PirateBay: May 2014

TorrentFreak Email Update

PirateBox Delivers Brand New Anonymous Sharing Release
Pirate Bay Celebrates “Independence Day” on 8-Year Raid Anniversary
BitTorrent Inc. Demands $5.8 Million From Trademark “Scammer”

PirateBox Delivers Brand New Anonymous Sharing Release

Posted: 31 May 2014 11:06 AM PDT

Inspired by the local communications power of traditional pirate radio, in 2011 NYU art professor David Darts created the PirateBox. Part WiFi hotspot, part file server, PirateBox provides quick, easy and above all anonymous access to the files onboard.

In 2012 and following a breakthrough update, the cost of creating a PirateBox dropped from a very reasonable $100 to an extremely attractive $50. Anonymous offline file-sharing was now within everyone’s reach.

Since then PirateBox has gathered an extremely enthusiastic following, something which has spurred its developers on. Yesterday PirateBox delivered its v1.0 update and a brand new website so to celebrate the occasion TorrentFreak caught up with creator David Darts.

TF: PirateBox was warmly welcomed by the community in 2012. How has community feedback shaped the PirateBox project since?

DD: The community has had a big impact on the development of PirateBox. When I originally released the project, it was essentially just an offline browser-based file sharing system. My first prototype was basically a proof-of-concept – a light-weight python web server running on a hacked Seagate Dockstar network adapter connected to a pocket wireless router.

Almost immediately after publishing the project online, I started receiving feedback from developers and hackers around the world who were interested in using and contributing to the project. My inbox also started filling up with support requests, which is why I set up the PirateBox Discussion Forum.

While I believe in the Free Open Source ethos of providing tech support for my peers (I’ve been the beneficiary of this support many times), I simply couldn’t handle the volume of requests. Fortunately, the community stepped up and helped out with support (and testing, and development) through the discussion forum.

Many of the key features of the PirateBox, like the chat room and UI, have been co-developed by the community. Matthias Strubel, who is now the project’s lead developer, was one of the community members who reached out and joined the PirateBox team. He has really helped push the project forward.

TF: Has PirateBox been used in any unexpected or innovative ways?

DD: As designers know all too well, their creations are often used in ways they didn’t necessarily intend. The PirateBox is no exception.

It has been used by musicians and bands to distribute their music at festivals and gigs, by teachers to distribute and collect digital materials from students, and by emergency response workers and volunteers to distribute local first aid information and community updates. Conference organizers have used it to distribute conference materials and to provide local wireless commenting during presentations, and it’s been utilized by CryptoParty workshop volunteers to securely share cryptographic keys.

TF: How many users of PirateBox are there today?

DD: Well, we don’t track our users but the project has grown “rhizomatically” across several websites and languages so it’s a little tricky to estimate how many PirateBoxes are out in the wild today.

It is possible, and sometimes preferable, to distribute the PirateBox software locally (and anonymously) using a PirateBox and, because the boxes never go online, it’s impossible to really keep track of them. Generally speaking, this is a good thing.

TF: Technology is always on the move – which developments have most affected today’s PirateBox compared to the one that launched two years ago?

DD: Two big tech trends have helped push PirateBox 1.0 development forward: The proliferation of small screens, which is how we increasingly interact with the network and each other, and the increased availability of tiny, inexpensive computers (including wireless routers, single board systems like the Raspberry Pi and other embedded “Internet of things” devices) which are rapidly filling up our world.

Version 1.0 is thus designed with mobility and low cost hardware in mind. We’ve reworked the UI and based it on Twitter’s Bootstap so that the software plays nicely with small screens. And we’ve built PirateBox 1.0 to run natively on inexpensive hardware.

Another “technology” development that helped increase interest in the PirateBox project was the confirmation through the Snowden leaks last year that the US government was operating near universal mass-surveillance programs around the world, often in partnership or, at least, with the complicit support of several large technology and Internet companies. While this has obviously raised very serious questions and concerns around the world, these revelations have at least helped push important conversations about privacy, surveillance, censorship, freedom, etc. to the forefront. These are all issues that the PirateBox project engages with and thus it has helped inspire new users to join the project.

TF: What is so special about the release of PirateBox 1.0, why should existing users upgrade, and what do new users have to look forward to?

DD: Along with the increased stability of PirateBox 1.0, the key new feature is Matthias Strubel’s “box-installer” which radically simplifies the process of building or upgrading a PirateBox. It is now possible to build a new PirateBox in just a few easy steps.

