In its yearly “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets”, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has listed more than a dozen websites said to be involved in piracy and counterfeiting.

The overview is largely based on input from industry groups including the RIAA and MPAA, who submitted their recommendations a few weeks ago.

While the USTR admits that the list is not meant to reflect legal violations, the goal of the review is to motivate owners and foreign Governments to take appropriate action and reduce piracy.

“The United States encourages all responsible authorities to intensify efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to use the information contained in the Notorious Markets List to pursue legal actions where appropriate,” the USTR announced.

As in previous years, The Pirate Bay remains one of the primary offenders.

According to the USTR, the site continues to facilitate downloading of copyright-infringing material. The Government further highlights the site’s resilience and “symbolic importance” as one of the longest-running pirate sites

“Despite enforcement actions around the world and drawn-out legal battles against its operators, The Pirate Bay is of symbolic importance as one of the longest-running and most vocal torrent sites for admittedly illegal downloads of movies, television, music, and other copyrighted content,” the report reads.

Other prominent torrent sites mentioned in the review are ExtraTorrent, Rutorrent, RARBG, and 1337x.to.

For the first time, USTR has also included a stream ripping site; YouTube-MP3.org. While this phenomenon has been around for a decade, the report includes a special “issue focus” mentioning it as an emerging threat.

“Stream ripping is an emerging trend in digital copyright infringement that is increasingly causing substantial economic harm to music creators and undermining legitimate services,” the USTR writes.

The mention follows a report from earlier this year, which also highlighted concerns about stream ripping. Soon after, several major music labels filed a lawsuit against YouTube-MP3 in a U.S. federal court.

A few newcomers aside, the review is mostly made up of familiar names, including 4shared, Putlocker, Nowvideo, Rapidgator and Uploaded, as well as several non-English language piracy portals and counterfeiting platforms.

In addition to individual sites and services, the USTR notes that some hosting services have also become piracy havens. The report specifically calls out the Swiss company Private layer for hosting the-watch-series.to, projectfree-tv, using a legal loophole.

The U.S has urged Switzerland to implement new legislation to make it easier to take action against pirate sites, but this hasn’t happened thus far.

The full list of the notorious online pirate sites and services that are highlighted in the report (pdf) are included below. The complete overview also contains various e-commerce and counterfeiting sites, including Alibaba’s Taobao.com.

—

– 4shared.com
– Beevideo.tv
– Bookfi and Libgen
– ExtraTorrent
– Gongchang.com
– Movshare group (allegedly operating Nowvideo.sx, Watchseriesfree.to, Videoweed.es, Novamov.com and others)
– MP3va.com
– Muaban.net
– Myegy.to
– Nanjing Imperiosus (domainerschoice.com)
– Pobieramy24.pl, Darkwarez.pl, Catshare.net and Fileshark.pl
– Private Layer hosted sites (including the-watch-series.to and projectfree-tv.to)
– Putlocker
– RARBG.to
– Rutracker.org and Rapidgator.org
– Taobao.com
– The Pirate Bay
– Uploaded.net
– Vibbo.com
– VK.com
– Youtube-MP3.org

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

Earlier this year, Australia’s Productivity Commission released a draft report covering various aspects of the country’s intellectual property system.

Among the Commission’s recommendations was advice to the government that it should allow citizens to access geo-blocked content in order for them to obtain the best deals on international content.

“Geoblocking results in Australians paying higher prices (often for a lesser or later service) than consumers overseas,” the draft read.

The report also urged the introduction of fair use provisions into local copyright law instead of the current “fair dealing” arrangement.

“Australia’s copyright system has expanded over time, often with no transparent, evidence-based policy analysis demonstrating the need for, or quantum of, new rights. A new system of user rights, including the introduction of a broad, principles-based fair use exception, is needed to help address this imbalance,” the report said.

During the summer, copyright holders fought back, claiming that fair use would have a negative effect on creation. Music group IFPI, for example, warned that fair use would threaten innovation and disadvantage creators while creating legal uncertainty.

“Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements between content owners and users, including technological innovators,” IFPI said. In December, similar arguments were presented in a new campaign championed by local celebrities.

But in a final inquiry report sent to the government in September and published this week, the Commission’s position remains unmoved.

“Rights holders have argued against the adoption of fair use in Australia. They claim that by design, fair use is imprecise and would create significant legal uncertainty for both rightsholders and users. Initial uncertainty is not a compelling reason to eschew a fair use exception, especially if it serves to preserve poor policy outcomes,” the Commission writes.

“Australia’s current exceptions are themselves subject to legal uncertainty, and evidence suggests that fair use cases, as shown in the US, are more predictable than rights holders argue. Moreover, courts routinely apply principles-based law to new cases, such as in consumer and employment law, updating case law when the circumstances warrant doing so.”

