In an expansion of their site-blocking campaign, several Hollywood studios under the banner of the MPA applied to a court in Norway during 2015 to have seven ‘pirate’ sites blocked at the ISP level.

Warner Bros, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Sony, Disney, Columbia and several local industry groups argued that The Pirate Bay, ExtraTorrent, Viooz, PrimeWire, Swefilmer, DreamFilm and Movie4K, infringe their copyrights.

Local ISPs including Telenor, TeliaSonera, NextGenTel and Altibox were named as defendants in the case, which was handled by the Oslo District Court. In September 2015 the Court handed down its ruling, ordering the ISPs to block the seven sites listed in the lawsuit.

While many observers believed the studios would be back immediately with more blocking requests, things went quiet for more than a year. Only recently did they return with fresh requests against more ISPs.

The Motion Picture Association filed a new lawsuit against seven Internet service providers, named by Tek.no as Eidsiva Bredbånd, Lynet Internett, Breiband.no, Enivest, Neas Bredbånd, Tussa IKT and Opennet Norge.

Like before, the MPA and the studios wanted the ISPs to restrict access to a number of ‘pirate’ sites including The Pirate Bay, Extratorrent, Viooz, SweFilmer, DreamFilm and Movie4K, which were all named in the original complaint. Additional sites named in the new complaint include Watch Series, Putlocker, TUBE+, Couch Tuner, Watch32, Project Free TV and Watch Free.

It now appears that the MPA found a sympathetic ear at the Oslo District Court, which has just issued a ruling in the studios’ favor. Local media says the ruling is considerably shorter than the one handed down in 2015, which seems to indicate that the process has now been streamlined.

According to Tek, the Court made its decision based on the fact that the sites in question published links to copyrighted material already available online. The Court determined that the sites published the content to a “new public”, noting that they had not changed their modus operandi since the original ruling.

The ISPs were ordered to implement DNS blockades covering the domains currently in use. As illustrated on a a number of previous occasions, including in Norway itself, DNS blocks are the weakest form of blocking and are easily circumvented by switching to a different provider, such as Google.

Torgeir Waterhouse of Internet interest group ICT Norway says that while the DNS blocks might only amount to a “speed bump”, it’s more important to make it easier to access legal services.

“We must make it easy to pay, easy to access and easy to develop new services. Ultimately it is this that determines the levels of revenue for producers. Revenue does not occur ‘automagically’ by preventing their access to an illegal service,” he says.

Waterhouse, who has campaigned on several intellectual property issues, also criticized the authorities for holding ISPs responsible for the actions of others.

“The government should make a law that says what they really want, namely that parts of the Internet should not be accessible to the population. They should have the courage to stand up and say that this is what they want, not create the impression that Internet service providers are doing something wrong,” he adds

In common with the 2015 ruling, the sites detailed in the lawsuit were all ordered to pay court costs. None of the sites’ owners appeared in Court so it’s unlikely that any will pay the $1,800 they each now owe.

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

Removing search results is nothing new for Google. The company has been cleaning up its search index for years, in response to complaints from copyright holders.

Every week the search engine processes millions of requests. In most cases these claims are legitimate, but every now and then webpages are targeted mistakenly.

This also happened to Mega, the cloud storage site originally founded by Kim Dotcom. For the past few days the site has become unfindable in Google as its homepage is no longer listed.

Instead, users get the following results, listing various Mega-related pages including the site’s Wikipedia entry.

In addition, they see a mention at the bottom of the page explaining that one result was removed in response to a DMCA request. That happens to be the Mega URL they were looking for.

No Mega

The DMCA notice in question was sent on behalf of Metropolitan and claims that the Mega.nz homepage linked to an infringing copy of the movie John Wick. While there is no infringing material linked on that page, the link was removed from Google’s index.

To make matters even worse, Mega chairman Stephen Hall says that this isn’t the first time that their homepage was removed.

“This has occurred three times In recent months. Each time we file a counter-notice, which is then acknowledged by Google within 2-3 days and the search results are then reinstated 10-14 days after that,” Hall tells TF.

“The notices were filed by agents who are well aware of the DMCA process but clearly aren’t verifying the links as their claimed content is certainly not available at mega.nz.”

Needless to say, the decreased visibility in Google leads to a reduction in search traffic and arguably a dip in revenue as well. All based on one “simple” mistake.

Mega.nz…

While Google will likely correct the error (again) following a DMCA counter-notification, the incident emphasizes that false takedown requests can do serious harm.

The search giant is generally quite good at spotting mistakes. At the moment, Google rejects roughly 10% of all takedown requests due to a variety of reasons, but it can’t catch them all.

Google has previously noted that it’s keeping an eye on these kinds of mistakes as well as clear cases of abuse, but thus far there is no real incentive for copyright holders to be more vigilant in their takedown efforts.

The U.S. Copyright Office is currently reviewing the effectiveness of the DMCA takedown process and some stakeholders have suggested punishments for clear abuse by rightholders. For now, however, there are no consequences.