One of my favorite new features of PirateBox 1.0 is the UPnP media server which starts streaming video and audio files over the network as soon as they’ve been uploaded to the box. I’ve actually been using this feature for awhile. It works perfectly as a backend to XBMC for instance and is also a great way of streaming movies to your mobile devices when traveling.

PirateBox 1.0 also offers a image/message bullet board called Kareha by default which is similar to the software used on 4chan. This means that PirateBox 1.0 offers 4chan in a box functionality, which I think is pretty cool. And of course, it also comes with a chat room and browser-based file sharing system.

TF: What role do you see PirateBox fulfilling in the future and what plans do you have for the next 12 months?

DD: The holy grail of offline networking is wireless mesh and we’ve been experimenting with it in the PirateBox. Matthias has been playing with Forban over the last year and we’ve successfully deployed and connected small sets of PirateBoxes using the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol. This is really just an experimental feature at this point but it is something we’re planning to keep developing.

I’ve also been experimenting with connecting the PirateBox to the Internet, which, in some ways, is counter to the philosophy of the project as an offline file sharing and communications system.

However, I also think there’s real value in providing people with ways to connect online that help preserve their privacy. This is especially important for those who are less tech-savy and thus may not know how to protect themselves from tracking, etc. While the PirateBox will continue to be an offline file sharing and communications system, we may consider providing an optional feature in the future that allows it to be used online. Or this may become a new fork of the project…..

Interested in making your own PirateBox? Try here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Pirate Bay Celebrates “Independence Day” on 8-Year Raid Anniversary

Posted: 31 May 2014 03:23 AM PDT

The Pirate Bay has altered its operations quite a bit over the years, moving from a full-fledged BitTorrent tracker to a trimmed-down and highly portable torrent index.

First the tracker was removed, then the torrents followed, and later the infamous torrent site canceled nearly all central servers after moving to the cloud. In addition, the site switched domain names on multiple occasions.

All these changes were carried out to make the site more resilient and less likely to be shut down by the authorities. This determination to escape the long arm of justice is deeply rooted in the site’s history, dating back to the raid eight years ago.

Most of the site’s current users are probably unaware that without a few essential keystrokes in the site’s early years, The Pirate Bay may have not been here today.

May 31, 2006, less than three years after The Pirate Bay was founded, 65 Swedish police officers entered a datacenter in Stockholm. The policemen had instructions to shut down the largest threat to the entertainment industry at the time – The Pirate Bay’s servers.

While the police were about to raid the datacenter, Pirate Bay founders Gottfrid and Fredrik got wind that something was up. In the months before the raid they were already being watched by private investigators day and night, but this time something was about to happen to their trackers.

At around 10am in the morning Gottfrid told Fredrik that there were police officers at their office, and asked him to get down to the co-location facility and get rid of the 'incriminating evidence', although none of it, whatever it was, was related to The Pirate Bay.

As Fredrik was leaving, he suddenly realized that the problems might be linked to their tracker. He therefore decided to make a full backup of the site, just in case.

When he later arrived at the co-location facility the concerns turned out to be justified. There were dozens of policemen floating around taking away dozens of servers, most of which belonged to clients unrelated to The Pirate Bay.

Footage from The Pirate Bay raid

In the days that followed it became clear that Fredrik’s decision to start a backup of the site was probably the most pivotal moment in the site’s history. Because of this backup Fredrik and the rest of the Pirate Bay team managed to resurrect the site within three days.

The site’s operators were not impressed and renamed the site “The Police Bay” complete with a new logo shooting cannon balls at Hollywood. A few days later this logo was replaced by a Phoenix, a reference to the site rising from its digital ashes.

Logos after the raid

tpb classic

Instead of shutting it down the raid brought the site into the mainstream press, not least due to its amazing three-day resurrection. All this publicity resulted in a huge traffic spike for TPB, exactly the opposite effect Hollywood had hoped for.

Despite a criminal investigation leading to convictions for the site’s founders, The Pirate Bay kept growing and growing in the years that followed. The site’s assets, meanwhile, had been transferred to the Seychelles-based company Reservella.

Under new ownership several major technical changes occurred. In the fall of 2009 the infamous BitTorrent tracker was taken offline, turning The Pirate Bay into a torrent indexing site.

