After several weeks of absence, The Pirate Bay became accessible again through its main .org domain last weekend.

At first sight the site looked more or less the same but there are some significant changes, both under the hood and in appearance.

Many users immediately noticed that the site doesn’t work well with several ad blockers. Whether this is a bug or a feature is the question, but it was both frustrating and annoying for some.

“Your adblock may block important javascript components, check that main.js is loaded or the webpage won’t work,” a message on The Pirate Bay warns. And indeed, whilelisting this file appears to resolve the problem.

The Pirate Bay’s search results are also presented differently. While it’s still possible to order by date, size, seeders, and leechers, that’s not immediately obvious to everyone. Again, this was cause for some confusion.

It’s safe to say that every new design comes with drawbacks and other changes people have to get used to. However, there’s also a structural change that will be harder to overcome, one that mostly affects copyright holders.

With the new Pirate Bay design also comes a new URL structure. Instead of the old torrent pages that were accessible through thepiratebay.org/torrent/12345, the format has now changed to thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=12345.

Other URLs, including categories, the top lists, and user pages, all updated as well. To give another example, the 100 most-active torrents on the site can now be accessed from thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=top100:all, instead of the old thepiratebay.org/top/all.

For users, this isn’t a problem. All old links simply redirect to new ones. However, for copyright holders, it’s an outright disaster as it means that they will have to resend all their takedown notices. And we’re not talking about a few thousand here, but many millions.

Looking at Google’s transparency report we see that copyright holders have asked the search engine to remove more than five million URLs. Pretty much all of these notices have been rendered useless.

For example, this 2012 takedown notice from Paramount Pictures removed the link to The Pirate Bay’s top 100 video torrents. However, after the update, the same page reappeared under a new URL. Another consideration is that Google is just one search engine, so the same applies to other search engines too.

While that’s already quite bad, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to the millions of URLs of thepiratebay.org, there are also hundreds of millions of Pirate Bay proxy URLs that have changed. All the notices for these sites have to be resent as well.

While search engines need time to pick up all the new links, the first takedown notices are already trickling in. As shown above, this also includes proxy sites.

It is safe to say that The Pirate Bay’s updates are having a more significant impact than it may seem at first sight. While it’s not entirely clear what motivated the changes, they are likely intended to make the site operate more smoothly.

At the time of writing, however, there are still some issues. Comments are not working, for example, and the Tor site is also offline. We tried to get more info from the Pirate Bay team, but thus far we have yet to hear back.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

For as long as people have been able to share decent-sized videos online, there have been clips of people willingly punching each other in the face. This is commonly known as a ‘fight’ and they can be quite entertaining, under the right circumstances.

Some people, however, like to violently attack seemingly innocent parties over the most trivial of things. This is known as ‘assault’ and is never acceptable under any circumstances. That brings us to the horrible yet remarkable events surrounding an incident in 2019 that began awfully, was dealt with heroically and, by some twists of fate, ended up here on TF in a copyright shitstorm.

Last summer, Steve Heflin was on business in Fort Lauderdale to interview prospective employee Mark with a view to hiring him as a new salesman for his Internet infrastructure company. Things went well over dinner and the pair decided to go to a local bar where they first encountered “two guys in suits” sitting at the bar. Steve tells us that after one left the other was involved in a dispute and was asked by the management to leave. Things didn’t go well.

Due to the apparent level of intoxication, the valet wouldn’t return “drunk guy’s” keys, informing him that his car would be safe where it was parked and he should get an Uber home instead. There was an altercation and the valet ended up hiding behind the manager. The confrontation escalated and as can be seen in the video embedded below, something pretty awful happened to the first person in line.

Those who can’t stomach violence probably shouldn’t click. For those that do, Steve is the guy that deals with the assailant to ensure he can’t hurt anyone else – including himself. Mark is the guy who steps in to help later on.

“Not gonna lie – it was surreal,” Steve told TorrentFreak this week. “If I didn’t see the video myself, I would never be able to tell you how I took him down. It was all so fast. I told him to calm down, he swung and next thing you know, we are on the ground. I really was shocked to see it all! Still strange to this day.”