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

Given that Australia is often credited with giving its consumers products that have been available in other regions for some time, it perhaps fits that the country has often been behind the times when it comes to anti-piracy measures.

Still, it’s doing its best to catch up now.

From having almost no way of dealing with unauthorized content consumption (besides giving consumers what they want in a timely fashion at a fair price), Australia is now blazing trails on the site-blocking front. Mid-December marked the beginning of the practice Down Under, when the Federal Court ordered ISPs to block The Pirate Bay and several other sites.

Days later and the first blocks were in place but defeated in seconds by anyone with a basic knowledge of Windows settings. Nevertheless, the content industries feel this is the way forward and are now doubling down.

Speaking with Mashable, Graham Burke, co-chief of Village Roadshow, is warning that a new wave of blocks is already on the horizon, informing the publication that his company is determined to go after pirate sites “big time.”

Burke, who is Australia’s most out-spoken individual on piracy issues, says that pirate site users won’t have long to wait to find out which domains will be targeted. When the court resumes in February, it will be all systems go, he said.

“There’s a list as long as my arm,” he said.

Of course, this revelation comes as no surprise. Over in the UK, where a similar model is in place, site blocking is now a regular occurrence. Often happening by stealth, site blocks are mainly put in place by rightsholders that have been granted permission to amend existing court orders. There’s now zero fanfare when another dozen or a hundred sites get added to the nation’s unofficial blocklist.

Things will be slightly more public in Australia though, and new injunctions will be required for sites not already covered by earlier orders. That said, the process is now fairly well understood and having dozens of new sites blocked shouldn’t prove too difficult, once they are determined to be both infringing and based overseas.

But while site-blocking is certainly part of the puzzle, Burke has once again reiterated his intention to pursue one of the most unpopular anti-piracy strategies. Despite the practice failing to have much positive effect in any other region in the past 15 years, the studio boss says his company will stick to its plan of suing file-sharers.

“We have the legal ability and the right to do,” Burke told Mashable. “Unlike previous areas where that’s been explored, if anyone is of dire circumstances or poor health and they undertake to stop doing it, we will accept that.”

While suing the sick and disadvantaged has never ended well for copyright holders, Burke’s insistence that his strategy aims to “win people’s hearts and minds” is optimistic, to say the least.

Suing end-users is extremely messy and equally expensive unless large ‘fines’ are handed out to supposed infringers to cover costs. When that’s the case, suing starts to look more like a profit center than a deterrent, at which point the moral high-ground is lost and hearts and minds disappear forever.

That being said, the vow to sue members of the public is hardly a new one. Burke made the same comments almost a year ago and the studio seems no closer to actually carrying out its threats. That’s not to say the company won’t try though.

While the copyright trolls behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club failed in their quest to ‘fine’ pirates Down Under, a company like Village Roadshow that already has respect in the region would likely face fewer obstacles. It’s certainly possible, but still ill-advised.

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

Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technologies have been available to the public for a number of years. Perhaps the most visible is the mobile app Shazam, which allows users to identify the name of a song after listening to just a short clip.

The same kind of technology is famously deployed at YouTube. Its (in)famous Content ID system can spot copyrighted content uploaded by users and make a decision whether to take it down or allow rightsholders to monetize it. However, YouTube now faces a legal challenge over the Content ID trademark.

Audible Magic has been operating in the content recognition and fingerprinting market for more than fifteen years. In fact, during 2006, YouTube and Audible Magic signed an agreement which gave YouTube a license to use the latter’s content recognition technology.

Perhaps surprisingly, Audible Magic’s system was called Content ID, a term YouTube uses to this day, despite its agreement with the content recognition company being terminated in 2009.

It’s clear the Audible Magic still feels it has a claim to the name and that is the basis of the complaint the company has just filed with the United States Trademark and Patent Office.

Audible Magic’s website

Describing itself as “the leader in automated identification of audio and visual content for web media platforms,” Audible Magic says it has worked with the biggest names in media, including Warner Bros, Sony, Disney and Facebook. As highlighted above, between 2006 and 2009 it also worked with Google.

In its complaint to USPTO, Audible Magic says that during 2006, YouTube was facing accusations that it was a “prime enabler” of copyright infringement and pirating.

“The television and movie industries were complaining that YouTube was allowing third-parties to upload copyright materials from television and movies and was not instituting any controls or checks on third-party content. This negative publicity was particularly damaging to YouTube in 2006 when Google was considering acquiring YouTube for over one billion dollars,” the company writes.

To address this problem, in October 2006 Audible Magic and Google signed an agreement for YouTube to license Audible Magic’s Content ID system. After YouTube had been bought by Google, the license was transferred to the search giant.

The agreement between the companies was terminated three years later in 2009, at which point Audible Magic says that all intellectual property rights in Content ID reverted back to its control. However, Google is now attempting to gain ownership of the trademark. As shown in the image below, its application with the USPTO is ongoing and claims first use nearly eight years ago.

