Earlier this week we reported on a new piece of software that allows TIDAL tracks to be permanently downloaded to a computer.

The tool is unique, as it doesn’t require people to listen to the entire track in order to copy it, setting it apart from similar download tools.

“This is an actual downloader – you are logging into TIDAL through the tool and you get the direct ‘stream-URLs’ that can then be downloaded,” developer Lordmau5 explained.

The people at TIDAL were obviously not happy with this development and quickly urged their lawyers at Reed Smith LLP to take action, which they did.

In a takedown notice directed at the developer platform GitHub, where the TiDown code was hosted, they state that the open source code is infringing on the rights of their client.

“The code provided by the user can be used to circumvent access controls to copyright protected works,” the DMCA notice reads, asking for its immediate removal.

As a result, people who try to access the GitHub repo, linked on the official TiDown page, now see the following takedown notification.

Tidown’s down

We contacted the developer, who’s surprised by the language used in the takedown notice. The lawyers claim that the tool infringes “TIDAL source code,” which is obviously not the case.

“The DMCA request says that I would’ve used their source code, which is wrong. So *technically* the DMCA is illegal and I could sue them over that,” Lordmau5 informs TorrentFreak.

“However, since I don’t have or know a lawyer in that area, and it would cost a fortune to pay the cost, I’ll just let it rest for now,” he adds.

Perhaps wisely so, as the intent of the application is directly linked to copyright infringement. This gives TIDAL’s lawyers plenty of reason to take it offline, or even worse.

While TiDown’s swift destruction is a disappointment for the developer, part of the motivation for the tool was to expose the vulnerabilities in TIDAL’s API. That part was definitely achieved.

Also, TiDown is not as dead as it may seem at first sight. Lordmau5 notes that the project has been forked several times already and these repositories (1, 2, 3 etc) are still available on GitHub.

And as we’ve seen in the past, it can be difficult to stop this type of code from being shared online…

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

VPN services are a great tool for people who want to increase their privacy and security online.

While most people use them for legitimate purposes, VPNs are also frequently linked to nefarious activity, as criminals prefer to stay anonymous online too.

As a result, VPNs regularly come up when police investigate online crime. This is also what appears to have happened with two servers that were leased by VPN provider Perfect Privacy.

A few days ago the company informed its customers that two of its servers had been seized by the police in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The authorities went directly to the hosting company I3D and the VPN provider itself wasn’t contacted by law enforcement.

“Currently we have no further information since the responsible law enforcement agency did not get in touch with us directly, we were merely informed by our hoster,” Perfect Privacy says.

Despite losing control over two servers, Perfect Privacy assures its customers that no personally identifiable data is present on the seized hardware. Like many other VPNs, the company maintains a strict no-logging policy.

“Since we are not logging any data there is currently no reason to believe that any user data was compromised,” the VPN provider says.

TorrentFreak reached out to I3D, who told us that they can’t comment on any specifics. However, the hoster stresses that it handles these type of requests in compliance with the law, while keeping the interests of their customers in mind.

“When the Dutch police contact us with a subpoena, we work with them in a professional manner and ensure their request and our responses are in compliance with the Dutch law,” I3D informs us.

“We think with the affected customer as well, for example by making temporary capacity available so the customer does not suffer extended downtime during the investigation.”

Perfect Privacy confirms that they are happy with how I3D handled this issue. Two replacement servers were quickly put in place meaning that the seizures didn’t result in any significant downtime.

In any case, it is good to see that the provider in question is being open about what happened. Unfortunately, that’s not always obvious for companies in this position.

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

Every day, millions of people around the globe use file-sharing networks. Much of that sharing involves the unauthorized downloading and/or distribution of copyright material.

In response, some companies have decided to monetize the activity by tracking alleged infringers back to their Internet service providers and by a variety of methods, getting them to pay a fine.

Commonly known as copyright trolling, this business model has been deployed in the United States, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere. To date, Sweden has escaped its clutches, despite being home to The Pirate Bay and a large number of file-sharers. That is now about to change.

In a new announcement, an organization calling itself Spridningskollen (Distribution Check) says it is about to launch a new initiative to punish those who file-share. The aim: to save the industry and educate the masses.

Distribution Check says that since the start of the year, German anti-piracy outfit Excipio has been monitoring the activities of Swedish file-sharers. That data will be used to track alleged file-sharers back to their ISPs.

“One can compare it to a speed camera. In the same way that a speed camera only records those who drive too fast, only those Internet users who share copyrighted material without permission are logged,” says spokesman Gordon Odenbark.

