The existence of torrent indexes and streaming portals is broadly acknowledged online. Equally, people are well aware of the hundreds of lower-quality music sites that often pull their content from YouTube for download.

However, there is another class of music piracy sites that are mentioned in public much less often. These are professionally presented, so much so that many consumers could be forgiven for thinking they are official platforms. While that may sound attractive to pirates, users soon find that access to the content on offer is conditional on paying a fee, albeit at a fraction of the rates offered by officially-sanctioned distributors.

This combination of highly-polished interfaces, advanced features, alongside a broad range of content means that these pirate platforms represent direct competition for digital platforms such as Beatport, Juno, and Traxsource, undermining their business models and those of the labels that rely upon them.

To illustrate how similar these platforms are and the type of advanced features they offer, the images below show the same track – the first on Beatport and the second on a pirate competitor. From cover art, genre, artist tags, BPM and even a DJ-friendly track key, the pirate platform has everything covered.

In response to this threat, a new anti-piracy initiative has just been launched. Spearheaded by anti-piracy company AudioLock and digital label service LabelWorx, The Music Mission campaign aims to tackle around 200 of these unlicensed competitors.

After mapping and investigating the underlying infrastructure and dependencies of these sites, the project will target their hosting providers but perhaps more importantly, seek to cut off their source of revenue by disrupting their payment gateways, thus preventing them from taking orders from subscribers.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, AudioLock founder and CEO Ben Rush explains that with well-architected structures designed to funnel traffic to other resources and provide protection from takedowns, the mission to take these sites won’t be straightforward. However, given that they are mostly professional paysites, there is a determination to do whatever is needed to disrupt their activities and return revenue to official distributors.

“The expectation is that pirate means free and when discussing piracy with rights holders such a belief is often followed by ‘How can you fight free?’,” Rush says.

“The awareness of what is occurring and the size of it needs to be pushed because not only are the majority of the sites not providing a free option, so users can only access the music by paying, but there is a section of users who have been paying infringing sites without knowingly doing so. So this should mean that more of the money being paid to these infringing sites can be redirected to legitimate platforms.”

While some coordinated anti-piracy initiatives struggle to gain support, the same cannot be said for The Music Mission. As its supporter page shows, the project currently boasts hundreds of distributors, labels and other industry players, including the UK’s PRS For Music, an entity that has previously undertaken successful anti-piracy operations of its own.

For operational reasons AudioLock doesn’t want to make the full list of targeted sites public at this stage but a sample shared with TorrentFreak reveals sites making revenue via at least two mechanisms.

While some present ‘download’ buttons that link to file-hosting platforms where content can be downloaded, that can only be achieved by taking out a premium account with the file-hosting provider. However, the main goal, it appears, is to have site users sign up to a subscription with the platforms themselves, with packages ranging from one months’ access right up to a discounted one year plan.

Considering these are pirate platforms, those reviewed by TF request a lot of personal information even before an account can be obtained. This includes full name, email address, country of origin, and even links to valid social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram and SoundCloud, with the suggestion that platforms will vet prospective customers.

Despite apparent barriers to entry, The Music Mission believes that these sites are causing considerable financial damage to their partners. While Beatport, Juno Download and Traxsource alone pull in around 9.4 million visitors to their portals every month, it’s estimated that these pay-piracy sites trump that with around 11 million visits.

“The subscriptions on these infringing sites range from £8.50 to £41 per month, in comparison to our legitimate dance music stores charging between £1 to £2 per track and are paying the content owners,” Rush explains.

“While it is impossible to be sure, even if you assume that out of those 11 million visits to pay-for-access pirate sites, that only 35,000 visitors (0.32%) decide to pay for a subscription (at an average of £15 per month), that is still over £500,000 paid to the pirates currently per month. This cash injection back to our industry would make a substantial difference.”

In order to bring more labels on board, The Music Mission site has a tool they can use to see how much of their content is currently being made available illegally via these platforms. Rush informs TF that the scanner is being developed all the time and from tomorrow will be updating daily to scan for the latest releases.

Targeting payment gateways is not a new anti-piracy strategy but The Music Mission hopes that by attracting a large volume of labels keen to support the cause, leverage against payment processors and server companies will be more effective. And with more scanning and information tools just around the corner, we are informed that this is just the beginning.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Two years ago, infamous hacking group Team-Xecutor announced the release of an ‘unstoppable’ Nintendo Switch hack.

