Megaupload was shutdown nearly half a decade ago, but data from hundreds of the site’s servers are still in storage.

This is also true for the files that were placed at Cogent.

While the original machines are no longer intact, the hosting company has backed up all data which it will keep in storage pending the various lawsuits against the company and its operators.

However, as time has gone by the condition of the harddrives has deteriorated. A few weeks ago Cogent warned that sixteen of them have actually become unreadable, which is a serious concern since they contain important evidence.

To resolve the issue the RIAA and MPAA, representing various major copyright holders, asked if they could preserve a copy of the data themselves. Alternatively, they were also open to bringing in an independent computer forensics vendor, to copy and preserve the data.

Megaupload disagreed, arguing that rightsholders or other outsiders shouldn’t get their hands on possibly privacy sensitive user data, and opted to simply repair the failing disks.

This week District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled on the matter at hand. He rejected the copying proposal by the rightsholders, and went with Megaupload’s suggestion instead.

Judge O’Grady’s order

“The Court finds Defendants’ proposal is the more appropriate remedy for the issue at hand,” Judge O’Grady writes in his order.

The Judge instructs all stakeholders in the civil and criminal cases, including the U.S. Government and Cogent, to come together and agree on a repair process.

“[All parties] shall meet and confer with United States Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson to discuss and devise an appropriate solution to repair the Cogent drives and preserve the evidence on the Cogent servers, as well as to secure and preserve other digital evidence.”

While none of the parties are likely to disagree to a repair, they do have to determine who should pick up the tab.

Megaupload previously said that it doesn’t have the financial resources to do so, and suggested that either the copyright holders or the Government must take care of this. The Government is unlikely to pay though, and previously said that it no longer has an interest in the data.

The fact that the recent filings in the Megaupload proceedings are about data loss is exemplary of the slow progress in the cases, which are still a long way from trial.

Last December a New Zealand District Court judge ruled that Kim Dotcom and his colleagues can be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. This decision was appealed and will be heard later this summer, so until then not much is expected to happen.

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

For years Internet piracy was the preserve of desktop machines running various flavors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software. Now, with viable computing available in devices as small as a phone, piracy is a do-anywhere affair.

As a result it’s now common for people to stream media to their living room and for that purpose there are few more convenient solutions than an Android device. Whether phone, tablet, HDMI stick or set-top box, the Android platform can bring all the latest movies, TV shows and live sports to any living room, for little to no outlay.

This type of Internet piracy is thriving all around the world and has already resulted in arrests in the UK and civil actions elsewhere. The latest news comes out of Canada, where Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Videotron and others are taking on several retailers of Android set-top boxes.

The broadcasters’ claims are relatively straightforward. As station operators they own the Canadian rights to a variety of TV shows. The defendants (ITVBOX.NET, My Electronics, Android Bros Inc., WatchNSaveNow Inc and MTLFreeTV) all sell devices that come ready configured with software designed to receive copyrighted content over the Internet.

The plaintiffs began their inquiries in April 2015 and in the year that followed purchased and tested the defendants’ products. They not only found that the devices provided access to their content for free, but also that the defendants advertised their products as a way to avoid paying cable bills.

Unsurprisingly the devices contained at least three sets of software – Kodi (along with the necessary infringing addons), the Popcorn Time-like Showbox application, plus tools to receive pirate subscription channels for a monthly fee.

As a result the TV companies went to court in an effort to obtain an interlocutory injunction to stop the devices being made available for sale. The plaintiffs made claims under both the Copyright Act and Radiocommunication Act, the latter due to the devices receiving “illegally decrypted programming”.

Describing pre-loaded set-top boxes as an “existential threat” to their businesses, the plaintiffs said that piracy and subsequent declining subscriptions are the main factors behind falling revenue. On this basis and as a deterrent to others supplying such devices, an injunction should be granted.

While the plaintiffs showed up in force, court documents reveal that only one defendant attended the hearing. Vincent Wesley of MTLFreeTV told the court that he had nothing to do with the development or maintenance of the installed software. The set-top boxes, he argued, are just pieces of hardware like a tablet or computer and have “substantial non-infringing uses.”

