Posts by Prophet

  • C More Sport Joining Viasat

    Subscribers to Viasat’s DTH platform in Norway will be able to view the country’s top flight football when the new season gets underway on April 6. It follows a new carriage agreement for C More Sport.



    “Tippeligaen is a new ace in Viasat’s hand. Previously we have had the rights for UEFA Champions League for our channels, as well as distributing Barclays Premier League coverage in the DTH satellite market, but now we have even better cards to play with,” says Vegard Klubbenes Drogseth, CEO of Viasat Norway.



    C More’s football offering includes six of the eight Tippeliga matches per round, and up to nine matches per round from the Spanish La Liga. Italian Serie A matches and UEFA Europa League matches are also part of C More’s portfolio of sports rights. In addition there is ice hockey, tennis, martial arts, motor racing and equestrian sports.



    “Viasat’s aim is to be a market leading provider of attractive sports channels. Sport in general, and football in particular, is of significant importance to our customers. Therefore we’re very proud to have secured this agreement, to the delight of our many customers who are sports fans. That the Norwegian Martin Ødegaard has signed for Spanish giants Real Madrid has increased the level of interest for both UEFA Champions League and La Liga,” says Klubbenes Drogeseth.



    The Viasat CEO believes that in particular customers outside the big cities will appreciate the new offering and are willing to pay for both domestic and European football.

  • Cyberlocker traffic plummets, but not mega

    The past six months have not been good ones for some of the world's leading file-hosting sites. Many have seen their traffic plummet as a result of Google algorithm changes, but interestingly some are bucking the trend. Mega.co.nz, for example, is doing better than ever.


    uploadIn the file-sharing world sites tend to be split into two camps – those that facilitate access to content held elsewhere (torrent sites) and those that host the content themselves.


    What to call the sites in this latter category largely depends on the context. The generic “file-hoster” monicker works well for all, but the more recent term “cyberlocker” has somehow become associated with sites that have some kind of “rogue” business model attached.


    Last September, Netnames produced a report about ‘cyberlockers’ and annoyed the operators of Mega.co.nz by categorizing the site as some kind of illicit operation. This week, only adding to the controversy, Mega revealed that U.S. government pressure had led to PayPal withdrawing its services from the company.


    This week, several months after the publication of the NetNames report, we decided to take a look at how the file-hosting sites listed have been doing on the traffic front. According to Alexa they are mostly on a significant downward trend, but as we shall see that’s not universally the case. In fact, Mega appears to be doing particularly well.


    The big losers


    All of the sites in this section lost significant overall traffic during 2014 and early 2015. 4shared, Zippyshare, Turbobit, BitShare, LetitBit, FreakShare, 1fichier and 2shared all had big downward trends and, as illustrated by the charts below, October time seems to mark the beginning of most of the bad news.


    linuxsat-support.com/cms/attachment/31219/


    That date closely coincides with Google’s downranking of sites for which it receives the most infringement notices. The change hit many major torrent sites causing immediate drops in traffic, but for others the change only seems to have brought good news.


    The big winners


    Mega.co.nz, a site included in the NetNames report but not indexed by Google due to the site’s own restrictions, appears to have reaped rewards where others have failed. Following a slump in the summer of 2014, the period since October 2014 has been nothing but a success story for the Kim Dotcom-founded operation.


    aec379a17b8e5f.png


    Another site bucking the downward trend is UptoBox, a site which NetNames claims has around six million monthly users and $1.7 million in annual revenues. Despite Google receiving close to 368,000 complaints about the site, UpToBox has been doing better than ever since October 2014 when most of the other sites started to suffer. Only a small slump in January 2015 spoiled the party.


    0b1aa6f.png


    The others


    RapidGator is one of the most popular file-hosting sites around but had a bit of a disappointing 2014. After starting the year strongly as one of the 500 most popular sites in the world, the site embarked on a steady downward trend and like most it took a big hit at the start of October when Google’s down-ranking began.


