It hasn’t made the news much over the past year, but the U.S. Copyright Alert System is still in full swing.

First implemented more than three years ago, the main goal of the “six strikes” program is to educate the public. That is, informing people whose connections are being used to pirate, and pointing them to legal alternatives.

While repeat infringers face so-called mitigation measures, the copyright holders and ISPs have made it very clear that no one will permanently lose their Internet access. At least, not under the alerts program itself.

However, Time Warner Cable has decided to update its standard copyright alerts to emphasize that people who continue to infringe may risk losing their Internet subscription, email account, and more.

In recent months the following paragraph has been added to the copyright alert notification, underlining the point.

“In addition, in accordance with our acceptable use policy, your internet service may be subject to termination at our sole discretion if we continue to receive credible allegations that your internet connection has been used to share copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner.”

Time Warner Cable adds that an account termination may also result in the loss of the email account at the ISP, as well as many other third-party services that rely on the Internet, such as Netflix.

The text that was added

The rest of the copyright alert messaging remains intact and has remained pretty much the same since 2013. Overall it’s well-balanced, informing subscribers how the system works and what their rights are.

The big question is, why did Time Warner Cable add the termination language? After all, the acceptable use policy itself isn’t new in any way.

Without an official statement we can only speculate, but there have been some recent developments that may have played a role.

There’s the lawsuit between BMG and Cox Communications, where the latter lost its safe harbor protection because it failed to implement a repeat infringer policy. As a result, Cox must pay $25 million in damages, a ruling that’s currently under appeal.

This may have prompted Time Warner Cable to make its stance on repeat infringers more visible.

At the same time, various copyright holder groups have been turning up the pressure. The MPAA, for example, told the U.S. Copyright Office that terminating the accounts of persistent pirates is “critical”.

In the U.S. it is currently rare for ISPs to disconnect infringing subscribers, with many arguing that only a court can decide if someone can be stripped of an essential service such as Internet access.

However, the MPAA stressed that Internet providers “must terminate users who repeatedly and blatantly infringe copyright, regardless of whether there has been a judicial determination that the user is liable for copyright infringement.”

At the same time, ISPs and copyright holders are currently negotiating over the Copyright Alert System, including whether it should continue or if changes are needed to improve the current procedure.

Undoubtedly, the repeat infringer requirement will be part of these discussions. Since the MPAA is one of the founding groups of the program, they are likely to ask all ISPs to include this language in their notifications.

Despite the added account termination warning, TorrentFreak hasn’t received any reports that Time Warner Cable is disconnecting subscribers on a large scale. Perhaps this means that the threats are doing their job, or…?

—
—

Below is an example of Time Warner Cable’s full alert, in the educational stage (emphasis is original).

Dear Subscriber,

We have been notified that copyrighted content may have been shared using your Internet connection without permission of the copyright owner.

What does that mean?

Copyright owners (such as artists, moviemakers, authors) and their representatives routinely monitor peer-to-peer networks to see if their content (such as music, movies, and TV shows) is being shared without their permission. If they notice somebody sharing their content without their permission through a Time Warner Cable account, they let us know.

As the primary account holder, you are responsible for making sure your account is not used for copyright infringement. Please note that we don’t know which computer or other device may be the one to have triggered the notification; it could be any device using your account.

What was allegedly shared and when?

File Name: Pirate Something
Content Type: Movie
Content URL: Pirate link
Shared: 6:23pm – 1/3/2099
IP Address: 000.00.000.00

Did you provide my personal information to the copyright owner?

We have not shared any of your personal information with the copyright owner in connection with the notice that we received. Rather, the copyright owner or its representative simply provided us with an IP address associated with your account and we then sent this alert to you directly.

Alright, so what do I need to do?