The court wasn’t convinced.

“The devices marketed, sold and programmed by the Defendants enable consumers to obtain unauthorized access to content for which the Plaintiffs own the copyright. This is not a case where the Defendants merely serve as the conduit, as was argued by Mr. Wesley,” Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer wrote in her order.

“Rather, they deliberately encourage consumers and potential clients to circumvent authorized ways of accessing content — say, by a cable subscription or by streaming content from the Plaintiffs’ websites — both in the manner in which they promote their business, and by offering tutorials in how to add and use applications which rely on illegally obtained content.”

As is often the case, the defendants’ marketing strategies appear set to haunt them. All imply infringing uses with descriptions such as “Original Cable Killer”, “Cancel cable today”, “Every Movie Ever Made”, “Every TV Show Ever Made” and “Live Sports and Events”.

Granting the interlocutory injunction, the judge said that other companies selling similar devices can be joined as parties to the injunction, should the plaintiffs identify them as defendants.

“This is not the first time a new technology has been alleged to violate copyright law, nor will it be the last. There are questions for the Court to resolve at trial rather than at this interlocutory stage,” the judge wrote.

“For the time being, I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and that an injunction would prevent irreparable harm without unduly inconveniencing the Defendants.”

A full trial will follow but from the evidence and defense presented thus far, it shouldn’t prove a difficult one for the broadcasters to win.

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

In a few hours the 2016 UEFA Euro Cup kicks off in France, an event that will be seen by more than hundred million soccer fans from all over the world.

While most people watch the matches through licensed broadcasters, there is also a large group of people who resort to shady sources.

Most popular are the so-called “pirate” streaming sites where fans can watch the game live. These typically generate millions of views during popular sporting events.

In addition, those looking for an archive copy of a match or higher quality video, can find pirated copies on numerous torrent sites, where HD copies are uploaded minutes after the final whistle.

These unauthorized transmissions are a thorn in the side of various rightsholders and some are taking action to prevent it. Before the event kicks off, Sony Pictures Network (SPN) has already issued the first warnings.

From a known source who prefers to remain anonymous, TorrentFreak obtained a copy of the letter SPN sent to torrent sites and possibly streaming sites as well.

“Please be advised that our Client has exclusive Television Rights, Mobile Transmission Rights and Broadband Internet Transmission Rights for the upcoming 2016 UEFA Euro Cup,” the letter begins.

The Indian branch of Sony Pictures goes on to explain that they have the exclusive rights to broadcast the event in various countries, through ESPN and other platforms.

Logically, this means that torrent sites and pirate streaming portals are not allowed to offer the same content.

“Any manner of communicating and/or making available for viewing the UEFA EURO CUP 2016 matches on any platform shall therefore amount to violation of our Client’s exclusive rights in which our client has invested significant amount of money,” SPN writes.

Pre-piracy warning

The “pre-piracy” warning alerts the site operators to possible legal consequences, including criminal prosecutions.

The company explicitly states that it’s “compelled to initiate legal proceedings (civil and/or criminal) should you engage in violation of our Client’s rights despite the present notice.”

Despite the startk language, the site owner who informed us about the notice says he has no plans to take action in response. Quite the contrary, the letter actually serves as a reminder to make sure that users have access to the latest UEFA Euro Cup matches.

“I forgot that we need to upload UEFA. It’s good that they reminded us,” the torrent site operator told TorrentFreak.

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

Many Hollywood insiders see online piracy as a major threat, but only very few are willing to target file-sharers with lawsuits or settlement demands.

Millennium Films and LHF Productions, two companies behind the blockbuster “London Has Fallen” have no problem crossing this line.

A few days ago a high quality Blu-Ray rip of the movie appeared online, more than a week before the official release. Since then hundreds of thousands of people have pirated the film, much to the outrage of the studios.

To compensate the potential revenue loss of these and earlier leaks, LHF Productions has filed lawsuits against more than 1,000 people in recent weeks.

The cases are filed against “does” who are only known by their IP-address, with the studio then trying to uncover their real identities by subpoenaing their ISPs. After their personal info is released, the accused Internet subscribers will get a settlement offer, which can go up to several thousands dollars.