Initially, the group says it will target between 500 and 1,000 file-sharers and each will be asked to settle for around $233 (2,000 kronor).

“At this moment, we have said that we are only asking for [$233] per film, but that amount will be increased. I can almost guarantee that we will raise the damages in the fall,” OdenBark says.

These “cheap now, expensive later” claims are classic copyright troll tactics which are designed to encourage prompt payments from alleged file-sharers. But of course, some will refuse to pay, and for those individuals the threat of legal action via local firm Gothia Law are already being dangled.

“The amount [being demanded] is lower than the Swedish courts have sentenced file-sharers to pay historically, so you can consider it as a kind of settlement,” the company says on its website. “If you pay the sum, rights holders will stop their demands and both parties can avoid a costly and time-consuming trial.”

In common with similar schemes in operation in the UK, Distribution Check are trying to promote their project as an educational exercise. They say that in the first instance there will be a YouTube piracy awareness campaign. That will be followed by the settlement demands.

“Sure, it may seem hard to tackle individual file-sharers in this way, but to get a behavioral change, it’s probably necessary. A similar initiative has been operated in Germany and Finland, and it has been proven to work,” the company says.

“Ultimately, it is about the film and television industry’s survival. Illegal file sharing of copyrighted material costs the cultural sector several million in lost revenues annually. With Distribution Check, we want to ensure that television and movie companies get paid for their work, so that they can continue to run their business.”

Users concerned about the titles involved in this dragnet should look to content offered by Scanbox Entertainment, Noble Entertainment, Atlantic and Crystalis Entertainment, who are all Distribution Check partners.

More often than not, copyright trolls have more bark than bite, so their threats should be taken seriously but with a decent pinch of salt. In the meantime, customers of ISP Bahnhof can probably sleep more soundly than most. The ISP certainly won’t be handing over identities to trolls without a fight.

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

Can an Internet provider be held liable for subscribers who share pirated files? Yes, a Virginia federal jury ruled late last year.

This verdict caused shockwaves in the ISP industry when several companies suddenly realized that they could become the next target.

Internet provider RCN is among the companies that are gravely concerned. With 400,000 subscribers nationwide, it is one of the larger Internet providers in the United States, and as such it regularly receives takedown notices targeting it its subscribers.

Many of these notices come from BMG and its anti-piracy partner Rightscorp, which accuse RCN of being liable for the actions of its customers.

RCN was not pleased with these allegations and took legal action a few weeks ago. The Internet provider filed a lawsuit against music rights group BMG at a New York federal court, seeking declaratory judgment on the matter.

“The central question for this Court’s determination is whether an Internet service provider should be held liable for copyright infringement simply because it provides Internet connectivity to its customers,” RCN wrote.

The Internet provider argued that it is not liable for the infringements of its subscribers because it is merely passing on traffic, which allows the company protection under the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

RCN is not the only ISP to have taken action. Their complaint was swiftly followed by a similar case from Windstream, which relies on many of the same arguments.

BMG is not happy with these developments and has started to push back in court. In both cases, the music rights group has now asked the court for leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaints.

According to BMG, there is no concrete dispute or threat of an actual lawsuit on their part. Instead, they accuse the ISPs of trying to get broad immunity without going into specifics, such as their repeat infringer policies.

“RCN appears to seek to resolve only its liability for past instances of infringement, but declaratory judgment actions are not the proper vehicle by which to do so,” BMG’s lawyers write in the RCN case.

“Conversely, to the extent RCN seeks to immunize itself against liability for future infringement, there is no factual record on which to make such a decision. A Court cannot offer a declaratory judgment immunizing purely hypothetical future conduct from secondary liability for copyright infringement.”

As the Cox case has shown, the ISPs’ actions and policies play a crucial role in determining liability. BMG accuses RCN, and in a similar filing Windstream, of trying to escape this responsibility.

“In sum, RCN seeks a broad ruling that it does not infringe BMG’s copyrights at any time or anywhere, regardless of the factual circumstances or its actual knowledge of copyright infringement by RCN subscribers. That is not the proper subject of a declaratory judgment action and does not state a legally valid claim under the DMCA or the Copyright Act.”

RCN does not agree with the music group’s characterization of its request. In a reply, the ISP highlights that it received millions of infringement notices from BMG over the past years, in which it demanded compensation from RCN.

“They present a substantial, real, and immediate controversy in that BMG has accused RCN of specific and continuing instances of copyright infringement and has provided a definitive measure of the damages for which RCN is allegedly liable,” RCN writes in its reply.

“As a result, there is nothing abstract or hypothetical about the relief RCN is seeking in this declaratory action. RCN properly seeks a declaration that BMG’s allegations lack merit and that RCN is not liable for purported copyright infringement occurring through its network.”

