For as long as there have been torrent sites, streaming platforms, ‘pirate’ apps, download sites, services, and any variation thereof, there have been lawsuits attempting to hinder, paralyze, or shut them down.

It’s hardly breaking news to state that defending such legal action can be a punishing affair, not just emotionally but financially too. Usually brought by powerful entertainment companies and broadcasters, anyone tackling the above needs not only a steely disposition but also the deepest of deep pockets.

As a result, people facing lawsuits for operating such platforms have regularly run fundraisers, invariably claiming that they need huge sums of money to battle what are frequently depicted as marauding copyright bullies intent on destroying the free Internet.

While in some cases that might be at least partially true, many rely on the same language as their aggressors in an effort to rally the masses to part with their cash. In some cases people have a reasonable argument. In others they do not.

Nevertheless, these situations are always interesting, particularly when one factors in the response from the public.

Platforms that have always provided a free service, for example, are often considered more worthy of a donation when it comes to fighting ‘Goliath’. The same can be said of those who operated in a perceived gray area, such as unblocking platforms that have never offered any copyright works, or dual-use open-source projects.

Indeed, one rarely needs to be in receipt of a law degree to assess a platform and decide whether the litigation at hand is warranted or a true case of bullying that warrants a bit of moral and financial support. Equally, spotting the most ridiculous of ’causes’ shouldn’t be hard for anyone.

For example, take the matter of iStreamItAll that is currently trying to raise $10,000 via a GoFundMe campaign to battle Hollywood and the US Government.

“We need all the help we can to fight Hollywood, and the federal charges brought upon one of the owners Darryl Polo. Any help would be appreciated and will go towards our legal defense,” it reads.

Ignoring the not insignificant fact that the defendants have already pleaded guilty, $10,000 won’t go anywhere in a case like this. It would take perhaps several hundred thousand dollars to fight in any meaningful way but it would be money down the drain – people do not easily win cases like this in the US. That’s why there are others that are aiming higher – a lot higher.

A couple of months ago we reported on the case of Boom Media, a full-blown pirate IPTV reselling business that is now being sued by DISH Networks in the United States. Boom Media is asking for $250,000 in donations to get things started in what is being portrayed as a battle to prevent DISH getting its hands on subscriber data.

If the broadcaster does get what it wants (and to be fair this seems likely) that could mean subscribers to the service receiving demands for cash settlements. This, of course, is somewhat akin to copyright-trolling, with low-level users being pursued for thousands of dollars to make supposed lawsuits go away.

That’s why the response to this plea for donations was of particular interest. Even when scouring the usual ‘pirate’ haunts, discussions, forums and chats, finding a supporting voice for the fundraiser is particularly hard.

The general consensus seems to be that this was a business that has never shared a single penny of its profits with its users yet is now asking for donations to fight off a lawsuit on the basis that doing so will prevent subscribers’ details ending up on the desks of DISH lawyers. The irony, particularly when viewed in the light of copyright trolls’ actions in general, is not difficult to spot.

Companies like Boom Media knew very well what they were doing. They knew the consequences of running a pirate IPTV service or selling access to one. Lawsuits like this one should’ve been expected, prepared for, with litigation costs factored in as a cost of doing business. You know, like regular properly-run businesses do every day.

That the costs of keeping user data safe should now fall to the users of those services, some of whom will have had no idea that Boom wasn’t legitimate, is as offensive to users as the copyright holders complaining about their activities. But for other users, who knew they were buying into a cheap “black market” service (Boom’s own words), there should be zero surprises that this was a potential outcome.

Paying the company’s legal fees, which will then get swallowed up by lawyers in a case that cannot be reasonably won, is the choice of the donor. But the fact is that these fundraisers rarely raise any notable funds and in every case – every case – donors get absolutely nothing back, not even a free subscription in the million to once chance the service reappears offering the same thing.

This isn’t really about fighting for freedom, for the Internet, or helping David beat an evil Goliath, it’s about supporting people who knew from the start that what they were doing was illegal and now want yet more money to bail them out of a hole. And from the dozens of posts we’ve read on the topic, pirates everywhere know that and do not appreciate it.

All pirates have their causes, from the lowly “media is too expensive” to the militant “sticking it to the man”. But funding a for-profit ‘pirate’ LLC’s fight against a for-profit broadcaster which is also an LLC is clearly not on most pirates’ agendas.

Funny that….

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

It’s December 25, 2019, so Happy Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all the best to everyone from us here at TorrentFreak, wherever you may be and whatever you may be celebrating.

Sadly, for some of you today it won’t all be fun and games. Some will experience an awful sinking feeling, one prompted by the arrival of an unexpected guest bearing an equally unexpected Christmas card or, worse still, one accompanied by a Christmas gift, all beautifully wrapped with a little bow on top.

