Many Hollywood insiders see online piracy as a major threat, but very few are willing to target file-sharers with lawsuits or settlement demands.

Voltage Pictures was one of the pioneers on this front, at least in the US. Together with their legal team and BitTorrent tracking partner, the filmmakers have sued tens of thousands of people since 2010.

Initially, this was a very lucrative practice, as rightsholders were able to join many defendants in a single lawsuit. However, nowadays courts are more reserved, which is one of the reasons they started to look for alternatives.

One interesting development on this front is the company “Rights Enforcement.” This outfit tracks down BitTorrent pirates, but instead of taking them to court they send automated ‘fines’ via DMCA notices, asking for a $300 settlement.

By using the DMCA notice process, the rightsholders avoid expensive lawsuits. It also makes the settlement process easier to scale, since they can send out tens of thousands of ‘fines’ at once with limited resources.

While these schemes are not new, Rightscorp and CEG TEK have done the same, Rights Enforcement has a nasty sting in store for accused pirates.

The company is operated by lawyer Carl Crowell, who is best known for his work with various notorious copyright trolls. This includes the aforementioned Voltage Pictures, which filed lawsuits for several movies such as Dallas Buyers Club and The Hurt Locker.

These ties appear to be still intact, as the Rights Enforcement company lists several movies on its client list, many of which are linked to Voltage Pictures. Dallas Buyers Club is on there for example, as well as I.T., Mr. Church, Fathers & Daughters, Pay the Ghost, The Cobbler, and Good Kill.

Rights Enforcement Website

The client list suggests that that the makers of these movies are now trying to extract settlement money from alleged file-sharers through automated settlements, because this is cheaper and possibly more profitable.

This is also what Rights Enforcement suggests on its website:

“Online infringement, including ‘peer-to-peer’ copying of material across the Internet is pervasive. Too often parties and rights holders are forced into the expensive forum of the courts,” the outfit writes.

“With filing fees of $400 and copyright damages in some jurisdictions reaching $150,000 for a single act, we work to permit rights holders to notify and address infringers and resolve their claims in an efficient and cost effective manner.”

The ‘sting’ with Rights Enforcement, is that they have a team of known ‘troll’ lawyers lined up to wave the legal stick. In other words, if targeted subscribers are unwilling to pay but mistakenly identify themselves, they can still be taken to court.

They are not shy to use this threat either. In their automated DMCA settlement notices Rights Enforcement warns that a failure to cooperate can lead to legal action.

“You may consider this a notice of potential lawsuit, a demand for the infringing activity to terminate, and a demand for damages from the actual infringer,” the automated email reads.

“We invite your voluntary cooperation in assisting us with this matter, identifying the infringer, and ensuring that this activity stops. Should the infringing activity continue we may file a civil lawsuit seeking judicial relief.”

It’s currently unknown who does the BitTorrent tracking, but according to defense lawyer Robert Cashman, it’s likely that the German outfit Guardaley is involved.

TorrentFreak spoke with Cashman, who has represented several accused pirates in the past. He is warning people against Rights Enforcement, describing it as a “monster” and the “evil twin” of settlement outfit CEG TEK.

The lawyer believes that the evidence used by Rights Enforcement might lead to inaccurate accusations, which Rights Enforcement will pursue in an aggressive fashion.

“So in essence, Right Enforcement will be a monster. It’ll be an evil version of what CEG-TEK strove to become,” Cashman says.

The link with CEG TEK comes up because it stopped sending out settlement requests recently. The company, which represented a current Rights Enforcement client in the recent past, now states on its website that it’s no longer offering settlement services. That said, we haven’t been able to find a direct link between the two outfits.

On a similar note, Rights Enforcement “boss” Carl Crowell was previously hired by another settlement firm, Rightscorp. While this may have served as inspiration, we haven’t seen any direct ties.

One thing’s for sure, though. Given the outspokenness of Crowell and the aggressive tactics he and other partners have employed in the past, this is certainly not the last time we’ll hear of Rights Enforcement.

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

Back in 2003, when P2P networks were the next big thing, music labels were panicking about the large-scale piracy taking place on the Internet. Legal action was their first response (of course it was) but later other tactics were employed.

One of the more unusual tactics involved Madonna, who released fake files on file-sharing networks in order to reach out to pirates. While the idea wasn’t a fundamentally bad one, the singer made a silly mistake. Instead of appealing to their better nature, Madonna shouted and cursed at pirates, asking them ‘What The F— Do You Think You’re Doing?’