The Commission says that over time, both rightsholders and users will become “increasingly comfortable” when making judgments over what is and is not fair use. In the event that Courts are called on to decide, four factors should be considered.

• the purpose and character of the use
• the nature of the copyright material
• the amount and substantiality of the part used
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyright material.

“Rights holders also argued fair use would significantly reduce their incentives to create and invest in new works, holding up Canada as an example. Some have proclaimed that fair use will equate with ‘free use’, particularly by the education sector. But these concerns are ill-founded and premised on flawed (and self-interested) assumptions,” the Commission writes.

“Indeed, rather than ignore the interests of rights holders, under fair use the effect on the rights holder is one of the factors to be considered. Where a use of copyright material harms a rights holder, the use is less likely to be considered fair. In the US, where fair use is long established, creative industries thrive.”

Fair Use recommedation from the Commission

And when it comes to allowing Australians unfettered access to legitimate content, the Commission remains equally unmoved. It notes that prompt access to reasonably priced content is vital in the fight against piracy and the government should change the law to make it clear to consumers that they have the right to obtain content from overseas, should that mean getting a better deal.

“Research consistently demonstrates that timely and cost effective access to
copyright-protected works is the best way for industry to reduce online copyright
infringement. Therefore, in addition to implementing a new exception for fair use, the Commission is recommending making it easier for users to access legitimate copyright-protected content,” the inquiry report reads.

“Studies show Australian consumers systematically pay higher prices for professional software, music, games and e-books than consumers in comparable overseas markets. While some digital savvy consumers are able to avoid these costs (such as through the use of proxy servers and Virtual Private Networks), most pay inflated prices for lower standard services and some will ultimately infringe.

“The Australian Government should make clear that it is not an infringement of Australia’s copyright system for consumers to circumvent geoblocking technology and should avoid international obligations that would preclude such practices,” it adds.

Anti-Geoblocking recommendation from the Commission

The Intellectual Property Arrangements final inquiry report is available here.

Note: An earlier version of this article referred to the Productivity Commission as an “agency”. That has been corrected to “advisory body”.

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

Yesterday morning very few people knew that a new version of The Mummy will be on the big screen next summer.

That changed quickly when an unfinished trailer of the film was accidentally put online by IMAX’s YouTube account.

As it turns out, the trailer where Tom Cruise is screaming without sound effects is quite an entertaining watch. Soon, the mistake was reposted all over the Internet, where it triggered a meme fest.

Great promotion for the film, one would think, but the bosses at Universal Pictures weren’t smiling.

The original video was promptly removed by IMAX and over at Universal, the anti-piracy team tried to stop the trailer from spreading by issuing various takedown notices.

On Twitter alone, several people had their postings removed over copyright infringement claims. According to the movie studio, the “leaked” trailer is not for the public’s eyes.

“The uploaded trailer was a leaked version without sound fx. This was accidentally released online but is not intended to be available for public viewing. We have removed it from YouTube, but it is still populating on Twitter,” they write.

A takedown notification @Babylonian received.

As a result, many copies that were posted on Twitter, YouTube and elsewhere are no longer working. However, there is so much interest in the trailer that Universal can’t really keep up.

For every video that’s pulled offline, several others appear elsewhere. It seems virtually impossible at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.

In fact, the trailer has become a fertile breeding ground for memes, with people adding their own soundtrack or using Tom Cruise’s scream as the modern-day Wilhelm scream to pimp other videos.

<script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

It’s unclear whether Universal Pictures plans to keep issuing takedown requests, but at this point it might be best to sit back and enjoy the free promotion. If so many people enjoy sharing a trailer, unfinished or not, that’s something to celebrate.

After all, when The Mummy eventually premieres in cinemas next summer, people will remember the video as a gift that put a smile on their face during the dark days before Christmas.

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

With more and more piracy websites getting blocked in the UK, set-top Android devices loaded with Kodi and third-party addons have become the next big thing.

When configured in the correct manner, these devices offer a bewildering amount of free content, including live TV, all the latest movies, PPVs and much more. People can easily set them up themselves, but others would rather pay someone else to do the work for them.

As a result, a whole cottage industry has sprung up in the UK, with people programming Firesticks and similar platforms to receive pirate content and selling them via eBay, Amazon, local papers and Facebook. They usually get sold for about double the price of the basic hardware but plenty of people manage to make more than £100 profit per device.

One of these outfits was known online as Oobersticks. The company offered relatively expensive devices containing a custom build of Kodi offering all the usual treats. TF is informed these boxes were shipped out only partly configured, with customers required to complete the final install themselves.

Although it’s unclear who placed it, an advert for the product which appeared over the summer explains the device’s capabilities.

