By offering acces to high quality movies and TV-shows, steaming site Flixtor has steadily grown its userbase in recent years.

The site, not to be confused with the defunct torrent streaming app Flixtor, has been operating with minimal downtime. This week that changed.

On Tuesday morning the site moved away from CDN provider Cloudflare. Flixtor’s domain nameservers were changed from to those of its registrar Njalla, and the A records were removed.

As a result, anyone who tried to access the site would see an error message in their browser. After a few hours, the site added an A record, setting it to localhost (127.0.0.1), which means that it’s still unusable.

Since the trouble started there have been no updates from the operators.

While the trouble may be due to a technical or hosting issue, it’s worth noting that Flixtor’s backup domains, including Flixtor.is and Flixtor.se, are also suffering the same problem.

Flixtor

TorrentFreak reached out to Flixtor’s domain registrar Njalla who noted that the domain name is technically working just fine, as it resolves to the listed IP-address. In this case, that’s an unusable address, but it suggests that any changes were made by a person in control of the domain names.

Whatever the reason may be, Flixtor’s users will have to miss their favorite streaming site, for now.

That’s especially painful for the users that paid for VIP access, which started at $14.95 per month. Some hope to get a refund, but it’s uncertain if that will ever happen.

“Refund would be great, I paid for 2 years just a few weeks ago, but I wouldn’t count on it, I guess just a learning for me to never pay anything like this anymore,” one user commented on Reddit.

While the downtime has lasted for more than three days, the site may eventually reappear. TorrentFreak has reached out to a contact address associated with Flixtor, but at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

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

As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe.

This includes thousands of “copyright-infringing” sites, including the likes of The Pirate Bay, which rely on the U.S.-based company to keep server loads down and their location unknown.

This is a thorn in the side of many copyright holders who have repeatedly complained about Cloudflare’s role. While the major entertainment giants generally take a diplomatic approach, others are taking their grievance to court.

In 2016 Cloudflare was sued for contributory copyright infringement by adult publisher ALS Scan. This case ended in a confidential settlement this summer, but now there’s more trouble on the horizon for the company.

The new threat doesn’t come from any of the major entertainment industry players, but from two manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding dresses. Not a typical “piracy” lawsuit, but it’s a copyright case that could have broad effects.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in California, Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs argue that Cloudflare fails to terminate sites of counterfeit vendors after multiple warnings. This makes Cloudflare liable for the associated copyright infringements, they add.

“Plaintiffs have filed hundreds of ‘takedown notices’ with CloudFlare, consistent with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), but CloudFlare has failed and/or refused to respond to those notices by terminating its services to infringers,” the complaint reads.

“As such, CloudFlare is liable for the infringements committed by its customers.”

The counterfeit websites selling fake goods are not a new problem. In recent years the American Bridal & Prom Industry Association has filed lawsuits against hundreds of counterfeit sites, resulting in the shutdown of over 1,500 domain names.

What is new, however, is that the wedding dress manufacturers are now trying to hold a third-party intermediary liable. The complaint also targets the unnamed ‘does’ behind the allegedly infringing sites, but the CDN provider is the main focus.

Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero state that Cloudflare “shields pirate sites and their hosts from legal recourse by copyright owners” and that it’s “unable or unwilling to remove any infringing content.”

The allegations are similar to those made in the ALS lawsuit. At the time the CDN provider countered that it was merely caching files and that the infringing content would still be there if Cloudflare was taken out of the equation.

The Court disagreed with this assessment, noting that Cloudflare’s cache can be seen as a substantial infringement by itself, which is something the company has control over. That said, it wasn’t determined whether the company itself can be held liable.

In the present lawsuit, the two wedding dress manufacturers clearly believe that can be possible. They used the company’s “Counterfeit Technology” to send thousands of DMCA takedown notices, and even though terminating repeat infringers is an option under Cloudflare’s terms, nothing happened.

Part of one of the thousands of notices.

“Cloudflare has persisted in offering CDN and related services to pirate websites, notwithstanding these numerous notifications of infringement on such sites,” the complaint reads.

“In this fashion, Cloudflare has induced, contributed to, profited from, and aided and abetted multiple infringements of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, failing and refusing all along to implement or enforce a repeat infringer policy, and is thus liable for the infringements alleged herein.”

In closing, Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero demand damages for the losses they’ve suffered as well preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop all infringing activity.

While the case has nothing to do with traditional pirate sites, a ruling could spill over, which means that the entertainment industries will watch this case closely.

—

A copy of the complaint filed by Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs 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.

Two years ago the European Commission announced plans to modernize EU copyright law.

Initially, the idea didn’t receive a lot of press, but in recent months the attention has been massive.