Early 2012 The Pirate Bay went even further when it decided to cease offering torrent files for well-seeded content. The site’s operators moved to magnet links instead, allowing them to save resources while making it easier for third-party sites to run proxies.

These proxies turned out to be much-needed, as The Pirate Bay is now the most broadly censored website on the Internet. In recent years ISPs in Denmark, Italy, UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere have been ordered by courts to block subscriber access to the BitTorrent site.

On its tenth anniversary last summer the Pirate Bay team released another option for its users to circumvent the increased censorship, the PirateBrowser. With this browser users in blocked countries can bypass ISP blockades without having to use a proxy.

Over the past year The Pirate Bay also encountered some domain name troubles. Fearing a domain seizure through the Swedish court the site moved from its .SE domain to Greenland’s .GL ccTLD. However, TPB wasn’t welcome there, a rejection that signaled the start of a domain hopping exercise via Iceland’s .IS to Sint Maarten’s .SX, to Ascension Island's .AC, Peru's .PE, and back via Guyana's .GY to the good old .SE domain, where it resides again today.

Looking ahead The Pirate Bay plans to become even more indestructible, partially moving away from the web. The TPB team is working on a special BitTorrent-powered application, which lets users store and distribute The Pirate Bay and other websites on their own computers. Instead of bypassing external censors, this new tool will create its own P2P network through which sites can be accessed without restrictions.

This “p2p browser” should be able to keep The Pirate Bay operational, even if the site itself is pulled offline. There is currently no estimated release date set for this second project, but it will take a few more months of development at minimum.

And so The Pirate Bay is expected to live on and on. A few months ago the site turned ten years old and today it’s celebrating the raid anniversary, which it declared “Pirate Independence Day” back in 2008.

"Let today be the pirates independence day! Today we celebrate the victories we've had and the victories that will come. Today we celebrate that we're united in our efforts. Keep on seeding!," the TPB team said at the time.

The site’s millions of regular visitors indeed kept on seeding. But remember, if there hadn’t been a recent backup back in 2006, things may have turned out quite differently.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

BitTorrent Inc. Demands $5.8 Million From Trademark “Scammer”

Posted: 30 May 2014 10:26 AM PDT

As the owners of two of the most-used BitTorrent clients on the Internet, BitTorrent Inc. is catering to an audience of close to 200 million regular users.

Needless to say there is plenty of interest in the BitTorrent brand, and in some cases this demand is being exploited by third-party companies. One of the outfits that has operated in this space is the German-based Bittorrent Marketing GMBH.

The company owns the German and European trademark for Bittorrent and has several related domain names such as Bit-Torent.com, Bit-Torrent.com and Bitorrent.net. These domains have been mainly used for advertising, pointing people to paid products.

This has been a thorn in the side for BitTorrent Inc. who launched a lawsuit against its German nemesis two years ago. Since the German company and its owner Harald Hochmann failed to respond in court, BitTorrent is moving for a default judgment. In a filing submitted this week they demand $5.8 million in damages.

“BitTorrent filed this action to put an end to Defendant's use of BitTorrent's trademarks to promote what Defendant touts as an ‘advertising affiliate program’ used to ‘post ads and earn commissions..’,” the company explains.

According to the complaint the sites don’t link people to the free software, but to sites where people have to pay for a mere redirection to third-party services.

“For example, after paying over $50 to sign up for ultimate-downloadscenter.com, U.S. users are redirected to third-party websites of other digital media providers, like Netflix.com and Hulu.com, and invited to sign up for membership with those services.”

These “scams” are a problem for BitTorrent Inc. as they reflect negatively on the company’s brand. However, there is another issue with the domains. Since the German company owns a lot of domains based on misspellings, they occasionally get emails that are intended for the U.S. company.

“Hochmann admitted that his company registered many misspellings of BITTORRENT as or as part of domain names, and that, as a result of registering these domain names, he was able to intercept internal emails of BitTorrent when employees and executives of BitTorrent misspelled "bittorrent" in typing the domain name,” the company explains in its motion.

Among other emails, the owner of Bittorrent Marketing GMBH obtained internal financial projections from early 2008. Based on this intercepted communication Hochmann allegedly suggested that BitTorrent Inc. should buy the German company for millions of dollars.