“How many of you pay for Sky? BT? Netflix? Well with the OoberStick you don’t have to. It simply plugs into the HDMI port of your TV. You then have different sections,” the advert reads.

“You have sport which not only has all Sky Sports channels and BT Sport. You can watch every single Premier League match. It has thousands of movies and tv shows. All in HD quality. It really is a fantastic piece of kit.”

These promotional videos 1, 2 also suggest that the company may have offered (or at least resold) some kind of IPTV service. This week, however, it all came to an end.

On Tuesday morning last week at around 7:20am, police in Norfolk arrested a 32-year-old man who was a director of two companies connected with the sales of the devices. Around six officers attended, together with an individual representing Sky TV.

A source familiar with the situation, who spoke with TF on condition of anonymity, said that the police were looking for servers and potentially some kind of datacenter. The source also added that while computers, phones and other hardware were seized, the haul did not include any Android devices.

With a fraud and copyright infringement investigation underway, the man was eventually freed on police bail until a date in 2017. However, in addition to a police inquiry, he also has other issues to face.

Facebook is awash with complaints from unhappy Ooberstick customers, with many stating that the devices no longer work or otherwise failed to perform as advertised. A post (since deleted) on MoneySavingExpert.com reveals delivery problems were also an issue.

“Placed an order with oober for the oobersupreme box in November. Still haven’t received my box. Emailed them at start of the week to find out where it is. Reply stated it will be with me by the end of this week. They have now taken websites offline and removed their Facebook page. Emails are also bouncing back,” it said.

TorrentFreak understands that due to Ooberstick’s owner being served with a cease and desist order from Sky, all of the websites and Facebook pages connected with the company had to be taken down. This has resulted in some customers feeling they’ve been left in the dark. Some have reportedly sent death threats to the man and his business partner. Even his wife and her grandchild have been threatened.

Contacted by TorrentFreak, the arrested man said that he was running what he believed to be an entirely legal business. He spoke on condition of anonymity due to concern over the death threats.

“I was running a successful business which was both VAT registered in the U.K. and with Worldpay as my payment merchant. For me to get both of those, those parties have to be sure that what I was doing was legal,” he says.

“I certainly thought what I was doing was legal. Streaming for the end user is legal as nothing is being downloaded. I do believe the EU court of law ruled on that.”

According to a local media report, some customers have been successful in getting money back from their banks. The arrested man said that other customers will be refunded in advance of the company going into liquidation. However, with a money laundering investigation underway, that may be more easily said than done.

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

Last year, academic publisher Elsevier filed a complaint against Sci-Hub and several related “pirate” sites.

It accused the websites of making academic papers widely available to the public, without permission.

While Sci-Hub is nothing like the average pirate site, it is just as illegal according to Elsevier’s legal team, which obtained a preliminary injunction from a New York District Court last fall.

The injunction ordered Sci-Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan to quit offering access to any Elsevier content. However, this didn’t happen.

Instead of taking Sci-Hub down, the lawsuit and the associated media attention only helped the site grow. Just a few months ago we reported that its users were downloading hundreds of thousands of papers per day.

Elbakyan put her finger on one of the biggest frustrations of scientists; the fact that so much fundamental research is hidden behind a paywall, where only an elite group can access them.

While piracy is ‘not done’ for most academics, at least until after they graduate, Sci-Hub has received a lot of support. This week the prestigious publication Nature even picked the site’s founder as one of the ten people that mattered in 2016.

“Few people support the fact that she acted illegally, but many see Sci-Hub as advancing the cause of the open-access movement, which holds that papers should be made (legally) free to read and reuse,” Nature writes.

One of the open access supporters who praises Sci-Hub’s founder is Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley

“What she did is nothing short of awesome,” he tells Nature. “Lack of access to the scientific literature is a massive injustice, and she fixed it with one fell swoop.”

For now, Elbakyan doesn’t see any reason to stop what she’s doing. When Elsevier shut down Sci-Hub’s domain name, the site simply moved to a new one, continuing business as usual.

This stance is welcomed by many researchers, especially in developing countries where universities often don’t have the funds to pay for access to these papers. As such, Elbakyan believes she’s doing the right thing.

“Is there anything wrong or shameful in running a research-access website such as Sci-Hub? I think no, therefore I can be open about my activities,” she says.

At the same time, the pushback against Elsevier continues to grow. Just recently, Taiwanese Universities decided to cancel subscriptions to its journals, stating that the costs are unreasonably high.

On the legal front, progress in the case between Sci-Hub and Elsevier has been slow. There’s a pre-trial conference scheduled for February next year, so it will take a few more months at least before that concludes.

Meanwhile, the download counter at Sci-Hub keeps on spinning. Thus far, the site has served up 75 million downloads this year, which by one estimate is good for three percent of all science publisher downloads worldwide.

—

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