When Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom launched his new Mega cloud-storage company in January 2013, the company was focused on one key issue – privacy.

Mega encrypts all files uploaded by users, meaning that no one other than the uploader can see what is in those files unless he or she shares their private key with a third party. But while Mega is secure in many respects, users can not expect complete anonymity.

From the start Mega made it clear it would carry communication logs, the IP addresses used by subscribers to access the service, and other personal information.

Nevertheless, although Dotcom is no longer part of the company (his current stance is actually one of hostility), Mega’s commitment to privacy has been maintained by its current operators. Just recently, however, their stance of keeping user information private has been challenged in court.

The case involves a hack on a Kazakhstan government computer system which is said to have taken place in August 2014 but was not unearthed until 2015.

According to the Kazakh authorities the hackers made off with a trove of information including thousands of sensitive documents and emails between the government and advisors in the United States. These were then uploaded and stored on Mega by either the hackers or individuals closely linked to them.

In order to begin tracking the hackers down, in May last year Kazakhstan filed a lawsuit in the United States against 100 unnamed “John Does” seeking an injunction and damages. The EFF became involved in the case after the Kazakhstan government tried to stop Respublika, a site which reports critically on Kazakhstan’s ruling regime, from publishing the leaks.

Subsequently the Southern District of New York sought assistance from authorities in New Zealand in an effort to gain access to the hackers’ personal details. The request was processed by the New Zealand High Court which was asked to order Mega to hand over the information it holds on the supposed hacker(s).

The application was opposed by Mega, who told the Court that handing over the information would undermine the privacy of its users and was not guaranteed to assist in the U.S. hacking case.

However, in a ruling handed down today Mega’s attempt at protecting user privacy was dismissed by the High Court.

“[This] information is neither particularly revealing nor particularly sensitive; it does not, for instance, carry the same degree of confidentiality as an individual’s email or phone records,” wrote Justice Simon Moore.

“Therefore, I am satisfied that the privacy interests in this case should not carry significant weight. I am also satisfied that any potential harm could be mitigated by the imposition of properly worded protection orders”

As a result, Mega will now have to reveal the IP addresses, email addresses, contact and payment details of the users in question. When it does, that information will have to be sent to the New York district court, although Mega will be compensated for its trouble.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mega chairman Stephen Hall says that he has concerns about the Kazakhstan Government and the process it has undertaken.

“The Kazakhstan Government has a poor record as documented by international groups (1,2). Mega holds concerns that this is not a mere civil case about seeking damages from a hacker as the only damages that have been mentioned are the costs of the investigation,” Hall says.

“By construing it as a civil case [the Kazakhstan Government] has bypassed the usual discretion that needs to be exercised by a Minister of the NZ Government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 process.

Furthermore, Hall says that Mega is not convinced that the party who uploaded the content to Mega is the original hacker as no evidence to that end has been provided. Additionally, it appears there has been little effort to take the content down.

“Mega has only received one request to take down any of the material. This request which related to the contents of a Gmail account of an official in the Finance Ministry was implemented immediately,” he explains.

“However, takedown requests were not received for the remaining material, suggesting that finding the hacker was more important than preserving secrecy of the material.”

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

​Earlier this year Netflix announced that it would increase its efforts to block customers who circumvent geo-blockades.

As a result it has become harder to use VPN services and proxies to access Netflix content from other countries, something various movie studios have repeatedly called for.

With the application of commercial blacklist data, Netflix blocks IP-addresses that are linked to such services, something which also affects well-intentioned customers who merely use a VPN to protect their privacy.

This broad blocking policy has sparked wide protests and 44,446 Internet users have signed a petition launched by digital rights group OpenMedia, which asks Netflix to stop the VPN crackdown.

Today, OpenMedia sent a letter to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, delivering this message. The letter starts off by saying that the petition signers all love Netflix, but that they don’t like how the company handles their privacy.

“Watching quality content, and knowing that creators are being compensated in the process is great. But we also love our privacy. And lately, as your subscribers, you just haven’t been treating us well,” the letter reads.

