On June 13, 2019, the Covert Development and Disruption Team of the UK’s North West Regional Organised Crime Unit arrested an individual said to be responsible for an allegedly-infringing Kodi add-on.

The unit revealed that the 40-year-old man was detained in Winsford, Cheshire, following an investigation in cooperation with the Federation Against Copyright Theft. The add-on was unnamed but was reportedly configured to supply illegal online streams.

When TorrentFreak tried to fill in the gaps, considerable circumstantial evidence pointed to the likelihood that the arrested man was connected to the Supremacy add-on repository. Today we are in a position to confirm that belief following discussion with FACT director general Kieron Sharp.

Since there are limitations on what can be discussed when a case is ongoing, we asked Sharp why the matter had been referred to the authorities. There have been numerous instances of add-on developers in the UK being served with private cease-and-desist notices so why was this case different and why did it warrant an organized crime unit getting involved?

“This was a decision taken by FACT who advised rights holders such as PL [Premier League], Sky, BT Sport and VM [Virgin Media] that police action was the most proportionate response to the level of damage and harm that was being caused by these entities,” Sharp explains.

“Other industry groups have used different tactics which are reasonable in certain circumstances, but FACT have the partnerships in LEA’s [law enforcement agencies] to enable this type of action to be considered.”

Sharp says that when FACT presented its evidence to the police, they considered the case serious enough to take action, which resulted in the individual operating as ‘Supremacy’ being arrested.

FACT’s director general rejects the notion that handing a case over to the police is the easy option, insisting that a referral to the authorities requires that an investigation takes place to particular standards.

“To get any LEA to act in these matters requires a high level of evidence. Given the pressure on LEA resources and many other priorities, FACT are very careful in which cases they will approach LEA’s with and have many other strategies for disrupting illegal activity which are used constantly,” Sharp says.

In the wake of the arrest, several other Kodi add-on repositories shut down, presumably due to fears of similar action. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by FACT, with Sharp noting that several strategies to disrupt piracy are deployed with the results taken on board.

“[I]t would appear, from their own comments, that the action has panicked the others. This is not uncommon but more often seen after a criminal conviction. It shows that action needs to be taken and that it can have an impact on the piracy problem. There is no one solution so a range of tactics have to be tried and implemented and the outcomes monitored,” Sharp concludes.

There can be little doubt that the involvement of the police in the shutdown of a Kodi repository and associated add-ons is somewhat of a game-changer in the UK. Where once a sternly-worded letter may have been a warning sign, there is now a worrying precedent for those engaged in similar activity.

What the final charges will be in this case, if any, remain unclear. However, FACT has a history of pursuing convictions under the Fraud Act, which can carry harsher sentences than those actioned under copyright law.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

With millions of dedicated fans around the world, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events are extremely popular.

They are also relatively expensive and as a result, unauthorized broadcasts are thriving.

For most popular fight cards, dozens of dedicated pirate streams are queued up via unauthorized IPTV services, streaming torrents, and streaming sites, in the latter case often masked with an overlay of ads. At the same time, unauthorized rebroadcasts also appear on more traditional Internet platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

This is a thorn in the size of rightsholders, including the UFC, which dominates the MMA fighting scene. To tackle the problem the UFC has employed various anti-piracy strategies. Most recently, it contracted Stream Enforcement, a company that specializes in taking down pirated broadcasts.

In addition, the MMA promoter also involves itself in the lawmaking process. Just a few weeks ago, UFC General Counsel Riché McKnight, shared his anti-piracy vision with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

One of the main goals for the UFC is to criminalize unauthorized streaming. Unlike downloading, streaming is currently categorized as a public performance instead of distribution, which is punishable as a misdemeanor, instead of a felony.

The Senators made note of this call, which was shared by another major sports outfit, the NBA. They also had some additional questions, however, which McKnight could answer on paper later, so it could be added to the record.

These answers, which were just published, show that the UFC is not satisfied with how some social media companies and other online services address the pirate streaming issue.

McKnight explains that the UFC has takedown tool arrangements with several social media companies, but adds that online platforms have neglected its requests to combat illegal streaming more effectively.

“We believe communication, coordination, and cooperation could be greatly improved. Our general experience is that those subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) use it as a floor and do the minimum required to be in compliance,” McKnight notes.

The UFC notes that Facebook recently bettered its communication and ‘slightly’ improved its takedown response but overall, more could be done. However, most online services appear to be reluctant to voluntarily do more than the law requires, which means that in order to trigger change, the law should change.

“Private, voluntary partnerships [with online platforms] are not sufficient to combat online piracy. Addressing this problem requires a new approach that includes a strong legal framework, a combination of private and public enforcement, and enhanced cooperation with our international partners,” McKnight writes.