Through the U.S. federal court BitTorrent Inc. now hopes to obtain an injunction against its German namesake. In their motion for summary judgment they demand a total of $5.8 million in damages and in addition BitTorrent Inc. wants ownership of all the BitTorrent related domain names.

“BitTorrent requests an award of statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per domain name for each of the 58 Infringing Domain Names identified in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, for a total statutory damages award of $5,800,000.”

Interestingly, while Hochmann and his company failed to respond to the complaint in court, he did release a long statement and supporting documents which are available via the Bittorrent.eu domain.

In the statement Hochmann details his version of the dispute, which started more than a decade ago. Among other things, he disputes that he offered BitTorrent Inc. the opportunity to buy his company for millions, and he points to domain disputes his company won in the past against BitTorrent Inc.

Talking to TorrentFreak, Hochmann said that in a week or two he will issue a more detailed response explaining why not he, but BitTorrent Inc. are the “scammers.”

For the U.S. case this may be too late, due to the lack of response in the past it’s likely that the default judgment will be entered. It’s now up to the judge to decide what the exact punishment should be.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

TorrentFreak Email Update

UK IP Chief: Google Should Blacklist Pirate Sites
Research Links Piracy to Internet Addiction and Deviant Friends
Spotify: We Make Revenue From Pirates Who Never Pay

UK IP Chief: Google Should Blacklist Pirate Sites

Posted: 30 May 2014 02:51 AM PDT

Mike Weatherley, a Conservative MP and Intellectual Property Adviser to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, has become increasingly involved in the online piracy debate in recent months.

Weatherley’s current focus is on the role search engines can play in reducing infringement. In contrast to the approach taken by the entertainment industries, the MP has taken a much more positive stance when speaking of Google’s efforts thus far. In a new report, however, Weatherley lays out often far-reaching recommendations that puts him almost completely in sync with industry demands.

The report, which Weatherley says is intended to stimulate debate, begins with praise for Google for “engaging positively” during its creation. Its recommendations are directed at all search engines, but as the market leader Google is called on to show leadership. Where Google goes, others will follow, Weatherley believes.

Search results – demoting illegal sites

The music and movie industries have long complained that illegal content is too easy to find and for a long time they’ve been putting Google under pressure to do something about that. Weatherley believes that by working with two existing sources of information – Google’s Transparency Report and the recently formed Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s infringing site “blacklist” – Google has a ready formula at hand.

The BPI’s input suggests that when a search engine has received 10,000 infringement notices for a site, that site should no longer appear on the first page of search results. Any that receive 100,000 notices should no longer appear in the first 10 pages. However, it’s envisioned that “certificates” could be handed out to some sites to help them avoid being relegated – more on that later.

Voluntarily complying with site-blocking court orders

In the UK around 30 ‘pirate’ sites are now blocked via the UK’s major ISPs after both the BPI and MPA went to court to obtain injunctions. While these injunctions only legally apply to their formal targets (the ISPs), in future Weatherley would like Google to acknowledge the existence of injunctions by immediately removing the affected sites from all search results. The MP acknowledges that this may require a change in the law.

Accepting takedown notices for AutoComplete terms

For some time Google has been accepting applications from rightsholders to remove “infringing” terms from its AutoComplete service. Weatherley now wants to see this process formalized.

“Given that Google has accepted that Autocomplete for pirate sites should not occur, it seems uncontroversial to recommend that steps are taken to continue to ensure this does not happen,” he writes.

AutoComplete takedown notices should be included in Google’s Transparency Report, the MP says.

Incorporating “Trust Marks” and “Warnings” to inform consumers

The idea here is that somehow Google will consider the reputation of a site when formulating its algorithms and when it presents its search results. “Trust Marks” would be used to denote a legal and licensed resource while “Warnings” would be used to highlight an illegal site.

The exact process through which a site could become trusted is unclear, but suggestions from the BPI indicate that a “certificate” could be obtained from its own Music Matters project to indicate that a resource is “clean”. Similar certificates could be obtained by sites that receive a lot of takedown notices but operate legally (YouTube for example) so that they are whitelisted by Google and not downgraded in search results.

In terms of warning against unlicensed sites, rightsholders suggest that Google takes note of PIPCU’s “pirate” site blacklist by either negatively marking affected sites in search results or removing them completely.

Referencing a TorrentFreak article published last month reporting how Google had signaled that Demonoid was a potentially dangerous site, Weatherley said Google can do more to protect consumers.

