Under current UK legislation, pirates of physical media such as CDs and DVDs can be jailed for up to 10 years. On the other hand, those committing similar offenses online can be jailed for ‘only’ two years.

This has led to anti-piracy groups such as the Federation Against Copyright Theft choosing to pursue their own private prosecutions under the Fraud Act, which allows for much tougher sentences.

In an effort to fix this disparity, earlier this year a new draft of the Digital Economy Bill contained plans to extend the current ‘online’ prison term from two to ten years. The relevant section amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and simply replaces the word two with ten.

On its way to becoming law, the Bill has been progressing through various stages in the House of Commons. This week, however, concerns were raised over the precise wording of the amendments. The image below shows how they currently stand.

Despite assurances from MPs that 10-year sentences are directed at large-scale commercial pirates, the text above does not clearly reflect that goal. In fact, just about any online infringer could be swept up in its net, a point not lost on Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), who this week appeared before MPs.

In an exchange with Nigel Adams MP in the Commons, Killock said that ORG is concerned that ordinary members of the public could be affected by the amendments.

“We are worried about the impact of this on people who should not be criminalized and who we thought the Government were not trying to criminalize in this case,” Killock said.

“Our position is that if the Government are going to extend the sentence and have the same sentence online as offline for criminal copyright infringement — that is to say, 10 years — then they need to be very careful about how the lines are drawn, because the offenses are quite different.”

Killock said that offline criminal copyright infringement is all about criminal gangs duplicating things like DVDs, but online things are harder to define because everything looks like the same act – publication.

“You put something on the internet, it is a publication. So how do you tell who is the criminal and who is the slightly idiotic teenager, or whatever it happens to be? How do you make sure that people who should not be threatened with copyright criminal sentences are not given those threats?” Killock asked the MP.

To illustrate his point, Killock spoke about the current state of copyright trolling in the UK by companies such as Golden Eye International.

“They have no specific knowledge that these people are actually the people doing the downloading, all they know is that somebody appears to have downloaded,” Killock said.

At this point Adams interrupted, stating that there’s no intent for the new legislation to affect regular file-sharers.

“The idea of the Bill is not to go after people who are downloading content, it is purely for those who are uploading content for commercial gain. That is the whole purpose,” Adams said.

“Unfortunately, that is not how the language of the offense reads,” Killock responded.

“The test in the offense is that somebody is ‘causing a loss’, which is defined as not paying a licence fee, or is ‘causing the risk of loss’, about which your guess is as good as mine, but it is essentially the same as making available, because if you have made something available and somebody else can then make a copy, and then infringe copyright further and avoid further licence fees, basically that is a criminal act,” the ORG chief explained.

“So file sharers, whether they are small or large, all appear to be criminal copyright thieves. Similarly, people who are publishing things on websites without a license are also potentially criminalized. Those things can be dealt with much better and more simply through civil courts and civil copyright action.”

So, to solve the problem of the legislation potentially targeting the wrong people, Killock suggested a tightening-up of the wording in the amendments.

“What we are calling for is either to get rid of those things which are attacking individuals and wrongly bringing individuals into scope, or to put thresholds of seriousness around the risk of loss and/or causing loss. Something like, ‘Serious risk of causing significant loss’ would be the way to deal with this. Similarly, ‘Causing serious loss’,” he said.

Even with this explanation, the MP didn’t appear to understand.

“If you are knowingly uploading creative content online for commercial gain, to my mind it does not matter whether it is 50 quid or 50,000 quid, you are knowingly stealing someone’s content,” Nigel Adams said.

“The commercial gain is not part of this offense. That is what I am saying,” said Killock.

“The offense is purely to cause loss — in other words, to not pay a license fee — or to cause risk of loss. There is no ‘commercial’ in it. So you have to put the threshold somewhere. You have an offense for the commercial activities and, separately, individuals who cause risk of loss or fail to pay a license fee.”

The Open Rights Group are to be commended for raising this issue in the House of Commons since as things stand, the wording of the legislation is wide open to abuse from aggressive rightsholders. Whether appropriate amendments will be introduced remains to be seen, but there is clearly a need to be more specific. If not, trouble could lie ahead.

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

Every day, content production companies and their anti-piracy partners take a keen interest in people posting their material online without permission.

They’re often able to use technical means to identify infringers, often relying on IP address, financial, and similar information. However, some also resort to chasing pirates in the physical realm.