In various edits, this video has been seen by countless thousands of people since last year. Steve has been hailed a hero for the way he handled the situation, receiving positive comments from people who watched the video on platforms including YouTube, Reddit, Vimeo, Facebook, and more.

However, those looking for the video today (Steve provided this copy on a private YouTube link) won’t find it so easily. That’s because (surprise, surprise) someone has been abusing the DMCA to have the content removed.

“I started getting messages from Reddit about me violating copyright laws and using copyrighted content. YouTube – same thing. Viral content advertisers were pinging me asking me for the rights to the video to make it more viral and split the money. I declined them all,” Steve explained.

As the image above shows, the video – that was posted by Steve himself eight months ago (he earned various awards and a custom flair for his trouble) – was removed by Reddit’s legal team because they received a copyright complaint.

Another thread on Reddit, created by someone else but referencing the same video, received a further round of attention after being reposted on the platform. As can be seen here, however, that was also subjected to a copyright complaint. Any other subs that linked to the content (such as /r/bjj) were also denied access following the takedowns.

This pattern continued wherever the video was posted but due to the lack of transparency in respect of who claimed the video as their own, it’s not easy to see who filed the copyright complaints on sites like Reddit, for example. However, two DMCA complaints filed with Vimeo and published on the Lumen Database actually lists the name of the sender.

According to Steve, it matches the name of the guy he took down in the video.

This raises a number of issues, which need to be looked at closely. Could this be someone impersonating “drunk guy”, taking down videos in his name in order to ‘help’ in some way? Perhaps. Could this be the guy himself filing these notices? Also possible but he would need to obtain the copyrights first. Steve says that’s unlikely.

As the video clearly shows, the assailant did not record the video himself since at the time he was either headbutting someone in the face or having his face ground into the floor. In fact, the video was taken by someone else – a woman – who happily handed over a copy to Steve upon request.

A crucial point here is that the existence of the video – which someone is now trying to erase from history – was potentially an absolute life-saver for Steve because after the police took the assailant away, they returned with some pretty serious allegations.

“So by now someone had bought me a beer (my third of the night so I am very sober) and the cops come back inside and want to talk to me. I figure it is a normal Q&A about the incident. Nope. They are asking me who I am with and where my friends are and why I sucker-punched [the assailant],” Steve explained.

“I was like – what? The cop says well, [the assailant] said you and TEN of your friends jumped him and then I sucker-punched him when he wasn’t looking. So now I am on the defense because they want to take me in! Everyone starts chiming in at the same time about what really happened and it is overload with so many people talking.

“Then this one woman plainly says ‘Do you want to see the video?’ I turned and looked at her and said, ‘You took a video?'”

The unavoidable conclusion here is that witness accounts aside, the video proved who was in the wrong and Steve was allowed to go on his way. It’s a piece of evidence recorded by an accidental citizen journalist, evidence that is now being subjected to DMCA complaint after DMCA complaint in an effort to disappear what happened that day.

That, conveniently, leads us to the headline of this article, which wouldn’t have even been written if it hadn’t been for this icing on the cake. On April 9, 2020, an entity describing itself as ‘TECHLAW‘ filed DMCA complaints with Google (1,2) in an effort to have a new thread, referencing a new posting of the video on Reddit, deleted from its indexes.

One was a standard DMCA takedown notice. The other was a highly dubious effort to have another URL removed on the basis that it breaches the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

The massive irony here is that if this latest misguided effort to remove the video hadn’t been filed with Google this week, this entire episode would’ve flown under the radar without piquing our interest. Instead, the anti-circumvention notice stuck out like a sore thumb and led us down this inglorious Streisand-Effect rabbit hole.

The big question now is whether the notice-sender, whoever they may be, will continue in their quest to remove the video – a video they have no right to remove and is only likely to get posted in more and more places in response to the notices.

Whatever happens, Steve isn’t bitter about the events of that night, or the person he had to deal with.