“Google has not only proven in relation to malware on certain torrent sites that it has the technical capability within its systems to deliver consumer messaging in search listings, but that such messages can be an effective deterrent to consumers,” the MP explains.

Licensed services should do more to help themselves in search results

While the music and movie industries complain endlessly about “pirate” results appearing above their own licensed content, not much time is given to explaining why that’s the case. Weatherley reveals that Google has made a request for movie and music streaming services behind a paywall to allow Google to crawl their sites in order for consumers to be able to see them in results. For some services, apparently that’s not currently allowed.

“Google maintains that it is perfectly possible to create crawlable pages for each movie or album title in a security-friendly way. I am told by rights holders that there are potential security issues around making licensed services crawlable and they have concerns with this proposal,” Weatherley notes.

Conclusion

While Weatherley is currently praising Google in order to keep the tone positive and the discussion flowing, the IP advisor clearly believes that the search engine is capable of assisting rightsholders much more but is failing to do so.

The MP’s report has no official standing in respect of government policy but it addresses most if not all of the movie and music industries’ main problems with Google. Expect this document to become a point of reference in the months to come.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Research Links Piracy to Internet Addiction and Deviant Friends

Posted: 29 May 2014 12:29 PM PDT

Over the past decade a lot of research has looked at the effects of online piracy, particularly on the revenues of various entertainment industries.

Increasingly researchers are also examining the sociological links, causes and effects of copyright infringement. A new study conducted by Tennessee Tech University’s Jordana Navarro is a good example.

With a large survey Navarro and her colleagues investigated the link between piracy, internet addiction and deviant tendencies. The results were published in an article titled “Addicted to pillaging in cyberspace: Investigating the role of internet addiction in digital piracy,” which appears in the latest issue of the Computers and Human Behavior journal.

The researchers conducted a large-scale survey among 1,617 students from 9th through 12th grade. The participants were asked a wide range of questions, covering their piracy habits, as well as scales to measure Internet addiction and association with deviant friends.

The findings on the piracy side are comparable to many previous studies and show that movie piracy is most prevalent. Nearly 30% of the students admitted to pirating movies, and this percentage went down to 15% and 13% for music and software piracy respectively.

One of the more interesting findings is the link between piracy and Internet addiction. Here, the researchers found that students who have more internet addiction related issues are more likely to pirate software.

“Based on the results of the study, we can determine that high school students who have Internet-related problems due to addiction are more likely to commit a specific form of piracy involving the illegal downloading of software,” the researchers write.

The same group of software pirates were also more likely to hang out with deviant friends. This measure includes friends who pirate, those who threaten others with violence online, those who send nude pictures, and those who have used another person’s credit card or ID without permission.

“Not surprisingly, youth who committed this form of piracy were also more likely to have deviant peers. In other words, their behaviors were influenced by friends who committed similar or other deviant acts,” the researchers conclude.

Interestingly, the link between Internet addiction and copyright infringement was only found for software piracy. High school students who pirated movies and music were not more likely to have these type of problems. They were, however, more likely to associate with deviant or criminal friends.

“The remaining two forms of piracy for juveniles are not predicted by Internet addiction based on our findings. However, the results did support past findings that deviant peer association and piracy behaviors are significant related,” the researchers write.

According to the researchers the results are a good first step in identifying how various problems and deviant behaviors are linked, which could be helpful to shape future educational efforts.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn’t offer any explanations for the differences in the link between Internet addiction and various types of piracy. One likely explanation is that those who show more signs of Internet addiction simply spend more time on the computer, and are therefore more interested in software piracy and software in general.

For now, it appears that some more follow-up research is needed before it’s warranted to send the first batch of kids to piracy rehab.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Spotify: We Make Revenue From Pirates Who Never Pay

Posted: 29 May 2014 07:00 AM PDT

In the continuing piracy debate one thing has been established beyond reasonable doubt. If an entertainment producer wants to make any dent in piracy, at the very least they’re going to have to make their products readily available at a fair price.

This argument has gathered serious momentum in Australia during the past few years, with local consumers regularly criticizing international TV and movie companies for shipping products Down Under months after release and then charging unrealistic prices.

But in a recent opinion piece, the principal analyst at local music royalty collection outfit APRA AMCOS disputed whether the arrival of services like Spotify that give consumers what they want, have actually done anything to reduce piracy rates.

