Following the example of the United States, the EU now has its very own piracy watch list.

The plan was first announced in January by the European Commission, which asked various stakeholders for input.

This eventually resulted in a 40-page report in which various pirate sites and third-party intermediaries are identified. There’s a fair bit of overlap with the US report, as both highlight familiar brands such as The Pirate Bay and Rapidgator.

The goal of the report is similar as well.

“The aim is to encourage the operators and owners as well as the responsible local enforcement authorities and governments to take the necessary actions and measures to reduce the availability of IPR infringing goods or services on these markets,” it reads.

Initially, we saw the EU watchlist as yet another pirate site overview, but on closer inspection, something stood out. The list mentions 1channel.ch as a pirate site.

“1channel.ch (previously Primewire.ag) is one of the most visited linking or referrer sites globally offering links to allegedly illicit copies of blockbuster films and television programmes,” it reads.

1channel.ch

According to the report, the notorious pirate site has an Alexa rank of 1,238, with more than 531.8 million visits during an undefined period. Certainly not something to sniff at.

This mention stands out because 1channel.ch hasn’t been a “pirate” site since late 2017, when the domain was bought by Marshall Domains LTD. The company in question specializes in buying domain names in auction that the previous owner has allowed to expire and are expected to generate a decent amount of traffic, which is monetized in various ways.

TorrentFreak spoke to the owner, David Marshall, who also happens to own the Primewire.ag domain that was mentioned in the EU’s watchlist. Both domains were bought in an auction and now link to 123movies.com.

“I noticed that 1channel.ch was expiring and backordered it at various places such as park.io and realtime.at, as I knew they would still be receiving valuable type-in traffic that could be monetised legally,” Mr. Marshall says.

While 123movies is a pirate brand as well, Mr. Marshall’s version tries to do the opposite. It’s a movie information portal with Amazon Prime affiliate links in some locations, hoping to turn lost pirates into paying customers.

123movies.com

To be fair, this redirect was not in place when the research for the watchlist report was conducted. This took place between 18 June and 20 July 2018. However, 1channel.ch already linked to a parked page or an advertising feed at the time and was no longer a pirate site.

In addition, the EU Commission notes that their watchlist includes “examples of reported marketplaces or service providers whose operators or owners are allegedly resident outside the EU.” However, a simple Whois search would have shown that Mr. Marshall’s business is in the UK.

As for the Primewire.ag domain, that was not serving any pirated content during the stated research period either, although that domain wasn’t bought at an auction until August 2018.

It’s unclear how both domains ended up in the report. They were both linked to pirate sites in the past but it’s likely that the commission put too much focus on outdated info.

Mr. Marshall says tells TorrentFreak that the legal 1channel.ch certainly doesn’t have more than a quarter billion visits, nor is it hosted in Switzerland, or masked behind a reverse proxy service, as the EU watchlist claims.

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

In recent years it has become much easier to stream movies and TV-shows over the Internet.

Legal services such as Netflix and HBO are flourishing, but millions of people are streaming from unauthorized sources as well, often paired with perfectly legal streaming platforms and devices.

Hollywood insiders have dubbed this trend “Piracy 3.0” and are actively working with stakeholders to address the threat. Just a few weeks ago, the MPAA called on the FTC to bring actions for unfair and deceptive trade practices against services that market pirate streaming devices.

In addition, several lawsuits have been filed against box sellers including Dragon Box and SetTV. The same is true for websites that offered the pirate app “Showbox,” many of which have since ceased operating.

Still, one doesn’t have to look hard to find dubious boxes elsewhere. The problem is that many of these devices are perfectly legitimate, but when they’re preloaded with ‘pirate’ apps they can become a problem.

This was brought to our attention again recently when we saw several articles appearing on websites of stations owned by the Americal media broadcaster Tegna.

The articles in question, posted by NBC affiliate stations such as KGW8, 9News, KSDK WKYC and others, promote a streaming box as an ideal “cord cutting” device. The HK1 streaming box “unlocks hundreds of free movies,” they note.