The campaign failed to make a positive impression so when we heard that a movie distributor had launched a similar scheme last month, we were intrigued to hear what they might do differently. We were pleasantly surprised.

After setting up a KickassTorrents clone, Costa Rica-based film distributor Romaly seeded fake torrents, each containing a trailer of the movie plus a gentle anti-piracy message.

“The time this took to download is not enough when compared to the hours of effort it took to produce this movie. You deserve to see it in the theater. That’s why we are giving you a double ticket for a cinema in Costa Rica,” it read.

Instead of launching a Madonna-inspired tirade, Romaly had given movie fans a chance to watch their chosen movie on the big screen, for free. It was a new twist on an old idea and it was largely well received.

This week TorrentFreak caught up with Christhian Fuentes from advertising agency Orson. He’s the campaign’s Creative Director and was happy to explain why being nice to pirates is better than treating them like thieves.

“Piracy of all kind is a very common practice in Costa Rica and criminalizing approaches are old tactics that are not very effective in achieving results,” Fuentes explained.

“We wanted a positive campaign to reinforce the idea that this is a fight we all are part of: as an industry, as a consumer or buyer, or in media, or in politics. In the end we all enjoy watching movies, so let’s do it legally.”

Fuentes says that his agency was approached by movie distributor Romaly at the end of 2016 who spoke to them about the “not so positive” piracy situation in Costa Rica. The companies then worked as a team to formulate a unique response.

As mentioned earlier, the campaign involves a site called LegalTorrents, but it is clearly designed to look like the now defunct but former market-leading torrent site, KickassTorrents.

However, KAT wasn’t chosen simply because it was the biggest site. The brand was particularly popular locally and the fact that it used a Costa Rican .CR domain was also noted during the data gathering stage.

“We did a lot of research and the data showed us that [KAT] was one of the main torrent catalogs used in Costa Rica. In order to work, the idea had to be precise in those kinds of details. We began with a free and public template, did some design modifications, and came up with our own logo,” Fuentes adds.

While some pirates might take offense at their favorite site being mimicked in this manner, the agency says that its aims were positive all along.

“We do not intend to directly attack any torrent website. Like I said earlier, this is not a criminalizing approach. The campaign is a direct action to create contact with potential movie viewers in order to raise awareness, and then the idea should create a conversation, which is happening right now.”

In our earlier report we noted that most if not all of the fake torrents on the LegalTorrents site had no seeds. According to Fuentes, however, we were probably just unlucky with our timing. Since the campaign is fluid and the site is being constantly updated with the latest movie releases from Romaly, it’s likely that an update was in progress. We carried out some tests this week and everything worked just fine.

The torrents are proving quite popular but not all downloaders are taking up the offer of free tickets. It’s not clear why but it’s certainly possible that torrent users are cautious when offered free stuff inside a fake torrent since that rarely ends well. Still, the agency believes that simply reaching out to pirates is having the desired effect.

“Feedback is positive. Far from feeling fooled, people have contacted us telling us about how creative the campaign is and complimenting us on the fresh approach. And they are thankful when they receive tickets,” Fuentes says.

“This is a long-term strategy. We know piracy is a never-ending fight, so isolated efforts won’t make a big difference in the long term. Legal Torrents will continue as new movies get released. But it should be part of a bigger strategy where more national (and international) actors join,” he concludes.

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

Every year the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) releases an updated version of its Special 301 Report, calling out other nations for failing to live up to U.S. IP enforcement standards.

In recent years Canada has been placed on this “watch list” many times, for a variety of reasons. The country fails to properly deter piracy, is one of the prime complaints circulated by the U.S. Government.

Even after Canada revamped its copyright law, including a mandatory piracy notice scheme and extending the copyright term to 70 years after publication, the allegations didn’t go away in 2016.

Now, a year later new hearings are underway to discuss the 2017 version of the report. Fearing repercussions, several countries have joined stakeholders to defend their positions. However, Canada was notably absent.

While the Canadian Government hasn’t made a lot of fuss in the media, a confidential memo, obtained by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, shows that they have little faith in the USTR report.

“Canada does not recognize the validity of the Special 301 and considers the process and the Report to be flawed,” the Government memo reads.

“The Report fails to employ a clear methodology and the findings tend to rely on industry allegations rather than empirical evidence and objective analysis.”

