Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been very active over the past months, targeting uploaders on various sharing sites and services.

This week the anti-piracy group announced that it has scored yet another victory against a frequent copyright infringer in the Netherlands.

The dispute in question deals with a large-scale Usenet uploader, who shared over 1,500 TV shows including episodes of popular series such as Arrow, Blacklist, and Person of Interest.

After he was found out the man, who isn’t named, agreed to pay €7,500 in damages and stop his activities effective immediately. If not, an ex-parte court order requires him to pay an additional penalty of €2,000 per day, up to a maximum of €50,000.

According to court records (pdf), BREIN used the message-id of the NZB files to link the uploads to the defendant. These files were also traced to various posts on NZB spot-sites where the man advertised his uploads.

As usual, BREIN says that the financial situation of the uploader was taken into account to determine a suitable settlement amount. As such, it says more about the pirate’s financial position than the value of the 1,500 TV shows.

Over the past months, the Dutch anti-piracy group has focused heavily on catching individual uploaders, whether through Usenet, BitTorrent, Facebook, or other platforms.

Shortly, BREIN is planning to go after uploaders on a much larger scale to increase the catch-rate. To achieve this, they have already started to monitor IP-addresses of frequent BitTorrent users.

As is common in these type of anti-piracy cases, the settlement money doesn’t go to artists or other rightsholders. Instead, it will be used by BREIN to fund future enforcement campaigns.

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

Last December a Virginia federal jury ruled that Internet provider Cox Communications was responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers.

The ISP was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

The verdict was a massive victory for the music licensing company and a disaster for Cox.

After the Virginia federal court had denied Cox’s request for a new trial, the Internet provider elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it hopes to have the verdict reversed.

In a 93-page filing submitted to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, the company warns that the case has brought a lot of uncertainty to the industry, based on a verdict that’s rooted in erroneous conclusions.

“This case involves an unprecedented attempt to impose liability on an Internet service provider (ISP) for its subscribers’ alleged copyright infringement,” Cox begins, nothing that the district court was well aware of the stakes.

“Yet the court sanctioned a novel expansion of contributory liability to ISPs, based not on evidence that the ISP actually knew of specific infringing acts or took affirmative steps to foster infringement, but on the ISP’s constructive knowledge of the existence of infringing activity on its network.”

With the appeal, Cox hopes to reverse the judgment or at least have the opportunity to have a new trial.

The company explains that the case started when the ISP refused to forward infringement notices which contained “extortionate” settlement requests. They asked BMG’s anti-piracy partner Rightscorp to remove the settlement demands if they would like the notices to be forwarded, but they refused to do so.

The dispute over the settlement language eventually led to a guilty verdict by the jury, which according to Cox is based on several reversible errors.

First, Cox argues that the district court misread a binding Supreme Court authority, which prevents contributory copyright liability if a technology has substantial non-infringing uses.

“Cox’s Internet service has endless legal uses, and BMG failed to prove either that Cox actually knew of specific infringing acts by specific subscribers or that it took active steps to promote infringement,” the ISP writes.

In addition, the court took away the Internet provider’s safe harbor protection as it failed to terminate repeat infringers. However, Cox doesn’t believe that subscribers can be seen as such, solely based on one-sided accusations from Rightscorp.

Finally, Cox argued that the jury instructions on the damages aspect were incorrect on several points which led to an inflated $25 million verdict.

With the appeal, the ISP hopes to turn around the negative judgment. If not, the company fears that its subscribers, as well as those of other U.S. Internet providers, risk having their Internet access terminated based on ‘flimsy’ evidence.

“If allowed to stand, that judgment would force ISPs to terminate subscribers’ Internet access—and with it access to critical information, e-commerce, and entertainment—based on the say-so of third parties. This Court should reverse.”

The case will be crucial in determining what obligations ISPs have when it comes to repeat copyright infringers. Up until now, several Internet providers have argued that only a court could determine if a subscriber is a repeat infringer, but this has now become uncertain.

—

Cox Communication’s full filing is available here (pdf)

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

Outside of law enforcement, it’s fair to say that the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) is the most feared anti-piracy outfit operating in the UK today.

Over the years, FACT has been central to many high-profile operations targeting torrent and streaming site operators, theater camming incidents, and other Hollywood protection efforts. The group has been responsible for cases which have put several individuals behind bars for a number of years.

