirateBay proxy. It simply provides links to proxies. If they continue blocking sites, that link to sites, that link to sites.. there’l be nothing left,” he adds.

One of the other blocked sites, piratebayproxy.co.uk, doesn’t have any direct links to infringing material. Instead, it provides an overview of short Pirate Bay news articles while listing the URLs of various proxies on the side.

Apparently, providing information about Pirate Bay proxies already warrants a spot on the UK blocklist.

c67c9d127faa8.jpg

It is not a secret that the High Court orders give copyright holders the option to continually update the list of infringing domains. However, it’s questionable whether this should also include sites that do not link to any infringing material.

To our knowledge, it is the first time that this has happened.

The new additions were made as part of an existing High Court order that allowed copyright holders to block The Pirate Bay, a ****** Media spokesperson informs us.

“Under the conditions of the original court order, the rightsholders have the authority to change the specific URLs or IP addresses that must be blocked by all major ISPs – not just ****** Media. Such changes happen on a regular basis. There is no ‎extension or amendment to the original court order,” ****** says.

As with earlier updates, the most recent changes are being made without a public announcement, which means that we don’t know precisely how many sites were added. We will update this article if more details arise.

The UK's second largest ISP is about to hand over the personal details of customers to a company known for demanding cash from alleged file-sharers. S.ky Broadband says it will hand over the names and addresses of subscribers to TCYK LLC and warns customers that the movie company will probably ask for compensation.
11e78a906fedced7afc2b.jpg

Any regular reader of these pages will be familiar with the term “copyright troll”. These companies have made a business model out of monitoring file-sharing networks for alleged copyright infringements, tracking down alleged offenders and then demanding hard cash to make supposed lawsuits go away.

The practice is widespread in the United States but also takes place in several countries around Europe. Wherever the location, the methods employed are largely the same. ‘Trolls’ approach courts with ‘evidence’ of infringement and demand that ISPs hand over the details of their subscribers so that the copyright holder can demand money from them.

During September 2014, TorrentFreak became aware of a UK court case that had just appeared before the Chancery Division. The title – TCYK LLP v British *** Broadcasting Ltd – raised eyebrows. From experience we know that TCYK stands for The Company You Keep and is the title of the film of the same name directed and starring Robert Redford, appearing alongside Susan Sarandon and Shia LeBeouf.

While the movie itself is reportedly unremarkable, the response to it being unlawfully made available on file-sharing networks has been significant. In the United States TCYK LLC has filed dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits against Internet subscribers in many states including Illinois, Colorado, Ohio, Florida and Minnesota, to name a few. Those interested in their U.S-based activities can read about them extensively on ‘troll’ watching sites DTD and Fight Copyright Trolls.

The big news today, however, is that TCYK LLC is about to start demanding cash from customers of the UK’s second largest ISP, *** Broadband. TorrentFreak approached *** back in September for information on the case but after several emails back and forth the trail went cold. We can now reveal what has transpired.

Sometime during 2014 TCKY monitored BitTorrent swarms for individuals sharing their movies without permission. The company went to court to obtain what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order which would oblige *** to hand over the identities of their subscribers to TCKY. TorrentFreak has now learned that an order has been granted.

In a letter now being sent out to *** subscribers, the company warns of what is to come.

“We need to let you know about a court order made against *** earlier this year that requires us to provide your name and address to another company,” the letters begin.

“A company called TCYK LLC, which owns the rights to several copyrighted films, has claimed that a number of *** Broadband customers engaged in unlawful file-sharing of some of its films. In support of this claim, TCYK LLC says it has gathered evidence of individual broadband accounts (identified online by unique numbers called IP addresses) from which it claims the file sharing took place.”

*** notes that it cannot vouch for the accuracy of the evidence but notes that the existence of the court order means that it must compromise its subscribers’ privacy. In several other countries ISPs have fought to keep their subscribers’ details secure so we asked *** what efforts, if any, they took to do the same. At the time of publication we had received no response.

To its credit, however, *** is warning its customers of what is likely to come next.

“It’s likely that TCYK LLC will contact you directly and may ask you to pay them compensation,” *** notes.

linuxsat-support.com/cms/attachment/31264/

We’ll clarify something here. When TCYK get in touch their ONLY reason for doing so will be to obtain compensation. Many people will pay up out of fear since TCYK will imply (if not directly state) that a court case could follow if a settlement is not reached.