– If you have been sharing content illegally using your Internet connection, please stop doing so immediately.
– Make sure that everyone who uses your Internet connection knows that you received this alert, and advise them not to make any illegal use of music, television and movie content. For information regarding authorized source for music, movies and TV shows, please see http://www.copyrightinformation.org/a-better-way-to-find-movies-tv-music/. Other examples of legal sources include: http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/tv/channels/on-demand.html, and http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/tv/premiums.html
– Secure your home wireless network so that nobody who is unauthorized to use it is able to do so. (learn more here: http://onguardonline.gov/articles/0013-securing-your-wireless-network)
– Be aware of the dangers associated with using peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks: P2P programs can pose dangers to your computer and other devices, and to our network. Risks can include mistaken downloading of malware, pornography or copyrighted material, and allowing any anonymous person on the Internet to access and copy your computer files. Therefore, it is important that you inspect your computer and other devices for P2P programs and ensure that you are neither intentionally nor inadvertently making copyrighted works available for uploading by others. Click here for more information about the various risks: http://onguardonline.gov/p2p
Hopefully this is the last time we contact you. If a copyright owner does not identify further instances of alleged copyright infringement involving your account then this will be your last alert from us.

And what if this continues to happen?

Using your account to share content without the copyright owner’s permission can be a violation of U.S. copyright laws, and of our acceptable use policy. Under the Copyright Alert System (for more on CAS click here http://www.copyrightinformation.org), further instances of suspicious activity involving your account may result in our undertaking measures that will temporarily affect your Internet experience. The range of actions may include redirection to a landing page for a period of time or until you contact Time Warner Cable.

We will, of course, provide you with advance notice prior to taking any such steps. We will also offer you the ability to challenge a copyright owner’s notices through an independent party prior to any service alterations. You may wish to preserve records or information that could be used to demonstrate that the activity in question was non-infringing.

In addition, in accordance with our acceptable use policy (located at http://help.twcable.com/twc_misp_aup.html), your internet service may be subject to termination at our sole discretion if we continue to receive credible allegations that your internet connection has been used to share copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner. Note that the termination of your internet service may also result in the loss of any Time Warner Cable provided email addresses; other services accessible via your Time Warner Cable high speed data service, such as Wi-Fi, Roku, IP Video, Over-the-Top content, etc.; and other third party provided services you receive that are internet reliant (for example, internet accessible third party phone services).

I still have questions about this alert; where can I go?

For additional information about this alert, to learn how you can prevent further alerts, and to understand more about the Copyright Alert System, please visit the Center for Copyright Information – Copyright Alert System website at http://www.copyrightinformation.org.

Thank you for subscribing to Time Warner Cable’s high speed data service. We look forward to having you as a customer for years to come.

Sincerely,
Customer Service

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

Over the course of the past decade-and-a-half, the number of BitTorrent users has grown from a handful to a couple of hundred million. Usage is still massive but it’s now streaming that’s making strides.

Accessible via a standard browser or dedicated hardware devices, pirate streams of the latest movies, TV shows, and sporting events are now watched by millions in the comfort of their own homes, or even on the move.

Copyright holders everywhere are worried but it’s perhaps most evident in the UK where police and Trading Standards officers are targeting sellers of Kodi-enabled devices that have been modified to receive pirate streams. This week, as part of the forming Digital Economy Bill, Members of Parliament have been discussing potential amendments to UK copyright law aimed at clamping down on the sale of such devices.

“Android-based IPTV boxes are being loaded with software linking thousands of streams of infringing entertainment, movie and sport content. The boxes are sold on mainstream marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay, and through Facebook,” said Labour MP Kevin Brennan.

“The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has yet to be updated to reflect the new technology. It offers no effective remedies to copyright owners, who at present can rely only on laws that are not particularly tailored to copyright infringement.”

Brennan said that police currently need to prosecute under the Fraud Act 2006, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the Serious Crime Act 2015. By amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, bodies such as Trading Standards would have an easier time prosecuting offenders, the MP said.

“New clause 33 would amend section 107(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) to create the new offense of supply of devices primarily used to infringe copyright. It is entirely logical to amend that section, which is concerned with ‘criminal liability for…dealing with infringing articles’, but which currently focuses only on physical copies of work and on communication to the public,” Brennan explained.

“The new clause would bring trading standards offices into the picture, empowering them to make investigations and to enforce the rules on such devices under section 107(1) of the 1988 Act. To minimize the risk of new and uncertain legal tests, concepts or unintended consequences, the drafting adopts for the most part language used elsewhere in that Act.”

IPTV ‘Clause 33’- CDPA Amendment proposals

Support for the new clause came from the SNP’s Callum Kerr, who noted that people will continue to innovate when it comes to obtaining pirate content. Surprisingly, he also confessed that someone in Parliament actually encouraged him to buy a pirate box.

