The Guardia di Finanza (GdF) is a department under Italy’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Tasked with dealing with financial crime, in recent years the department has also been at the forefront of anti-piracy operations.

In order to disrupt the activities of pirate sites, the GdF takes direct action against site operators, with raids of sites deemed to be locally significant. Sites considered to be operated from elsewhere are regularly targeted with legal action, with most major sites now blocked by ISPs.

Now, according to lawyer Fulvia Sarzana, a lawyer with the Sarzana and Partners law firm which specializes in Internet and copyright disputes, the GdF is engaged in the largest action yet against pirate sites.

Describing the move as “sensational”, Sarzana says 152 sites involved in the unauthorized streaming of movies and sports have been targeted by police.

Far-reaching injunctions were signed by Judge Alessandro Boffi in Rome today, which according to Sarzana are the most important since Italy began its piracy crackdown eight years ago.

“It is the most important police operation involving copyright since 2008, when this type of order was introduced in Italy,” Sarzana told TF.

“The seizures concern the largest football and movie streaming sites and covers roughly the first four pages of results on Google with regard to the search terms streaming, football and films.”

Sarzana says that the injunction orders local ISPs to block subscriber access to the sites, something that has happened many times before in the country but never on this scale in a single act.

In January 2015, around 120 sites were targeted following a complaint from 21st Century Fox’s Sky TV but this latest action is even bigger. It also challenges the total blocking efforts of local telecoms watchdog AGCOM.

“To give you a comparison, just think that in three years of activities on copyright, the Authority for the Communications Authority (AGCOM), with a lot of energy and personnel, carried out more or less the same number of injunctions of what happened today with a single Judicial Authority act,” Sarzana says.

For now the injunctions concern only blockades and there are no instructions for domain seizures. However, more trouble could lie ahead.

“The novelty of the measure is that they were also given the IP addresses of the servers, which could mean that more detailed investigations on the origin of the content were undertaken,” Sarzana says.

“At the moment it is unknown whether investigations have been made on the advertising activities related to the sites but this is the most recent trend of the Italian Financial Authorities,” he concludes.

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

Late last year the U.S. Copyright office launched a series of public consultations to review critical aspects of the DMCA law.

This includes a review of the anti-circumvention provisions (section 1201), which prevent the public from tinkering with DRM protected content and devices.

A lot has been said on the topic over the past months. Most copyright industry groups are in favor of keeping tight restrictions, while digital rights groups argue the opposite.

Most opponents point out that DRM does more harm than good and some see it as plain evil. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), which is a rightsholder of a lot of GNU/Linux software, clearly falls into the latter category.

FSF sees no future for DRM and urges the Copyright Office to repeal the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

“Technological protection measures and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) play no legitimate role in protecting copyrighted works. Instead, they are a means of controlling users and creating ‘lock in’,” FSF’s Donald Robertson writes.

According to FSF, copyright is just an excuse, the true purpose is to lock down and control users. Through DRM, companies try to keep users on board, as it often restricts them from easily switching to other platforms or digital stores.

“Companies use this control illegitimately with an eye toward extracting maximum revenue from users in ways that have little connection to actual copyright law. In fact, these restrictions are technological impediments to the rights users have under copyright law, such as fair use.”

Even if copyright was the main concern, DRM would be an overbroad tool to achieve the goal, the foundation notes.

FSF highlights that DRM is not just used to control people but also to spy on them, by sending all kinds of personal data to technology providers. This is done to generate extra income at the expense of users’ rights, they claim.

“DRM enables companies to spy on their users, and use that data for profit,” Robertson writes.

“DRM is frequently used to spy on users by requiring that they maintain a connection to the Internet so that the program can send information back to the DRM provider about the user’s actions,” he adds.

Under current law, there are some exemptions which allow people to circumvent DRM, but FSF says this is by no means sufficient. Abandoning the anti-circumvention provisions entirely is the only right thing to do, they say.

