For most police departments, online piracy has no priority, but in recent years City of London Police have made copyright infringement one of their main targets.

In September 2013, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) was founded, marking the start of a broad enforcement campaign to decrease traffic to online pirate sites.

To achieve this goal PIPCU has targeted hosting services, advertisers and payment processors, asking them to cut ties with allegedly infringing sites. In addition, police also sent out warning letters to pirate site owners directly, asking them to go legit or shut down.

In recent years, hundreds of sites have been approached. This week it appears that another batch of letters was sent out which, compared to earlier versions, are extended with added references to UK legislation and increased threats.

One of the websites that was targeted is DNJ.to (DailyNewJams), a music portal that allows users to stream and download a wide variety of tracks.

In their letter, PIPCU accuses the site of facilitating copyright infringement. They state that the operator may be liable to prosecution for conspiracy to defraud, offences under the Fraud Act, the Copyright, Design & Patents Act, as well as the Serious Crime Act.

“Should a conviction be brought for the above offences, UK courts may impose sentences of imprisonment and/or fines,” the letter reads, adding that “PIPCU has criminal and civil powers in UK law to seize money, belongings and any property in connection with these offences.”

Part of PIPCU’s recent letter

The new letter, which comes in the form of a flashy PDF, also references a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice, which clarified that knowingly linking to infringing material for profit is against the law.

PIPCU suggests that DNJ.to is making copyright-infringing material available with a profit motive, and urges the site to stop doing so. If no action is taken in a few weeks, they may become subject to various enforcement efforts.

“If no contact is made before 3rd February 2017, then you and/or the DNJ.TO website may face further police action. This may include steps to disrupt revenue made from advertisements and/or payment services; alongside internet infrastructure disruption,” PIPCU writes.

TorrentFreak spoke to one of the people behind DNJ.to, who doesn’t appear to be impressed by the threatening language. Since the site has no direct ties with the UK, they plan to disregard the letter.

“They accuse us of breaking the UK Law but we have no relation to the UK nor do any of us live there. We don’t even try to actively drive UK traffic to the blog. In fact we completely don’t care about the UK,” DNJ.to’s operator says.

The various enforcement threats also fail to make an impact. While PIPCU had some success in convincing advertising networks to ban ‘pirate’ sites, there are many lined up who are still eager to take the traffic.

Similarly, there are also plenty of webhosting providers who are more than happy to service these type of sites as long as they pay, despite the enforcement efforts from PIPCU and others.

“It’s not like they haven’t already been trying this for years. Is it working? Nope, its not. Did they ever take a look how many new advertising companies are opening every month? They would be happy if PIPCU would close some of the big [advertising networks].

“We get like five advertising offers a week from ad networks who beg us to join them. There are tons of hosting providers who absolutely don’t care about so-called ‘copyright infringement’,” DNJ.to’s operator adds.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the letters are entirely useless.

It’s certainly possible that some smaller sites that will fold when facing PIPCU’s strong language. However, it’s clear that DNJ.to plans to keep its site running as usual.

—

A full copy of PIPCU’s letter is available here (pdf).

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

In an move to appease Hollywood’s major studios, last year Netflix increased its efforts to block customers who circumvent geo-blockades.

As a result, it has become harder to use VPN services to access Netflix content from other countries. However, the measures also affect well-intentioned customers who merely use a VPN to protect their privacy.

This broad blocking policy has sparked wide protests and now that 12 months have passed, we take a closer look at where things stand today.

TorrentFreak spoke to several VPN providers who have to deal with the issue on a daily basis. Some are more open about it than others, but the overall consensus is that Netflix went a step too far by placing copyright protection above security.

“In my opinion, no one should have to sacrifice operational security for entertainment,” Torguard‘s Ben Van Pelt tells TorrentFreak.

Private Internet Access (PIA) sees the measures as a violation of pure Net Neutrality, noting the origin of traffic should be irrelevant. The Internet is a location by itself, they believe.

“It is an odd time when one can pay for a service and not be provided said service when not in the ‘correct physical’ geographical location. The Internet is its own jurisdiction,” PIA’s Caleb Chen says.

It is still unclear how Netflix’s IP-blacklisting works. A few providers have noticed that some of their IP-ranges were already banned before they were active, suggesting that Netflix automatically flags IPs from certain organizations.