“I truly have nothing against him,” he told us. “I mean, he thought my name was really Denarius…duh. I’m sure we would not get along if we knew each other….that’s no big deal. But what if I saved a life or him from a bad accident, if not that night then another? If no one humbled him and he continued to be a drunk douche? I think of those things.”

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US, stands accused of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.

Several music companies including Capitol Records, Warner Bros. and Sony Music filed a lawsuit last year arguing that the ISP failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts of repeat infringers.

The ISP objected and filed a motion at a Colorado federal court, asking it to dismiss the claim of vicarious copyright infringement. Charter argued that it doesn’t directly profit from pirating subscribers, nor does it have the ability to control them.

Previously, other Internet providers have been successful in getting vicarious infringement claims dropped, but Charter’s attempt failed. In an order released this week, US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson denied the motion to dismiss.

Judge Jackson follows an earlier recommendation from Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty. Charter objected to this recommendation and was backed by an amicus curiae brief from 23 law professors. However, their arguments failed to convince the court.

Among other things, Charter argued that it didn’t profit more from pirating subscribers than from non-pirates. Judge Jackson doesn’t dispute this, but stresses that it’s enough to show that there’s a financial benefit.

“I find no case, and Charter has provided no case, suggesting that Charter must have benefited more from infringing subscribers than from non-infringing subscribers, or that the infringing subscribers paid more than non-infringing subscribers,” Judge Jackson writes.

The ISP also countered that the option that its services can be used for piracy wasn’t the primary “draw” for prospective subscribers. Again, the Judge waves this argument noting that, at this stage, it’s enough to show that piracy was a draw.

“Plaintiffs must only allege that the ability to download their infringing content served as a draw, not necessarily the only draw to subscribers. I find that plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to show that the ability to download infringing content served as a draw.”

In addition to the ‘profit’ and ‘draw’ elements, the music companies also argued that Charter has the ability to supervise and control the activity of pirating subscribers. This is another requirement to prove vicarious infringement.

The ISP disagreed and pointed out that it can’t identify and police pirating subscribers. Even if it would terminate users based on third-party allegations, these people could simply move to another provider and continue, it argued.

Again, Judge Jackson wasn’t convinced. He stresses that it’s irrelevant what users would do at other ISPs and believes that Charter could certainly take action against some infringing subscribers.

“Plaintiffs only seek to hold Charter liable for infringement that occurs through the use of Charter’s services, not all infringement that occurs on the internet,” Judge Jackson writes.

“Charter can certainly limit its subscribers’ ability to infringe by blocking their access to the internet through Charter. I find that this is sufficient to allege that Charter has the ability to control infringement,” he adds

All in all, the Judge sides with the earlier recommendation to deny Charter’s motion to dismiss. This means that the ISP will have to face the vicarious infringement charges. The claim for contributory copyright infringement also remains, as that wasn’t part of the motion to dismiss.

A few weeks ago Charter countersued the music companies for sending inaccurate takedown notices. This matter is still on the Judge’s desk and will be decided in due course.

—

Here is a copy of US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson’s order on Charter’s motion to dismiss the vicarious liability claim.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Once upon a time, prolonged downtime at The Pirate Bay was greeted by wails of concern. Many of the site’s users would naturally presume the worst, that the site had been raided and shut down once again.

In recent years, however, persistent downtime has been a common occurrence that has gradually become the norm. That’s quite possibly a result of the pressure the site finds itself under on a daily basis, i.e constantly ensuring that it doesn’t succumb to the kinds of raids and anti-piracy actions that have hindered it in the past.

That being said, over the last several weeks downtime for regular users has been considerable. While mainly accessible via its .onion address via the Tor network, the clear web variant of the site only returned this week after roughly a month of downtime.

Nevertheless, the return wasn’t straightforward. While anyone with a basic browser setup could access the site as normal, some with a less basic setup – especially in respect of security measures – still had problems accessing the site. Users of the security software MalwareBytes were prevented from accessing any torrents whatsoever, for example.

