Over the past several years, hundreds of thousands of piracy warnings have been sent out to Canadian pirates under the ‘notice-and-notice’ scheme.

While these notices can no longer include settlement demands, following a recent update in legislation, accused pirates can still get in trouble. Several movie companies have filed for Norwich orders, asking the court to subpoena ISPs to hand over customer information, so they can contact these people directly.

These cases lead to the so-called ‘copyright trolling’ practices we’re seeing elsewhere in the world. They are filed by rightsholders of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Criminal, London Has Fallen, and Dallas Buyers Club. And with hundreds of IP-addresses being targeted per case, their scope is quite broad.

Most ISPs don’t challenge these subpoena requests but in a recent case Internet provider Teksavvy decided to take a stand. When ME2 Productions, the company behind the film Mechanic: Resurrection, requested the personal details of several customers, the ISP decided to appeal.

Among other things, TekSavvy argued that the evidence provided by the copyright holder is not sufficient enough to warrant handing over customer information.

Last week the Federal Court of Canada sided with the Internet provider.  Judge William Pentney concluded that the evidence put forward by the movie company was not sufficient. This is problematic, as it could result in the wrong persons being targeted, he concluded.

“This case illustrates why it is so important for the Court to have the best available evidence,” Judge Pentney writes.

For example, unlike the movie company claimed, it appeared that several of the targeted subscribers never received an initial notice of copyright infringement, which is a requirement in these cases.

“One can easily imagine the reaction of such individuals when this is the first notice they would have received of the matter. This is precisely what Parliament was seeking to avoid when it adopted the notice and notice regime in the Act,” the order reads.

Perhaps even worse, one of the IP-addresses that was listed didn’t even belong to TekSavvy. These and other issues make it clear that subpoenas should only be issued when there’s sufficient evidence.

James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley, who has defended accused file-sharers in the past, notes that this is an important ruling.

“The Federal Court sent a strong message that copyright plaintiffs must put forward ‘the best available evidence’ in order to obtain a Norwich order, or otherwise explain why that evidence is unavailable,” Plotkin says.

Among the issues highlighted in the order is the declaration of Daniel Arheidt, who works for the German BitTorrent tracking outfit Maverickeye. His evidence is at the basis of the clerk’s affidavit, but it’s not a sworn statement, and nor is Mr. Arheidt available for cross-examination.

The court also highlighted the privacy aspect of this case. Specifically, the order states that ISPs have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. While most ISPs chose not to appeal the order, TekSavvy certainly has an interest in doing so.

“TekSavvy is in possession of the personal information of its customers. It has a legal obligation to protect such information and an obvious commercial interest in doing so,” Judge Pentney noted.

This important angle was also raised by Plotkin, who noted that because the accused file-sharers are no party at this stage, their ISPs are the only ones who can protect them.

“The subscribers are not parties to the motion, so they have no say in whether the Norwich order that would force disclosure of their information should issue. The ISPs are the only ones able to look after their subscribers’ interests,” Plotkin says.

In the present case, the court found that several mistakes were made. If TekSavvy didn’t stand up for its customers, the privacy of these people would have been at stake.

“Mistakes like this can result in violations of privacy on the basis of erroneous information furnished to the court by the plaintiff. This might be accidental and not malicious,” Plotkin says.

“But regardless of intent, the court should not countenance corner-cutting by plaintiffs when the privacy interests of subscribers, who are without a voice in the proceeding, are at stake.”

TekSavvy did not immediately reply to our request for comment. In a statement to The Wire Report, the ISP’s vice-president of regulatory affairs, Andy Kaplan-Myrth, said that they are pleased with the decision which confirms that copyright enforcement requires a balance of disclosure and privacy interests.

The Federal Court order is by no means the end of these type of cases. Movie companies and other copyright holders can still request Norwich orders going forward. However, they will have to make sure that they base their requests on the best available evidence.

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

With close to half a billion broadband subscribers, India is undoubtedly a global powerhouse in the connected arena.

Add the thirst of its citizens for free media into the mix and it’s clear why copyright holders are keener than ever stem to tide of pirated content.

Thus far we’ve seen huge numbers of sites blocked following requests to various courts. However, India is now looking to formalize its response to the many thousands of torrent, streaming, and similar sites facilitating access to infringing copies of movies, music, and other digital media.

The latest draft of India’s National E-Commerce Policy outlines various strategies designed to curtail piracy, many of them taken from schemes already active in other regions of the world.

