In 2011, the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with several major U.S. Internet providers, announcing their plan to shift the norms and behavior of BitTorrent pirates.

The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information and agreed on a system through which Internet account holders are warned if their connections are used to download pirated content.

The program allowed ISPs to take a variety of repressive measures, including bandwidth throttling and temporary Internet disconnections.

The “voluntary” agreement was praised by the US Government and seen as an example for other countries, including the UK, where a similar system is about to start. At the same time, however, the Copyright Alert System members have just ended their efforts.

“After four years of extensive consumer education and engagement, the Copyright Alert System will conclude its work,” the members of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) just announced.

“The program demonstrated that real progress is possible when content creators, Internet innovators and consumer advocates come together in a collaborative and consensus-driven process.”

It’s unclear what progress the members are referring to, as the system mostly excelled at its failure to share information with the public.

Since its inception, CCI has issued only a few press releases, and any recent data on the scope and effectiveness of the program is lacking. The only figures that were ever published cover the first ten months, ending December 2013.

Last summer we publicly questioned if the Copyright Alert System was doomed, but at the time CCI’s Executive Director Jim Kohlenberger was still hopeful.

“Going forward, we continue to look for opportunities to refine the system, and to advance our efforts and to elevate our consumer-focused mission in pragmatic ways,” Kohlenberger said.

However, it now appears that the parties couldn’t reach consensus on how to extend or update the existing agreement, to keep going for the years to come. Why they eventually chose to stop the program entirely is not clear from the announcement.

In their public-facing statement, copyright holders and ISPs remain positive, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if the mood behind the scenes is grimmer.

“We want to thank everyone who put in the hard work to develop this program and make it a success, including past and present members of our Advisory Board. While this particular program is ending, the parties remain committed to voluntary and cooperative efforts to address these issues,” CCI concludes.

The decision to end the “six strikes” scheme marks the end of an era. While it means that pirates no longer have to fear temporary Internet disconnections and other mitigation measures that were part of the program, MPAA and RIAA can still send takedown notifications of their own accord.

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

When movies leak online before their official release, both pirates and movie companies tend to get excited, for different reasons of course. This can be nicely illustrated by the buzz that ‘screener season‘ can create.

As a result, even some mainstream publications are keen to break the news that the latest blockbusters have leaked online, but unfortunately, this area of reporting can be a bit of a minefield if you don’t know what you’re doing.

This is a lesson that the UK’s The Scottish Sun will have to learn the hard way.

As sister paper to the famous tabloid The Sun, this week the paper published an article revealing that the yet-to-be-released T2: Trainspotting had been leaked on torrent sites.

Going even further, the publication made an assumption over who might have “stolen” the copy and put it there.

“A T2 TRAINSPOTTING VIP appears to have stolen a copy of the long awaited film – and put it on the internet,” the piece reads.

“A high quality version hit the web on Sunday, the same day as the movie’s glitzy premiere in Edinburgh attended by the star studded cast including Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Jonny Lee Miller, Ewen Bremner and Kelly Macdonald.”

Digging an even deeper hole for itself, the paper went on to cite download numbers and provide ‘evidence’ why the copy available online must be the real deal.

“The file has now been downloaded by fans over 28,000 times and has received only positive reviews, indicating it’s a genuine copy of the movie. Normally if a file is bogus, the online community flag it up to let others know. But with the high number of downloads, it appears the copy is legit,” the publication said.

Shown below is the image the paper included with its story, which aims to provide all necessary details to confirm that the leak was genuine. It’s a screenshot from a torrent site, and to the untrained eye it looks pretty authentic.

Sadly, however, it’s completely bogus.

As the above image shows, the screenshot was taken from Distorrent.com, which at its base level is a KickassTorrents clone. However, this site has a little trick up its sleeve.

No matter what a user types into its search box, it auto-magically ‘finds’ that content online and generates a fake torrent page for it. It can find Trainspotting 2 in an instant, Rocky 27, and even some other more unusual titles. It’s a ploy to game search engine traffic.

With this in mind, it only got more awkward when The Scottish Sun started to make further assumptions about the apparent quality of the Trainspotting 2 leak.