The foundation adds that there are plenty of alternatives to address copyright concerns. FSF itself holds the rights to a lot of GNU/Linux software, for example, and says it has resolved many copyright violations without the need for invasive DRM.

“All DRM is a violation of the rights of users. The exemptions process as outlined by section 1201 is completely broken beyond repair. No amount of exemptions, except a permanent exemption for all uses, can rectify the situation,” FSF writes.

“It is unethical and harmful for the law to treat all users as criminals – which is exactly what DRM does. The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions do too much harm and should be repealed, so that users may once again enjoy their rights under the law without interference.”

If the Government is not ready to for a full repeal of the anti-circumvention provisions, it should at minimum broaden the existing permanent exemptions to more uses, FSF argues.

The Copyright Office now faces the unenviable task of reconciling the positions of all parties that submitted comments. Given the wide range of positions, it’s impossible to reach a compromise that will please everyone involved.

—

The full comments of the Free Software Foundation have been published by the Copyright Office in pdf format.

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

Last month the legal defense team of alleged KickassTorrents owner Artem Vaulin asked the Illinois District Court to dismiss the criminal indictment against their client.

The fundamental flaw of the case, according to the defense, is that torrent files themselves are not copyrighted content. In addition, it was argued that the secondary copyright infringement claims would fail as these are non-existent under criminal law.

A few days ago United States Attorney Zachary Fardon submitted a response to the request. According to the Government, torrent sites are not merely search engines and are more harmful than the defense makes them seem.

“First, the defendant downplays the significance of ‘torrent’ sites like the defendant’s,” Fardon notes.

The U.S. Attorney explains that KAT specialized in indexing torrent files that pointed to copyright infringing content including movies and music, likening it to a pirate flea market.

“These indexed files enabled users to obtain copyrighted content from other users, including from the defendant’s own servers. KAT therefore functioned like a (lucrative) flea market for infringing movies, television shows, video games, music, and computer software.”

In their defense, KAT’s lawyers stressed that the alleged operator never touched any of the infringing content himself. However, the U.S. argues that this doesn’t matter, as the conspiracy actively helped others to commit crimes.

The U.S. Attorney equates KAT’s alleged owner to a drug dealer, who can be criminally liable as well, even if he never touched any drugs.

“For the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution because he earned money by directing users to download infringing content from other users is much like a drug broker claiming immunity because he never touched the drugs,” Fardon adds.

Similarly, the U.S. argues that KAT was not just a search engine which provided hyperlinks as the defense claimed. Fardon highlights that the site had several features through which copyright infringement was allegedly promoted or encouraged.

“Instead, as alleged, they sought out infringing material and trumpeted that to their users, targeting the infringement-minded with rewards and honors for posting torrents for copyright infringement material in order to blatantly promote and encourage the availability of entire categories of infringing works.”

Also, the U.S. Attorney disputes the notion that the defendant isn’t guilty of criminal copyright infringement because “secondary” copyright infringement doesn’t exist under criminal law.

This argument is central to the defense in this case as well as the Megaupload prosecution. However, according to U.S. Attorney Fardon it falls flat.

According to the U.S. Government there is no distinction between “direct” and “secondary” copyright infringement, for defendants that are charged with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.

As long as the defendant conspired to assist users of the site in criminal actions, they can be held liable.

“In sum, if users criminally infringed copyrighted works through torrent files offered on the defendant’s websites — as the defendant appears to acknowledge in his motion — then the defendant and his co-defendants may be charged with conspiring with and aiding and abetting those users.

“Nothing about the defendant’s use of BitTorrent technology to carry out his crime makes him categorically above the law,” Fardon adds.

The U.S. Government asks the federal court to deny the motion to dismiss and let the case run its course. If the defense wants to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, it should do so in a jury trial.

It is now up the court to decide how to move forward but given the gravity of the case, it’s not expected to end anytime soon. The U.S. Attorney’s full response is available here (pdf).