The document in question was prepared for Minister Mélanie Joly last year after the 2016 report was published. It points out, in no uncertain terms, that Canada doesn’t recognize the validity of the 301 process and includes several talking points for the media.

Excerpt from the note

This year, rightsholders have once again labeled Canada a “piracy haven” so it wouldn’t be a big surprise if it’s listed again. Based on the Canadian Government’s lack of response, it is likely that the Northern neighbor still has little faith in the report.

TorrentFreak spoke with law professor Micheal Geist, who has been very critical of the USTR’s 301-process in the past. He believes that Canada is doing the right thing and characterizes the yearly 301 report as biased.

“I think the Canadian government is exactly right in its assessment of the Special 301 report process. It is little more than a lobbying document and the content largely reflects biased submissions from lobby groups,” Geist tells TorrentFreak.

In a recent article the professor explains that, contrary to claims from entertainment industry groups, Canada now has some of the toughest anti-piracy laws in the world. But, these rightsholder groups want more.

Some of the requests, such as those put forward by the industry group IIPA, even go beyond what the United States itself is doing, or far beyond internationally agreed standards.

“[T]he submissions frequently engage in a double standard with the IIPA lobbying against fair use in other countries even though the U.S. has had fair use for decades,” Geist says.

“It also often calls on countries to implement rules that go far beyond their international obligations such as the demands that countries adopt a DMCA-style approach for the WIPO Internet treaties even though those treaties are far more flexible in their requirements.”

This critique of the USTR’s annual report is not new as its alleged biased nature has been discussed by various experts in the past. However, as a country, Canada’s rejection will have an impact, and Professor Geist hopes that other nations will follow suit.

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

For millions of people around the globe, Facebook is the platform of choice for keeping in contact with family and friends. For artists and other creators, it’s a great way of raising a profile and reaching out more personally to fans.

With two crowd-sourced albums under her belt, UK-based full-time busker Charlotte Campbell is regularly in touch with the public through performances on the London Underground. She also uses Facebook to keep up with fans, but a few days ago her entire experience came to an abrupt halt after she was banned from the platform.

Charlotte’s crime was to post a 15-second snippet of her cover of Ed Sheeran’s song Castle On The Hill, together with a link to the full track on her YouTube channel.

“I love Ed Sheeran’s music and always cover his songs for my busking repertoire,” Charlotte informs TorrentFreak. “I find them easy to learn because I play them on repeat at home so I know all the lyrics by heart.”

However, the musician’s tribute would land her in hot water after being flagged as copyright infringement by Sheeran’s record label Atlantic/Warner. Charlotte was informed that she’d been banned from her own Facebook page for the next three days. If she did it again, she’d be banned forever, Facebook warned.

“I had no prior warning or previous offences to my knowledge. Doesn’t sound like much but for an independent musician making my living from music, Facebook is my primary promotional tool and I’m already struggling to get heard, it was quite deflating,” Charlotte adds.

Charlotte says that it’s taken her months of daily work on Facebook and YouTube to get her videos seen by a regular 10,000 people, so the three-day ban felt like a lifetime to her.

“I’m heartbroken, it’s just so frustrating. I’m a tiny artist, I’m tiny, she says.

But while Charlotte’s reach is currently pretty modest by Sheeran’s standards, something magical happened yesterday afternoon. It could raise the singer’s profile in a way she could never have predicted.

After Charlotte was banned from Facebook, some of her fans took to Ed Sheeran fansites to complain that after paying tribute to the star, Charlotte’s reward was to lose her voice online. Amazingly, word reached Sheeran himself, who dropped in on Charlotte’s Facebook page to give his support.

“Just seen your video, [the ban] definitely has nothing to do with me. I bloody love seeing people cover my songs. One of the best things I get out of this job is seeing other people find enjoyment too,” Sheeran wrote.

“I asked what’s gone on and apparently it’s a bot that Warner have that works on some weird algorithm (I have no idea what that means) but it’s just bad luck that it was your video,” he explained.

While popping by to offer support is great, Sheeran went a step further, promising to sort out the problem with those concerned.

“I’ve had a word, and i’ll get it sorted. Sorry again. Keep doing what you do, tis ace,” he said.

That Sheeran took the time to get involved in this issue came as a big but welcome surprise to Charlotte.

“I’m not sure I’ve really processed it, to be honest, I still feel like I’m dreaming!” she tells TF.