As such, RCN asks the court not to allow the motion to dismiss to be filed.

Windstream has yet to reply to the allegations, but it’s expected that they will follow the same course as their colleague Internet provider, as they’ve previously done.

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

To legally watch broadcast television in the UK, viewers need to buy a TV license. Currently, one of those costs £145.50 per year but there are signs that the numbers of those investing in one have been dwindling.

Aside from the usual license dodgers, some people have legally chosen not to buy a TV license due to increasing volumes of BBC programming being made available on its iPlayer streaming service.

The iPlayer is split into two types of service – live TV and catchup. People viewing live TV, BBC1 for example, have always needed a TV license. However, those watching only catchup TV have been able to do so without parting with £145. This morning all of that changed.

“The law changed on 1 September 2016,” says a notice posted today to the UK’s official TV Licensing site.

“You must be covered by a TV Licence to download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. This applies to any device and provider you use. Don’t forget, you still need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on any channel as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service.”

With the so-called “iPlayer loophole” closed from a legal perspective, eyes are now turning to how this can possibly be enforced. To do so properly, the BBC could provide license payers with a password and username to log into the service. Instead, however, the BBC has chosen to maintain its trust-based service, shown in the image below.

Simply clicking “I have a TV License. Watch now” is all that’s required to access the service and it’s expected that at least hundreds of thousands will do so without having an appropriate license. So what enforcement options does the BBC and the UK’s TV Licensing body have?

“We know the vast majority of people are law abiding and would anticipate those who need a licence for the first time will buy one,” a TV Licensing spokesperson said today, adding:

“We have a range of enforcement techniques which we will use and these have already allowed us to prosecute people who watch on a range of devices, not just TVs.”

Just as they have been for decades, TV Licensing are deliberately vague about the options available to them, but one thing they won’t be doing is spying on the traffic flying around people’s home wifi networks. That rumor began to circulate earlier this month but the reporting was both sensational and inaccurate. That’s not to say there aren’t options available though.

In ordinary circumstances, anyone who connects to the iPlayer service does so via an IP address allocated to them by their ISP. At this point, the BBC often has a clear idea of which ISPs are being used and the rough geographic location of the IP addresses accessing their service. Useful perhaps, but not particularly so.

Even if your IP address is static (doesn’t change) and you do (or don’t) have a license, TV Licensing and/or the BBC have no easy way of matching that IP address to a TV License payer. Indeed, the IP address they know accessed their service could belong to almost anyone.

Only complicating matters is that a TV license covers an entire household and all of the people in it, regardless of what device they’re using to access the service. Indeed, many IP addresses could be covered under one license. Some of those IP addresses, used by mobile phones for example, could be in an entirely different geographic location.

These variables and numerous others mean that TV Licensing would have huge difficulty trying to use Internet technology to track down unlicensed iPlayer users in the same way that copyright holders might track down BitTorrent pirates.

While the latter knows for sure that no one has permission to be sharing files, the former has no idea whether there is a licensed person behind any IP address. On that basis, getting a court to force ISPs to hand over details would be unlikely, if not impossible. Even if that did happen, the chances of the person having a license or some other mitigating circumstance would be extremely high indeed.

But of perhaps more importance are the chances of TV Licensing and the BBC even trying. By their own estimations around 94% of households have a valid TV license, which means that around the same percentage of UK IP addresses accessing iPlayer are doing so legally. That is not a particularly good starting point for weeding out pirates.

But for those who are truly cautious (or simply using one anyway), accessing the iPlayer from a VPN service is also a possibility. In tests carried out this morning, a properly licensed TF tester accessed iPlayer from three separate VPN services without any issues whatsoever.

Not only did UK-based IP addresses work, but also overseas one too, meaning that foreign users who aren’t eligible to buy a license can also gain access to the service. Indeed, properly licensed UK viewers can also view from a foreign IP address which might initially appear unlicensed. It’s a minefield.

So in conclusion, it seems unlikely that the BBC or TV Licensing will be enforcing illegal use of its iPlayer service in any different manner than it already does for conventional TV.

All households without a license will be gathered into a database and presumed to be TV license dodgers. They will receive letters in the post warning them that not having a license is illegal. However, unless they get caught in the act of viewing, there’s little that can be done to stop them. TV Licensing has no power of entry.

Finally, catchup services offered by other companies other than the BBC aren’t covered, so people can watch ITV Player, 4OD, Demand 5 and any other service such as Netflix without needing any license. That being said, a TV license is just £3 per week and is hardly going to break the bank.

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