“Music's had everything everybody now wants for television shows, such as Game of Thrones, for a couple of years: availability, access and a reasonable price. But the piracy issue still has not been solved,” Andrew Harris wrote.

“In fact, results last month from our ongoing national research show that music piracy levels – just as they were almost two years ago – still sit at around the same level as that of movies and television shows.”

Noting that Spotify offers content in Australia at the moment it’s released around the world and does so at one of the best prices, Harris arrives at a familiar conclusion.

“We've heard it all before. No matter how loud the minority might shout it in anger as the answer, it's impossible to compete with free.”

Unsurprisingly that notion doesn’t sit well with Spotify, a company that was designed from the ground up to compete with piracy.

Responding to Harris’s assertions in Australian Financial Review, Spotify Australia and New Zealand chief Kate Vale said that the company’s experiences told a different story.

"We do believe that access, availability and price does contribute and is the answer and we have proven this in other markets across Europe and particularly in Sweden where we have seen a 30 per cent reduction in piracy since we launched about six years ago,” Vale said.

Cracking Sweden was undoubtedly a major feat given the country’s long association with Internet piracy and Vale believes that Spotify now has the right formula to attract the most aggressive file-sharers – and make money from them.

"If you look at the main audience that is on Spotify, a lot of them are former pirates. There are teenagers who have potentially never paid for their music before, and probably never will,” she said.

"If we can get them on to a service that is free but legal, and they are contributing through our advertising on that free tier, then it is giving money back into the industry that they are just never going to get before."

The ad-supported tier of Spotify is undoubtedly a great incentive to get people to try the service. Globally the company says that it converts around a quarter of free users to premium subscribers but Australia actually tops that with 31%, suggesting that Aussies are happier than most to part with their hard-earned cash in exchange for a good product.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

TorrentFreak Email Update

Aussie Attorney General Pressured on Three-Strikes Secrecy
“Six Strikes” Results Show High Number of Persistent Pirates
Movie Studios Seek to Freeze Kim Dotcom’s Assets

Aussie Attorney General Pressured on Three-Strikes Secrecy

Posted: 29 May 2014 04:04 AM PDT

In a speech back in February, Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis indicated that the Government had plans to crack down on Internet piracy. Not only was consideration being given to the introduction of a “three strikes” style regime, but ISPs could be required to block access to so-called ‘pirate’ sites.

This week, in a session of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the topic was raised by Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens. With the Attorney General and his team sat immediately opposite him, Ludlam asked Brandis about current Government copyright policy.

“Unlike the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, France and many other comparable countries, Australia lacks any effective protection against online piracy,” Brandis said.

“Australia, I’m sorry to say, is the worst offender of any country in the world when it comes to piracy, and i’m very concerned that the legitimate rights and interests of rightsholders and content creators are being compromised by that activity.”

Who is helping Brandis shape his anti-piracy opinions?

“Where are you getting your information from to form your views, who are you consulting and through what vehicle are you forming your views that you’ve just presented to us?” Ludlam asked.

“Well, those are my views. I mean, the views that I expressed in the speech to which you referred, legal and philosophical views in particular,” Brandis said.

Ludlam then asked if consumer groups were being involved in the process, as is the case in the United States “strikes” system.

“Have you spoken to any consumer groups, such as Choice or ACANN, who would probably contest your view that a graduated response or three-strikes or any of those kinds of propositions…..”

A clearly irritated Brandis interrupted, but Ludlam wasn’t giving an inch, continuing:

“….or any of those countries that you’ve just listed at the outset that do have some version of those schemes, that actually they’re not working very well in those jurisdictions and there might be other ways to tackle the problem more effectively, but still preserve artists’ rights to be paid for their work.”

Avoiding answering the question again, Brandis said that he and his colleagues speak to stakeholders all the time.

Answer the question – are consumer groups involved?

“Does that include Choice, for example?” Ludlam persisted.

Brandis said that his team has consulted with “industry leaders” in the United Kingdom and the United States to learn from their experiences. That wasn’t the answer Ludlam was looking for.

“I know industry leaders have very strong views on these things, but i’m asking you about groups like Choice or ACANN or others that might represent consumer interests or the public interest,” he said.

“There is a very strong public interest in the protection of private property and that includes the protection of intellectual property,” Brandis responded evasively.

“So you’re not going to answer the question,” Ludlam said rhetorically.