Also, there’s a strong suspicion that the streaming service keeps track of how many logins there are from a given IP-address. When this hits a threshold, the address is then supposedly added to the blacklist as well.

The question on many people’s minds is; how effective are Netflix’s measures? According to the providers we spoke with, a lot of their shared IP-addresses were blacklisted quickly.

But, when something’s censored on the Internet, people generally try to find ways around it. This is also true for the Netflix VPN block. The Internet is littered with circumvention tips and tricks and some VPN providers are actively advertising that their service still works.

In reality, however, no VPN provider can guarantee that their service works 100% of the time. In most cases, new IP-addresses are swiftly blocked causing a lot of frustration among users.

“The fact that we have to play this game at all is incredibly frustrating. Lots of people sign up because they hear from a friend that LiquidVPN still works and then they cancel because they can’t get it working without asking for help,” Dave Cox from LiquidVPN tells us.

In terms of “help,” providers take a different approach as well. Some VPNs are taking a hands-off approach, but there are some that are willing to find solutions, often behind the scenes.

TorGuard has noticed that if users switch to a dedicated IP-address, which isn’t shared with others, Netflix works just fine. As a result, demand for these plans has increased quite a bit.

“We greatly expanded our Dedicated VPN IP pool and now offer Dedicated IP options in over 55 countries worldwide. This has proven to work flawlessly for users who wish to bypass VPN blockades with geo-restricted streaming services,” Torguard’s Ben Van Pelt says.

LiquidVPN informed us that bypassing the Netflix blocks on devices like phones, smart TVs, and streaming boxes requires technical know-how and is not for everyone. However, they are willing to offer assistance to people who want to access Netflix’s US catalog from a VPN.

Private Internet Access doesn’t offer any specific help but notes that they regularly add new IP-addresses. Although geo-unblocking is not a specific aim, they will do their best to ensure that users have access to an uncensored and unfiltered Internet.

“Private Internet Access will be introducing tens of thousands of fresh IP-addresses into rotation. Additionally, we are working on additional and aggressive new methods to ensure our clients receive a full, uncensored and net neutral Internet experience,” PIA’s Caleb Chen notes.

Then there are also providers who are not really interested in joining the blacklist whack-a-mole. Mullvad, for example, doesn’t support Netflix’s goals but doesn’t plan to actively counter them.

“Netflix and their suppliers are being silly and are stuck in a laughably outdated geographic distribution model. Geoblocking is not one of our main areas though, so if they want to go out of their way to drive away their own customers, we’ll let them,” Mullvad’s Daniel Berntsson says.

Lastly, there’s the Fight Club treatment ExpressVPN adheres to, avoiding public discussions on the topics wherever possible.

“To draw on the famous quote from the movie Fight Club, the first rule of Netflix is: do not talk about Netflix,” says David Lang, ExpressVPN’s Communications Manager.

While it’s impossible to draw any uniform conclusions, our general sense is that Netflix succeeded at making it very hard for casual VPN users to bypass geo-blockades.

Those who put some effort into it can probably find a way to access foreign Netflix catalogs, but even then it remains unclear how long these circumvention options will hold.

—

Disclaimer: PIA and ExpressVPN are TorrentFreak sponsors.

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

^{If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!}

This episode features LBRY‘s founder and CEO, Jeremy Kauffman. Jeremy introduces us to the soon-to-be-launched, blockchain-based, P2P content platform LBRY, and discusses the excitements, challenges and potential threats to liberty of running a completely decentralized, out-of-control platform.

We take on a variety of topics: upstart ‘shitcoins’ and their similarities to currencies in the US before the Federal Reserve; whether the era of “too much information” is causing social instability – and if we need to rethink starting projects like LBRY as a consequence; the libertarian idea of ‘free anarchy zones’ and Jamie’s idea for a Robot Slave Party; and whether Julian Assange’s problems are mostly a result of Wikileaks’ centralized information infrastructure.

—

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing copyright and file-sharing news. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

The guests for our news discussions will vary, and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Jeremy Kauffman

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Riley Byrne
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Siraje Amarniss

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

January 2012, New Zealand Police carried out the largest action ever against individuals accused of copyright infringement.

The raid on Kim Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion was carried out on behalf of United States authorities, who are still trying to extradite him and several of his former colleagues.

Meanwhile, Dotcom hasn’t been sitting still. Today, exactly five years after the raid on his house and the destruction of the original Megaupload, the entrepreneur planned to announce fresh details on a new and improved version, Megaupload 2.0.

