Being a fully-paid up customer of a streaming service such as Spotify or Netflix should be a painless experience, but for citizens of the EU, complexities exist.

Subscribers of Netflix, for example, have access to different libraries, depending on where they’re located. This means that a viewer in the Netherlands could begin watching a movie at home, travel to France for a weekend break, and find on arrival that the content he paid for is not available there.

A similar situation can arise with a UK citizen’s access to BBC’s iPlayer. While he has free access to the service he previously paid for while at home, travel to Spain for a week and access is denied, since the service believes he’s not entitled to view.

While the EU is fiercely protective of its aim to grant free movement to both people and goods, this clearly hasn’t always translated well to the digital domain. There are currently no explicit provisions under EU law which mandate cross-border portability of online content services.

Following a vote today, however, all that may change.

In a few hours time, Members of the European Parliament will vote on whether to introduce new ‘Cross-border portability’ rules (pdf), that will give citizens the freedom to enjoy their media wherever they are in the EU, without having to resort to piracy.

“If you live for instance in Germany but you go on holiday or visit your family or work in Spain, you will be able to access the services that you had in Germany in any other country in the Union, because the text covers the EU,” says Jean-Marie Cavada, the French ALDE member responsible for steering the new rules through Parliament.

But while freedom to receive content is the aim, there will be a number of restrictions in practice. While travelers to other EU countries will get access to the same content they would back home on the same range of devices, it will only be available on a temporary basis.

People traveling on a holiday, business, or study trip will enjoy the freedom to consume “for a limited period.” Extended stays will not be catered for under the new rules so as not to upset licensing arrangements already in place between rightsholders and service providers.

So how will the system work in practice?

At the moment, services like Netflix use the current IP address of the subscriber to determine where they are and therefore which regional library they’ll have access to when they sign in.

It appears that a future system would have to consider in which country the user signed up, before checking to ensure that the user trying to access the service in another EU country is the same person. That being said, if copyright holders agree, service providers can omit the verification process.

“The draft text to be voted on calls for safeguarding measures to be included in the regulation to ensure that the data and privacy of users are respected throughout the verification process,” European Parliament news said this week.

If adopted, the new rules would come into play during the first six months of 2018 and would apply to subscriptions already in place.

Separately, MEPs are also considering new rules on geo-blocking “to ensure that online sellers do not discriminate against consumers” because of where they live in the EU.

Update: The vote has passed. Here is the full statement by Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, Andrus Ansip.

I welcome today’s positive vote of the European Parliament on the portability of online content across borders, following the agreement reached between the European Parliament, Council and Commission at the beginning of the year.

I warmly thank the European Parliament rapporteur Jean-Marie Cavada for his work in achieving this and look forward to final approval by Member States in the coming weeks.

The rules voted today mean that, as of the beginning of next year, people who have subscribed to their favourite series, music and sports events at home will be able to enjoy them when they travel in the European Union.

Combined with the end of roaming charges, it means that watching films or listening to music while on holiday abroad will not bring any additional costs to people who use mobile networks.

This is an important step in breaking down barriers in the Digital Single Market.

We now need agreements on our other proposals to modernise EU copyright rules and ensure wider access to creative content across borders and fairer rules for creators. I rely on the European Parliament and Member States to make swift progress to make this happen.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

According to anti-piracy outfits the world over, people rarely leak movies or TV shows for anything other than profit. While that statement is almost certainly untrue, a worrying trend in 2017 is damaging the image of piracy further, if that was even possible.

We’re talking about obtaining copyrighted content by a variety of means and then holding studios and distributors to ransom. Pay a considerable sum or face your content being leaked online, content owners are increasingly being told.

The practice got much publicity last month when TheDarkOverlord (TDO) hacking entity leaked an episode of Orange is The New Black after Netflix and associated companies failed to pay a bitcoin ransom.

When that little taster failed to illicit the required monetary response, TDO leaked another nine episodes. Again, no payment was forthcoming. More leaks targeting separate companies were hinted at but thus far, none have appeared.

But this week, with content producers and indeed the FBI still trying to work out what TDO’s next move might be, another movie ‘kidnapping’ event hit the headlines.

An as-yet unidentified group informed Disney that it had obtained a pre-release copy of the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean 5. Like Netflix, Disney refused to pay, and so far there have been no repercussions.

With this new type of crime an apparently growing trend, over in India a similar event has been playing out. On the exact same day that TDO leaked the first episode of Orange is The New Black, movie company Arka Mediaworks Entertainment Ltd received an unwanted call.

