In an effort to monitor the shifting habits of Internet pirates in the UK, the Intellectual Property Office has commissioned regular reports from the researchers at Kantar Media.

Originally commissioned by telecoms watchdog Ofcom and sponsored by the IPO back in 2012, the reports cover the consumption of both legal and illegal content by Internet users aged 12 and above. “Wave 6” was published this morning and covers the three-month period March to May 2016.

The headline figure is that around 15% of Internet users consumed at least one item of infringing content during the monitoring period, which equates to around 6.7 million people throughput the population.

However, when the study considered only Internet users who had actually consumed content online during the three-month period (rather than all Internet users regardless of consumption), the number of infringers jumped to 25%.

According to the study, the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) networks has decreased again this year, from 12% down to 10% among all Internet users and from 26% to 23% among those who admit to being infringers.

UTorrent remains the most popular ‘service’ used to infringe, but usage is on the decline from 17% of infringers last year to 12% in 2016. The Pirate Bay sits one place behind with 11%.

Levels of infringement vary across content formats. The highest levels relate to audio, with 8% of all Internet users saying they obtain music from illegal sources.

“Music was by far the most-consumed content type, both digitally (355 million tracks) and physically (88 million tracks) over the three-month period. We estimate that 78 million music tracks were accessed illegally online [during the monitoring period],” the researchers write.

Those are indeed big numbers but progress is being made. Estimated illegal consumption of music in the same period last year was more than 96 million tracks.

This year, around 7% of Internet users say they obtained TV shows from illegal sources, with movies in third place with 6%. While consumption of legal content has gone up, both figures represent a deteriorating piracy situation when compared to last year.

“[Legal consumption of] films showed an increase in volumes of just over 5 million and a more notable shift was seen for TV programmes of a 16 million increase over the last year,” the researchers note.

“These categories also both showed increases in the digital volumes of infringement with films now estimated at 24 million and TV programmes 27 million pieces of content.”

This year there are few surprises when it comes to people’s motivation to obtain content without paying for it.

“The most commonly cited reasons for infringing were because it is free (49%), convenient (45%) and quick (42%). Speed and convenience have both shown increases in 2016,” the researchers report.

Given the above, it’s straightforward to predict how infringers say they could be persuaded to pirate less.

Just under a quarter of infringers say that cheaper prices would help, while one in five say that content being made available legally would reduce their reliance on illicit sources.

Interestingly, the study also shows that non-service related solutions to deter pirates might not be particularly effective. Year on year, it appears that fewer Internet users are worried about oppressive anti-piracy measures.

“Responses to the threat of ISP letters suspending their accounts or restricting their internet speed have decreased again in 2016; the suspension of internet service in particular has fallen by a small proportions wave-on-wave, from 22% in the first wave, to 15% in 2015 and the current level of 11%,” the researchers write.

The headline figure of millions of citizens engaged in piracy certainly sounds like a lot but there are relatively few hardcore pirates in the UK.

Just 5% of all UK Internet users admit to exclusively obtaining content from illegal sources, meaning that the remainder who consume content are also happy to “do the right thing” via subscription or ad-supported services. That’s a very encouraging sign.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf)

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

Starting two years ago TV-show and movie distributors in Finland began sending out thousands of settlement letters to alleged pirates, demanding payments of between 600 and 3,000 euros.

The letters in question are sent by lawfirm Hedman Partners, which threatens legal action if accused pirates refuse to cooperate.

It’s unclear how many recipients have paid up since the scheme started, but it is no surprise that some have ignored the warnings, hoping that the lawfirm wouldn’t follow-up on the threat.

However, Hedman Partners did take several people to court and the first case came to its conclusion in court yesterday.

The lawsuit in question was filed against a man who was accused of downloading ten episodes of the pirate TV-series “Black Sails” and a copy of the movie A Walk Among the Tombstones via BitTorrent.

The rightsholders employed the German tracking company Excipio, who linked the man’s IP-address to several swarms where these videos were distributed. In addition, the same IP-address was linked to dozens of other downloads.

In his defense, the man denied having downloaded the videos while pointing out that his Wi-Fi network was open to anyone. In fact, he actually bought the router on the same day the first infringement was observed.

Because of the open Wi-Fi network, outsiders could have easily been responsible for downloading the pirated videos, the defense argued. To illustrate this point, they setup a Wi-Fi honeypot at the defendant’s home to which the first outsider connected within minutes.