The hack made it possible to load pirated games onto the popular console, an opportunity many people have taken advantage of. But Nintendo is now firing back.

Last week, the Japanese gaming giant filed two complaints in US courts, targeting nine online stores that sell Switch hacks and mods. The first complaint, filed at an Ohio federal court, lists local resident Tom Dilts Jr. and his company Uberchips LLC as defendants.

They stand accused of operating the Uberchips.com website through which hacks and mods are sold to the public. This allegedly results in massive theft and copyright infringement.

“Tom Dilts Jr. and Uberchips LLC operate a website at UBERCHIPS.COM through which they offer devices to the public, the sole purpose of which is to hack the Nintendo Switch video game console in order to allow people to play pirated video games,” Nintendo writes.

“Specifically, Defendants’ website sells products from an anonymous group of hackers called ‘Team Xecuter.’ Team Xecuter unlawfully designs and manufactures an unauthorized operating system called the ‘SX OS,’ and accompanying piracy tools that install it,” the company adds.

The devices Uberchips sells violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, Nintendo says. This includes Team-Xecuter’s SX Pro dongle that was released in 2018, but there’s also a new threat.

Late last year Nintendo released an updated version of the Switch console as well as a Switch Lite version. At the moment these devices are not hackable but that is about to change.

At the and of 2019 Team-Xecutor announced new circumvention tools, the SX Core and SX Lite chips, which will work on all Switch consoles.

SX Core and SX Lite are currently being tested by approved reviewers and some third-party stores have already accepted pre-orders. This is a major problem for Nintendo, which it hopes to resolve in court.

“Together, these new Circumvention Devices threaten to expose more than 35 million additional Nintendo Switch consoles and Nintendo Switch Lite handheld devices to piracy,” the complaint reads.

Uberchips is one of the ‘authorized resellers’ to have already taken pre-orders. Within a day the first batch was sold out, presumably to 342 customers, and two new pre-order batches have followed since.

Nintendo says that this will cause “tremendous harm” and hopes to stop these sales through this lawsuit. It accuses Uberchips and its owner of trafficking in devices that violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions and want that to stop.

The videogame company is requesting compensation for the damages it has suffered. Just as importantly, however, it also requests an injunction to seize or destroy all circumvention devices.

Nintendo also wants the domain registrar of Uberchips.com to immediately transfer the domain over to its possession. And, on top of that, it would like third-party intermediaries to stop facilitating access to any or all domain names, URLs, and websites through which the defendants infringe Nintendo’s copyrights.

The last request could, in theory, be applied to Internet providers as well. That’s worth noting considering the renewed interest in site blocking in the US. Nintendo is not new to this either having previously obtained a blocking injunction against Team-Xecuter domains in the UK.

There is no solid evidence that Nintendo has similar plans for the US, but it’s worth keeping in mind.

The second lawsuit, filed late last week in Washington, is nearly identical. It targets eight stores – Anxchip.com, Axiogame.com, Flashcarda.com, Mod3dscards.com, Nx-card.com, Sxflashcard.com, Txswitch.com, and Usachipss.com – which are all accused of selling circumvention devices.

One key difference is that the operators of these sites are unknown. Nintendo suspects that they are not located in the US, but has no further information at this point.

In addition to trafficking in circumvention devices, five of these stores are also accused of copying and distributing copyright-infringing content, as they sell pirated games as well.

Similar to the Uberchips case, Nintendo requests compensation for the losses it has suffered and asks for injunctions to stop the activity, destroy the products, and to seize or block the associated domain names.

—

TorrentFreak obtained copies of the legal paperwork. The complaint against Tom Dilts, Jr. and Uberchips, LLC, filed in an Ohio federal court, is available here. The complaint against the other eight stores, filed in the District of Washington, can be found here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also help you to find the best anonymous VPN.

French video game company Ubisoft is one of the most well-known brands in the industry.

Its franchises including Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Just Dance, and the Tom Clancy series contributed to revenues of almost 1.6 billion euros in its last financial year but according to the gaming giant, one of its competitors is trading off that success.

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege (R6S) has a reported 60 million players clocking up more than a billion session days in 2019-2020. However, the emergence of a direct clone of this smash-hit produced by a Hong Kong-based company has prompted Ubisoft to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States.