Someone posing as a “film anti-piracy activist” told the company that a pirated copy of the movie ‘Baahubali 2: The Conclusion’ had been obtained and if a ransom wasn’t paid, a leak onto the Internet would be inevitable.

Any high-quality leak would’ve been a significant event. Baahubali 2 is currently taking India by storm and has already broken several box office records, both at home and overseas. Authorities have already arrested at least 16 people involved in attempted piracy.

According to India.com, following the call Arka Mediaworks immediately involved the police, who advised the company to engage the ‘kidnappers’ in dialog to obtain proof that they had the movie in question.

That was delivered in the form of a high-definition sample of the movie, a move that was to mark the beginning of the end for those attempting to extort Arka Mediaworks.

It’s unclear whether those who sent the sample were aware, but the movie was forensically or otherwise marked, something which allowed police and investigators to track the copy back to a specific theater. However, this case has an interesting twist.

In most instances when movies are tracked in this manner, it’s because a watermark identifying the location has been transferred to a ‘cam’ copy. However, in this case the original ‘pirate’ copy had been made digitally. This meant that someone had managed to get hold of the encryption key used to decrypt titles subject to digital distribution.

It’s unclear whether he was the one to supply the key, but shortly after the owner of the theater was arrested by police. This was followed by the arrest of the person who allegedly called Arka Mediaworks with the ransom demand. From there, police were led to other co-conspirators.

In total, six arrests were made, with two of the men already known to police. No strangers to piracy, they were arrested in 2015 for pirating Bahubali – The Beginning, the first installment of the movie series involved in the current ‘kidnapping’ plot.

While it’s clear that this plot in India was serious, it’s unlikely that TheDarkOverlord will be making similar rookie mistakes in its quest to extort Netflix in the US. Whether the Disney plot will maintain the same sort of high-security will also remain to be seen, but getting caught is very possible.

Back in March it was revealed that 20th Century Fox & Dreamworks had been blackmailed over a leak of the movie Boss Baby. In that case, a bitcoin ransom was paid, but it eventually led to the arrest of the alleged perpetrator.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

In a surprise move, ExtraTorrent decided to shut down today, for good.

Users who access the site’s homepage are welcomed by a short but clear message, indicating that the popular torrent index will not return (the message appears intermittently).

“ExtraTorrent has shut down permanently.”

“ExtraTorrent with all mirrors goes offline.. We permanently erase all data. Stay away from fake ExtraTorrent websites and clones. Thx to all ET supporters and torrent community. ET was a place to be….”

TorrentFreak reached out to ExtraTorrent operator SaM who confirmed that this is indeed the end of the road for the site.

“It’s time we say goodbye,” he said, without providing more details.

With ExtraTorrent’s demise the BitTorrent community has lost yet another prominent player. Whether this also means the end of associated release groups, such as EtHD and ettv, remains to be seen.

ExtraTorrent was founded in November 2006, at a time when sites such as TorrentSpy and Mininova were dominating the landscape. Nonetheless, ExtraTorrent was determined to develop an audience of its own.

The site went on to outgrow many of its predecessors and with millions of daily visitors, ExtraTorrent ended up as the second largest torrent site, trailing only behind The Pirate Bay.

The site’s popularity placed it in the crosshairs of various entertainment industry groups in recent months. These outfits regularly pressured hosting companies and domain name services to take action.

It’s unclear whether legal pressure had anything to do with the decision to shut down, but that wouldn’t come as a surprise.

ExtraTorrent is the latest in a series of BitTorrent giants to fall in recent months. Previously, sites including KickassTorrents, Torrentz.eu, TorrentHound and What.cd went offline.

Update: We were informed by SaM that ExtraTorrent’s release group ETRG is gone now.

“Ettv and Ethd could remain operational if they get enough donations to sustain the expenses and if they people handling it ready to keep going,” we were told.

—

Breaking news, more information may follow.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

In recent years there’s been an increase in the availability of unlicensed TV streams, with vendors offering virtually any channel imaginable, for free or in exchange for a small fee.

Many of these IPTV packages are unlicensed. That makes them a lot cheaper to the end users, which explains why their popularity is growing.

While the phenomenon remained under the radar for a long time, more recently we have seen several raids on vendors who sell these ‘pirate’ subscriptions. After arrests in Spain and Poland, Thai authorities have also joined in.

Last week the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) arrested two British men, William Lloyd, 39 and William Robinson, 35, for their alleged involvement in selling unlicensed IPTV subscriptions. The pair were arrested together with 33-year-old local man, Supatra Raksasat.