    Between then and the end of 2014 it regained traffic to position itself where it had been during the summer. But in January came a new slump which took the site back down to its lowest traffic levels to date.


    Another site on a general downward trend is Uploaded.net, but again the site’s traffic demonstrates some interesting features. After taking a big hit in October the site recovered somewhat, only to peak and begin dropping off again.


    linuxsat-support.com/cms/attachment/31222/


    Overall


    It’s fair to say that the majority of the big sites in the NetNames report are on a downward trend but sites like Mega are clearly able to buck the trend. Whether that’s due to the company’s charismatic founder, its end-to-end encryption or simply by being a good provider with a great service is up for debate. Nevertheless, an ability to avoid Google downranking punishments is certainly a plus and one that the company will be keen to maintain.

  • Is 10 years in uk jail the answer to online pirates?

    Physical counterfeiters can receive up to 10 years in jail under UK copyright law but should online pirates receive the same maximum punishment? A new report commissioned by the government reveals that many major rightsholders believe they should, but will that have the desired effect?


    parliamentA new study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) examines whether the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) are currently proportionate and correct, or whether they should be amended.


    While the Digital Economy Act 2010 increased financial penalties up to a maximum of £50,000, in broad terms the main ‘offline’ copyright offenses carry sentences of up to 10 years in jail while those carried out online carry a maximum of ‘just’ two.


    In 2014, Mike Weatherley MP, then IP advisor to the Prime Minister, said that this disparity “sends all the wrong messages”, a position that was supported by many major rightsholders. The current report examines data from 2006 to 2013 alongside stakeholder submissions, both for and against a change in the law.


    “Many industry bodies argue that higher penalties are necessary and
    desirable and that there is no justification for treating physical and online crime differently. Other stakeholders suggest that these offenses are in fact different, and raise concerns about a possible ‘chilling effect’ on innovation,” the report reads.


    One key finding is that court data from 2006-2013 reveals that prosecutions under the CDPA have actually been going down and that online offenses actually constitute “a small, and apparently decreasing, fraction of copyright prosecution activity as a whole.” In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t bring a single case under the online provisions of the CDPA 1988 during the period examined.


    “While there have been prosecutions during recent years, these have either used alternative legislation (such as common law conspiracy to defraud) or been directed at clarifying the civil law position in the European Court,” the report notes.


    “It is not clear that alternative legislation provides a satisfactory solution. By definition it does nothing to improve case law or understanding of the copyright issues.”


    This lack of case law is seen as problematic by the Federation Against Copyright Theft. In recent years FACT has stepped away from public prosecutions under copyright law in order to pursue private prosecutions under other legislation such as the Fraud Act.


    “Public prosecutors have been reluctant for years to take online cases, not wishing to be the first to attempt what might end in failure I guess. As a result there is no case law,” says FACT Director-General Kieron Sharp.


    “We need to still prosecute these cases so we often take them forward as private criminal prosecutions. However, these are serious cases and the two-year maximum sentence available downgrades the case in the eyes of the court who in any event cannot impose a sentence reflective of the crime.


    “We therefore follow other legislation and thus ourselves do not establish case law, which leads the prosecutor in the next case to again dismiss the chances of success.”


    For its part the Open Rights Group’s submission cautions against overly aggressive punishments that not only have the potential to affect those operating on the boundaries, but also those seeking to innovate.


    “The proposals could have a larger effect on specific groups that operate at the limits of current copyright legislation, but are not mass infringers and would not be prosecuted under fraud,” ORG explains.


    “Many internet innovators, prosumers, online creative communities that
    create non-profit derivative works, fandom producers, etc. All these people – many of whom technically breach copyright in their activities – could find themselves facing prison sentences if making available carried a maximum sentence of ten years.”


    So should the law be changed? As usual, the answer is far from straightforward.


