Megaupload was shutdown nearly half a decade ago, but it remains undecided whether Kim Dotcom and several of his former colleagues will stand trial in the US.

With the extradition process still ongoing, the criminal prosecution and the civil lawsuits filed by the MPAA and RIAA have been put on hold.

Aside from the many legal challenges in the pending cases, there are also technical concerns. Since the defunct file-hosting service conducted its business online, a lot of the evidence is digital and has to be carefully preserved, which doesn’t get easier over time.

Last year, hosting provider Cogent first warned that sixteen of Megaupload’s evidence hard drives had become unreadable. While the data could potentially be restored, this would require swift action from the parties involved.

The data are vital for Megaupload as well as the MPAA and the RIAA as they contain crucial evidence. After discussions failed earlier, Megaupload and the rightsholders have now reached an agreement.

Earlier this month the MPAA and RIAA presented a joint preservation plan to the Virginia Federal Court. The rightsholder groups informed the court that they had reached an agreement with Megaupload on “nearly all” terms of the data preservation process to be carried out by the independent forensics company DriveSavers.

A few days ago Megaupload responded to the copyright holder’s request. While it indeed agrees to the practical terms of recovering and preserving the sixteen failing hard drives, Megaupload disagrees on the part where it’s prohibited from accessing the data.

“Megaupload agrees that there is a ‘significant risk that relevant evidence will be lost or destroyed,’ and that ample grounds for a preservation order exist; however, Megaupload disputes certain terms of the preservation order proposed by Plaintiff,” the company’s counsel writes (pdf).

The order proposed by the MPAA and RIAA would prevent Megaupload from accessing its own data without the court’s permission. This violates the company’s constitutional rights, Megaupload argues.

Instead, Megaupload has submitted a revised version of the preservation order specifying that it can access the data, but for litigation purposes only. If the MPAA or RIAA disagree, they can then share their concerns with the court on a case by case basis.

“Only with these edits will Megaupload be able to access this critical data, as needed, in the defense of these cases. Otherwise, Megaupload is enjoined from obtaining access to the data without the Court’s permission, which is contrary to law,” Megaupload writes.

The Government is less concerned with preserving the data, it seems. The authorities have already made copies of the data they intend to use and have stated that they have no interest in the remaining hard drives.

However, the US Department of Justice previously objected to Megaupload’s efforts to free the Megaupload data, arguing that it contains “contraband,” so it’s not going to be pleased with the proposed preservation order.

Considering the recent history, it seems unlikely that all parties will fully agree on how to solve the current standoff. This means that the Court may have to make the final decision, before it’s too late.

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

When it comes to passing judgment on so-called ‘pirate’ sites, Italy has more experience than most around Europe. Courts have passed down many decisions against unlicensed sites which have seen hundreds blocked by ISPs.

Today, however, news coming out of the country suggests that the parameters of what defines a pirate site may not be so loosely interpreted in future.

It began in 2015 when the operator of four sites that linked to pirated movies was found guilty of copyright infringement by a local court and ordered to pay more almost 600,000 in fines and costs. As a result, filmakers.biz, filmaker.me, filmakerz.org, and cineteka.org all shutdown but in the background, an appeal was filed.

The appeal was heard by the Rome Court of Appeal in February and now, through lawyer Fulvio Sarzana who defended the sites’ operator, we hear of a particularly interesting ruling.

“The Court ruled that the indication of links does not qualify as making direct disposal of files protected by copyright law,” Sarzana told TF in an email.

Often in these kinds of cases, the presence of a financial motivation by a site operator can play a crucial role. In this matter, however, even revenue generation via advertising failed to tip the scales in the prosecution’s favor.

“The Judge has recognized as lawful the portals’ activities, and this despite the presence of advertising banners,” Sarzana says.

According to the lawyer, it is not enough to simply show that the ‘pirate’ site generates income. The prosecution must also show that profit activity is connected to an individual. If it does not, the sharing aspect could be considered as merely avoiding an expense rather than a for-profit activity designed to generate “significant gain”. In the event, that’s exactly what happened.

“In fact, the Judge ruled that file sharing, i.e the sharing of files protected by copyright, is a saving of expense and not a for-profit business. Therefore, in these cases you cannot apply the penal provisions of copyright law and the resulting administrative sanctions,” Sarzana notes.

The decision to clear the sites of all charges and overturn the financial penalties against their operator is bound to prove a controversial one, not just locally but across the EU as a whole. Only time will tell how the decision will affect the bigger picture.