However, in just a couple of months’ time, FACT’s work in this area will come to an end. In May, Hollywood decided not to renew their 30-year-old membership with the anti-piracy group.

With an estimated 50% of its budget disappearing as a result, FACT has a big shortfall to make up. However, in an announcement yesterday the anti-piracy outfit said it will do so by branching out into new areas of IP enforcement, outside the audio-visual sector.

“Established for over 33 years, FACT is recognized as the leader in film, TV and sports intellectual property protection,” FACT said.

“However, recent changes have created new opportunities for the organization and now FACT’s expertise and technical knowledge are being extended to brands and businesses requiring support in protecting their content, brand and intellectual property.”

TorrentFreak contacted FACT for more information on where new partnerships were being forged. Details are scarce, but FACT did confirm that the loss of Hollywood’s membership earlier in the year was the catalyst for change.

“The withdrawal of funding earlier this year has given us the opportunity to expand our services to the wider industry,” FACT said.

“Unfortunately it is early days into our working relationship and so we are unable to provide you with any more detail into our new customers.”

While FACT’s skills have often been deployed to protect Hollywood’s film interests, there’s little doubt that the same expertise will transfer to almost any other content transferred digitally online.

Tracking Ebook or gaming pirates, for example, could easily be achieved with the same systems. Equally, FACT’s work with The Premier League, Sky, and BT Sport could provide a good base for further expansion in the same niche – IPTV providers and modded Kodi box sellers be warned.

However, the tone seems to suggest that FACT is looking further afield for enforcement opportunities, possibly in the offline counterfeiting sector.

“Over the years FACT has built a reputation as experts in intellectual property protection who you can value and trust, but until now our services have been available only to film, TV and sport,” says Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General.

“Now we are able to offer our expertise to brands and businesses looking for that extra support when it comes to protecting their products and content.”

While pirates of all sizes will welcome FACT’s departure from movie piracy enforcement, a similar role is already being played by the Police Intellectual Property Unit. Equally, for those who get their kicks from recording first-run movies in cinemas, the job of stopping that from happening now falls to the newly-formed Film Content Protection Agency.

Only time will tell which direction FACT will take, but it’s likely the group will seek to quickly stamp its authority on its chosen sectors, if its revised budget allows.

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

After inflicting more than a decade of misery on alleged file-sharers, rightsholders and their online tracking partners are continuing their quest to turn piracy into profit.

Letters continue to land in mailboxes all over the world, informing people they are pirates and that a lawsuit will follow if a cash settlement isn’t paid. Thousands of people are intimidated by these threats and choose to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to make the problem disappear. Others fight back and when they do, interesting things can happen.

James Collins is one of the countless individuals targeted by the trolls behind the movie London Has Fallen (LHF Productions). Like in many similar cases, LHF accuse Collins of downloading and sharing their movie illegally using BitTorrent. Collins is adamant that he did neither.

In a letter obtained by the troll watchers over at DieTrollDie, Collins’ lawyer J. Christopher Lynch informs LHF lawyer David A. Lowe of this stance in no uncertain terms.

“As Mr. Collins told you in his letter dated October 6, 2016, he is innocent. Mr. Collins was asleep on the date at the time the Amended Complaint accuses him of being ‘observed infringing’,” Lynch writes.

“Likewise, Mr. Collins has no secondary liability because he never aided, directed, facilitated, benefitted from, or shared in the proceeds of any violations of the law by anyone.”

Of course, defenses similar to this one are extremely commonplace. Defendants often deny all knowledge of the alleged infringement but are left trying to prove a negative. The trolls, on the other hand, point to the supposed “forensic quality” evidence that they’ve compiled, that will be produced at trial, should a settlement not be forthcoming.

However, many trolls are like vampires. Not only do they go straight for the throat, they’re also terrified that the cold light of day will be shone directly on their operations and their sometimes shadowy overseas partners. This point isn’t lost on Lynch in his defense of Mr Collins.

In his letter, Lynch calls on LHF’s lawyer to voluntarily dismiss the case against his client, within five business days. Should that go ahead, Lynch says he will seek no fees or costs, but his confident tone suggests a joker up his sleeve.

“We are optimistic that your client and its foreign representatives will see the wisdom of dismissing Mr. Collins. We recognize this requires ‘taking our word’ that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent, but, believe me, he is, just like he told you he is,” he writes.