Criminalizing streaming is a step forward, according to the UFC. However, that doesn’t affect the platforms that host these streams, as these are protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions.

According to the UFC’s General Counsel, Congress should consider other options as well. In particular, changes to the legal framework that will motivate social media companies and other online platforms to proactively prevent piracy.

“Congress should examine how best to properly incentivize platform providers to protect copyrighted online streaming content,” McKnight writes.

“Transitioning from a reactive ‘take down’ regime to a proactive ‘prevention’ regime would better protect and enhance a vibrant online ecosystem,” he adds.

McKnight specifically mentions policies to effectively ban repeat infringers, which is already part of the DMCA, but not always properly implemented.

While not specifically mentioned, the words “proactive” and “prevention” are reminiscent of the EU’s Article 17, which could potentially lead to upload filters.  The UFC doesn’t reference filters here, but other rightsholders have in the past.

Later this year, the US Copyright Office is expected to issue a report on the effectiveness of the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. This will be based on input from a variety of stakeholders, some of which discussed filtering requirements.

The UFC hopes that the Copyright Office report will further help Congress to shape a more effective legal framework to tackle online streaming.

—

A copy of the written responses to the questions from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

While no longer the most visited ‘pirate’ site on the Internet, The Pirate Bay arguably remains the most recognizable brand. As a result, the platform has been at the center of dozens of legal processes around the world, each designed to make the platform less accessible to the public.

Aside from direct actions to take the site down, all of which have failed, the torrent index regularly finds itself listed in lawsuits and complaints which aim to force Internet service providers to block consumer access to the site.

Back in 2015, Spain was added to that expanding list when local ISP Vodafone admitted that following a government complaint, it had rendered the site’s main domain inaccessible.

According to the Ministry of Culture and Sport, procedures took place between June 2014 and November 2018 to block several associated domains, including those ending in .se, .org, .net, and .com. It now appears the government is attempting to finish the job.

Following a procedure initiated by rights holders represented by the Association of Intellectual Rights Management (AGEDI) and music group Promusicae (Productores de Música de España) and a subsequent request from the Commission of Intellectual Property (also known as the Anti-Piracy Commission) the central courts of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National Court have authorized additional blocking.

The Ministry of Culture and Sport hasn’t detailed the precise targets but describes them as more than 60 additional domains/sites that are allegedly linked to the notorious torrent site. The site itself isn’t believed to operate that many alternative domains so it’s likely they’re proxies, mirrors and clones that utilize The Pirate Bay’s familiar branding.

“This massive blocking of web pages that, under the brand ThePirateBay, were illegally using the rights of our artists and creators, has an exemplary value for us because it shows that even with the greatest pirates who try repeatedly to circumvent the mechanisms of defense of copyright, the system of the Anti-Piracy Commission works,” says Adriana Moscoso del Prado, general director of Cultural Industries and Cooperation at the Ministry of Culture and Sports.

The government department says the order requires local Internet service providers to block subscriber access to the domains within 72 hours of being notified of the court order. Notifications were sent out yesterday meaning that ISPs should have blockades in place well before the end of the week. It is not yet clear which ISPs have been notified.

The Ministry of Culture notes that the Anti-Piracy Commission has to date targeted 479 sites but the overwhelming majority (92.69%) have removed infringing content once they’ve been officially notified. The Pirate Bay never removes any infringing content so faced with that intransigence, the authorities targeted it with judicial blocking orders, including the one handed down yesterday.

Following a complaint by several Hollywood studios, a similar order was handed down just a few days ago targeting Spanish-language sites Exvagos1.com, Seriesdanko.to, Seriespapaya.com, Cinecalidad.to , Repelis.live, Pelispedia.tv, Cliver.tv, Descagasdd.com and Pepecine.me.

Earlier this year, a local court ordered the country’s largest Internet service providers to begin blocking seven torrent sites including 1337x and LimeTorrents.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Founded in 2007, SeriesYonkis was a Spanish site where users could find links to pirated copies of the latest movies and TV-shows.

It was particularly popular in Spanish speaking territories. This caused concern among rightsholders, including Hollywood’s major movie studios.

A the end of 2013, the MPAA highlighted SeriesYonkis as one of the most prolific pirate sites on the Internet. This referral was taken on by the office of the US Trade Representative, which put the site on its lists of “notorious” pirate sites a few months later.

In Spain, the pressure was also mounting. Following complaints from rightsholders, local law enforcement picked up the case. This eventually resulted in criminal charges against four men.

All defendants were believed to have a stake in SeriesYonkis, as well as the sister sites PeliculasYonkis and VideosYonkis, at some point.