Filed in a California district court on Friday, the complaint targets game developer Ejoy which conducts business under the brand Qookka Games. Ubisoft alleges that the company’s mobile game Area F2 is an illegal direct rip-off of R6S from the ground up, from the story to gameplay mechanics and beyond.

“That AF2 is a near carbon copy of R6S cannot seriously be disputed. Virtually every aspect of AF2 is copied from R6S, from the operator selection screen to the final scoring screen, and everything in between,” the complaint reads.

“This copying includes, but is not limited to, R6S’s storytelling as expressed in the way in which games unfold in real-time; the player-controlled ‘operators’ (including their special abilities and weapons loadouts) and the selection and arrangement of those operators; the collection, selection, and arrangement of weapons, gadgets, and equipment available to players and specific operators.”

Many games in the same niche can share a lot of similarities but Ubisoft says AF2 goes much further by copying the design of its maps, gaming surfaces, object interactions, sound effects and animations, even going as far as closely duplicating the advertising and marketing material for RS6.

While the main target of the lawsuit is Ejoy (which according to the complaint is owned by Alibaba), both Google and Apple are also named as defendants. According to Ubisoft, this is because despite filing complaints with the companies, neither removed AF2 from their stores and instead continued to profit from its distribution.

Ubisoft alleges that it informed Google on April 28/29 via a DMCA complaint that AF2 infringed its copyrights in R6S and that by continuing to distribute the title via Google Play, Google was infringing those rights too. On May 11, however, Google told Ubisoft that it would not be removing the game from the Play store.

Around the same time, Ubisoft filed a similar DMCA complaint with Apple which reportedly forwarded the complaint to Ejoy. In common with Google, Apple also failed to remove the game from its App Store.

Ubisoft says that both Google and Apple are profiting from every copy of AF2 distributed via their platforms. AF2 is free to play but according to the lawsuit the game actively targets the existing userbase for R6S, relying on revenue generated by in-app purchases of which Google and Apple take around 30%.

“Ubisoft is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Google and Apple have received (and as long as AF2 remains available will continue to receive) substantial revenue in connection with the game, and further, that each either has sent or intends to send a portion of that revenue to a foreign bank account maintained by Ejoy and to retain the remainder for itself as profit,” the complaint notes.

Ubisoft says that by creating and distributing AF2, all defendants are willfully infringing its copyrights in R6S and authorizing others to reproduce the title in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101.

In respect of Google and Apple, their failure to remove AF2 from their respective stores, despite receiving notice from Ubisoft, means that they have “actual and constructive knowledge” of the infringement and since they obtain a financial benefit from that infringement, are not able to claim safe harbor under Section 512 of the DMCA.

As a result, Ubisoft says it is entitled to statutory damages up to a maximum of $150,000 for each copyright infringed (or actual damages and defendants’ profits) plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

To curtail the ongoing infringement, Ubisoft is also demanding preliminary and permanent injunctions against all defendants and anyone acting in concert with them, including but not limited to Internet service providers.

The complaint can be obtained here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also help you to find the best anonymous VPN.

In a world where playing music or watching videos on-demand is the standard, downloading torrents can seem quite cumbersome.

This is particularly true for people who are new to file-sharing. Why would I install software to download a small file that then downloads a larger file, you hear them think.

The hesitation is understandable and the good news is that there are many ways to download torrents in a regular web browser. We already addressed this topic thirteen! years ago. But, since all the older options are now defunct, we’ll revisit the topic once more.

Below are some of the browser torrenting options that work in 2020, each with a small description and a list of pros and cons.

1. WebTorrent

For the name alone we have to start with WebTorrent, which was specifically created to integrate BitTorrent with the browser. The technology impressed Netflix and there are dozens of projects that use the code to make it easy for people to share files in a browser. WebTorrent’s Instant.io is a good example of a basic client.

Another more feature-rich WebTorrent client is βTorrent, which also operates its own tracker. This web client allows people to select files, set download priorities, or seed files to share with others.

Pros: It works anywhere, without the need to install separate software or to register an account.

Cons: WebTorrent relies on WebRTC, which has to be supported and enabled in the browser. Also, since communication between peers relies on WebRTC it can’t communicate with standard clients by default.

2. uTorrent and BitTorrent Web

For more than a decade, uTorrent and BitTorrent were standalone applications with no connection to the browser. That changed recently. Parent company BitTorrent Inc. is now pushing the browser versions of these clients, which come with all the features one would expect from a standalone client.