“[Blocking VPN connections] is a huge problem for our privacy ­conscious supporters, who use VPNs as an essential, user­ friendly tool to protect their privacy in a post ­Snowden world.”

The letter acknowledges that Netflix has to cooperate with rightsholders, but according to OpenMedia there are better ways to make sure that geographic restrictions are enforced.

“We are not unreasonable. We do understand that you have contractual obligations to the rights­holders whose content you distribute. But we believe that there are better ways for you to respect creators, and enforce your geographic restrictions and contractual obligations than by outright blocking your privacy conscious customers from using your service.”

The group invites Netflix’s CEO for a meeting to discuss these alternatives. Talking to TorrentFreak, OpenMedia spokesperson David Christopher previously said that Netflix could link content libraries to credit card addresses, for example.

“We hope that you will consider the needs and privacy of the millions of Internet users around the world who value your service, by demonstrating that you are open to new and innovative solutions – the very root of what Netflix was founded on,” the letter adds.

Thus far Netflix hasn’t shown any willingness to address the concerns. During an investor call last month Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said that the recent crackdown on VPN users hasn’t hurt the company’s results, and that the complaints came from a “small but vocal minority.”

OpenMedia’s letter

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

In many countries it’s accepted that whoever commits a crime or a civil tort in the file-sharing space is the person that should be held directly responsible for it.

For example, if someone shares the latest movie online without permission, that is the only person copyright holders should have an interest in for that particular offense. Certainly, innocent third parties should not be held liable.

In Germany, however, the position is more complex. Due to a concept known as Störerhaftung, a third party who played no intentional part in someone else’s infringements can be held liable for them. This type of liability has raised its head in many file-sharing cases where open WiFi owners have been considered liable for other people’s infringements.

Now, however, this stifling situation is probably in its dying days. According to a Spiegel report, Germany’s ruling coalition have agreed to abolish the so-called ‘interferer liability’.

This means that both private and small scale WiFi operators (such as café owners) will soon enjoy the same freedom from liability enjoyed by commercial operators.
No splash-pages or password locks will be required meaning that open WiFi hotspots will at last become as freely available in Germany as they are already in countries such as France and the UK.

Pressure had been mounting on the German government following a European Court of Justice opinion published in March which held that entities operating unsecured wireless networks should not be held liable for the copyright infringements of third parties.

The case involves Pirate Party member Tobias McFadden who received a claim from music company Sony who alleged that his open WiFi was used to offer an album without permission. Sony demanded that McFadden prevent future infringement by password protecting his network, blocking file-sharing ports, and logging/blocking users sharing copyrighted content. The Pirate objected to Sony’s claims of liability and the case went to the European Court of Justice.

The final judgment from the ECJ is not expected for a few months but in most cases early recommendations from experts are upheld by the ruling judge.

Should all go smoothly, the removal of the liability from German law has the potential to shake up the massive file-sharing settlement letter business. While those accused of infringement already have some means to fight back, the absence of third-party liability for connection owners could remove much of the pressure placed on them to settle, whether they were directly involved in an infringement or not.

According to reports the legislative amendments are set to be passed by Parliament next week and could be in place as early as this fall.

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

Earlier this year Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement.

The dispute centers around the well-received short film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar and the planned follow-up feature film Axanar.

Among other things, the Star Trek rightsholders claim ownership over various Star Trek related settings, characters, species, clothing, colors, shapes, words, short phrases and even the Klingon language.

The makers of the fan-spinoff responded to several of the allegations last month. Among other things, they argued that the Klingon language is not copyrightable because it’s not more than an idea or a system. They therefore asked the court to dismiss or strike the copyright claims in question.

The court reviewed the matter and has now decided that the case should proceed. This means that the Axanar makers have to face the copyright claims Paramount and CBS lodged against them.

In his order, District Court Judge Gary Klausner doesn’t reject the notion that several individual elements such as the Klingon language may not be protected by copyright. However, the case deals with the entire “Star Trek world,” which is a combination of these.