KGW8 Article

The review is written by freelance consumer reporter Matt Granite, also known as the Deal Boss, and is posted with a video of the “award-winning” box in action.

What caught our eye is that this box appears to ship with “Showbox,” a known pirate application that allows users to stream free movies. Another app that’s included is “Mobdro,” which offers access to live streaming channels, often without permission.

The apps are clearly visible in the short review video embedded with the articles. This video also appeared on the TV stations themselves.

Showbox.. Netflix… Mobdro

A full review of the box, hosted on YouTube, was removed while we were writing this article. In this video, the Deal Boss showcased the Showbox app but no movies were played. Mobdro was also reviewed, although it wasn’t entirely clear whether all live streams were authorized.

The problem is that these boxes can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. However, promoting a device that ships with known pirate apps may not be a good idea, especially not for a mainstream media outlet.

TorrentFreak spoke to IP attorney Kerry Culpepper, who works with several movie companies. He also has his doubts regarding the legality of this box “promotion.”

“In this video and the article, the gentleman appears to promote the HK1 box for infringing purpose by repeatedly emphasizing that it can be used to watch free movies. The video clearly shows the HK1 box display with icons of well-known piracy applications such as Showbox,” Culpepper says.

“I am curious as to how the HK1 box can allow someone to watch free movies without using these piracy applications. Based upon this video and article, the HK1 box appears to be one among many piracy boxes.”

The Tegna stations and The Deal Boss do not explicitly encourage anyone to pirate content. However, promoting a device with pirate apps, and profiting from it, might not be a good idea.

Culpepper tells us that one of his clients, the company behind the movie Hitman’s Bodyguard, has asked him to look into it.

“My client Bodyguard Productions invested substantial financial resources, time and effort in the making their movie Hitman’s Bodyguard. Accordingly, we are concerned when devices are promoted for the purpose of infringing copyright protected movies. We have sent a letter to the station expressing our concerns,” Culpepper says.

At the time of writing, the articles and promo videos are still up on all the Tegna stations we checked. As mentioned before, the full review no longer appears on YouTube, but it’s unclear why that was removed.

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

In many developed countries, rightsholders are in dispute with search engines over the appearance of pirated content in search results and other indexes.

Back in August, TV companies under the Gazprom-Media umbrella filed complaints at the Moscow City Court, demanding that Yandex remove links to infringing content. Yandex initially refused to comply but under threat of ISP blocking, eventually took preventative action.

In September, the TV channels filed another four lawsuits against Yandex. The companies asked the Court to order the search provider to “stop creating technical conditions that ensure the placement of [infringing] works on the Yandex.ru website.”

At the time, it was reported that the underlying aim of Gazprom Media was to reach a settlement agreement with Yandex, which would see the search company take action against infringing content. That aim, it seems, is well on the way to being achieved.

The press service of Gazprom reports that settlement agreements have been reached in four lawsuits, two featuring TV3 and Super TV and another two featuring TNT and 2×2.

The settlements are directly linked to the landmark Memorandum of Cooperation signed by Russia’s most powerful tech companies and several major media companies early November.

The agreement will see the formation of a central database of infringing sites which will provide information on what content tech companies should remove from their indexes. The database will be queried every few minutes, with search platforms removing infringing links visible in Russia within six hours.

Commenting on the settlements, Gazprom Media said that the cooperation agreement signed last month represents another important step towards “the development of civilized content consumption.”

Reports circulating mid-November indicated that Yandex had already started to comply with the memorandum’s terms by deleting links to infringing content.

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

Over the past two decades, the Software Alliance (BSA) has represented major software companies including Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, in their fight against under-licensed businesses.

This has resulted in audits at thousands of companies worldwide, whose computers are carefully inspected to see if the business owner has failed to pay his or her dues.

Some of these audits have been controversial and the evidence collection process has raised eyebrows as well. Especially BSA’s explicit attempts to convince people to report companies in exchange for hard cash.