Article 13, in particular, has been controversial. The latest version, adopted by the European Commission in September, could make large Internet services liable for infringing content uploaded to their platforms.

The music industry has widely supported this proposal, hoping that it will help them to negotiate better licensing deals. YouTube, in particular, is seen as the main target, according to the major music companies.

Interestingly, YouTube initially remained mostly on the sidelines. The company only got publicly involved fairly recently, but is now ramping up the pressure.

Following comments from YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, who warned that Article 13 may force YouTube to block videos for EU visitors, this week the platform launched a pop-up campaign to inform the public.

As noted by The Verge, several European YouTube users spotted a popup stating that “article 13 could have unintended consequences,” pointing them to the company’s “saveyourinternet” campaign page.

The pop-up

YouTube notes that creators and users will be directly impacted if the current version of Article 13 passes, but adds that there’s a “better way.” While this message isn’t new, it’s the first time that YouTube has actively mobilized its users with pop-ups.

It’s worth noting that YouTube is not against the intended goal of Article 13. In fact, it even believes that upload filters (such as its own Content-ID) can be part of it. However, platforms should only be held liable if copyright holders help platforms to identify infringing content.

Or as YouTube puts it: “Platforms should only be held liable for content identified to them using tools like Content ID or through notice and takedown.”

This is a compromise and one that not all opponents of Article 13 agree with. Just last week, Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda said that YouTube’s pro-filter stance is no surprise, as this may actually benefit the company.

“If the entire market was obliged to install such filters, YouTube would not only be miles ahead in of its competitors in the development of such technologies, it would also be in a position to sell its filters to smaller platforms,” Reda said.

YouTube, meanwhile, doubled down this week. In an op-ed for MBW Lyor Cohen, Global Head of Music, warned that tomorrow’s generation of European artists is at stake.

“Rather than drive more value to artists, major labels and small, independent artists would get less money and less promotion from open platforms like YouTube,” Cohen wrote.

These comments didn’t sit well with the UK music group BPI. In a reply, Chief Executive Geoff Taylor notes that he is happy that YouTube also believes that artists and labels should be paid fairly, but it doesn’t agree with its tactics.

“[T]his is difficult to square with its ongoing carpet-bombing propaganda against that provision, which feels like a challenge to the legitimacy of the democratic process,” Taylor says.

“Article 13 has been carefully scrutinised over four years by the European Commission, Council and Parliament. YouTube now seems to be trying to scaremonger the EU into reversing decisions taken after a full debate, because it doesn’t like the outcome.”

Various stakeholders are currently discussing the final wording of Article 13 which will be voted on early next year. According to the first signs, the latest draft still calls for upload filters, albeit indirectly.

It is expected that both supporters and opponents of the plans will continue to raise their voices during the weeks to come. One side is calling to support artists’ livelihoods, and the other is urging the EU not to ban memes.

Considering the latter, the European Commission’s social media team came out with a reassuring message on Instagram this week.

“Don’t worry about the memes, we are not banning them. To be more precise, memes are already legally protected in the EU, and will continue to be so,” it wrote.

But of course, not everyone will be happy with that explanation. To be continued…

Memes are safe

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

Section 115a of Australia’s Copyright Act allows copyright holders to apply for injunctions that force ISPs to block ‘pirate’ sites. It’s been in force since 2015 and dozens of platforms have been blocked since.

Now, however, the Australian government (with plenty of encouragement from rightsholders) is seeking to strengthen the law with a series of amendments.

ISPs are currently required to block sites listed in an injunction but the amendments go further, enabling sites that “have started to provide access to the online location after the injunction is made,” to be added after, without oversight of the Federal Court.

Additionally, another amendment allows rightsholders to apply for injunctions that will not only target infringing ‘online locations’ but also their appearances in searches. This, of course, opens up the possibility that Google will have to censor its search results.

In a new submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, Google’s Public Policy and Government Relations Manager Derek Slater pours cold water on both proposals.

“While Google supports effective industry led measures to fight piracy, Google does not support the proposed amendments foreshadowed in the Extended Site Blocking Bill,” Google writes.

“In particular, Google opposes Section 115(2B)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii) of the Bill, which would have the effect of removing the direct oversight of the Federal Court over the site blocking process and instead leave it to commercial entities to decide which websites Australian users may access.”

Slater says that Google is concerned that the bill is being rushed forward in the absence of evidence that current legislation isn’t doing its job. The company is also concerned that there hasn’t been a “thorough, comprehensive and independent review” of the alleged problems with existing law and whether the amendments will prove effective.

Google’s submission notes that, to its knowledge, the Federal Court always grants injunctions when appropriate and that follow-on orders (to block newly-surfaced mirrors and proxies, for example) are neither slow nor expensive for rightsholders.