    “The argument put forward by the Open Rights Group and others, that physical and online offenses are not the same, is persuasive. However, the fact remains that these two offenses end up having a very similar detrimental effect on the rights holders, and the question remains whether the maximum penalties are set at an appropriate level,” the report notes.


    “Whilst it is true to say that a consumer (or ‘prosumer’) can rapidly distribute content internationally without any criminal intent, it is also true that the logistical barriers to criminal activity are much lower online; the amount of investment a criminally-minded person needs to make in order to generate a serious level of disruption and harm is far lower.


    “The absence of a suitable penalty for serious cases of online infringement (which are likely to be very much in the minority) is currently creating a distortion because it results in alternative legislation being used. Alternatives may be justifiable under the circumstances, but appear less well suited to the crime.”


    Another question addressed by the report is whether a 10 year sentence would act as a deterrent. Awkwardly for the government it points out that following the increase to a maximum 10 year sentence for physical piracy in 2002, prosecutions actually rose before falling away in 2008.


    “[The] data available on recent online offending is at such a low level that there is no deterrent case that can be made from it,” the report adds.


    But while a change in the law is certainly preferred by some, there are alternatives. The report points to the takedown initiatives currently being employed by major rightsholders, including website blockades via local ISPs. Also upcoming is the Creative Content UK program which will see the public warned and educated when they’re spotted infringing copyright online.


    Only time will tell whether a 10 year sentence will be seen as appropriate, but safeguards that only the most serious of crimes are viewed as worthy of a maximum sentence will have to be put in place, and that will certainly be more easily said than done.


    Penalty Fair? Study of criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the CDPA 1988 – is available here (pdf). It’s a long read but definitely worth the effort.

  • Google keeps rejecting hollywood’s broad takedown requests

    It's no secret that Google and Hollywood have different views on the responsibilities of search engines. This is resulting in an interesting standoff where Google keeps rejecting requests to remove pirate sites from its search results. The MPAA apparently even tried to take down its own website as a test, but failed to do so.


    google-bayThe MPAA and Google are not on speaking terms, to say the least.


    In recent years the Hollywood group has pushed Google and other search engines to increase their anti-piracy efforts.


    This prompted the search giant to filter certain keywords and update its algorithms to downrank pirate sites, but the MPAA is still not happy. Ideally, they want Google to de-list pirate sites entirely.


    In a related effort, the group has been sending very targeted takedown requests. Instead of linking to individual download or streaming pages, they ask for the removal of the homepages of various pirate sites.


    While these homepages often list links to infringing movies, as shown here, they also include a lot of other content that’s not specified in the takedowns. As a result, Google refuses to take action.


    The MPAA’s most recent request lists 43 allegedly infringing URLs and Google refused to take 36 out of its search results, a total of 86 percent.


    We previously asked Google under what circumstances a homepage might be removed from search results. A spokesperson couldn’t go into detail but noted that “it’s more complex than simply counting how many clicks one page is from another.”


    “We’ve designed a variety of policies to comply with the requirements of the law, while weeding out false positives and material that’s too remote from infringing activity,” Google spokesperson told us.


    Perhaps frustrated with Google’s inaction, the MPAA also sent Google a takedown notice for its own homepage at mpaa.org. At least, if that’s not a prank by someone else. Again, the search engine refused to take action.


    Google’s stance was to be expected. After all, the search engine has refused to comply with similar requests in the past.


    But it’s the MPAA’s continued attempts to censor entire homepages that’s most interesting here.


    As the main force behind State Attorney General Jim Hood’s investigation into Google’s anti-piracy obligation, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if these refusals are pointed out to a judge in the months to come.

  • Wordpress wins $25,000 from dmca takedown abuser

    WordPress has scored an important victory in court against a man who abused the DMCA to censor an article of a critical journalist. The court agreed that the takedown request was illegitimate and awarded WordPress roughly $25,000 in damages and attorneys fees.


    wordpressAutomattic, the company behind the popular WordPress blogging platform, has faced a dramatic increase in DMCA takedown notices in recent years.