“When viewed in a vacuum, each of these elements may not individually be protectable by copyright. Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to enforce their copyright in each of these elements individually. Rather, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims are based on the Star Trek Copyrighted Works as a whole.”

“The Complaint clearly defines the works at issue, and includes the copyright registration numbers for the motion pictures and the first episode of each television series,” the order adds.

At this point there is no need to rule on the copyright status of various Star Trek features, as they were merely used as an illustration of the similarity between the official and the spin-off Star Trek works.

“The Court finds it unnecessary to analyze whether the allegedly non-protectable elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are eligible for copyright protection because Plaintiff describes these elements in the Complaint solely in an effort to demonstrate how the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works,” the Judge writes.

Several other arguments to dismiss the case were denied as well, which means that the case will proceed as planned.

Since the court will not decide over the copyrightability of the Klingon language, the amicus brief submitted by the Language Creation Society (LCS) is moot and denied as well.

Finally, while the crowdfunded Star Trek spin-off failed to get the case dismissed, Judge Gary Klausner made no judgment about the copyright claims themselves, which will have to be fought in court. However, as LCS notes, he did slip a Star Trek reference into his order.

“Although the Court declines to address whether Plaintiffs’ Claims will prosper at this time, the Court does find Plaintiffs’ claims will live long enough to survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”

To be continued.

Live long and prosper…

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

In 2014 decryption licensing outfit AACS LA initiated a renewed crackdown on DRM-circumvention software.

The company, founded by a group of movie studios and technology partners, sued the makers of popular DVD and Blu-Ray ripping software DVDFab in a New York federal court.

After a brief legal battle the court ruled in favor of AACS, issuing an injunction based on the argument that the “DVDFab Group” violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause, since their software can bypass DVD and Bluray encryption.

Among other things the injunction barred DVDFab from distributing its software in public and allowed AACS to seize a wide range of domain names and block the company’s social media accounts.

The crippling injunction seemed to work, but not for long. In a new court filing (pdf) AACS notes that the software vendor briefly blocked U.S. purchases but went back to business as usual soon after.

“Defendants are again offering DVDFab software that circumvents AACS Technology for purchase and download from the United States via their enjoined website at DVDFab.cn,” they write.

“Plaintiff has been able to purchase and download DVDFab Passkey for Bluray from the United States without issue, and without using a VPN or other means of masking a United States IP address,” AACS adds.

In addition, the software maker also launched an XBMC box called VidOn which also allows users to rip DVDs and Blurays.

According to AACS, the VidOn box uses the same DVDFab technology to rip Blu-Ray disks.

“Plaintiff has tested the products and found that the VidOn software works in conjunction with DVDFab Passkey to circumvent AACS access and copy control technology and then extract or ‘rip’ the audiovisual content of Blu-ray discs for playback using the VidOn hardware.”

VidOn importer

Similar to the DVDFab software, the VidOn box is widely available to the U.S. public and promoted there using various social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

According to AACS these clear violations of the permanent injunction should not go unpunished. The company therefore asks the court to award damages and to issue coercive contempt sanctions of $10,000 per day.

“Plaintiff requests the Court impose a coercive sanction of $10,000 per day on Defendants, continuing until Defendants come into compliance with the Amended PI Order,” AACS writes.

“This figure is reasonable and in line with amounts awarded in previous cases involving similar behavior, namely repeated, brazen violations of court orders and intellectual property protections,” they add.

In addition, the rightsholders want the permanent injunction to be updated so DVDFab is also barred from selling the new VidOn products and operating other related websites through which its ripping tools are offered.

It is not up to the court to decide whether sanctions and an amended injunction are appropriate. However, recent history has shown that it’s hard to permanently ban “ripping” software from the market.

In addition to DVDFab’s continued operation, AACS also failed to completely shut down its competitor AnyDVD. While the parent company SlySoft did shut down, the development was quickly taken over by RedFox, without any significant changes.

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