“Someone in [Parliament] recommended an IPTV box to me for my London flat because it is quite a cheap way of accessing content, but I did not follow that advice because I would not want to access any illegal content,” Kerr said.

“These boxes come pre-loaded, and there should be no pretense about it: they are designed to give people a way of avoiding paying for content that they know they should pay for. There is no excuse for that.”

Noting that the proposals for amendments to the CDPA have “a long list of supporters in the industry”, Brennan asked Matt Hancock, Minister for Digital and Culture, whether they could rely on his support too. Hancock said he understood the concerns but believes that current legislation (the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2015) can cope without having to modify the CDPA.

“This activity is already covered by criminal law under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. The City of London police force is investigating cases. It seized over 500 set-top boxes earlier this year and arrested a man for fraud and IP offenses,” Hancock said.

“There is a danger in the digital world of legislating for a specific technology as opposed to legislating for the offense in a technology-neutral way. I strongly prefer the latter. As the law is already in existence in the two Acts that I mentioned, the best thing to do is to prosecute under the existing Acts, rather than try to chase a particular technology, which may well be out of date.”

Hancock told MPs that the government already has a strategy for tackling IP crime with a specific focus on dealing with the problem of IPTV and whatever technology eventually comes along to replace it. Sticking with existing legislation is the way forward, he said.

“The existing criminal ​offenses provide a legislative framework that is broad enough to protect our creative industries. However, I will of course keep this area under review,” he added, while asking for the new clause to be withdrawn. Brennan complied.

The fact that a request to amend the CDPA was rejected in this case raises questions over the current push to increase punishments for online copyright infringement offenses from two to ten years.

Many of the more serious online cases have also been successfully prosecuted under the Fraud Act, without any need to use the CDPA. Notably, these prosecutions were achieved without sucking in low-level offenders such as casual file-sharers.

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

As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe.

This includes thousands of “pirate” sites which rely on the U.S. based company to keep server loads down.

In addition, Cloudflare has the added benefit that it can ‘obfuscate’ the hosting providers of these sites, offering an extra layer of anonymity.

This is an issue academic book publisher Elsevier has dealt with first hand. Last year the company filed a complaint against Sci-Hub, Libgen and Bookfi, but thus far the operators of the latter two sites remain unknown.

Since both sites used Cloudflare in the past, Elsevier tried to obtain information through the “trusted notifier” program. However, the CDN provider replied that it could not share this information for sites that are no longer active on its network.

This left Elsevier no other option than to take the matter to court. In a request filed last month, the publisher explained that a court-ordered discovery subpoena is the only option to move the case forward and identify the defendants.

In a recent order, federal Judge Robert W. Sweet agrees with that assessment.

“There is good cause to believe that absent identifying information concerning the operators of libgen.org and bookfi.org, Elsevier will be unable to advance its claims against those operators,” Judge Sweet writes.

The court has seen enough evidence to conclude that the two websites are engaging in copyright-infringing activities and concludes that a subpoena is warranted.

“Elsevier has made a substantial evidentiary showing that Defendants, through the websites libgen.org and bookfi.org, have engaged in conduct which violates Elsevier’s exclusive rights under [U.S. copyright law],” the order notes.

This means that Cloudflare will have to hand over any and all information they have that may identify these former customers.

Judge Sweet’s order

While Cloudflare is left with no other option than to cooperate, it’s unclear to what degree they can help.

Since neither Libgen nor Bookfi are currently using Cloudflare’s services, it remains to be seen whether the company still has the site’s old IP-addresses and other identifiable information on file.

Even if the operators are identified, it’s unlikely that they will agree to future U.S. court orders, as they are likely living abroad.

After losing their previous domain names through the lawsuit, the Libgen and Bookfi websites continued to serve ‘pirated’ papers and books. Even today, they remain available through their new homes at golibgen.io and bookfi.net.

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

In 2014, The Court of The Hague handed down its decision in a long-running case which had previously forced two Dutch ISPs, Ziggo and XS4ALL, to block The Pirate Bay.

The case was filed by local anti-piracy outfit BREIN, which faced defeat when the Court ruled that the blockade against the popular torrent site restricted the ISPs’ entrepreneurial freedoms.