    Most requests are legitimate and indeed targeted at pirated content. However, there are also cases where the takedown process is clearly being abused.


    To curb these fraudulent notices WordPress decided to take a stand in court, together with student journalist Oliver Hotham who had one of his articles on WordPress censored by a false takedown notice.


    Hotham wrote an article about “Straight Pride UK” which included a comment he received from the organization’s press officer Nick Steiner. The latter didn’t like the article Hotham wrote, and after publication Steiner sent WordPress a takedown notice claiming that it infringed his copyrights.


    WordPress and Hotham took the case to a California federal court where they asked to be compensated for the damage this abuse caused them.


    The case is one of the rare instances where a service provider has taken action against DMCA abuse. The defendant, however, failed to respond in court which prompted WordPress to file a motion for default judgment.


    The company argued that as an online service provider it faces overwhelming and crippling copyright liability if it fails to take down content. People such as Steiner abuse this weakness to censor critics or competitors.


    “Steiner’s fraudulent takedown notice forced WordPress to take down Hotham’s post under threat of losing the protection of the DMCA safe harbor,” WordPress argued.


    “Steiner did not do this to protect any legitimate intellectual property interest, but in an attempt to censor Hotham’s lawful expression critical of Straight Pride UK. He forced WordPress to delete perfectly lawful content from its website. As a result, WordPress has suffered damage to its reputation,” the company added.


    After reviewing the case United States Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero wrote a report and recommendation in favor of WordPress and Hotham (pdf), and District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued a default judgment this week.


    “The court finds the report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect,” Judge Hamilton writes (pdf).


    “It is Ordered and Adjudged that defendant Nick Steiner pay damages in the amount of $960.00 for Hotham’s work and time, $1,860.00 for time spent by Automattic’s employees, and $22,264.00 for Automattic’s attorney’s fees, for a total award of $25,084.00.”


    The case is mostly a symbolic win, but an important one. It should serve as a clear signal to other copyright holders that false DMCA takedown requests are not always left unpunished.

  • U.s. Government lists top torrent sites as piracy havens

    A new report published by the United States Trade Representative has listed the world's largest BitTorrent sites and cyberlockers as some of the most problematic copyright infringers in the world. Popcorn Time and its derivatives are mentioned too, with the former's creation blamed on YIFY/YTS. Domain name registrars are also placed under the spotlight.


    In its latest “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets” report the United States Trade Representative (USTR) lists some of the world’s largest file-sharing sites as venues for prolific copyright infringement.


    “Commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy cause significant financial losses for rights holders and legitimate businesses, undermine critical U.S. comparative advantages in innovation and creativity to the detriment of American workers, and can pose significant risks to consumer health and safety,” the report begins.


    “The Notorious Markets List (“List”) highlights select online and physical marketplaces that reportedly engage in and facilitate substantial copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.”


    Torrent Sites


    It’s no surprise that The Pirate Bay is on the USTR list again this year but its first mention is framed as a success. The December 2014 raid against the famous site is quite properly noted but then subsequent references paint a confusing picture.


    While the USTR correctly notes that the site eventually resumed operations at ThePirateBay.se, it also claims that the site first came back online at ThePirateBay.si “as well as under several other domain names”. This account runs counter to the actual sequence of events which were regularly documented online.


    Although not mentioned specifically by name, numerous PirateBay clones also make an appearance, notably the version created by the IsoHunt.to team.


    KickassTorrents is also proving to be a thorn in the side of the USTR. Now reporting that the site is based in Canada, the U.S. government notes that the site reaped the rewards of the Pirate Bay takedown in December by scooping up additional traffic. It notes that the site has had domain name difficulties recently (praising the action by the .SO registry) but concedes that the site remains fully operational.