Intermediaries, such as Internet service providers, play a key role in the spread of pirated content but holding them liable for infringement can be difficult. The new draft states that they should “put in place measures to prevent online dissemination of pirate content” although at least for now, those measures are yet to be detailed.

Intermediaries will also be required to identify “trusted entities” who should get priority when it comes to handling copyright complaints. Again, there is no detail on whose those entities might be but one can safely presume that movie companies will be at the forefront, with other content companies close behind.

In any event, “The identification of trusted entity and anti-piracy measures shall be done on a voluntary basis”, suggesting that this element of the draft is not only open interpretation but also might come with an opt-out clause.

The proposed rules seem much tighter when it comes to the actual platforms engaging or facilitating the spread of pirated content.

When notices of infringement are sent by a copyright holder, ISPs will be required to “remove or disable access to the alleged content.” On first inspection, this seems to loosely marry up with the takedown provisions of the DMCA.

India also appears to be mulling a “follow-the-money” approach, which operates on the premise that pirate sites only exist to generate profit for their owners. To this end, stakeholders will first create a list of “rogue websites” that “host predominately pirated content.”

After a verification process, these sites will be added to the “Infringing Websites List” (IWL), an initiative that appears similar to the database of pirate sites operated by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK. This will then allow authorities to take a range of measures to deplete their traffic and reduce revenues.

First up, Internet service providers will be required to “remove or disable access to the websites identified in the IWL within set time-lines.” This differs from the process in the UK where a separate High Court order is required for blocking, even if a site is already present on the list.

Secondly, India seems eager to prevent pirate sites from having access to revenue, whether generated by advertising or via subscriptions. The draft aims to prevent these payments from being processed.

“Rogue websites earn their revenues through online payments made based on a subscription or advertisement revenue models. Such payments have to be routed through Payment Gateways, which shall not permit flow of payments to or from such rogue websites,” the proposals read.

In addition, Indian advertisers and advertising agencies will be forbidden from placing their ads on sites appearing in the Infringing Website List. The proposals don’t indicate how this will be achieved or policed but if models in the UK and Europe are followed, participation is usually via trade group bodies.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, search engines operating in India will be required to “take necessary steps” to ensure that sites listed in the Infringing Website List do not appear in their search results. It is far from clear how this will be carried out or whether foreign companies will be prepared to comply.

Google is by far the dominant search engine in the country with an estimated 95% of the market, so it will be most affected. It has also demonstrated a reluctance to remove links that aren’t clearly infringing but recent movement in Russia shows that the company is prepared to bend, when enough pressure is applied.

Stakeholders are invited to comment on the draft proposals (pdf) by March 9, 2019

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

This week we have three newcomers in our chart.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1	(…)	Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse	8.6 / trailer
2	(2)	Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald	6.8 / trailer
3	(1)	Creed II	7.5 / trailer
4	(…)	Instant Family	7.5 / trailer
5	(3)	Ralph Breaks the Internet	7.2 / trailer
6	(6)	Bohemian Rhapsody	8.3 / trailer
7	(4)	Robin Hood	5.3 / trailer
8	(…)	Green Book	8.3 / trailer
9	(5)	Mortal Engines	6.3 / trailer
10	(10)	Aquaman (Subbed HDRip)	7.7 / trailer

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

It’s no secret that scammers are constantly trying to trick torrent users into downloading malicious content.

These files are generally easy to spot and swiftly removed from well-moderated sites. As such, they are mostly a nuisance for novices.

But, when a well-known uploader with a “trusted’ status on some torrent sites gets involved, things change. Last week we reported that “CracksNow,” who shared tens of thousands of cracked software titles in recent years, had been banned from several sites after posting torrents with ransomware.

While we have reported on the torrent ecosystem for more than a decade, a reputable uploader ‘going rogue’ was something we had never seen before. Was it another sign of a decaying torrent community? Or perhaps an uploader who wanted to “cash in” on his work?

To find out more, we reached out to “CracksNow” days before we published our article. We initially received no response, but this week the uploader contacted us, explaining that there was no malicious intent on his part.

The ransomware was real and it did harm the computers of an unknown number of downloaders. However, CracksNow says he didn’t upload these malicious files. In fact, he went to quite a bit of trouble to ensure that his releases did not trigger any alarm bells.

“I had a person who checked all the files for malware before they were uploaded. All the files were run in a sandbox and were dynamically analyzed for malware,” CracksNow tells us.