The search giant adds that there is no “cogent evidence” to support the theory that extending the site-blocking regime will have an impact on the already-decreasing piracy rate in Australia. It also criticizes proposals to extend blocking to search engines.

“Google also notes that the proposal to extend the Site Blocking Scheme to search engines has not been adopted by any other country in the world. Presumably this is because other countries have long recognized that there is no utility in extending site blocking schemes beyond ISPs to other online service providers,” the company writes.

While Google may be referencing the proposal using precise parameters, Russia recently implemented a similar scheme to prevent permanently blocked sites appearing in results. Currently, Google is not involved in the voluntary program, but that could change in the future.

Much of the remainder of Google’s submission reflects on the company’s own voluntary measures to fight piracy within search results, including its overall takedown regime, Trusted Copyright Removal Program (which allows around 178 partners to submit takedowns directly), proactive takedowns, and site downranking based on the number of copyright notices received.

Importantly, the company also comments that if site-blocking is effective, Australians shouldn’t be able to access pirate sites anyway, since they can be blocked through the existing site-blocking mechanism.

“On that basis, it is entirely unclear how expanding Australia’s existing Site Blocking Scheme to search engines would be of any practical assistance in the fight against piracy. It would however result in additional regulatory burden for new participants and as such would appear to go against the Government’s stated deregulation agenda,” Google adds.

In conclusion, the company says it supports constructive and meaningful attempts to combat piracy but it feels that current legislation is adequate. Of course, there are plenty of rightsholders who disagree, including Village Roadshow, the local movie company that has been most vocal on piracy and its supposed effects on Australian businesses.

“Google say they are up for the fight against piracy. This is a sham,” writes Village Roadshow CEO Graham Burke.

“There [sic] sole interest is using a treasure trove of stolen movies as part of attracting people to a business model that is strengthened by theft. [Google] auto complete and search are used to steal movies. This is no different from stealing a loaf of bread from a 7-11 store.”

The Village Roadshow submission features many of the tried-and-tested arguments the company has used before, stating that pirates pay no tax, steal people’s credit card details, hold their computers to ransom, while advertising illegal gambling, drugs, sex aids and prostitution.”

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

Founded less than three years ago, Torrent9 swiftly became one of the most popular torrent indexes around.

The site is most popular in French-speaking countries, which is the target audience. This includes France, but also Cameroon and Gabon, where it’s among the ten most-visited websites locally.

With millions of weekly visitors, the site was doing rather well. However, for reasons that remain unexplained, Torrent9 disabled the option to download torrent files a few days ago.

“Torrent9 will no longer offer downloads,” a message posted on the torrent site reads instead.

Right above that, there’s a prominent banner encouraging visitors to use a VPN. Specifically, a “Torrent9” VPN which can help to prevent outsiders from monitoring their downloads.

Use a VPN (translated from French)

Update: After finishing the article the “Torrent9 will no longer offer downloads” message changed to a “maintenance” notice. The VPN advertisement was also removed. We adjusted the article to reflect this.

This VPN recommendation caused some confusion, as many visitors assume that the download links will reappear when they connect through the VPN. However, that is not the case, TorrentFreak confirmed.

The advertisement no longer listed people’s IP-address when they were connected to the VPN, showing “hidden” instead, but the download option remained unavailable. It’s just an ad really.

This is also corroborated by French news site Numerama, which quotes several users who experienced the same issue.

The advertised VPN is Trust.Zone which, unlike Torrent9 suggests, has nothing to do with the torrent site. In fact, Trust.zone is not happy with the unwanted promotion, labeling it as misleading.

“We got major damage from this action because users now think that Trust.Zone is connected to Torrent9, which is definitely NOT TRUE,” a Trust.Zone representative informed us.

“The actions of Torrent9 are misleading. We have already sent a request via their contact form to remove the Trust.Zone warning message immediately,” the company adds.

Over the past few days, Trust.Zone received a lot of complaints and requests for refunds. The company informs us that it had to hire additional personnel to deal with the sudden surge.

Initially, the company couldn’t figure out what was going on. The VPN doesn’t use any tracking tools, so it was hard to identify the source of the traffic.

The company eventually figured out that Torrent9 is a member of its affiliate program at trustaffs.com, among 120,000 others. Trust.Zone hoped that the situation will soon be resolved, and considering the recent removal of the ad today, this may indeed be the case.

TorrentFreak also reached out to the operator of Torrent9 to hear his side of the story, but we have yet to receive a response.

For now, it remains unclear why the download links initially disappeared and if they will come back now the message changed to “maintenance”. In theory, it’s possible that Torrent9 was hacked or otherwise compromised, or perhaps there was a legal threat that motivated the site’s owner to take this action.

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