Like many other browser solutions, they allow users to stream torrents directly in the browser too. When enough people are sharing a file and there is plenty of bandwidth available, videos can be streamed near enough instantly.

uTorrent Web

Pros: Well-known brands with all the features most people desire in a torrent client. Quick to connect to other clients.

Cons: You have to install a separate application. The interface promotes “trending videos” from Ddlive.tv.

3. Seedr

Seedr‘s tagline is “get stuff instantly.” It is a browser-based service where you can add torrents which will then be downloaded through Seedr’s servers. This means that other downloaders won’t see your IP-address, making the process more anonymous. And if the file has already been downloaded by someone else, it will show up instantly.

When a download is finished at Seedr’s end you can download the files to your computer, stream them directly in the browser, or cast to your TV via Chromecast or Airplay. The service works in any browser without having to install a separate application. Users will first have to register, however, and the free tier is limited to 3GB in storage.

Seedr

Pros: Fast, downloads anywhere, and more anonymity than regular torrent clients.

Cons: It requires an account and the free plan comes with limitations.

4. Cloud downloaders

Seedr introduces us to a vast array of cloud downloading services. Put.io, for example, which has been around for over a decade. In addition to torrents, it also supports downloading from YouTube, while it integrates with many other services and apps including Chromecast, Roku, iOS, and Kodi.

Other Cloud downloaders such as Premiumize.me go a step further, allowing people to download much more than just torrents. This premium service also supports Usenet downloads and can grab files from several file-hosting services. Like other cloud downloaders, it integrates with many apps, services, and devices.

Put.io

Pros: Fast, nothing to install, relatively anonymous.

Cons: No free options and an account is required.

Brave

When we first addressed this topic in 2007, Opera was one of our top suggestions. It was far ahead of its time when it first supported torrent downloads. Interestingly, torrent support was dropped around 2013, pretty much out of nowhere.

Luckily, there’s a good browser that still allows users to download torrents natively. The Brave browser, which also blocks trackers and intrusive ads, has a private browsing mode that relays your traffic through Tor. This is certainly the most convenient option of all if you already use it.

Brave

Pros: It works out of the box, is free, and doesn’t require an account.

Cons: You will possibly have to install another browser. Controls and features are very limited.

Extensions and Addons

Browser extensions and addons to download torrents were very popular early on. Today, it’s hard to find a good and stable one. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any helpful extensions out there. Torrent Control, for example.

Torrent control allows people to easily add files to your torrent client, without having to use the application. This works with all clients that have a remote interface, including uTorrent, Transmission, BiglyBT and BitTorrent. This also allows you to add torrents remotely, from work, school, or on the road.

There are similar add-ons available for other browsers as well, including Chrome, which offers .torrent to Transmission and the Easy uTorrent addon.

Torrent Control

Pros: It can be quick and simple. Allows for remote downloading.

Cons: Not all extensions are regularly updated. Remote downloading still requires a torrent client.

—

That it’s. There are plenty of options available for people to use a browser to download torrents. What’s right for you mostly depends on how you plan to consume content. We’ll take another good look at the available options in 2033.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also help you to find the best anonymous VPN.

There are hundreds of places around the Internet inhabited by content pirates. From dedicated forums and chat channels attached to file-sharing sites to more public entities like Reddit, discussion about piracy isn’t difficult to find.

Reddit’s /r/piracy sub-Reddit, for example, is both huge, public, and intriguing. To outsiders, its 534,000+ members are hardcore content pirates who will copy anything digital, in any way humanly possible. But that only describes a sub-set of the population.

For those who stick around long enough, a more diverse mix can be discerned. While the place is clearly inhabited by some who flat-out refuse to buy anything, there are also plenty of contributors who appear to buy content but pirate on the odd occasion, to supplement an already expensive monthly outlay. Reasons to pirate can be seen everywhere and are often expressed by posters.

Some of the most common and recurring posts are now titled/flaired “dAtS wHy I pIrAtE!!!” These can range from a picture of an empty wallet to memes bemoaning security systems such as Denuvo. Dozens of variants can be found, such as the timeless classic of depriving increasingly ‘greedy’ corporate entities of cash to ensure they don’t “take over the world”.