    Meta-search engine Torrentz.eu makes another appearance on the list this year but with an added twist. The USTR is now referring to the site as being part of a group called ‘Movshare Group/Private Layer’ which includes various Torrentz domains plus Putlocker.is, Nowvideo, Movshare, BitSnoop and Novamov, among others.


    “This group of affiliated and extremely popular sites, with ties to Switzerland,
    Netherlands, Panama, Canada, and other countries, reportedly uses multiple technologies to make available countless unauthorized copies of movies, games, music, audiobooks, software, and sporting event broadcasts,” the USTR writes.


    YTS.re or YIFY as it’s still known, receives particular focus in the U.S. government report. Noting that the site has millions of visitors every month and is continuing to grow, the report makes a curious allegation – that YTS is responsible for creating Popcorn Time.


    “Yts.re’s operators also created a desktop torrent streaming application called ‘Popcorn Time,’ similar to [Spanish-focused version] ‘Cuevana Storm’,” the report reads.


    An interesting situation has also developed around Bulgarian torrent sites Zamunda and Arena.bg. Both sites have been present on the USTR’s list for many years and in practical terms nothing has changed in respect of the way the sites offer copyrighted material. However, the U.S. government now says that both will now be removed from the list.


    “[In] recognition of Bulgarian law enforcement efforts and recent reports that the operators of these sites agreed with rights holders to remove links to unauthorized movies upon notification, the sites [have been removed],” the report reads.


    Predictably the massively popular Russia-based RuTracker remains a “notorious site” this time around but the problems facing war-torn Ukraine haven’t given that country a free pass. The USTR remains concerned over the country’s approach to protecting copyright so torrent site ExtraTorrent.cc remains on the list alongside hosting site EX.ua.


    A curious addition to the list is the Spain-focused EliteTorrent. Criticized for removing content following rightsholder complaints only to replace it at a later date, the site no longer exists having shut itself down in January 2015.


    Cyberlockers


    With millions of visitors every day, file-hosting site 4shared heads the USTR list. The government notes that the site works with rightsholders by implementing a scanning system to remove unauthorized material but apparently that’s not enough. Complaints from the music industry means that the site remains on the list this time around.


    Uploaded.net, another regular feature of the USTR report, makes another appearance this time around. While claiming the site has alleged links to Switzerland and Netherlands, the U.S. government plucks figures directly from the recent and controversial NetNames cyberlocker report by claiming the site generates $6 million per year in revenues.


    With Google being asked to remove close to 10 million links from ZippyShare.com, it’s little surprise that the file-hosting site is present on this year’s list.


    “The site offers features that make piracy more ‘infringer friendly,’ including through accelerated downloading. Its revenues reportedly come from paid advertising, which targets the millions of users who download files from the site,” the report reads.


    But despite being one of the largest sites of its type, Russia’s Rapidgator gets only a short mention, possibly due to the USTR’s belief that its popularity is declining. Social network VK or vKontakte is given much more focus, however. The USTR cautiously notes the site’s efforts to reduce infringement but concludes that much more needs to be done.


    On the linking front Baixeturbo.org gets a notable mention.The site has been in operation for almost seven years and is reportedly popular with Brazilians. However, it’s hosted in the UK so should in theory be an easy site for the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit to disrupt. Nevertheless, it remains online and features prominently in the USTR’s list.


    Domain registrars


    The USTR Notorious Markets report usually focused on sites and services involved in online copyright infringement, but this time around the government appears to be widening the net. For the first time legitimate companies that simply register domain names are being put under the spotlight.


    “This year, USTR is highlighting the issue of certain domain name registrars. Registrars are the commercial entities or organizations that manage the registration of Internet domain names, and some of them reportedly are playing a role in supporting counterfeiting and piracy online,” the report reads.


    “Some registrars..[..]…reportedly disobey court orders and other communications, including from government enforcement authorities. Some registrars apparently even advertise to the online community that they will not take action against illicit activity, presumably to incentivize registrations by owners and operators of illicit sites.”