In response, the rightsholders provided evidence showing that the man ‘admitted guilt’ in an online forum, where an unredacted copy of the initial settlement letter was posted.

After weighing these and other arguments from both sides, the Finnish Market court found the defendant guilty.

The rightsholders demanded 8,500 euros in damages, but the court limited this to 50 euros per TV-episode and 100 euros for the movie, which makes 600 euros in total.

However, in addition the man must now pay 31,762 euros to cover the legal expenses of the copyright holders, Crystalis Entertainment and Scanbox Entertainment.

Jaana Pihkala, Executive Director at the local anti-piracy group, is happy with the court’s decision. He warns people who use unauthorized services, and notes that the settlement letter campaign is designed to limit the number of lawsuits.

“The letters and reconciliation process are designed to reduce unnecessary litigation,” Pihkala says.

Previously, the Market Court’s Chief Judge Kimmo Mikkola warned that a flood of file-sharing cases could prove problematic, as the court’s resources are limited.

The defendant in this case is not ready to give up just yet though. He has announced that he will appeal the case before the high court, which has yet to decide whether it will take on the case.

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

Over the years video game developer Blizzard Entertainment has published many popular game titles.

Most recently the company released the new first-person shooter “Overwatch,” which became an instant bestseller. The game received rave reviews and generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue during its first weeks on sale.

While most Overwatch players stick to the rules, there’s also a small group that tries to game the system. By using cheats such as the Watchover Tyrant, they play with an advantage over regular users.

Blizzard is not happy with the Overwatch cheat and has filed a lawsuit against the German maker, Bossland GMBH, at a federal court in California. Bossland also sells cheats for various other titles such as World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and Heroes of the Storm, which are mentioned in the complaint as well.

The game developer accuses the cheat maker of various forms of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and violating the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

According to Blizzard these bots and cheats also cause millions of dollars in lost sales, as they ruin the games for many legitimate players.

“Defendants’ sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation.”

“Moreover, by releasing ‘Overwatch Cheat’ just days after the release of ‘Overwatch,’ Defendants are attempting to destroy or irreparably harm that game before it even has had a chance to fully flourish.”

The Overwatch cheat has already become relatively popular in a short period of time. Thousands of players are reportedly using the tool, which enables them to display the locations and health status of hidden or obscured opponents.

Blizzard believes that by developing the cheats, Bossland has infringed on its copyrights in various ways. Among other things, the complaint accuses the German cheat maker of contributory copyright infringement.

“They have done so by enabling and encouraging third-party ‘freelancers’ or contractors to fraudulently obtain access to the Blizzard Games and then, having done so, to engage in unauthorized reproduction of the Blizzard Games,” the complaint reads.

“They also have done so by enabling users of the Bossland Hacks (particularly the Overwatch Cheat) to use the software to create derivative works, such as the dynamic screen overlay generated by the Overwatch Cheat,” it adds.

Blizzard notes that it has already taken action against thousands of cheaters. In response, Bossland announced that they would make their tool harder to be detected, which suggests that they intentionally violate the game’s EULA.

The game developer adds that the various cheats and bots may have generated millions in revenue for the German company, and demands compensation for its losses.

“Defendants not only know that their conduct is unlawful, but they engage in that conduct with the deliberate intent to harm Blizzard and its business. Blizzard is entitled to monetary damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, and punitive damages against Defendants,” the complaint reads.

Aside from the Overwatch cheat, the current case is very similar to one filed against a freelancer who works for Bossland. This case never really took off and was dismissed earlier this year.

TF spoke with Bossland CEO Zwetan Letschew, who informed us that his company hasn’t received the complaint at its office yet. However, they are no stranger to Blizzard’s legal actions.

“There are over 10 ongoing legal battles in Germany already,” Letschew says, noting that it’s strange that Blizzard decided to take action in the US after all these years.

“Now Blizzard wants to try it in the US too. One could ask himself, why now and not back in 2011. Why did Rod Rigole [Blizzard Deputy General Counsel] even bother to fly to Munich and drive with two other lawyers 380 km to Zwickau. Why not just sue us in the US five years ago?”

While Letschew still isn’t convinced that the lawsuit is even real, he doesn’t fear any legal action in the U.S. According to the CEO, a California court has no jurisdiction over his company, as it has no ties with the United States.

In addition, he is supported by a lawsuit his company won in Germany against Blizzard earlier this year. In that case, which dealt with the Heroes of the Storm bot, Blizzard was ordered to pay Bossland’s legal costs and attorney fees.

The full complaint filed at the Central District Court of California is available here (pdf).