When put under the microscope, however, do they stand up to scrutiny? As personal reasons to pirate, they are all legitimate, as legitimate as something can be when it’s illegal, of course. But as strict justification, as a solid argument that piracy is actually a reasonable response to a complicated set of negative circumstances and perceptions, things begin to get interesting.

This week one Reddit user attempted to put every reason why someone might pirate into a single post and while the list seems pretty comprehensive, it fails – as this article will too – to cover every possible angle. That is because everyone is different or, as some will argue, the reasons aren’t reasons at all but merely excuses to pirate.

It will come as no surprise that not being able to afford content comes at the top of the list. It is the most enduring reason for piracy since piracy began but one that can be viewed from another angle too. Is it always about not having the money, period, or is it often about saving that money so it can be spent elsewhere on things that can’t be obtained for free?

This leads to another infamous theory, the one regarding the so-called ‘lost sale’. If people genuinely have no money, then there isn’t a lost sale. If they do have money but choose not to spend it, that raises questions of whether something was lost as a result of that instance of piracy and why another business sector, one selling alcohol or sneakers, for example, has more right to that revenue than content creators.

Ah, content creators…and distributors. Now there’s an interesting bunch. There can be little doubt that video services like Netflix and Disney+ and gaming platforms like Steam are smash-hits with consumers. They appear to offer content not only at a fair price but also surrounded by a user-friendly experience. At least to some extent they are solving the piracy puzzle by hitting that sweet spot of being pocket-friendly and a pleasure to use. Until they aren’t.

While Netflix aims to release its own content around the world simultaneously, its country-specific libraries are a constant pain in the neck for consumers. How many times have Netflix customers read online that a show is available to stream and yet when they try to find it, it’s unavailable in their region? These geo-restrictions seem absolutely ridiculous to Joe Public and while they don’t provide a cast-iron reason to pirate, some people – arguably quite rightly – feel justified in obtaining that content for free.

After all, they’re being short-changed, aren’t they?

The problem here is that while there are genuine business reasons for geo-blocking due to licensing issues, people with access to piracy sources have very little time or sympathy for them. The same is true for DRM on games, which may prevent a certain amount of piracy but only affects legitimate buyers. By their very nature, pirated games come without DRM. It isn’t difficult to see why people feel aggrieved at being punished for being a loyal customer and why excuses for piracy suddenly become justifications.

Justification for piracy is perhaps most keenly witnessed among people who already invest significant sums on official content and media every month but then find themselves backed into a corner on specific items they’d like to experience. With budgets only stretching so far, why would anyone be happy to subscribe to yet another service to access a single TV show ‘exclusive’ when that is all they want from the platform?

Equally, why would someone happily subscribe to a massive TV package in order to access a single channel that gets watched for an hour each week, purely because the TV company insists on selling an overpriced bundle that it refuses to split? Is this a reason to pirate or is it a justification? Indeed, after spending all of their available funds on official media, does accessing this TV channel for free even represent a ‘lost sale’ now?

Like all of the other questions in this niche, the answer is not straightforward. In fact, we’re dealing with a moving target here. Once we determine that this is a lost sale in the example above and then decide to shift the available funds from one company to another, the consumer loses out by paying for things he doesn’t want, loses out by losing access to things that he does, and generally walks away feeling disappointed.

And disappointed customers are bad things. Disappointed customers, those who feel like they’ve been exploited or taken for granted, can turn against companies long-term. Then, as if by magic, their excuses to pirate suddenly become their personal and solid justifications to pirate, which could last for a very long time. But, not only that, it might lead them down the track of paying for even less media, media that they are now particularly militant about obtaining for free.

So, do justifications for content piracy really hold up under scrutiny? Well, it’s a question of personal perspective but broadly, some do and some don’t. Others absolutely don’t, while others are borderline. The argument always remains that if someone has created something the least people can do is pay for it, or not “steal it” in industry parlance. Perhaps the real question is this: does it really make any difference why people pirate to the people who do it?

Multi-billion dollar content companies and smaller players alike already know what they must do to win and maintain business while converting pirates. They have to deliver the best product they can and ensure that the offer is perceived as good value for money by customers. Perhaps most importantly of all, they must never offer a product that is inferior to piracy in any significant way and then, when they have customers on board, they shouldn’t take them for granted.

Because when they do, reasons to pirate are tossed aside and people start to feel justified in not buying the real thing. That’s when the real problems begin.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also help you to find the best anonymous VPN.