Dotcom, who is not officially part of the venture but acts as its chief “evangelist,” informed us a few months ago that the launch was delayed but that more information would come out today.

“It is unlikely that we can make a full January 20th launch happen. The fund-raising was delayed and the legal team needed more time for the new setup. But we will reveal more details about Megaupload 2 and Bitcache on that special day,” Dotcom said at the time.

Those who followed Dotcom’s Twitter updates were indeed promised some “big news,” but at the end of the day things turned out quite differently. The announcement had to be delayed due to an “expected” roadblock.

“Sorry but there has been an expected hiccup. Will tell you all about it later today. Let this play out and give me some time to update you,” Dotcom noted.

No further details on the exact reason for the delay were provided, but the Megaupload 2.0 team is actively working on a solution. This may take a few days, according to a message posted by Dotcom a few hours ago.

Operation Destroy roadblock

This appears to be the first bump in the road after Megaupload 2.0 was first mentioned last summer. Prospective users who are eager for more details have to be patient for a little longer.

From what has been revealed thus far, Megaupload 2.0 and the associated Bitcache platform will allow people to share and store files, linking every file-transfer to a bitcoin transaction.

The bitcoin element is not the only part that’s new. Unlike the original Megaupload, the new incarnation isn’t going to store all files itself. Instead, it plans to use third-party providers such as Maidsafe and Storj.

This means that the new Megaupload will mostly act as a middleman between other file-storage platforms, adding a separate layer of encryption through Bitcache.

More information and perhaps some technical details are expected to follow in the near future.

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

While the overall volume of lawsuits continues to fall, copyright trolling is still a live and viable business model in the United States. However, things don’t always go smoothly.

After demanding payments from alleged pirates for some time, last November it was reported that LHF Productions, the company behind the action movie London Has Fallen, was having difficulty with a spirited defendant in one of its cases.

In communications with LHF’s legal team, James Collins and his lawyer J. Christopher Lynch systematically took apart LHF’s claims, threatening to expose their foreign representatives, the notorious Guardaley, MaverickEye and Crystal Bay organizations, and their “fictitious witnesses.”

But just as LHF Productions were dismissing that case, new opportunities were opening up thousands of miles away. According to reports coming out of Norway this week, letters are now being sent out to locals accusing them of downloading London Has Fallen using Popcorn Time and other BitTorrent-based systems.

In common with similar claims elsewhere, the law firm involved (Denmark-based Njord Law) is demanding a cash payment to make a supposed lawsuit go away.

A copy of the letter obtained by Tek.no reveals that 2,700 NOK (around US$320) can make the case disappear. Failure to comply, on the other hand, could result in a court case and damages of around $12,000, the company warns.

Like the UK, where the Citizens Advice Bureau has taken an interest in the activities of copyright trolls, in Norway The Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet) has also been commenting this week.

“This is a very funny way of working, we think. An IP address is not an indicator that can be used to determine that someone has done something illegal. At least not the specific person – so this would not hold up in court,” their technical director explained.

“First, we wondered if this was to do with fraud, then if the letters were part of a campaign by licensees to inform users that it is illegal to download movies,” he added.

While that was obviously not the case, even the local organization representing the rights of the major US movie studios was quick to distance itself from the activities of the trolls. Willy Johansen, chairman of Norwegian organization Rights Alliance, said the demands have nothing to do with them and his group had already refused to work with the law firm.

“Njord says they represent producer companies directly in the United States. We have told them clearly that in Norway we do not want to go against consumers in this way,” Johansen said.

So what should recipients of these letters do? According to the Consumer Council, the answer is to dispute the claim. Torgeir Waterhouse of Internet interest group ICT Norway suggests going a step further.

“They claim to have a case, but they have not – at best they have identified the correct broadband subscription at the time the movie was downloaded. I strongly recommend that everyone who receives this letter does not pay,” he told Side3.no.

“We want the Norwegian Data Protection Authority to look at this. One thing is the collection of information, but another thing is that we know nothing about the processing of the information and if it can be presented as evidence in a trial.”

While it is clearly scary for people to receive these kinds of letters, it is only because recipients cave in and pay that the business model keeps rolling. Whether in the US, Europe, or elsewhere, trolls like Guardaley will continue until the money dries up – or someone in authority stops them.

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