This is the approach currently being taken by Duco Events, who are said to be recognized by the World Boxing Organization as the leading promoter in the Asia Pacific region. Duco partners with companies including ESPN, Fox Sports, MAIN EVENT, SKY Sports and SKY Arena, and it is tired of having its content pirated.

One of the biggest thorns in its side is New Zealander James Bryant. Earlier this year he informed NZ Herald that he intended to stream a Duco boxing event taking place in July. That led to a private investigator being sent to his parents’ Auckland house to serve court papers. He wasn’t there.

Bryant, who claims to be a web developer and SEO specialist, says that on a separate occasion another person emailed him looking for a computer repair. Suspicious, he gave a friend’s address, which led to an investigator sitting outside there all day. He eventually asked for Bryant by name.

“They’ve called me twice, and they told me that it’s getting serious now, that it was too big to go away,” Bryant said.

That was back in the summer and it appears that as promised, Duco haven’t forgotten about Bryant. However, they still haven’t managed to locate him.

“I have been on holiday for the last few months and they are not doing a very good job at finding me,” Bryant said last week.

“It doesn’t bother me one bit … as soon as they find me, I will make it my personal mission to stream every event.”

Bryant’s defiance was not well received, with Duco chief executive Martin Snedden rejected claims that chasing streamers is counter-productive.

“In our view it is out-and-out theft, and people are starting to get the message that the risk isn’t worth getting involved. We know we can’t eradicate this, but we’re getting better at running interference,” Snedden said.

Now it appears that Duco are turning up the heat. In a posting this week to the company’s Facebook page, the boxing promotions outfit sought assistance in finding the elusive Bryant.

But if Duco thought that this would prompt Bryant to give himself up, they were very wrong. Instead, the self-confessed streamer has started a fund-raiser with two aims. First, to raise money to fight Duco, and second, to set up a new streaming service.

“My mission is to raise money for the upcoming battle and also to raise funds which will be put into developing a dedicated website which will be hosted on an overseas server which will broadcast live events as they happen,” Bryant explains.

“I am currently setting up a site which will provide live streams of legal events such as music, sport and festivals. It will be hosted off shore in any event that the courts do not allow me access to a computer, I plan on hosting a wide range of different events.

“I believe that as New Zealanders we shouldn’t have to feed the pockets of the corporations to watch sports we care about. It’s time to stand up New Zealand!” he concludes.

Seconds away….round two.

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

In pretty much every part in the world creators can claim copyright on their work without having to register anything.

In fact, most countries don’t even have an official copyright registration office. The United States does, as registrations are a requirement for court cases, but that’s one of the exceptions.

The same is true for India. While registration is voluntary, an official registration at the Government’s Copyright Office can help to solve legal disputes.

Interestingly the Indian Copyright Office has now become the center of a rights dispute itself. As it turns out, the website copyright.in is offering ‘unofficial’ copyright registrations to Indians as well.

The website in question offer users “anteriority proof for their copyrights” in 164 countries, charging roughly $10 for a copyright registration.

India’s (unofficial) “Copyright Registration Office”

The Indian Government is not happy with the unofficial registration site. In a press statement it describes the service as fraudulent, because users can confuse it with the official copyright office.

“This claim is totally fraudulent and creating confusion among the general public,” the Government’s press bureau notes.

The Government clarifies that it has nothing to do with the site and advises copyright holders not to register their works there or make any payments. In addition, it has taken legal action and hopes to get the website blocked.

“The matter has already been referred to the concerned Ministries to block the fake website (i.e. www.copyright.in) and initiate legal action,” the Government statement adds.

The misleading Indian copyright registration site is just one of many. The same outfit is also connected to similar sites that target copyright holders in other countries, many of which don’t have an official registration service.

In Australia, Italy and the Netherlands, similar sites are operational, all offering paid registrations. The UK even has two separate domains, Copyright.uk and Copyright.co.uk, listing popular brands such as BT and Marks and Spencer to add legitimacy.

UK’s (unofficial) “Copyright Registration Office”

We reached out to the UK Government’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which clarified that copyright holders don’t have to register anything.

“Copyright is an automatic right in the UK – you do not need to register or pay a fee. If you create a work of art, from literature to music, you own the rights to that work free of charge,” an IPO spokesperson told TF.

The IPO stresses that the websites have nothing to do with the Government and cautions rightsholders to think carefully before handing over any money.

“A number of private companies can be found on the internet that offer a form of registration service for a fee. None of these are official or are connected in any way to the Intellectual Property Office.