Google’s registration for Content ID

“According to the date of first use claimed in Google’s registration, Google asserts that it first used the Content ID mark in connection with its services on August 27, 2008,” Audible Magic writes.

“Audible Magic’s date of first use of Content ID in March 2006 is thus well before the claimed first use of the mark by Google (as it should be since Google sourced the mark and related services from Audible Magic), and Audible Magic’s use of Content ID therefore has priority over Google’s use and registration.”

While Audible Magic feels it has a claim over the name, one of its biggest concerns surrounds the confusion that is set to arise with Google using the term ‘Content ID’ in a marketplace already occupied by Audible Magic.

“Such confusion may cause harm to Audible Magic and the consuming public and jeopardize the valuable goodwill and reputation Audible Magic has built up in connection with Content ID and its services,” the company explains.

In closing, Audible Magic asks the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Google’s trademark registration on the basis the company “committed fraud” in 2013 when it signed a declaration which stated that it knew of no other company entitled to use the Content ID mark in commerce.

The full complaint to the USPTO can be found here (pdf)

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

In an effort to curb online piracy, the movie and music industries reached an agreement with the UK’s leading ISPs to send “educational alerts” to alleged copyright infringers.

The piracy alerts program is part of the larger Creative Content UK (CCUK) initiative which already introduced several anti-piracy PR campaigns, targeted at the general public as well as the classroom.

The plan to send out email alerts was first announced several years ago and is about to kick off. According to ISPReview the first providers will start sending out emails later this month.

The four ISPs who are confirmed to be participating are BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media, but other providers could join in at a later stage. Thus far CCUK hasn’t announced a lot of detail or specifics on how the program will operate exactly, but here’s what TorrentFreak has learned so far.

What will be monitored?

The “alerts” system will only apply to P2P file-sharing. In theory, this means that the focus will be almost exclusively on BitTorrent (including apps such as Popcorn Time), as other P2P networks have relatively low user bases.

Consequently, those who use Usenet providers, streaming services (such as 123movies), or file-hosters such as Zippyshare and 4Shared, are not at risk. In other words, the program only covers a part of all online piracy.

A spokesperson from CCUK’s “Get it Right” campaign stressed that the alerts represent only one part of the broader program, which also aims to reach other infringers through its other initiatives.

How many people will be targeted?

The system will apply to everyone whose Internet account has been used to share copyrighted material via P2P networks.

That said, copyright holders and ISPs have agreed to cap the warnings at 2.5 million over three years. This means that only a fraction of all UK pirates will receive a notice.

Some people may also receive multiple notices if their account is repeatedly used to share copyrighted material.

“This ensures that people who might have missed an earlier email receive another one – but also allows time for account holders to take steps to address the issue,” a Get It Right spokesperson informed us.

What’s in the notices?

While the exact language might differ between ISPs, the notices are primarily meant to inform subscribers that their accounts have been used to share infringing material, while pointing them to legal alternatives.

“The purpose is to educate UK consumers about the many sources of legal content available, highlight the value of the UK’s creative industries and reduce online copyright infringement,” we were told.

Who will be monitoring these copyright infringements?

While ISPs take part in the scheme, they will not monitor subscribers’ file-sharing activities. The tracking will be done by third-party company MarkMonitor, who are also the technology partner for the U.S. Copyright Alert System.

This tracking company collects IP-addresses from BitTorrent swarms and sends its findings directly to the Internet providers. The lists with infringing IP-addresses are not shared with any of the rightsholders.

Each ISP will keep a database of the alleged infringers and send them appropriate warnings. In compliance with local laws and the best practices of the Information Commissioner’s Office, recorded infringements will be stored for a limited time.

Will any Internet accounts be disconnected?

There are no disconnections or mitigation measures for repeat infringers under the UK copyright alerts program. Early reports suggested that alleged file-sharers will get up to four warnings after which all subsequent offenses will be ignored.

This is in line with the overall goal of the campaign which is not targeted at the most hardcore file-sharers. The program is mostly focused on educating casual infringers about the legal alternatives to piracy.

Can the monitoring be circumvented?

The answer to the previous questions already shows that users have plenty of options to bypass the program. They can simply switch to other means of downloading, but there are more alternatives.

BitTorrent users could hide their IP-addresses through proxy services and VPNs for example. After the U.S. Copyright Alert Program launched in the U.S. there was a huge increase in demand for this kind of anonymity services.

So how scary are the alerts?

CCUK’s “Get it Right” stresses that the main purpose of the system is to inform casual infringers about their inappropriate behavior and point them to legal alternatives.

The focus lies on education, although the warnings also serve as a deterrent by pointing out that people are not anonymous. For some, this may be enough to cause them to switch to legal alternatives.

All in all the proposed measures are fairly reasonable, especially when compared to other countries where fines and internet connections are on the table. Whether it will be successful is an entirely different question of course.

The Creative Content UK team is confident that they can drive some significant change. Several benchmark measurements were taken prior to the campaign, so its effectiveness can be properly measured once the first results come in.

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