“The file’s size of 2.7GB approx indicates it’s not an HD copy, again arousing suspicion that it could have been filmed by someone at the premiere,” the paper said.

To top things off, the paper then quoted “a source” who was happy to fill in some blanks.

“While internet providers like Sky and Virgin do their best to shut down these sites, it’s impossible to get them all, as they change servers and locations. Most movies eventually end up on the internet in this form. It’s just very suspicious that this one was uploaded the same day as the film’s premiere,” the source apparently said.

Trainspotting 2 was released in cinemas on Friday, so expect some terrible cam copies to appear on torrent sites in the coming days. Or, if you really can’t wait, head off to DisTorrent where you’ll find blu-ray copies of Trainspotting 2, 3, 4 and 5.

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

Can an Internet provider be held liable for subscribers who share pirated files? Yes, a Virginia federal jury ruled late last year.

This verdict caused great uncertainty in the ISP industry, as several companies suddenly realized that they could become the next target.

Internet provider RCN is among the companies that are worried about the fallout. With 400,000 subscribers nationwide, it is one of the larger Internet providers in the United States, and as such it regularly receives takedown notices for alleged copyright infringements on its network.

Many of these notices come from BMG and its anti-piracy partner Rightscorp, who argued that RCN can be held for the actions of its customers.

The Internet provider is not happy with these allegations and last year it took legal steps in response. The ISP filed a lawsuit against music rights group BMG at a New York federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment on the matter.

In their request, RCN argued that they are not liable for the alleged copyright infringements of subscribers. They are merely passing on traffic, which grants the company protection under the DMCA’s safe harbor provision, they claimed.

BMG clearly disagrees with this point of view and this week submitted a motion to dismiss (pdf) the request for a declaratory judgment at the New York federal court.

The music group stresses that a declaratory judgment is not proper in this situation. RCN wants the court to rule that it is not liable for any past, current, or future infringements, without providing essential details on their takedown and repeat infringer policies and procedures.

While BMG admits that the DMCA provides a “safe harbor” for Internet providers, they stress that this right is not unconditional. It doesn’t provide “blanket immunity” from copyright infringement claims.

“..this [safe harbor] defense is not absolute. Rather than provide conduit ISPs with blanket immunity, Congress required that conduit ISPs adopt and reasonably implement a policy for the termination of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances before they may claim a safe harbor defense,” BMG notes.

One of the main problems BMG signals is that the court can’t rule on something that has yet to happen. Without knowing how RCN will deal with repeat infringers in the future, liability may change over time, they say.

“Crucially, the facts on which RCN’s future liability turns cannot possibly be known in advance,” BMG writes.

“The Court cannot possibly know the content of future infringement notices, whether RCN will have knowledge of future infringements, what its future practices will be, and whether it will terminate repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.”

As such, the music rights group asks the court to dismiss the ISP’s request for a declaratory judgment.

“These sorts of contingencies render questions of infringement far too remote to justify declaratory relief. It would be extraordinarily unfair to immunize RCN against the infringement of BMG’s copyrights without regard for the facts that would be pertinent to an infringement action,” they say.

Even if the court disagrees and decides that it has jurisdiction to rule on the issue, BMG cites several other grounds to dismiss the complaint. This includes RCN’s alleged failure to state a claim for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The court will now review the arguments from both sides to decide whether the case will go ahead.

In addition to RCN’s request for a declaratory judgment regarding liability for pirating subscribers, fellow ISP Windstream has a similar case pending in the court. At the same time, Cox Communication is appealing the $25 million judgment in their case.

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

With the advent of cheap Android devices such as Amazon’s Fire Stick and dozens of set-top variants, anyone can install legal software such as Kodi to watch recorded media.

However, those very same devices can be modified to do things that at best sit in a legal gray area and at worst could be illegal. We’re talking about viewing movies, TV shows, live TV and PPV events, without paying a dime to anyone.

In some parts of the world the phenomenon has reached epidemic proportions, so much so that the Federation Against Copyright Theft now cite it as a major concern in the UK. But while there is not much anyone can do to clamp down on people at home doing a DIY job on their own setups, it is possible to crack down on people who supply pre-modified devices.