When the malware reports kept coming in, resulting in bans for the uploader, the files were checked again. That’s when he noticed that some uploads were different.

“When I was demoted on TorrentGalaxy, I was testing all the files again for malware to see which torrents were infected. During my testing, I discovered that the infohash of the torrent file on my server was different from those on the torrent sites.”

An admin at TorrentGalaxy shared some of the account logs which revealed that CracksNow torrents were being deleted and replaced with new files. These newer files, presumably uploaded by someone else, came with the ransomware which caused all the trouble.

TorrentFreak reached out to TorrentGalaxy admin LRS, who confirmed that the site logs indeed showed that torrents were deleted and reuploaded.

However, by then the damage had already been done. After an admin at 1337x helped TorrentGalaxy by pointing out the ransomware issues, both sites banned the Cracksnow account.

The upload irregularities could mean that CracksNow’s accounts were compromised by an outsider. While this is impossible to verify independently, it sounds like a plausible explanation.

The uploader has no idea how someone managed to get his credentials but he doesn’t want to hide behind any excuses either. Even if someone else uploaded the malware, CracksNow takes full responsibility for what happened.

“It’s my responsibility to keep my account secure and I failed in that. A lot of users who trusted CracksNow got infected and got their files encrypted. I feel really bad about this and I am sorry to everyone who got infected,” CracksNow says.

The result is that the uploader lost his accounts with thousands of torrents at several popular sites, but he understands this as well. There was no way to check which uploads were infected, so deleting everything was the logical option.

“I fully support the decision. All the torrents should be deleted so that nobody else gets infected. I don’t want anyone to get infected because of me. The damage done to the reputation of CracksNow is irreversible. I will never be able to upload on the torrent sites again and I understand that.”

The good news for the uploader is that he still has his own site. However, this was also affected by last week’s news. The site was hacked over the past week and infected with malware. As a result, Google’s ominous red warning banner is now showing up in many web browsers.

While we felt obliged to report CracksNow’s side of the story, we are not passing any judgment one way or the other. It’s impossible to verify the complete backstory. This means that, as always, people should tread with caution, which applies anywhere on the web.

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, Scribd billed itself as the “world’s first open publishing platform.”

In 2013, the platform debuted “the first reading subscription service”, offering readers access to all books for a single flat fee.

The following year, Scribd added audiobooks to its service, later adding access to sheet music and magazines. By 2017, the site had established itself as a base for news articles, publishing works from The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and others under its subscription model.

With an estimated 100 million visitors per month and a place in the world’s top 200 websites, Scribd is now huge. According to the latest company information, it has 700,000 premium subscribers, but not everyone plays by the rules when obtaining content from the service.

Various tools and services enable people to download Scribd content to keep (rather than using the Netflix-like features provided by the platform) and a recent complaint filed with Github shows the company is still looking to plug the leaks.

Scribd-Downloader is a tool created by an India-based student. The 19-year-old says he began coding aged 10, working on various projects since, including YouTube and Spotify downloading tools. But while those remain active, his Scribd tool has now been targeted by the company.

“Scribd, Inc. (www.scribd.com) is an online service that hosts copyrighted material such as documents, books, and audiobooks, that are available to view or listen to on a subscription basis,” the company said in a complaint filed with Github this week.

“Scribd uses digital rights management (‘DRM’) technology to prevent users from downloading or saving copies of this copyrighted material. This takedown request concerns a script hosted on GitHub that allows a user to circumvent Scribd’s DRM technology to make a copy of and download copyrighted material from the Scribd website in violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201.”

17 U.S.C. 1201 deals with the circumvention of copyright protection systems, stating that “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title,” adding that circumvention means “to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.”

In that respect, Scribd-Downloader does appear to breach the DMCA, particularly since its hosted on a US-based platform that must respond to takedown requests when they are appropriately filed. However, the software does have limitations and in some cases still requires a premium account to access all its features.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that Scribd wants to control when and how access to content occurs, something made clear when it notes that “books stored on your device can only be opened through the app and we don’t permit access to a stored book’s file.” Of course, Scribd-Downloader does.

Following the complaint, Github quickly removed Scribd-Downloader from its platform but there are other services and tools around that have the same or similar functionality.

It’s a game of cat-and-mouse that will probably go on for some time, one that underlines the fact that people like to keep hold of content once they’ve paid for it, rather than let it disappear behind a walled garden when subscriptions lapse.

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