As a result, The Pirate Bay was unblocked in the Netherlands. However, BREIN wasn’t done and the anti-piracy group pressed on, taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

Acting on advice from the Advocate General, in November 2015 the Supreme Court postponed its final decision, referring key questions to the EU Court of Justice.

Yesterday, the hearing took place yesterday before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which was asked to decide;

– Whether The Pirate Bay communicates infringing content to the public
– Whether the operator of a website communicates copyrighted works to the public when it indexes and links, but doesn’t host content itself. If not, the Court was asked to decide whether TPB can be blocked for facilitating infringement.

This is a big moment for BREIN, who will have been encouraged by a decision handed down by the ECJ in September. In that case, Playboy defeated Dutch blog GeenStijl.nl, which had deliberately published links to content it knew to be infringing, but didn’t host itself.

In the Playboy case, the ECJ found that when a person knew or ought to have known that a posted hyperlink provides access to an illegally published work, the provision of that link constitutes a communication to the public.

It further found that when hyperlinks are used for profit, those displaying such links are expected to carry out checks to ensure that the relevant works have not been illegally published. If they have been published illegally, that too represents a communication to the public.

BREIN believes these parameters can be applied to the Pirate Bay case.

“We argue that rights holders have not granted permission to distribution of their works via TPB and TPB actively and knowingly maintains a collection of infringing links (over 90% is infringing) for profit. Moreover, TPB itself makes magnet links of the torrent links. So it is infringing,” BRIEN chief Tim Kuik informs TF.

“The service providers [Ziggo/XS4All] say that TPB facilitates infringement but does not infringe itself. Their arguments seemed all over the place.

“They shamelessly said TPB is neutral and passive like Google but at the same time also agreed it is unlawful, not like Google. Also, one of their arguments to reject blocking was that it is more proportionate for BREIN to go after infringing users (their own subscribers),” Kuik adds.

But while BREIN and the ISPs battle it out, the anti-piracy group has gained support from a heavyweight ally.

“The European Commission says that it stands on the side of BREIN: both civil and criminal law can be enforced against services like TPB that facilitate infringement, even by blocking access to the site by service providers,” BREIN says.

“France and Spain also took part in the hearing and argued, contrary to the opinion of the Commission but in line with BREIN, that TPB itself is infringing. They also argued that access to TPB must be blocked, which happens in those countries already.”

The Advocate General will issue his advice on January 19, 2017, and a ruling is expected to follow about three months later.

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

The list of websites that are blocked in the UK for facilitating copyright infringement is growing longer and longer.

In a new ruling, the High Court orders Sky, BT, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, Telefonica UK and Virgin to block access to over a dozen ‘pirate’ streaming sites.

The new blocking request was issued following a complaint from the Motion Picture Association Europe (MPA), which acts on behalf of several major Hollywood movie studios.

Among the new sites are the popular streaming portal 123movies.to, Genvideos.org, Hdmovieswatch.net and Spacemov.net.

The 123movies.to website is by far the largest target on the list. The site is currently the most used pirate site in the UK, and attracts millions of daily visitors around the globe.

While the looming blockade will result in a temporary reduction in traffic, 123movies is already anticipating such measures. The streaming portal currently features a message alerting people that they have an alternative .ru domain available that may help to bypass blockades.

“You can access out site through http://123movies.ru domain if the main domain is blocked by your ISP,” the alert reads.

TorrentFreak has confirmation from one of the large UK Internet providers that the court order has been granted. However, at the time of writing the new blockades have yet to be put in place by most ISPs.

As in previous cases, the latest blocking application was not seriously contested by the ISPs, which have given up on defending their position in court. As a result, it is now a mere formality for copyright holders to have a pirate site banned.

In addition, rightsholders have the freedom to add new domains without the need for a new court order if a blocked site decides to move to a new home. This will be needed, as sites such as GeekTV and Themovie4u already moved on.

Whether the present blocks will be more than a drop in the ocean has yet to be seen. There are many other streaming portals that are still available, which means that the movie studios will probably be back in court soon enough.

—

The full rundown of newly blocked sites is as follows. This list was released by a large UK ISP.

123movies.to, Geektv.is, Genvideos.org, Gowatchseries.biz, Hdmovies14.net, Hdmovieswatch.net, Themovie4u.com, Moviesub.net, Movietubenow.biz, Series-cravings.me, Spacemov.com, Streamallthis.is and Watchmovies.ms.

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