One individual that has found himself in the middle of the controversy is UK-based Brian ‘Tomo’ Thompson. The Middlesborough-based shopkeeper was previously raided by police and Trading Standards after selling “fully loaded” Android boxes from his small premises.

Unusually for such cases, Thompson is being prosecuted by his local council. He’s under the impression that he’s done nothing wrong but now wants to discover where the boundaries lie for sellers of similar devices.

“All I want to know is whether I am doing anything illegal. I know it’s a gray area but I want it in black and white,” he said last September.

This morning Thompson appeared before Teeside Crown Court for a plea hearing. As promised, BBC reports that he pleaded not guilty, which means his case will now go to a full trial.

In what will be a landmark case, Thompson stands accused of two offenses under section 296ZB of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. This section deals with devices and services designed to circumvent technological measures.

“A person commits an offense if he — in the course of a business — sells or lets for hire, any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures,” the law reads.

Kodi installations with third-party addons effectively ‘farm’ content already available on various ‘pirate’ sites on the Internet. On that basis, it could be argued that any anti-circumvention/anti-copying measures put in place by broadcasters and other copyright holders have already been bypassed by the time the addon streams the content to the user.

However, the Court will have to decide what part, if any, Thompson played in circumventing those measures when he sold modified Kodi devices to his customers. According to the BBC, two of those sales were test purchases made by Middlesborough Council.

The outcome of the trial, which is likely to be complex one, will have little effect on people who modify their own Kodi installations at home. However, it is likely to determine the boundaries when it comes to those offering “fully loaded” Kodi TV devices for sale in the UK.

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

For some time, Russian rightsholders have been dealing with so-called ‘pirate’ sites by filing complaints at the Moscow City Court. If specific material is not removed within a two-week period, the Court is authorized to take action.

The measures usually involve an order for local ISPs to block subscribers from accessing errant sites, using methods already deployed by providers elsewhere in Europe. However, while ‘pirate’ sites are usually the targets, more legitimate platforms can also get sucked in.

Video-hosting giant DailyMotion is the latest to feel the harsh reality of Russia’s site-blocking mechanism. The platform, which is 90% owned by French media group Vivendi, was ordered to be blocked by the Moscow City Court, meaning that the site will soon be rendered inaccessible to local Internet users.

The issue dates back to 2016 when Gazprom Media discovered that video clips from its Pyatnitsya! (Friday!) channel were being hosted on DailyMotion without its permission. The company told Russia’s Gazeta that’s representatives sent several complaints to Daily Motion’s head office during the course of last year, but no response was received.

On at least two occasions in 2016, Gazprom Media had DailyMotion URLs blocked by the Moscow City Court, but after finding even more infringing content on the platform, Gazprom ran out of patience.

Last December, under repeat infringer laws active since 2015, DailyMotion was given one last chance to remove the clips from its platform. It failed to comply, and in response the Moscow City Court invoked its repeat infringer policy, ordering local ISPs to block DailyMotion on a permanent basis.

Speaking with Russian media, a spokesperson for Russian telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor said that in line with a requirement for ISPs to block the site within seven days, it’s possible that Daily Motion could be blacked-out before the end of the week.

Gazprom Media said that DailyMotion’s owner Vivendi failed to appeal the ruling within the prescribed time limit. As a result, it now finds itself on a list of serious repeat infringers (which includes notorious torrent site RuTracker) that face so-called “eternal blocking” in Russia.

In comments to THR, a Daily Motion spokesperson said that the company was unaware of any ongoing court procedure and would “take all necessary steps to make contact with relevant authorities in Russia to resolve the issue.”

The fact that DailyMotion has been labeled a repeat infringer by a competent court will be of huge embarrassment to owner Vivendi. The French-based company owns Universal Music, TV company Canal+, and has interests in game publishers Ubisoft and Gamesloft.

It is not clear how easily the permanent block can be lifted, but it’s likely that DailyMotion will now do everything it can to appeal the decision of the Moscow Court.

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