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

Faced with resilient websites and services that respond quickly to attacks by law enforcement, copyright holders around the world have sought more permanent ways of limiting the growth of pirate sites.

Spreading rapidly through Europe to countries as far-flung as Australia, one of the most popular has become the website-blocking injunction. Initially obtained via complex and pioneering legal processes, in some countries these court orders are now fairly easily obtained.

Researchers from Western Sydney University and King’s College London have published a paper examining regimes in three key regions, the EU, Australia and Singapore. They find that all display shortcomings which negatively affect rightsholders and in some cases even due process.

“[T]here are problems not only with the remedy itself but also in the manner in which the blocking injunction is implemented,” the researchers write.

“The fact that multiple proceedings have to be filed in order to obtain a global level of enforcement and the possibility of blocking measures being circumvented are problems with the remedy itself.”

In other words, copyright holder dreams of rendering content inaccessible everywhere will require injunctions in all countries against every major ISP. Even then, that won’t solve the problem of the workarounds (proxies, VPNs) that are constantly being made available.

But while rightsholder problems are regularly documented, the researchers also draw attention to the manner in which injunctions are obtained, particularly in the UK where many hundreds of sites are blocked by ISPs. Their first concern focuses on how site operators are effectively excluded from proceedings.

“Notably, neither of [the] domestic provisions under which the High Court typically exercises jurisdiction in granting blocking injunctions provide that the operators of the online locations sought to be blocked be made party to the application before the court,” the researchers write.

“Thus, a common feature in the series of cases leading to blocking injunctions in the copyright context…is that only the ISPs who were called upon to block the target online locations were before court and not the operators of the online locations in issue.”

While it is unlikely that many site operators would appear in court to contest an injunction, the researchers say it is a “cause for significant concern” that the legal mechanism effectively freezes them out of the process, especially since local ISPs no longer contest proceedings.

“[M]ost orders to-date have been granted after consideration of the applications on paper alone. Essentially, what this means is that the court is only possessed of the material submitted by the rights-holders, which go uncontested by the ISPs, leaving the interests of the operators of the target online locations completely unrepresented,” they write.

But while noting the above, the researchers do make it clear that the court hears the merits of these cases. They also add that the sites being blocked are “patently infringing”. However, due to the way the legal process operates, it’s possible it could be abused.

“What must be emphasised is that, in future, there may be instances where the operator of an online location has a plausible defence to a claim of IP infringement,” the researchers say.

“In the circumstances where the court is only privy to the pleadings and documentary evidence submitted on behalf of a right-holder, the court’s discretion may become the subject of abuse, especially since the only other party before court (i.e. the ISP) shows no interest in protecting the operators of target online locations.

Indeed, due to the manner in which the relevant EU directives are implemented, even site operators who can be identified and notified don’t have to be informed of proceedings under the law.

“In the EU’s context at least….the implementation of the blocking injunction fall short of due process requirements,” the researchers note.

“Although, in the UK….a safeguard was incorporated into blocking orders allowing the authors/owners of the content blocked to apply to court to have the injunction varied or set aside, the lack of a notice requirement under the law may render this safeguard, at best, useless.”

Thus far there have been no signs that rightsholders have attempted to abuse the blocking process in the UK, but the almost complete lack of transparency after court orders are issued remains a cause for concern.

Once an injunction is obtained, rightsholders are free to add additional domains to the UK’s blocklist, as and when they see fit. No ISP currently maintains a public list of the domains being blocked meaning that the whole process is shielded from public scrutiny.

It’s believed that more than 1,000 sites might be blocked in this manner but few people have this information. A public list would go some way to inspiring confidence that the kind of abuse the researchers highlight doesn’t come to pass.

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

This week we have three newcomers in our chart.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the most downloaded movie for the second week in a row.

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	(1)	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice	7.0 / trailer
2	(…)	Independence Day: Resurgence (HDTS)	5.6 / trailer
3	(3)	Finding Dory (HDTS)	8.1 / trailer
4	(2)	Warcraft (TS/TC)	7.7 / trailer
5	(…)	Central Intelligence	6.9 / trailer
6	(…)	Me Before You (Subbed Webrip)	trailer
7	(7)	X-Men: Apocalypse (HDCam/TC)	7.7 / trailer
8	(9)	Allegiant	5.9 / trailer
9	(4)	The Huntsman: Winter’s War	6.2 / trailer
10	(5)	Whiskey Tango Foxtrot	6.8 / trailer

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