A relatively straightforward way to recoup damages, but there is an even easier option. In addition to the lawsuits the film’s production company Millennium Films has started sending automated settlement demands to U.S. Internet subscribers.

These settlement offers bypass the courts and are sent as part of a DMCA notice. Several Internet providers voluntarily forward these notices to the account holders associated with the infringing IP-addresses.

Excerpt from the notice

The language in the notices will be quite intimidating to some. After listing the evidence, Millennium Films’ anti-piracy partner CEG TEK warns that the subscribers could face a potential lawsuit.

“CEG informs you that you may be held liable for monetary damages, including court costs and/or attorney fees if a lawsuit is commenced against you for unauthorized copying and/or distribution of the Work listed above,” it reads.

However, the letter also offers a way out. By settling the case right away and paying $300, all problems will go away. To increase the pressure, CEG TEK adds a hard deadline that expires after a few days.

“If you fail to respond or settle within the prescribed time period, the above matter may be referred to attorneys representing the Work’s owner for legal action. At that point the original settlement offer will no longer be an option, and the settlement amount will increase significantly,” the company adds.

Those who follow the link are directed to the settlement page where the suspected pirates can pay their dues directly through a credit or debit card.

CEG TEK’s settlement page

CEG TEK is not a new player on the scene, but it’s rare to see notices for such a high-profile movie. The company mostly works with players in the adult industry, who typically demand a few hundred dollars per infringement as well.

Despite all the anti-piracy activity, thousands of people are still sharing “London Has Fallen.” This means that there’s enough potential for more lawsuits and automated fines.

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

The Pirate Bay might no longer be the most popular torrent site on the Internet but its story is certainly the most colorful in the history of online piracy.

That history is now inexorably intertwined with that of Sweden, a Scandinavian country that found itself slammed into the middle of the United States’ war on piracy due to the site operating from its territory.

At first Sweden took little action against TPB and its founders, but as pressure built the authorities governing the sub 10 million population decided that enough was enough. Not only would Pirate Bay be forced to its knees, but all similar services that had brought Sweden’s IP policies under the spotlight too.

The resulting crackdown, which has run for more than a decade but has intensified in the past six years, has seen countless torrent sites, Direct Connect hubs, streaming platforms and end users targeted by the authorities.

Once considered a piracy haven, Sweden is now a somewhat risky country to start a file-sharing operation or share large volumes of files. Nevertheless, the authorities report that illegal downloading continues at a pace.

According to stats just released by Sweden’s national police, the most common intellectual property crimes committed in the country relate to unauthorized file-sharing, despite physical counterfeiting being valued at billions of krona every year.

“75 percent of complaints are about copyright violations and file sharing, although we may be seeing some decline,” says Paul Pintér, police national coordinator for intellectual property crimes.

That decline is almost certainly due to the attractive legal services that have been gaining traction year on year. Platforms such as Spotify and Netflix are doing very well in Sweden, with three quarters of the population now using streaming services to consume music and video. The former has impressively tied up around 90% of the paying market.

Still, it’s apparent that Sweden still has work to do if it wants to eradicate the piracy problem. Despite the crackdown of recent years carried out by a dedicated copyright unit embedded in the police force, Pintér says that Sweden sits in third place among European Union countries when it comes to illegal downloads of music.

Quite why that’s the case is unclear, but police say they remain extremely busy when it comes to processing file-sharing complaints. According to Pintér his unit is handling around 120 such complaints every year, that’s roughly one every three days.

Not all reach the prosecution stage of course but those are big numbers for a country with a relatively small population. Still, the revelation is hardly a surprise.

Last month, local ISP Bahnhof revealed that when it comes to police requests for data, 27.5% relate to cases involving online file-sharing. This makes it the most prevalent ‘crime’ committed by users, ahead of other offenses such as fraud, forgery and grooming minors.

So for now it appears that Sweden’s quest to crush file-sharing will continue. Last month it was reported that Sweden’s Minister for Justice has called for even tougher punishments for infringers. And with even those making their own subtitles facing prison, it seems that no one is safe.

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