The enforcement action followed a complaint from the Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) and was made public yesterday. According to the authorities, the men sold pirate subscriptions to dozens of TV-channels through 365sport.tv.

365sport.tv

The website in question was taken offline and is no longer operational. However, cached versions show that the outfit sold subscriptions for 10 or 22 premium sports channels for a monthly fee of 600 ($17) and 999 ($29) Thai Baht respectively.

During the raids DSI, which is a special department of the Ministry of Justice, seized mobile phones, nine computer servers, nine computers, and a total of 49 set-top boxes, local media reports.

DSI deputy chief Suriya Singhakamol said that the men were also accused of offering unauthorized content through a variety of other sites targeted at expats, including Thaiexpat.tv, Hkexpat.tv, Indoexpat.tv, Vietexpat.tv, and Euroexpat.tv.

Following the Premier League complaint, DSI’s cybercrime unit launched a special investigation which found that 365sport.tv offered the unlicensed streams through Thai servers.

The authorities subsequently obtained arrest warrants through the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court.

While the case remains open, the two British suspects have been handed over to officials from the British embassy, which requested their bail. All unlicensed IPTV streams, meanwhile, are no longer online.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Founded more than half a decade ago, Swefilmer grew to become Sweden’s most popular movie and TV show streaming site. It was credited alongside another streaming portal for serving up to 25% of all online video streaming in Sweden.

With this level of prominence, it was only a question of time before authorities stepped in to end the free streaming bonanza. In 2015, that happened when an operator of the site in his early twenties was raided by local police.

This was followed by the arrest of a now 26-year-old Turkish man in Germany, who was accused of receiving donations from users and setting up Swefilmer’s deals with advertisers.

The pair, who had never met in person, appeared at the Varberg District Court in January, together accused of making more than $1.5m from their activities between November 2013 and June 2015.

As the trial progressed, it was clear that the outcome was not likely to be a good one for the men.

Prosecutor Anna Ginner described the operation as being like “organized crime”, with lawyer Henrik Pontén of RightsAlliance claiming that the evidence only represented a small part of the money made by the pair.

From the beginning, it was always claimed that the 26-year-old was the main player behind the site, with the now 23-year-old playing a much smaller role. While the latter received an estimated $4,000 of the proceeds, the former was said to have enriched himself with more than $1.5m in advertising revenue.

The Varberg District Court has now handed down its ruling and it’s particularly bad news for the 26-year-old, who is reported to have led a luxury lifestyle with proceeds from the site.

In a short statement the court confirmed he had been convicted of 1,044 breaches of copyright law and serious money laundering offenses. He was sentenced to serve three years in prison and ordered to forfeit $1.59m. The Court was far more lenient with the younger man.

After being found guilty of four counts of copyright infringement but playing almost no role in the site’s revenue operations, no sentencing for money laundering was handed down. He was instead handed probation and ordered to complete 120 hours of community service, a sentence that was positively affected by his age when the offenses were committed.

It’s worth noting that the sentence received by the 26-year-old goes way beyond the sentences handed down even in the notorious Pirate Bay case, where defendants Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm received 10 months, 12 months and 8 months respectively.

However, with Henrik Pontén describing the Swefilmer case as being primarily about money laundering, his group is clearly unhappy that copyright offenses aren’t considered serious enough to warrant lengthy sentences in their own right.

“We welcome the judgment, but it is clear that copyright law must be adapted to today’s serious piracy. The penalty for copyright infringement should in itself be enough to deter people from crime,” Pontén says.

“The low level of penalties allows foreign piracy organizations to locate their operations in Sweden. The trend is very worrying.”

An important factor in the case moving forward is that in determining whether infringement had taken place, the Court drew heavily on the GS Media ruling handed down by the European Court of Justice last September.

In that decision, the Court found that linking to copyrighted material is only allowed when there is no intent to profit and when the linker is unaware that the content is infringing.

When there is a profit motive, which there clearly was in the Swefilmer case, operators of a site are expected to carry out the “checks necessary” to ensure that linked works have not been illegally published.

The operators of Swefilmer failed on all counts, so the local court determined that the platform had communicated copyrighted works to the public, in breach of copyright law.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, the 23-year-old expressed relief at his relatively light sentence but noted it may not be over yet.

“I was really happy when the judgment came. The long wait is finally over,” he said.

“RightsAlliance will appeal because they did not receive any compensation for the trial. But the prosecutor is satisfied with the judgment so it is only RightsAlliance who are dissatisfied.”

According to IDG, the lawyer of the 26-year-old believes that his client’s sentence is far too severe, so there may be an appeal in that direction too.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.