    The USTR singles out Canada-based Tucows as “an example of a registrar that fails to take action when notified of its clients’ infringing activity. Consistent with the discussion above, USTR encourages the operators of Tucows to work with relevant stakeholders to address complaints,” the USTR writes.


    Successes


    In common with previous years the report begins with a short summary of successes. Spanish site Seriesyonkis.com and Blu-ray ripping software vendor Aiseesoft were commended for their positive actions and with some reservations noted, Chinese site Xunlei was removed from the latest list.


    Action taken against the German-based linking site Boerse.bz was also deemed worthy of a mention but its resurrection as Boerse.to was relegated to a fine-print footnote.


    Putlocker.com, a site reportedly targeted by law enforcement in 2012 and 2013 (later rebranding to FireDrive in 2014) has also been removed from the list. The USTR notes that the site may not have completely mended its ways but since traffic has dropped dramatically the site has lost its “notorious” status.


    Conclusion


    While there are no real surprises in the report, the addition of domain registrars is a notable development. Expect this element to grow in future editions and for the cat and mouse game with most other sites to continue.

  • Eztv suffers extended downtime (updated)

    Due to technical problems the popular TV-torrent site EZTV has been unreachable for the greater part of the day. While there's currently no ETA for when the site will return, the group's torrents are still spreading through other sites.


    eztv-logo-smallFounded in 2005, the TV-torrent site EZTV has served torrents for nearly a decade.


    Over the past several years it has maintained a steady user-base and with millions of users it’s undoubtedly the most used TV-torrent site on the Internet.


    Today, however, the site has been pretty much unreachable. Instead of the usual list of torrents users see a CloudFlare error message.


    TorrentFreak contacted EZTV for additional information. The team is aware of the issues and we’ll update this article when we receive more details.


    The outage doesn’t mean that there are no new releases coming out, however.


    As always, the leading TV-torrent distribution group continues to post torrents on KickassTorrents, The Pirate Bay and other sites.


    In addition, reverse proxies such as EZTV-proxy.net are also working fine.


    Update: The site has been up and down intermittently over the past few hours.

  • .so registry bans more “kickasstorrents” domains

    The registry behind the Somalian .SO TLD has banned more "Kickass" related domain names, citing illegal activities. The actions target Kickas.so, Kickasstorrents.so, Kickassmovie.so and several others domains, even a parked one. The owners, who are not affiliated with the popular torrent site, lost their domain names without prior notice.


    kickasstorrents_500x500With millions of unique visitors per day KickassTorrents has become a prime target for copyright holders, many of whom would like to see the site taken offline.


    Among other tactics, copyright holders ask domain name registries to suspend pirate site domain names. For a long time the Somalian .so TLD appeared to be a relatively safe haven, but this changed last month when the Kickass.so domain was “banned.”


    Initially the action appeared to be an isolated incident, but the .SO registry wasn’t done with the Kickass brand yet.


    A few days ago the .SO registry targeted a new round of “Kickass” related domains. Kikass.so, Kickas.so, Kickasstorrent.so, Kickasstorrents.so, Kickasstorrent.so, Kickassmovies.so and Kickassmovie.so were all added to the ban list.


    Interestingly, none of the domains were affiliated with the notorious torrent site. Kickassmovies.so, for example, was a relatively low traffic streaming site that simply used the Kickass brand to gain traffic.


    A similar domain name, Kickassmovie.so, wasn’t even operational. The owner had parked the domain which wasn’t linking to any infringing material. Still, this domain was banned as well for an alleged violation of .SO’s policies.


    “The central registry has deleted the domain ‘kickassmovie.so’. The domain was in violation of their usage policy,” Dynadot informed the owner.


    The .SO registry isn’t commenting on its actions, but it’s very likely that complaints from copyright holders are the main reason. By taking away the domain names of popular sites rightsholders hope to frustrate and confuse the public.