Clearly irritated with the line of questioning and despite being the one to interrupt, Brandis then gave Ludlam a mini lecture on not interrupting him and proceeded, again, not to answer the question. The Greens Senator wasn’t letting go.

“Have you met with Choice or ACAN in the process of forming your views?” he insisted.

As the exchange continued it became very clear indeed that while Brandis was pretty sharp on how his discussions had gone with “stake holders”, he was vague on any discussions with groups that should be involved to protect the public interest.

Is three-strikes still on the agenda?

Switching towards a member of Brandis’ team, Ludlam asked directly whether or not the Government’s copyright task group was looking at a three-strikes style regime to deal with online piracy?

“Yes, that’s one option,” came the response.

However, while the option is being considered, the Government clearly faces problems. In response to Ludlam asking whether talks were underway between rightsholders and service providers, a member of Brandis’ team gave a one word answer: “No.”

The problem, the Attorney General said, stemmed back from the iiNet ruling in 2012. Since then there had been less willingness on the part of some ISPs to come to the table. However, one ISP has been very helpful lately.

“Earlier in the month I had a very long conversation [with executives from] Telstra. If I may say so publicly I would say that Telstra’s contribution to this issue, and their willingness to work to find a solution to the piracy issue, which is really unaddressed in Australia, has been very commendable,” Brandis said.

“We want to see if the various industry participants can be brought to the table and find themselves in agreement rather than having a solution imposed from on high.”

So who is pulling the strings, who is making the decisions?

And then, just before the end of the session, Brandis undermined confidence in government transparency again in response to Ludlam’s questioning on how the issue would now be progressed.

“The matter is under active consideration right now. I had a meeting with certain decision makers in this matter as recently as 7pm last night,” Brandis said.

So who are those key decision makers?

“I’m not going to be disclosing in a public forum who I meet with, senator,” Brandis told Ludlam.

With anonymous “stake holders” and “decision makers” commanding Brandis’ ear, no consumer groups front and center, and only Telsta, the part-owner of pay TV company Foxtel, worthy of praise on the ISP front, a voluntary agreement on strikes in Australia seems as far away as ever.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

“Six Strikes” Results Show High Number of Persistent Pirates

Posted: 28 May 2014 01:11 PM PDT

downloadcar February last year, five U.S. Internet providers started sending copyright alerts to customers who use BitTorrent to pirate movies, TV-shows and music.

These efforts are part of the Copyright Alert System, an anti-piracy plan that aims to educate the public. Through a series of warnings suspected pirates are informed that their connections are being used to share copyrighted material without permission, and told where they can find legal alternatives.

These alerts start out friendly in tone, but serious repeat infringers face a temporary disconnection from the Internet or other mitigation measures. The ISPs and copyright holders believe that the voluntary agreement is effective, but experts have their doubts.

According to a report released today by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI which oversees the program, the Copyright Alert System has had a significant effect. For the first time the group has published actual numbers, covering the first ten months of the program ending December last year.

As can be seen in the table below, 722,820 account holders received a first strike or copyright alert. Of this group, nearly 30% were caught again, generating a second alert. A total of 60,477 subscribers were particularly persistent and reached the mitigation phase after their fifth alert, which is 8% of everyone who received at least one warning.

Around 1.3 million notices were sent out during the first 10 months, a number that will double in the coming year according to the report.

It is relatively hard to interpret these numbers, but the repeat warning percentage of 30% is quite high, especially when one takes into account that people who received their first alert during the last month had little time to generate a second one. In addition, the detection rate is relatively low, not to mention subscribers’ use of anonymizing tools.

It appears that U.S. pirates are relatively persistent. In France, for example, only 9% of all the warned copyright infringers received two warnings, and that was after two full years. Also, only 0.029% of the French got a third strike.

While these “strikes” programs have their differences, the high number of second warnings in the U.S. stands out. One of the issues that may play a role here is that some people don’t read the emails that come in at their ISP address.

The CCI is nonetheless convinced that copyright alerts are able to deter pirates, some at least.

"We are encouraged by the initial data from the Copyright Alert System's first 10 months suggesting that the program has the potential to move the needle in deterring copyright infringement,” CCI’s Jill Lesser said commenting on the results.

“Our initial research into consumer attitudes – along with what we have seen in our own data – shows that consumers do respond to this kind of educational system that alerts them to infringing activity on their account and helps them find the content they want easily and legally," Lesser adds.