You won’t have prepared for this so panic will quickly set in. You’ll probably have a spare card you can quickly scribble on but no appropriate gift. This will cause acute embarrassment and raised blood pressure. Will a hastily prepared turkey sandwich or glass of wine suffice, or will something more substantial be required?

First of all, calm down. After assessing the value of the incoming gift, you can head off to Amazon to send an emailed gift card of roughly equivalent value. However, if your gift-bearer is a file-sharer, there is a more novel option.

As readers will be aware, earlier this year BitTorrent Inc. launched its BTT token. Reportedly, these could be earned in the new uTorrent client by seeding lots of content and then spent to obtain faster torrent downloads elsewhere. We couldn’t find much evidence of anyone earning much or getting faster transfers but since when did an emergency gift have to be useful?

The problem here, however, is that you need some BTT now – right now – so how can that be achieved without panic-seeding terabytes of content and hoping for the best?

Easy. Quickly log into eBay and buy some.

As the image above shows, it is possible to buy 45,000 BTT tokens in one go. Think about it – your guest brought only one gift, so they can’t fail to be impressed by the scale of your offering. Unless they get out a calculator and realize what a scam this is.

While the deodorant gift set, socks, wine, or chocolates you’re trying to balance out are probably worth much less than €89.99 (US$100.44), the BTT haul on offer here represents such poor value it’s an absolute joke, and not a very funny one either.

As the image below shows, at the time of writing BTT tokens are worth less than $0.0003 each.

…..which means that 45,000 of them are worth around $12.78 (€11.45). Clearly, this is a massive profit for the numerous people on eBay offering to sell them, even when factoring in your gift vulnerability situation on Christmas Day.

But there are other problems too. While it may look like the BTT are up for sale, what you’re actually buying is a “contract to mine” BTT. The issue here is that unlike bitcoin or similar cryptocurrencies, there is no mining involved with the BTT utility token. They cannot be mined.

The bottom line here is that while 45,000 BTT may sound like a lot – even at $12.78 for this huge amount – they currently aren’t a particularly useful commodity. According to even the most experienced users who seed massive amounts of content constantly, it’s hard if not impossible to earn BTT and downloads don’t run noticeably faster when people spend them either.

This is a mystery that even torrent experts have puzzled over for months but this week a tweet from BitTorrent Inc. inadvertently revealed the root of the problem. When the BTT-powered BitTorrent Speed project was announced, CEO of BitTorrent Inc. Justin Sun said that “more than 100 million users” would soon reap the benefits.

However, it seems that interest in BTT is so minimal that meeting up with other BTT-powered users in a swarm is extremely unlikely.

#BitTorrentSpeed is added in uTorrent Windows Client for 100% of new installs. Now it shows 47K daily active users and 138K monthly active users. In last 7 days about 400 users activated TRON accounts and claimed 50 BTT AirDrop to #BitTorrentSpeed account. https://t.co/tBa3kr62Sg

— BitTorrent Inc. (@BitTorrent) December 23, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

This almost complete lack of interest in BTT may yet turn around but as Christmas presents go, this token won’t set hearts racing in 2019. So to avoid embarrassment today, you should’ve kept a few blank Christmas cards back, pre-wrapped several bottles of half-decent wine, while continually reminding yourself never to panic-buy gifts off eBay.

Especially ones you can’t return when you sober up.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Piracy settlement letters have become a serious threat in countries all round the world.

Until now, Dutch Internet users have been spared from this practice but local movie distributor Dutch Filmworks would like that to change.

Two years ago the company received permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to track the IP-addresses of BitTorrent users who shared pirated movies.

However, that was only the first hurdle. The next step was to identify the subscribers behind the IP-addresses and Dutch Internet provider Ziggo didn’t want to share any customer data without a court order.

The case went to court, where the movie company requested the personal details of 377 account holders whose addresses were used to share a copy of “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”.

This didn’t go as planned for Dutch FilmWorks. In February, the Central Netherlands Court denied the company’s request for data and last month the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.

Both courts concluded that Dutch Filmworks’ plans lacked transparency and it’s not clear what the movie company plans to do with the personal data it obtains. Dutch Filmworks said that it could either warn subscribers or request damages, but the criteria remain a guess.

It also remains unclear how large the proposed settlements will be. An initial figure of €150 per infringement was mentioned in the past, but this number could also be significantly higher.

The movie company is unhappy with both verdicts and told the Dutch newspaper NRC that it will take the matter to the Supreme Court. This means that the 377 account holders from ISP Ziggo remain at risk.

In theory, it’s not impossible to obtain an order compelling Dutch Internet providers to hand over personal details of accused pirates. However, the previous verdicts make it clear that Dutch Filmworks has to come with a concrete plan.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court must find a balance between the privacy rights of subscribers and Dutch Filmworks’ intellectual property rights. When there’s too much uncertainty for accused subscribers, their rights tend to weigh stronger.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

At the end of the year, movie industry insiders traditionally receive the screener copies that are used to vote on the Oscars and other awards.