    To a certain degree this strategy seems to be working. KickassTorrents is currently hard to find on search engines such as Google. Instead, many users are redirected to scam sites where they have to leave their credit card details to register a “free” account.


    Findability issues aside, the real KickassTorrents is still alive and kicking. The site continues to operate on its old Kickass.to domain name, which regained its spot among the 100 most visited sites on the Internet.

  • Isp categorically refuses to block pirate bay – trial set for october

    Following a hearing last month during which agreement was sought between entertainment companies and Swedish ISP Bredbandsbolaget, the provider has confirmed there will be no compromise. The ISP will not block The Pirate Bay and insists that customers have the right to communicate freely online. A trial is now set for October.


    Despite its current difficulties in maintaining an efficient online presence, The Pirate Bay remains the world’s most hounded website. Entertainment industry companies around the globe have made the notorious site their number one anti-piracy target and legal action continues in many regions.


    Perhaps one of the most interesting at the moment is the action filed last November by Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry. It targets Swedish ISP Bredbandsbolaget (The Broadband Company) and effectively accuses the provider of being part of the Pirate Bay’s piracy machine.


    The papers filed at the Stockholm District Court demand that Bredbandsbolaget block its subscribers from accessing The Pirate Bay and popular streaming portal Swefilmer. In December the ISP gave its response, stating in very clear terms that ISPs cannot be held responsible for the traffic carried on their networks.


    Last month on February 20 the parties met in the Stockholm District Court to see if some kind of agreement or settlement could be reached. But the entertainment companies’ hopes have been dashed following the confirmation that Bredbandsbolaget will not comply with its wishes.


    “It is an important principle that Internet providers of Internet infrastructure shall not be held responsible for the content that is transported over the Internet. In the same way that the Post should not meddle in what people write in the letter or where people send letters,” Commercial Director Mats Lundquist says.


    “We stick to our starting point that our customers have the right to freely communicate and share information over the internet.”


    With no settlement or compromise to be reached, DagensMedia reports that the district court has now set a date for what is being billed as a “historic trial”.


    It will begin on Thursday 23 October and the outcome has the potential to reshape provider liability in The Pirate Bay’s spiritual homeland, despite the fact that it’s now run from overseas.


    Bredbandsbolaget will certainly be outnumbered. TV companies including SVT, TV4 Group, MTG TV, SBS Discovery and C More will team up with the IFPI and the Swedish Video Distributors group which counts Fox Paramount, Disney, Warner and Sony among its members.


    Internal movie industry documents obtained by TorrentFreak reveal that IFPI and the Swedish film producers have signed a binding agreement which compels them to conduct and finance the case. However, the MPAA is exerting its influence while providing its own evidence and know-how behind the scenes.


    Also of interest is that IFPI took a decision to sue Bredbandsbolaget and not Teliasonera (described by the MPAA as “the largest and also very actively ‘copy-left’ Swedish ISP”). The reason for that was that IFPI’s counsel represents Teliasonera in other matters which would have raised a conflict of interest.


    There are also some intriguing political implications and MPAA nervousness concerning the part of the case involving streaming portal Swefilmer. Those will be the topic of an upcoming TF article.

  • Cyber criminals leak first episode of “csi: Cyber”

    The first episode of the new drama series CSI: Cyber has leaked online. The show, which documents the hunt for cyber-criminals, has apparently fallen victim to its main subject. Is CBS being put in its place by 'hackers' or could the leak be some kind of promotional stunt?


    csicyberCSI: Cyber is the fourth series in the popular CSI franchise.


    The police drama, starring Emmy Award winner Patricia Arquette, revolves around the FBI’s Cyber Crime Division which investigates illegal activities on the Internet, including piracy.


    The new show is set to premiere tomorrow night but cyber criminals have spoiled the exclusive for CBS.


    Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, leaked copies of the first episode surfaced on various pirate sites during the past day. The leaked footage comes from a high quality copy and doesn’t have any visible watermarks.