“I felt so relieved that it wasn’t Ed Sheeran who had personally rejected my cover! And it really restored my faith in humanity and in Ed himself.”

While it’s commendable that Sheeran got involved, people shouldn’t be too surprised. The artist is on record saying that copyright infringement helped shoot him to stardom, so a cover version won’t be of any concern to him.

“Illegal file sharing was what made me. It was students in England going to university, sharing my songs with each other,” he recently told CBS.

Of course, it’s disappointing that Charlotte has had to suffer at the hands of Warner’s cruel copyright bots. Ironically, though, this whole episode is now set to raise her profile, hopefully by a lot.

“I really had no idea that Ed would see my video about this so I couldn’t have dreamed that anything would come of it. Now I guess I hope that I’ll be on Ed Sheeran’s radar and next time he’s looking for a support act I’ll pop into his mind. Or at the least he’ll pop by my busking spot one day and join me for a duet!” Charlotte concludes.

If the rumors are correct, Sheeran may well be headlining the Glastonbury Festival this summer and that Pyramid Stage is awfully big for just one person. We know someone who’s probably free that day…..

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

For huge numbers of sports fans around the UK and the rest of Europe, football (or soccer as it’s known elsewhere) is the number one spectator sport. As a result, huge sums of money are invested in its development and subsequent broadcasting rights.

In the UK, top tier football is handled by The Premier League, which is currently facing a growing problem. Instead of paying significant monthly subscriptions to broadcasters such as Sky and BT Sport, large numbers of fans are turning to piracy-enabled set-top boxes for their fix.

These devices, often running Kodi with third-party addons, not only provide free football but also enable fans to watch matches at 3pm on Saturdays, a time that no broadcaster is legally allowed to transmit games due to the blackout.

To tackle this threat, The Premier League has just obtained an injunction from Mr Justice Arnold at the High Court which will compel ISPs BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block unauthorized streams at the football organization’s request.

Content providers have obtained site-blocking injunctions on many previous occasions, but the Premier League’s comments indicate a potentially significant development on a couple of fronts.

Firstly, regular blocking orders usually target entire sites on a permanent basis but this one appears to be somewhat more targeted. The stated aim of the injunction is to block actual streams that are fed to Kodi setups, IPTV boxes, and indeed the Internet overall.

“The Order was granted under Section 97a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, and further demonstrates our intellectual property rights are protected by the law,” a Premier League statement reads.

“This will enable us to target the suppliers of illegal streams to IPTV boxes, and the internet, in a proportionate and precise manner.”

Since the High Court injunction is yet to be published, TorrentFreak asked the Premier League some specific questions about how it will work from a technical standpoint. The information provided was somewhat general, but reading between the lines it seems the football outfit intends to hit content at its source.

Rather than playing site-blocking whac-a-mole at the streaming site level (from where Kodi addons often scrape their content), it appears that the Premier League might be seeking to go further up the ‘content tree’ by targeting the servers that actually originate the pirated content used by sites and services lower down.

The injunction allows the group “to block servers that stream unauthorized Premier League content”, as opposed to the traditional approach of blocking single sites.

“The new block will enable a proportionate and targeted restriction of content that would otherwise have been proliferated to unauthorised websites and IPTV devices,” The Premier League adds.

Two further pieces of potentially interesting pieces of information come via Bloomberg.

Firstly, the publication indicates that Judge Arnold held part of the injunction hearing in private after The Premier League said it related to confidential information. Second, the article states that The Premier League can now block streams “during games.”

Since streams can pop up in unexpected places at any time, it makes sense that The Premier League would seek the ability to react quickly during a game. However, it’s difficult to see how there can be any meaningful legal oversight if the football organization tells the ISPs to instantly block a stream at 3pm on a Saturday, for example.

In the meantime, Sky – which is a Premier League broadcaster and also owns one of the ISPs that will carry out the blocking – welcomed the decision.

“We are pleased the Premier League’s application to crack down on illegal streaming has been granted. Content piracy is theft, and the success of this application is an important step in tackling the issue,” a spokesman said.

“We’ll continue to work with rights holders, government, online market places and content creators to tackle today’s piracy and make people aware of the risks it presents and the damage it causes.”

Once the text of the full injunction is published, we’ll go through the details but at this early stage, we could be witnessing a new blocking strategy for live content streaming in the UK.

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