“We know your client’s foreign representatives do not like taking someone’s word, but this is a good case to trust Mr. Collins, who is wholly innocent, or me, a member of the bar, who is telling you he is wholly innocent. Going forward is tantamount to saying Mr. Collins and I are lying to you, which, of course, we are not, since Mr. Collins is wholly innocent.”

So who are the “foreign representatives” and why are they so important? Well, they’re the ones doing the IP address tracking, monitoring the infringements and compiling the evidence. Well known in trolling circles, notorious companies such as Guardaley, MaverickEye and Crystal Bay Corporation are all in the mix.

The location of these outfits raises issues. Lynch points out that in an earlier case it was discovered that the foreign companies had no properly licensed investigating U.S. witnesses, even though they were “engaged in the business of detecting, discovering, or revealing . . . evidence to be used before a court.” In his letter, Lynch says that he doubts that anyone involved in this case is properly licensed either.

“Your client’s foreign representatives could have complied with Washington law by hiring a licensed investigator to corroborate the foreign investigation in real time, since the purported location of the entrapped IP addresses is known,” he writes.

“But your client’s representatives chose not to invest in compliance with Washington law, and are taking a chance that somehow the foreign witness to the ‘observed infringing’ can testify, and that somehow the entrapped ‘blip’ of the movie in question will be sufficient evidence of U.S. copyright infringement.”

The ‘blip’ referenced by Lynch refers to a momentary transfer of a small part of the movie in question. In an earlier case, the foreign investigators were unable to identify which portion of the copyright work this ‘blip’ related to, something which led to a judgment in favor of the defendant.

What follows next is an impressive teardown of the foreign investigators, including apparently fictitious witnesses and people operating under dual identities, one of whom (Darren M. Griffen) appears in more than 600 other federal cases against file-sharers. Lynch’s investigation suggests an organized smoke-and-mirrors operation, one that if necessary he’ll expose before the court.

“The bottom line is that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent. My firm would not have taken his case if he were not innocent. Mr. Collins will prevail if your client chooses to go forward, and Mr. Collins will seek defense attorneys’ fees for the litigation expenses that could have been avoided by believing him,” Lynch writes.

“Or, choose not to believe him (and me) and we will return the favor – adopting the
posture that your client’s representatives are also liars. We will seek the truth about ‘Darren M. Griffin’ and his 42 declarations to the [Western District of Washington] and 600 more to federal courts across the country.”

As noted by DieTrollDie, that threat proved too much for LHF Productions. The company dismissed the case against Mr Collins in preference to being put under the microscope. There are probably very good reasons for that and ones that other recipients of threatening letters should consider exploring.

The whole letter can be found here (pdf). It’s a particularly entertaining read and contains valuable lessons on how not to be intimidated by trolls.

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

With millions of daily visitors ExtraTorrent is the second largest torrent site, trailing only behind The Pirate Bay.

The site’s popularity puts it in the crosshairs of various entertainment industry groups, who put pressure on hosting companies and domain name services to take action.

As a result, over the past several days ExtraTorrent lost control of three domain names used for its official mirror sites. Following a complaint from rightholders, extratorrent.rocks, etproxy.top and extratorrent.date are no longer available.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, the site’s operator points out Subreg.cz as the culprit. The Czech domain registrar allegedly locked the torrent site out of its control panel while the domains stopped resolving.

The registrar reportedly said that there’s nothing it could do to resolve the situation and recommended the torrent site to take the matter to court.

“We don’t have access to the three domain names anymore. Subreg recommended us to go to court to resolve this issue, and ignored our requests,” ExtraTorrent’s SaM says.

While this sounds like a typical registrar domain suspension, something more might be going on. Strangely, the registrar informed TorrentFreak that they are not responsible for the domain issues.

“These domain names are not blocked from our side. We got a complaint which we sent to the account holder,” a Subreg spokesperson says, noting that they operated in compliance with ICANN rules.

This comment suggests that some entity higher up the chain took action. However, the domain WHOIS information doesn’t show any typical registry or registrar suspension notices. The domains have simply been stripped of their “a records,” which means that they’re not responding.

We have asked the registrar for additional information about the discrepancy, but we were told that they only disclose information to the domain owner.

While ExtraTorrent lost three key mirror domains, the main ExtraTorrent.cc domain is still working as it’s registered elsewhere. The same is true for several other official mirror domains.

ExtraTorrent has started pointing all their mirrors to extratorrent.site and extra.to, which are now the official backups. The site’s operator recommends the latter as it’s not blocked anywhere, yet.

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