    The leak appears to come from the P2P group “PMP” and is titled “CSI-Cyber-S01E01-HDTV-x264-PMP.”


    Interestingly, however, the episode isn’t spreading through the usual torrent sites. Instead, it appeared on various streaming services and cyberlockers first, which is quite unusual.


    There are no traces to the video source. It may have come from a promotional screener, or perhaps the leak itself is a promotion? If so, it wouldn’t be the first time that a TV-series has been intentionally leaked to gain traction.


    From reading the comments of early viewers the pilot is getting mixed reviews. Some love the concept of a cyber CSI, but others are more critical of the various technicalities.


    “Wow. Not a good first effort at all. Did they hire any real hackers or anyone with any real working knowledge of hacking,” one cyber ‘criminal’ commented.


    Whether CBS plans to alert the FBI’s real “CSI:Cyber” to hunt down the leakers is unknown, but for now they remain on the loose.

  • U.s. Govt files for default judgment on dotcom’s cash and cars

    After a U.S. court ruled that Kim Dotcom is not entitled to contest the forfeiture of his assets because he is a "fugitive" facing extradition, the government has just tightened the noose. In a filing before the same court yesterday, the U.S. requested a default judgment to seize the assets of Dotcom, his co-defendants, and their Megaupload empire.


    In the wake of the now-famous 2012 raid, the U.S. government has done everything in its power to deny Kim Dotcom access to the assets of his former Megaupload empire. Millions were seized, setting the basis for a legal battle that has dragged on for more than three years.


    In a July 2014 complaint submitted at a federal court in ******ia, the Department of Justice asked for forfeiture of the bank accounts, cars and other seized possessions, claiming they were obtained through copyright and money laundering crimes.


    “Kim Dotcom and Megaupload will vigorously oppose the US Department of Justice’s civil forfeiture action,” Dotcom lawyer Ira Rothken told TF at the time.


    But in the final days of last month Dotcom received a blow when a ruling from the United States barred him from fighting the seizure. A Federal Court in ******ia found that Dotcom was not entitled to contest the forfeiture because he is viewed as a “fugitive” facing extradition.


    “We think this is not offensive to just Kim Dotcom’s rights, but the rights of all Kiwis,” Rothken said.


    Wasting no time, yesterday the United States went in for the kill. In a filing in the District Court for the Eastern District of ******ia, the Department of Justice requested an entry of default against the assets of Kim Dotcom plus co-defendants Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, Finn Batato, Julius Bencko, and Sven Echternach.


    The targets for forfeiture are six bank accounts held in Hong Kong in the names of Ortmann, der Kolk, Echternach, Bencko and Batato. New Zealand based assets include an ANZ National Bank account in the name of Megastuff Limited, an HSBC account held by der Kolk and a Cleaver Richards Limited Trust Account for Megastuff Limited held at the Bank of New Zealand. Two Mercedes-Benz vehicles (an A170 and an ML500) plus their license plates complete the claim.


    The request for default judgment was entered soon after.


    “In accordance with the Plaintiff’s request to enter default and the affidavit of Assistant United States Attorney Karen Ledbetter Taylor, counsel of record for the Plaintiff, the Clerk of this Court does hereby enter a default against the defendant,” Clerk of Court Fernando Galindo wrote.


    Dotcom and his co-defendants will now have to wait to see if the U.S. court grants default judgment and forfeiture. However, even if that transpires it probably won’t be the end of the matter.


    Since the assets are located overseas any U.S. order would have to be presented to the courts in those countries. In New Zealand, for example, the U.S. acknowledges that the forfeiture order might not be accepted and could become the subject of further litigation.


    In any event the battle for Dotcom’s millions will continue, both in the United States and elsewhere. And with each passing day comes extra legal costs which diminishes the entrepreneur’s chances of mounting what is already an astronomically costly defense, a situation that plays right into the hands of the U.S.