Another figure of interest is the number of appeals. After three or four alerts subscribers have the option to appeal the evidence at the American Arbitration Association. Only 0.27% of the eligible subscribers did so, which translates into a few hundred people.

The most often cited reason to appeal was “unauthorized use” of the subscriber’s account. According to the report there were just 47 successful challenges decided in favor of the accused subscriber, which is 18% of all appeals.

Overall, the participating ISPs and copyright holders are all positive about the results so far. According to the RIAA’s Steve Marks the program is a respectful and effective way to deal with the piracy problem.

"We are proud of the program's accomplishments and delighted by our successful partnership with the ISP community. This report confirms that the CAS is working – it's reliable, respectful of consumers, and an effective way to let them know about all the legitimate alternatives in the marketplace,” Marks says.

Despite the enthusiasm, whether the program has been effective enough to put a real dent in local piracy rates has yet to be seen.

Last year we reported that instead of kicking their download habit, many people took measures to prevent themselves from being monitored. In addition, we observed that U.S. traffic to The Pirate Bay did not decline after the system was implemented.

In any case, it’s good to see that the first set of data is now available to the public. It will be interesting to see how the current trends develop over time.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Movie Studios Seek to Freeze Kim Dotcom’s Assets

Posted: 28 May 2014 09:39 AM PDT

In early April, Twentieth Century Fox, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. teamed up to file a new lawsuit in a Virginia District Court.

Their targets were old adversaries Megaupload, Kim Dotcom and associates Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk. Running in parallel with the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated by the U.S. Government, the complaint followed much of the same path.

Earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team responded by asking the court to freeze the MPAA’s case in order to protect their clients’ Fifth Amendment rights not to implicate themselves in advance of the U.S. government’s criminal case against them.

In the period since both sides’ legal teams have been in discussion over the potential terms of any stay. But, according to papers filed in a Virginia court yesterday, 20th Century Fox are concerned that Dotcom’s fortune could soon be back in the entrepreneur’s hands.

Megaupload’s and Dotcom’s millions were seized following the now-notorious 2012 raid. However, last month the New Zealand High Court said it would not extend the foreign restraining order against his assets.

That decision was quickly appealed by the Crown, but the possibility remains that Dotcom could soon regain his wealth and legally dispose of it. The studios want to stop that from happening.

“If the New Zealand Government loses the appeal, the assets will be unfrozen, and there is a significant risk that they will then be immediately dissipated,” the studios’ lawyers state in yesterday’s filing.

Led by Warner Bros., the studios add that since Dotcom and his associates “have or have had sophisticated global business interests” and with that an ability to “move assets offshore quickly and immediately”, they are taking legal action to try and prevent that.

“To ensure that Defendants' New Zealand assets remain frozen even if the New Zealand Government loses the pending appeal, several of the Plaintiffs have initiated civil proceedings in New Zealand to freeze Defendants' assets pending a judgment in the [studios' civil case against Megaupload/Dotcom].”

But the fight to secure Dotcom’s and Megaupload’s cash isn’t confined only to New Zealand. Hong Kong is another battleground and the studios are determined to narrow the options for release of assets there too.

“In addition to opposing extension of the asset freeze in New Zealand, Defendants are also seeking to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong, which have also been frozen pursuant to this Court’s restraining orders issued in the Criminal Action,” the studio’s lawyers write.

“If Defendants are successful in their efforts to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong,
there is a significant risk that those assets will be dissipated in very short order. Plaintiffs are monitoring developments in Hong Kong and assessing whether they may need to take legal action there to further preserve Defendants' assets.”

In conclusion the studios state that while they do not oppose Megaupload’s request for a stay, the terms must not preclude them taking action to freeze the worldwide assets of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom.

But of course, just days after the studios filed their lawsuit in April, the RIAA jumped on board too by filing a a substantially similar suit against the same defendants, again demanding millions in damages.

Yesterday the labels also made their voices heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in respect of Megaupload’s motion for a similar stay in their case. Although penned by different law firms, the labels’ filings are much the same as those from the studios.

In a slightly different conclusion, the labels oppose a stay order, but note that if one is granted it should not disallow them from seeking to “preserve the Defendants’ worldwide assets.”

Further hearings on the fate of the currently seized millions are scheduled for July 10 in Hong Kong and in the New Zealand High Court tomorrow.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

TorrentFreak Email Update

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.