The problem lay in The Pirate Bay’s setup. Aside from cosmetic changes to some pages, the site sends requests to another domain (apibay.org) in order to present torrents to the user on thepiratebay.org. However, those accessing the main domain with Malwarebytes installed were greeted with blank torrent pages after the security software blocked apibay.org.

Any warning of this type, especially concerning trojans, should be of concern to users of any site. However, dumping trojans on users hasn’t been the modus operandi of The Pirate Bay thus far, so TorrentFreak contacted Malwarebytes to find out what was causing the alert.

Manager of WebProtection Labs at MalwareBytes Andres Ortiz informs TorrentFreak that the issue was caused by the presence of “a few” cryptocurrency miners, not on thepiratebay.org, but on a sub-directory of apibay.org, the domain from where TPB appears to present its torrent results. The analysis for just one example miner is shown below.

After examining the apibay.org domain once again, MalwareBytes has now confirmed that the miners have been removed so in response, they will push an update to their users to stop TPB’s indexes from being blocked moving forward. However, if any party reintroduces the miners, it’s certainly possible that the site will be rendered inaccessible once again.

The Pirate Bay first introduced a coin miner back in 2017 as a way to generate additional revenue. At the time it was estimated it could potentially generate around $12,000 per month from users’ CPU cycles.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

When reviewing the many lawsuits filed against pirate site operators over the years, it’s not unusual to see damages claims running into the tens of millions of dollars. This is largely due to the scale of the alleged infringement and the number of copyrighted works involved.

In recent years many photographers have also sought to enforce their rights, sometimes filing lawsuits for a single image or video, such as in the recent case against Kendall Jenner. However, a case just filed against Comcast-owned NBCUniversal could run to pirate site-levels of damages.

Filed in a New York district court this week by Mark Seliger, the complaint (and subsequent amended complaint) alleges that NBCUniversal Media-owned gossip portal Eonline.com (E!) reproduced the photographer’s famous portraits without permission.

“Seliger is an accomplished and critically acclaimed photographer. His works have appeared in Rolling Stone, GQ, Vogue, and Vanity Fair and he has authored numerous album covers, books, and short films,” the complaint begins.

“He has also created photography in collaboration with global brands like Netflix, Levi’s, and Ralph Lauren. He has won numerous awards, including the Clio Grand Prix and the Cannes Lions Grand Prix, and his works are part of the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and the National Portrait Gallery in London.”

Presenting dozens of iconic celebrity portraits owned by the photographer, the complaint lists page after page of URLs on Eonline.com which allegedly carry these copyrighted works, including those depicting Miley Cyrus, Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Nicky Minaj, Johnny Depp, Jennifer Lopez, Alec Baldwin, Jamie Dornan, Amy Schumer, Bradley Cooper, Katie Holmes, to name just a few.

“Defendants, and each of them, have willfully copied, reproduced, displayed, and distributed the Subject Photography for financial benefit and without Plaintiff’s consent, at and on websites bearing the URLs depicted in Exhibit B hereto,” the complaint notes, adding: “Plaintiff did not consent to said use of the Subject Photography.”

Seliger alleges that the NBCUniversal-owned publication (plus Does 1-10) accessed the copyrighted works from locations such as his website and social media, copied and then reproduced them at the dozens of Eonline.com URLs listed in the complaint. There are many, which means that this lawsuit has the potential, at least on paper, to become extremely expensive for NBCUniversal should the court rule in the photographer’s favor.

Alleging “willful, intentional and malicious” direct copyright infringement, Seliger demands statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. A second claim for relief, alleging vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement, demands the same amount per individual breach of US copyright law.

A third claim states that Seliger’s works are “routinely published with attribution, credit, and other copyright management information” which identify him as the creator. According to the lawsuit, the defendants removed this information and/or added false information before distributing online the photographs online. Citing violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a), the photographer demands unspecified additional damages.

As per the standard in these cases, Seliger further demands an injunction preventing the defendants from continuing to infringe his rights plus costs, attorneys’ fees, and a trial by jury.

The complaint and first amended complaint can be found here (1,2 pdf)

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.