It is almost certain that these threats are mere bluster and again, to ***’s credit, the company outlines potential weaknesses in TCYK’s case.

“We advise you to read the letter from TCYK LLC carefully. It may be that you are not aware of the things that are being claimed: for example, if other people have access to your Internet connection, or simply because you do not recall downloading or sharing the film.”

The facts are simple. If letter recipients did not download or share the film or did not authorize someone else to do so (i.e by specifically telling someone else that they can use their connection to download and share pirate content) then the subscriber is not responsible for the infringement and does not have to pay a penny.

If someone else did share TCYK’s film on the Internet connection in question then it is up to TCYK to identify that person by name. The bill payer is under no obligation to try to help TCYK to do so if they have no idea who that person is.

*** conclude by suggesting that letter recipients either contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or a solicitor. TorrentFreak spoke with Michael Coyle from Lawdit Solicitors who has dealt with these kinds of cases previously.

“I am surprised that the [Court] Order was granted for the release of the names as the High Court has been particularly damning about speculative invoicing ‘claims’ – see in particular the words of HHJ Birss QC in Media CAT v Adams and HHJ Arnold (here),” Coyle told TF.

“Added to the fact that the Claimant is a notorious troll in the US adds to the mystery and we can only wait and see what the letters are demanding. [Letter recipients] should not panic and above should not pay until as such time as they’ve taken legal advice,” Coyle concludes.

In any event, recipients should read the following article detailing the Speculative Invoicing Handbook Second Edition, a publication which explains how UK copyright trolls operate and how they should be dealt with.

At the time of publication *** Broadband had not responded to our request for comment.

Quote from Ten Below

So we need to replicate this error for other channels.

This :20_003:

Quote from alimac

has been for about a week or so

no idea if an error or whatever

See what your saying, but a week is some error on there part

Either they have decided to open it up for some unknown reason or have broken it :59:

I am hearing from 3 different people that ITV Encore HD is now clearing through Oscam

As i have genuine receiver and sub myself i am unable to check

Can anyone confirm this ?

The CBS AMC Networks UK channels partnership’s Horror Channel is to launch on free-to-air digital-terrestrial platform Freeview on Friday March 13.

The channel, which is currently available on S.ky, Freesat and V.irgin Media, will air on Freeview channel 70, giving it 90% coverage of the DTT footprint in the UK.

The channel’s forthcoming line-up of movies will feature an Apocalypse season featuring Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror and Stephen King’s The Stand.

Tanya Gugenheim, chief business development officer, AMC Networks International – Zone said: “Horror Channel has become the third channel in the CBS AMC Channel portfolio to launch on Freeview within a year, joining CBS Reality and CBS Action and underscoring the demand for our content offering. The channel already boasts a loyal fan base, and we’re pleased to introduce it to a broader audience through Freeview.”

Guy North, managing director of Freeview said: “We’re excited to welcome another member of the CBS AMC Channel portfolio to Freeview. Horror Channel will provide the bravest of our viewers with plenty of thrilling programmes alongside cult classics and fantasy favourites for the more faint-hearted.”

All records that are part of the now-closed case between Hotfile and the MPAA will be unsealed in the interests of the public. In a decision that will be a disappointment to the industry group, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams declined a request from the MPAA who wanted to keep sensitive court filings sealed indefinitely claiming they may benefit pirates.

More than a year has passed since the MPAA defeated Hotfile, but the case has still been stirring in the background.

Hoping to find out more about Hollywood’s anti-piracy policies the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) previously asked the court to make several sealed documents available to the public.

These documents are part of the counterclaim Hotfile filed, where it accused Warner of repeatedly abusing the DMCA takedown process. In particular, the EFF wants the public to know how Hollywood’s anti-piracy policies and tools work.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams sided with the EFF and ruled that it’s in the public interest to unseal the information. The MPAA, however, argued that this may hurt some of its members.

Information regarding Columbia Pictures’ anti-piracy policies, in particular, would still be beneficial to pirates for decades to come, the Hollywood group argued.

“Defendants have cited two specific pieces of information regarding Columbia’s enforcement policies that, if revealed to the public, could compromise Columbia’s ability to protect its copyrighted works,” the MPAA’s lawyers wrote.