In recent years, the industry group has actively solicited such tips from the public. Legitimate leads are then followed up with a thorough investigation or audit, something many companies are contractually obliged to agree to.

If unlicensed software is found during an audit, BSA tries to negotiate a settlement. This is what happened with an unnamed Australian manufacturing company, CRN reports.

It’s not clear what type of software was used improperly. What we do know is that the ‘tip’ came from an anonymous informant who presumably works or worked at the company in question.

“We work in a competitive industry and while we’re all trying to get ahead, it didn’t feel right using infringing copies of software to give the business an unfair competitive advantage,” the informant reportedly told BSA.

“The decision to report the business ultimately came down to my personal morals and ethics. I don’t believe it’s right to use software without paying for it.”

It’s unclear whether the informant also raised the issue internally, but that doesn’t matter anymore. The BSA followed up the lead which eventually led to a significant AU$160,000 settlement.

The whistleblower, tipster, or rat, depending on which side you’re on, fared well too.

BSA says that the information it receives from informants is invaluable. It plays a critical role in identifying misbehaving companies and holding them accountable, so it’s worth a reward.

“BSA is grateful to the informant for doing the right thing, and have provided the informant with a reward of AU$10,000 for his assistance in this matter,” BSA told CRN.

This is not the first reward BSA has given out, there have been many others in the past. The scale of the award usually depends on the settlement amount. It’s usually good enough for a nice vacation though, as this old BSA ad also suggests.

BSA’s old Facebook campaign.

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

The ‘upload filters’ topic has been widely debated in the European Parliament this year.

While most attention has been focused on copyright-infringing material and Article 13, another filtering discussion has been going on at the same time.

This summer the EU Commission pushed forward a plan to require content hosting platforms including Google, Twitter, and Facebook to swiftly remove terrorist content when a national authority points it out to them.

The proposed regulation was accepted by the EU member states at a Council meeting earlier this week.

According to the published report, the EU countries in favor believe that there is a “need to achieve automatic detection and systematic, fast, permanent and full removal of terrorist content.”

This “terrorist content” can be reported by local police, for example, or another designated private authority. No court has to be involved in the process. What has many activists worried is that, like Article 13, the proposal can enable automated upload filters.

The proposed terrorist content filters will go further than Article 13 in the sense that they require services to remove reported content within one hour. In addition, services will have to prevent this content from reappearing on their platforms.

If they fail to do so, the companies could face hefty fines and criminal liability.

It’s worth noting that the proposal is not restricted to large Internet platforms. It will apply to all hosting service providers that do business in the EU. This includes many smaller companies.

The French civil rights group La Quadrature notes that while it’s easy for large tech giants to comply, smaller competitors will be severely disadvantaged. These would all need a point of contact that’s available 24/7.

“The other actors will have no other choice but to close down their hosting services or (less likely but just as serious) to outsource the execution of their obligations to the giants,” the group writes.

The proposed legislation has triggered opposition from more sides, including various public interest groups, the UN’s Special Rapporteur David Kaye, and several politicians.

Patrick Breyer, a Pirate Party candidate for next year’s European elections, warns that Internet censorship is not the way forward, especially if private actors get to decide what content must be removed.

“No court order is required to block content. This could put our freedom of expression and information in the hands of the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior or a local police officer in Romania, for example, which is unacceptable,” Breyer’s team warned previously.

While the report that was agreed on this week only provides a “recommendation,” as La Quadrature highlights, it’s a declaration of principle without legal consequences.

The green light from member states is the first step in a long process and the proposed language has yet to be negotiated with the European Parliament. If adopted, individual member states will decide what penalties are appropriate. These can reach 4% of a company’s global turnover.

Among all the criticism, there is also support for the proposal. Austria’s minister of the interior Herbert Kickl believes that it will help to protect European citizens.

“Online terrorist content has played a key role in almost every terrorist attack in Europe. It is our duty to protect citizens as effectively as possible. With this agreement, Internet companies should be clearly signaled that there is an urgent need for action,” Kickl said.

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