Defendant Alberto G. S. reportedly operated the sites during the early years. He sold them in 2011 to the second defendant Alexis H., who partnered with the two remaining defendants, Jordi T. and David M., before selling the sites again in 2014.

The case was partly built on evidence gathered by local film industry group EGEDA and the Spanish Anti-Piracy Federation (FAP), which represented the rights of MPAA members including Paramount, Sony, Universal, Walt Disney, and Warner Bros.

The movie companies claimed massive losses of over half a billion dollars ($560m) and following a trial in Murcia earlier this year, the prosecutor requested prison sentences of up to two years for the defendants’ involvement as facilitators of copyright infringement.

After months of relative silence, Judge Isabel María Carrillo Sáez of the Criminal Court of Murcia decided not to follow this recommendation. Instead, the Judge acquitted the four defendants, concluding that they are not liable for any of the alleged copyright infringements.

According to the Judge, the described offenses were not considered a crime when they took place.

“There was no explicit definition of these behaviors before. It was criminalized by the legislator in 2015,” the verdict reads, adding that the indirect financial benefits the operators received are not enough to warrant a criminal conviction.

As the sentence suggests, linking sites were widely regarded as being legal, or at least in a grey area. That changed in 2015 when Spain updated its copyright law. However, the alleged crimes took place before the new legislation took effect. By then, the three sites had already stopped linking, following an agreement with anti-piracy group FAP.

David Maeztu, the lawyer of defendant Alex H. informs TorrentFreak that his client was aware of the changing legal landscape.

In fact, the updated copyright law was one of the reasons why he ultimately sold the website. The sale also included a provision that the future owner wouldn’t allow users to add links.

The defendants are happy with the outcome, but despite the positive news, their legal battle isn’t over yet.

The Spanish newspaper El Pais reports that movie industry group EGEDA will file an appeal at Murcia’s Provincial Court. In a statement, the disappointed group says that it hopes to have the verdict overturned.

EGEDA cites jurisprudence from the EU Court of Justice which, based on the 2001 Copyright Directive, ruled that linking can create liability under some circumstances. In addition, the current verdict makes it clear that the sites helped to make pirated content available, the group notes.

“The sentence recognizes that the defendants made audiovisual content, both movies and TV series, available to the public via the Internet through links, without permission, By doing so, they obtained revenues in excess of 900,000 euros through advertising,” the statement adds.

The SeriesYonkis domain name is still around today. However, it is no longer operated by any of the defendants and doesn’t link to any copyright infringing content, as it used to.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN is well known for numerous actions against various players in the piracy ecosystem.

The company’s targets have included big sites – The Pirate Bay, for example – through to various individuals and groups that facilitate access to infringing content online. In 2016, that included Netherlands-based torrent release team, 2Lions.

2Lions uploaded thousands of torrents to several popular sites including The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents, 1337x, ExtraTorrent, and Demonoid. This attracted the attention of BREIN which targeted several members of the group.

In a 2016 legal process in which the individuals had no input, BREIN obtained ex parte injunctions which prohibited three members of the 2Lions team from infringing the copyrights of BREIN’s members on pain of a 2,000 euros per day fine. That led to negotiations with the team.

In addition to removing as many of their uploaded torrents as possible, the three individuals (and two other team members) agreed to pay BREIN 15,000 euros each as part of a settlement agreement. It’s now been more than three years since that deal was made but according to BREIN, one team member hasn’t met their obligations.

In a session before the Court of The Hague last week, BREIN sought to force the former uploader to pay up via a collection process, one that is likely to prove even more expensive for the person in question.

According to the anti-piracy group, not only will the individual have to pay the originally agreed amount, he or she will also have to pay for these proceedings and subsequent collection costs. That effectively doubles the amount to be paid to BREIN, a payment it can now enforce following the court process.

Rather than immediately pursue most of its targets through the courts, BREIN has regularly announced that groups, platforms and companies have shut down after reaching settlement agreements. IPTV providers, music pirates, torrent sites, and Usenet indexers have all promised to pay up over the past couple of years.

Given the volume of settlements, BREIN is clearly keen to see them honored. During 2018 alone, the Dutch anti-piracy group reached deals with 31 entities which included promises to settle via payments totaling hundreds of thousands of euros. The action last week suggests BREIN is prepared to enforce such payment, should people fail to meet their obligations.

“BREIN has been working with bailiffs and a debt collection office for some time now to keep track of non-paying infringers,” BREIN chief Tim Kuik said in a statement.

“This can concern payments that have been agreed in settlements or court orders. The results are satisfactory. Those who do not meet their payment obligations will be presented with an extra bill for this.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.