In addition, anti-piracy vendor Vobile feared that having its pricing information revealed could severely hurt the company.

Judge Williams has now reviewed these and other arguments but ruled that sealing records indefinitely is not an option. In this case, the public interest in the records outweighs the concerns of the MPAA.

“In reaching this conclusion, the Court has weighed the parties’ interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the sealed entries, including Plaintiffs’ assertions that disclosure of the sealed information would undermine the effectiveness of their antipiracy systems and copyright enforcement abilities, as well as third-party Voible’s argument that disclosure of the sealed data would unfairly put it at economic risk, against the presumption in favor of public access to court records,” Williams writes (pdf).

As a result of this decision all sealed documents will be made public ten years after the case was filed, which is on February 8, 2021.

Previously, Warner Bros. already released some of the confidential documents. Among other things the unsealed records showed that Warner Bros. uses “sophisticated robots” to track down infringing content.

How damaging the other documents are to Hollywood’s anti-piracy efforts will become clear in five years. However, it’s unlikely to top the Sony-leak of last December, through which many sensitive anti-piracy strategies were already unveiled.

There have been some radical solutions to online piracy in recent years but one coming out of India today is perhaps the most 'ambitious' so far. The Tamil Film Producer's Council says it is in discussion to stop releasing all films for at least three months which means that pirates will have nothing to copy and will therefore go out of business.

Entertainment companies all around the globe bemoan the fact that their creations cost millions to create and often require years of preparation, but all that can be undone in an instant by pirates.

It’s certainly true that any media – whether movies, music or software – can be instantly cloned and distributed to a potential audience of hundreds of millions. According to the industry the doomsday scenario of this position is that filmmakers, musicians, authors and coders will eventually give up the game and go do something else more profitable instead.

Of course, this hasn’t happened yet, largely due to the fact that the public is still digging deep. Hollywood, for example, is having its best year on record. But what if all content suddenly stopped appearing on physical and digital shelves. What would the pirates do then?

Well, if the threats of India’s Tamil Film Producer’s Council (TFPC) come to fruition, we won’t have long to find out. Plagued by the menace of persistent and large scale piracy of their movies, the Council is close to making the most radical stand against copyright infringement ever seen.

Yesterday the TFPC held their general meeting and of course piracy was high on the agenda. Several solutions were reportedly discussed but one came to the forefront – a complete boycott on releasing films for the foreseeable future.

“Some groups wanted a six-month ban, while others wanted a three-month ban,” said council president Kalaipuli S Thanu.

The producer and distributor, who regained control of TFPC in January following allegations of corruption against his rivals, said that something drastic needs to be done.

“The basic fact is that all producers are suffering losses and we have to look into that. We have asked them for some time to call in all the parties concerned and try to reach a resolution that is beneficial to everybody.”

In addition to promising the establishment of a dedicated anti-piracy unit compromised of ex-police officers, Thanu says that not releasing movies at all will be the best way to hit pirates.

“Piracy will automatically stop when there’s no content. When we stop film releases, say for three months, the movie pirates will go out of business. We are looking into this option because film producers have suffered heavily in the last 24 months,” Thanu said.

“We haven’t finalized on the decision yet. A resolution has been passed but we’d like to discuss the idea with all the parties involved and only when found beneficial for everybody, will we implement it. It’s going to take some time.”

But speaking against the proposed ban, a leading producer told IAS that release suspension will only make matters worse.

“Piracy has become a menace, but stopping the release of films is not a solution. Filmmakers are already struggling to find a suitable window to release their films, and now this step to halt release of films will make it worse,” he said.

“Each Friday, a minimum of three Tamil films are releasing in cinemas. If you stop release of films for three months, we are holding back about 36 films. Post the ban, these 36 films have to battle it out with more films for release, which looks impossible.”

At this stage it appears that support for a three-month ban is gaining momentum but there are others that see a much better response to the problem. Filmmaker ‘Cheran’ said that releasing via DVD and VOD at a fair price is by far the best option.

“If an original DVD of a new film is available for Rs.50 ($0.80), why would anyone think of buying a pirated copy? We all know the quality of pirated prints. I’ve sold nearly Rs.10 lakh ($16,800) DVDs of my film in the first two days,” he said.

This ban, if it comes to pass, should be fascinating to watch. But whatever happens the pirates will still exist – that’s 100% guaranteed.