“We advise that people check very carefully before opting to use any paid-for services such as these,” IPO’s spokesperson adds.

While it’s absolutely not required to register copyright in the UK, the websites in question are not necessarily breaking the law, since there’s no law forbidding private companies from keeping a copyright register.

That said, the registration sites conveniently fail to mention their voluntary nature and are highly misleading to many creators who are not up-to-date on their rights and obligations.

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

Founded five years ago, AllMyVideos.net has become a household name in the video-hosting world.

With millions of users per month it is the go-to site for many, but this is about to change as a message on the homepage warns.

“We are sorry to inform everyone that effective October 23, 2016 Allmyvideos.net will stop accepting new uploads and the site will close fully at the end of the month,” the site announced.

The announcement coincides with a submission from the Hollywood industry group MPAA to the U.S. Government, which listed AllMyVideos as one of the top pirates sites.

However, according to the operator of the site, prospective legal issues are not the reason why they’re pulling the plug. The site was forced to take this drastic step due to a lack of revenue.

“Honestly, the main reason why the site is closing is the fact that the video hosting business is not profitable any longer, not by any means. Over the years making the site break even has become a massive issue,” Bill from AllMyVideos tells us.

Like many other sites that are often associated with piracy, it’s hard to get decent paying ads that are not peddling malware. In addition, payment providers often refuse to work with these type of sites, while overall subscriptions revenues are dropping.

“It’s very difficult to get ads that will cover the bandwidth. And AllMyVideos sold maybe five premium subscriptions a week over the last few months, for a total of around $200,” Bill says.

The lack of revenue runs directly counter to a report that was published by the Hollywood-backed Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA) two years ago. This report claimed that these hosting services are highly profitable with huge profit margins.

For example, DCA’s report estimated the site to have a yearly profit of $997,587, with a very healthy profit ratio of close to 85%.

Cyberlocker revenues, estimated by DCA

AllmMyVideos says that these figures don’t make any sense, which is evidenced by the fact that they are not shutting down due to a lack of profits.

“Honestly, I don’t know how the MPAA thinks people make money off hosting. The unreal $ values they come up with are insane. A profit margin of -20% is more like it,” Bill tells us.

The site is not the first to cite money issues as a reason to quit. Earlier this year other file-hosting services shut their doors for the same reason, and torrent site TorrentHound also cited financial problems as one of the main factors to throw in the towel.

In recent years, rights holders and industry groups have pushed hard to cut the money stream to pirate sites in any way they can, which appears to have had some effect.

DCA’s profit report, for example, was used to get payment processors to stop serving file-hosting services. Similarly, advertisers are also frequently warned not to do business with these and other “pirate” sites.

For AllMyVideos these reflections are moot. While they’ve enjoyed their ride, the team behind the site is ready to move on to new adventures.

“It’s been five years and it’s sad to see the site close. My team has met a lot of great people and wishes everyone the best of luck,” Bill concludes.

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

With dozens of millions of monthly views, Putlocker.is is the go-to video streaming site for many people.

The site ranks among the 250 most-visited websites on the Internet and is particularly popular in the United States, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

However, starting three days ago the site suddenly became inaccessible. While a brief downtime stint is nothing unusual for these type of sites, the prolonged downtime is cause for concern among users.

Many are voicing their frustration after being confronted by yet another CloudFlare downtime banner, showing them that the site’s servers are still unresponsive.

“Putlocker is down so I no longer have a reason to live,” one user dramatically announced.

“Putlocker has been down the whole day. I’m going through serious withdrawals,” another added.

Putlocker.is down

Looking for answers, TorrentFreak tried to contact the Putlocker.is team on their known support address. However, this email returned an error message as well.

As far as we can see the current problems are related to the site’s servers. The domain name itself is operating as it should and hasn’t been seized or suspended by the registrar.

Interestingly, the downtime occurs right after Hollywood’s MPAA reported the site to the United States Trade Representative, describing it as one of the largest piracy threats.

“Putlocker.is is the most visited infringing English language video streaming link site in the world,” the MPAA wrote.

According to the MPAA the site is believed to operate from Vietnam, with its servers being hosted at the Swiss company Private Layer. Whether there’s a direct relation between the report and the downtime is unclear though.

Meanwhile, several “other” Putlockers are seizing the opportunity to gain some traction, at least for the time being. Whether the real Putlocker.is will return as well has yet to be seen.

Update: The Whois information for Putlocker.is was updated today and shows a new owner. This means that something is happening. We’ll keep an eye on the situation.

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