As is tradition, quite a few of these advance screeners will leak on various pirate sites. Last Christmas, the first screeners had yet to leak, but this year pirates got their presents early.

The first screener copy that leaked last week was ‘Uncut Gems,’ which was soon followed by ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire.’ This week ‘JoJo Rabbit’ followed, and just a few hours ago a copy of ‘A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood’ appeared online.

The movies came out via release groups EVO and Hive-CM8, which both have a track record of getting their hands on these screeners.

Hive-CM8 has drawn considerable attention in the past due to the timing and volume of its releases. Four years ago high-quality copies of some of the hottest Hollywood productions appeared online, with some titles even beating their official theatrical releases.

This sparked outrage from Hollywood and an unprecedented apology from Hive-CM8. Going forward, the group promised not to release any movies too early. And indeed, in the three years that followed, leaks came later and in lower numbers.

However, that doesn’t mean that the group plans to stay away from blockbuster titles entirely. In the notes that come with today’s release of A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Hive-CM8 specifically fishes for some top titles.

“We are looking for frozen/star wars/1917/knives out. Who wants to be the hero that can get that for us?” the group writes.

While that may sound appealing to some people, it also shows that the group doesn’t have access to these screeners yet. This means that it’s very possible that they won’t leak at all.

Last year, Hive-CM8 called upon the public to help them get Creed 2, Destroyer, Mortal Engines, Frontrunner, Vox Lux, and Marven. However, of these screeners only Destroyer made it onto pirate sites.

Needless to say, there is quite a bit of risk involved with these leaks. People who share them through BitTorrent are already at risk, but the sources of these leaks are prime candidates for criminal investigations.

Despite changing its release schedule to accommodate Hollywood, Hive-CM8 shows no intention of halting its activities. It apparently has its security in order and mentions that protecting sources is its main goal.

“We will remove all kind of watermarks and digital tracers. If its not possible or suspicous security they wont get out, there is no need to do every title if its not secure enough, we dont want to burn a source [sic],” the group writes.

That said, Hollywood and enforcement agencies are certainly keeping a close eye.

Last year, the number of screener releases reached an all-time low with ‘just’ eight making their way to pirate sites. Thus far the count is at four this year.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

As the most popular video hosting platform on the Internet, YouTube is awash with both legal and unlicensed content. However, since the company is responsive to copyright complaints, it is largely protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

The system is far from perfect and is nowhere near comprehensive. False positives, abusive copyright claims and the sheer volume of uploads make it almost impossible to police the platform to a standard acceptable to everyone. The same can be said of the Internet has a whole but with automated and manual takedown tools, YouTube does what it can.

One copyright holder that isn’t happy with YouTube’s efforts is Russian publishing giant Eksmo and its anti-piracy partner AZAPI, the Association for the Protection of Copyright in the Internet. It says the YouTube system “does not always work” so has decided to step up its efforts to protects its clients’ rights.

As a result, Eksmo recently filed a court case against YouTube and the video platform of local search giant Yandex, claiming that the sites offer pirated audio copies of the sci-fi novel ‘The Three-Body Problem’ by the Chinese author Liu Cixin.

The December complaint was initially rejected due to lack of evidence but on appeal, the Moscow City Court has now ruled that YouTube and Yandex.video must remove the content or face having it blocked by local ISPs. According to a report by local news outlet Vedomosti, the content in question still exists on both platforms.

According to a statement from the Moscow City Court published by TASS on Monday, it has now taken preliminary measures against both sites.

“The court ordered Yandex.video and YouTube to remove the link to the Cixin audiobook. As a security measure, the court imposed a block on this material on both hosting sites,” the press service said.

The Court spokesperson had no comment on the potential for YouTube or Yandex.video to be permanently blocked in Russia but it appears that AZAPI has plans for just that.

“We are ready to go to court using other books. If the complaints are satisfied, we can insist on the eternal blocking of Yandex.Video and YouTube in Russia,” AZAPI chief Maxim Ryabyko informs Vedomosti.

AZAPI represents the interests of Russia’s biggest publishers so the possibility for additional complaints is substantial. What remains unclear is the standard to which YouTube is being held. If the site receives a valid copyright complaint against a specific URL, it usually removes the content in a timely manner. However, that doesn’t necessarily prevent the same content from being uploaded again. At least from AZAPI’s perspective, this appears to be a case of repeat infringement.

“There were situations even when, after making a court ruling, we continued to find controversial copies on this platform,” Ryabyko says.

From the limited comments available, AZAPI seems to be demanding a “takedown, staydown” arrangement in response to its complaints, something which goes beyond Google’s responsibilities under the DMCA.

Whether AZAPI’s threats are ultimately designed to bring YouTube to the negotiating table is unclear but having the site blocked in Russia seems like the nuclear option, particularly when YouTube offers a number of special tools that may help to prevent further infringement.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.