Meanwhile, the complexities of the case have not been lost on Federico Bagnoli Rossi, Secretary General of the Federation for the Protection of Audiovisual and Multimedia Content (FAPAV). He believes that traditional legal avenues are not the only way to tackle the piracy problem.

“We are aware of the difficulties encountered in investigative activities and for this reason we are convinced that intermediaries should assume their responsibilities and work more closely with all parties involved in protecting culture,” Rossi says.

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

The European Union Intellectual Property Office has published the findings of a new study commissioned from Deloitte which aims to better understand how EU citizens perceive intellectual property issues.

The report is the product of 26,500 interviews with citizens aged 15 and over and paints a fairly positive picture for rightsholders and other businesses that rely on the exploitation of intellectual property.

The striking headline figure is that 97% of respondents believe that content creators should be able to protect their rights in order to get paid for their work. Alongside almost total support for IP rights, an impressive 83% indicate they would prefer to access digital content through legal services when there is an affordable option available.

Across the EU, just 10% of respondents said they’d deliberately obtained content from illegal sources during the past 12 months, a figure that jumps to 27% among 15 to 24-year-olds. A similar survey carried out in 2013 produced close to the same results.

But while 10% is the average percentage of pirates across all EU countries, several major EU members buck the trends in interesting ways.

France, for example, has many years’ experience of the state-sponsored Hadopi “three strikes” anti-piracy program. With millions of notices sent to ISP subscribers, the program was supposed to educate citizens away from piracy. However, 15% of French citizens admit to downloading or streaming from illegal sources, five percentage points higher than the EU average.

In Germany, where copyright trolls have been running rampant for many years and claiming a deterrent effect, just 7% say they download or stream from illegal sources. While this figure lower than the EU average might seem the logical conclusion, the same percentage is shared with Italy where there is no trolling or state-sponsored anti-piracy scheme.

In Spain, a country that is trying to shake off a reputation of being a piracy haven, 16% of citizens admit to online piracy. That’s double the 8% of UK citizens who admit to consuming unauthorized content online.

As usual, however, there are significant gray areas when it comes to content consumption and whether or not people can be labeled as hardcore pirates.

Just under a third (32%) of the those surveyed said they access content online, whether that’s from a legal or illegal source. Under a quarter (22%) say they use only authorized services. Just 5% use illegal sources alone and 5% said they use a mix of paid lawful and illegal sources.

“This suggests that respondents are willing to switch between legal and illegal sources in order to gain access to content,” the study found.

Also of interest are the significant numbers of citizens who feel that piracy is acceptable under particular sets of circumstances.

A not insignificant 35% of respondents said that it’s acceptable to obtain content illegally as long as it’s only for personal use. Since millions of citizens are already taxed via a private copying levy, the notion that copying for yourself is acceptable shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise, although the charge itself applies to blank media, not illegal downloads.

Interestingly, close to a third (31%) believe that it’s acceptable to obtain content illegally if there are no immediately available legal alternatives. So, if a distributor chooses to bring content late to a region or makes content otherwise difficult to obtain, millions believe it’s ok for citizens to help themselves. While that’s probably a concern for rightsholders, it’s a problem that can be fixed.

Overall, an encouraging 71% of pirate respondents said they would stop obtaining content from illegal sources if there was an accessible and affordable legal alternative. Around 20% said they would not necessarily go legal, even if there was an available and affordable option.

“The availability of affordable content from legal offers as the top reason for stopping the behavior is most strongly cited by respondents in the following categories: respondents aged 25 to 39 (74 %), employed (76 %), living in large urbanized cities (75 %), and the most educated (72 %), which is in line with the profile of a typical online user,” the survey notes.

Close to 30% believe that being better informed could help them back away from illegal sources while just 5% said they could never be stopped, no matter what.

But while many consumers want to “do the right thing”, there appears to be confusion when it comes to assessing whether an online service is legal or not. Almost a quarter (24%) of Europeans surveyed said they’d questioned whether an online source was legal, a five-point increase over the earlier 2013 study.

That being said, there’s a perception that legal services can provide a better product. When comparing the quality of content offered on legal and illegal platforms, 69% said that licensed services come out on top, an opinion shared by illegal downloaders and legal consumers alike.

However, when it comes to diversity of content, just over half of respondents (56%) said that legal services do a better job, a figure that drops to 45% among those who illegally download some content. Making a broader range of content available online could address this particularly lukewarm response.

António Campinos, Executive Director of EUIPO, said that the results of the survey show that EU citizens generally have respect for intellectual property but there is still room for improvement.

“Overall, we see that support for IP rights is high among EU citizens,” he said.