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

Despite hundreds of arrests, the closure of dozens of pirate sites and numerous successful prosecutions, most entities fighting piracy believe that the tools at their disposal need to be improved.

In daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter, a broad coalition of content creators, distributors and anti-piracy bodies from the movie, music, TV show, games and publishing industries, come together to seek more support to defeat piracy.

Representatives from the IFPI, Rights Alliance (which represents Hollywood) and half a dozen powerful distribution, gaming and publishing groups say that the government isn’t doing anywhere enough to protect creators and clamp down on illegal activity.

Their open letter (Swedish) welcomes a promise in the September budget to increasing funding for informational campaigns and the possibility of introducing a new offense of “serious copyright violation”, but says they represent just “small steps” and won’t be anywhere near enough to stop the problem.

“When will the government see the potential of the creative industries and ensure a decent protection for creative content online?” the groups ask.

“Intellectual and creative content industries are playing an increasingly important role in the digital knowledge society that is emerging. European governments are competing to lay the foundation for growth in the intangible economy. A strong legal protection of copyright in the digital market is a key part of that effort.”

Noting that Sweden is often considered to be among the digital elite due to its superb broadband system and successful tech startups, the industry groups say that the country is among the very worst when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights. Almost a third of Swedes use illegal sites to access film and television, they say.

“The winners of today’s order are often heavily criminal groups abroad who earn millions of dollars running illegal sites distributing pirated movies, TV shows, music, books and games,” the industry groups write.

“The creative industries and its creators are losing billions, which affects growth and employment, but also the supply of culture as new investments are canceled due to lack of finances.”

So what can be done to stop the rot? Unsurprisingly, the huge corporations behind the open letter want a more useful and sympathetic legal system.

“We need stricter laws. The judiciary still lacks the necessary tools to access the often heavy criminal actors behind the illegal sites. For Sweden to move from the bottom rung to at least a decent level of protection for creative content, single points are not enough,” they add.

When it comes to their actual demands, the shortlist isn’t much of a surprise. The industry groups want to be able to do three things – deal with piracy at its roots, close a perceived loophole in the law, and if all else fails, stop the public from accessing pirate sites.

The first involves introducing new legislation which would frame high levels of copyright infringement in a more serious light. This would enable rightsholders to more effectively target the “heavy criminals” behind pirate sites.

The second request involves the continued rise of streaming. As recently reported, the number of citizens involved in P2P file-sharing is on the decline in Sweden, but the same cannot be said about those who stream unauthorized content from web-based services. To that end, the industry groups want legal clarification regarding “temporary copies of copyrighted works.”

Finally, they seek “clarification of the Internet operators’ responsibility to block illegal sites as they do in the other Nordic countries and in numerous European countries.”

This request stems from frustrations with efforts to have The Pirate Bay and other sites blocked by local ISPs and/or have their domains seized by the state. A case involving the latter is headed to the Supreme Court after a prolonged legal battle and earlier this year, police called website blocks without legal process.

“The government must recognize the seriousness of the situation and be prepared to go the distance. The government must also dare to look ahead,” the industry groups write.

“Creative professions are expected to become increasingly important for employment and growth in the future. So why hesitate? Sweden can not afford to wait. When will the government act to ensure adequate protection of creative content in the digital market?” they conclude.

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

This week we have five newcomers in our chart.

Jason Bourne is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Ranking	(last week)	Movie	IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1	(…)	Jason Bourne	7.7 / trailer
2	(…)	Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children	7.0 / trailer
3	(1)	Finding Dory	7.7 / trailer
4	(2)	The BFG	6.6 / trailer
5	(…)	Ouija: Origin of Evil	6.6 / trailer
6	(3)	Suicide Squad	6.7 / trailer
7	(…)	Bridget Jones’s Baby	7.3 / trailer
8	(4)	Bad Moms	6.5 / trailer
9	(5)	Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (HDTS)	6.4 / trailer
10	(…)	The Secret Life of Pets	6.7 / trailer

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