“But we also see that more needs to be done to help young people in particular understand the importance of IP to our economy and society, especially now, when encouraging innovation and creativity is increasingly the focus of economic policy across our European Union.”

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf)

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

This week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Rogue One is the most downloaded movie for the second week in a row.

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 weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1	(1)	Rogue One	8.0 / trailer
2	(5)	The Great Wall (Subbed HDRip)	6.2 / trailer
3	(8)	Logan (HDCam)	8.6 / trailer
4	(3)	Assassin’s Creed	6.3 / trailer
5	(…)	Split (Subbed HDRip)	7.4 / trailer
6	(2)	xXx: Return of Xander Cage (Subbed HDRip)	5.5 / trailer
7	(6)	Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them	7.6 / trailer
8	(7)	Passengers	7.1 / trailer
9	(…)	Resident Evil: The Final Chapter	5.7 / trailer
10	(4)	Patriots Day	6.2 / trailer

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

With millions of pieces of infringing content hitting the Internet every day, copyright holders certainly have their work cut out when it comes to eradicating piracy.

At the moment this is largely achieved via DMCA and similar notices that require online platforms to remove content, direct links to content, or related search engine results. However, content has a habit of reappearing after deletion so it’s perfectly possible that the same piece could be subjected to multiple complaints on the same platform.

To solve this problem, rightsholders (the music industry in particular) are pushing for a so-called takedown/staydown regime. They argue that once a piece of content has been flagged as infringing, then it should be entered into some kind of database, to ensure that it is blocked from ever being uploaded again.

This kind of system, should one ever be introduced, would require platforms to monitor every user-uploaded file to ensure that their fingerprints don’t already exist in filtering databases. If they did, the uploads would be rejected, regardless of whether the material would otherwise be allowed under Fair Use exceptions, critics say.

While such a regime is far away on the horizon, some anti-piracy outfits like to pretend that it’s already in place today. After issuing a takedown notice, some have a tendency to imply that there’s a need for a platform to act proactively. That happened this week in a notice to Github, but things didn’t go to plan.

Piracy Solution is an anti-piracy company that claims to offer “relentless” 24/7 monitoring for which there is “no alternative.” This week the outfit wrote to Github on behalf of its client Frontend Masters, a company offering training in various web design skills.

“I am the authorized agent for Frontendmasters.com and MJG International, LLC. It has come to our knowledge that https://github.com is linking, external linking or distributing our content illegally,” Piracy Solution’s agent confidently wrote.

Demanding that Github removes one of its repositories, Piracy Solution went on to suggest that Github is required to proactively filter the same content from its platform in future, to ensure it is never made available again.

“We are requesting that your website not put up or link this copyrighted content in the future. It must not continue to go back up on your site. Please remove it as soon as possible and cease allowing our copyrighted content to be released or linked on your site,” the notice reads.

Continuing, Piracy Solutions declared that the content to be taken down is infringing, not authorized by Frontend Masters, and that its takedown notice is accurate. Sadly, none of these claims were true.

The repository affected by Piracy Solution’s takedown-and-staydown demands is titled ‘Frontend Masters – Advanced SVG Animation Course’ and there is a very good reason for that.

It is operated by Sarah Drasner, who lists her contact email and personal address just in case anyone needs to contact her. If anyone from Piracy Solutions had done so, they would’ve learned that she is the author of SVG Animations from O’Reilly and has given a Frontend Masters workshop on Advanced SVG Animations.

To confirm beyond any doubt, Frontend Masters themselves list Drasner on their very own website while charging access to her SVG Animations course.

After having her repository disabled by Github for copyright infringement, Drasner probably had a few choice words with Frontend Masters. That appears to have prompted Piracy Solutions to completely change their minds about having the content taken down on a permanent basis.

“Thank you for the prompt action in removing this content,” the company told Github.

“However our client Frontend Master was unaware that one of their authors was using github.com and has requested that we issue a retraction of [the takedown notice]. Please let us know if you require anything other than this email for the retraction of the DMCA notice.”

While the Github repository is now in full working order, it’s not difficult to see how a takedown-and-staydown regime could prove problematic when scaled up to potentially hundreds of millions of notices. If companies are able to take down even their own content and request that it never appears again, those set on abuse will be able to cause even greater problems.

That being said, it is crystal clear that copyright holders are tired of the endless game of whac-a-mole and are desperate to reduce their takedown workloads. Whether that can be realistically achieved through the suggested regime will remain to be seen, but for now and aside from the status quo, there are no other serious options on the table.

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