If one had to create a list of the most influential torrent sites of the last decade, YTS/YIFY would certainly be among the top 10.

After arriving on the scene in 2010 the group shared more than 6,000 releases, on the way making YIFY one of the most recognizable piracy brands in the history of file-sharing.

Responsible both directly and indirectly for the sharing of countless millions of movies by millions of devoted fans, YTS/YIFY was bound to attract negative attention from the powerful businessmen of Hollywood. And, sure enough, in October 2015 the site disappeared, leaving only speculation in its wake.

Soon, however, the fog began to clear. Early November the MPAA confirmed it had shut down the operation, with its alleged New Zealand-based mastermind facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Somewhat surprisingly the dispute with the site’s owner was quickly handled after he reached a private settlement deal with the studios. The terms have never been made public but several months on there are some interesting loose ends to tie up 11,600 miles away in the UK.

This may come as a surprise, but YTS/YIFY wasn’t just a website domain carrying torrents for DVD rips. It was in fact a fully registered company in the United Kingdom. On February 5, 2015, YTS (RE) Limited was incorporated under the company number 09424588.

The company’s address in the UK is 20-22, Wenlock Road, London, but searching there for a torrent site would prove somewhat pointless. That location is a so-called ‘virtual office‘ that offers customers a London presence for a small fee, along with mail forwarding, telephone answering and fax forwarding services if required.

Born in 1994, the sole director of YTS (RE) Ltd is listed as a New Zealand national holding the somewhat predictable status of “programmer”. Presumably ‘torrent site operator’ would be a little too obvious, even if the company name gives things away somewhat.

Last Tuesday the Registrar of Companies filed its response to the official shut down request, confirming the closure of YTS (RE) Ltd in two months’ time barring any complications.

If the company has any assets at all one might assume they will have already been handed to the MPAA as part of the YTS settlement, as the site’s YTS.to domain already has. However, if anything is left over the ownership of those items will transfer to the state.

In line with tradition the application for strike off has already been published in The London Gazette (pdf), which to our knowledge marks the first time that a torrent site has appeared in the journal since it was first published in 1665.

Interestingly, YTS isn’t the only torrent site with roots in a UK company. EZCloud Ltd is listed in the site’s WHOIS details as the owner of torrent site EZTV.ag.

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

For much of the last decade, PayPal was used on hundreds of file-sharing sites and services in order to accept donations from users. It was convenient for everyone concerned but copyright holders were less than impressed.

Slowly but surely PayPal, along with payment processors including Visa and Mastercard, were put under pressure to either server their links with piracy-focused sites or raise the bar so that sites operating in potential gray areas would find it difficult to meet strict criteria. PayPal later required that file-sharing services obtain pre-approval before using their facilities.

After 14 years of doing business with PayPal, in 2015 veteran P2P file-sharing software Soulseek found itself a victim of the payment processor’s tightening grip. The non-commercial music-swapping service had used its PayPal account to receive donations from users but all that came to an end when PayPal abruptly closed its account.

After being stonewalled by PayPal who had permanently limited the service’s account, Roz Arbel (who runs Soulseek with husband Nir) reached out to the EFF, who intervened on the service’s behalf. The decision worked wonders.

“Thanks entirely to Rainey Reitman, the EFF’s Activism Director, we are very happy to announce that our PayPal account has been restored!!!” Soulseek announced.

“As the EFF has helped us many times in the past, it seemed natural to reach out to Rainey, who has written a number of EFF blog posts specifically about PayPal and credit card companies. We want to send a shout-out to Rainey Reitman and the EFF for all that they do.”

In a piece penned by Rainey Reitman herself, the EFF says that the actions against Soulseek represent a rising threat to free speech.

“Threats to free expression online can come in many forms, but shutting down or limiting a law-abiding website is censorship,” Reitman writes.

“While the situation with Soulseek turned out well in the end, we’re concerned about the many websites we haven’t heard from that may be facing similar problems. It’s time for the payment providers to start erring on the side of supporting legal speech and let courts — not arbitrary corporate policies — decide what content should be censored.”

It’s been known for some time that PayPal now requires file-sharing and related services to obtain pre-approval to a set of strict standards, but Soulseek was actually given a questionnaire to complete in order to validate its service with PayPal.

Reproduced in full below, it’s the clearest indication yet that copyright holders are breathing heavily down PayPal’s neck and if they didn’t actually write the questionnaire themselves, they certainly played a massive role in its production.

———————————-

1. Business Overview. Please provide a general overview of your business, identifying all related website URLs or apps, describing the services you offer and how revenue is earned, and indicating how you use or would like to use PayPal’s services. (The terms “you” and “your” refer to your business in the remainder of this questionnaire.)

2. Typical Usage. Please describe the kinds of files that are most often stored or transferred using your services (indicating, for example, typical file types, sizes, content and/or other relevant attributes) and, to the extent of your knowledge, the typical purposes that your customers have for using your services.

3. Incentives for Uploaders. Do you offer rewards, cash payments or other incentives to some or all users who upload files? If so, please describe your related practices, including the criteria used to determine the nature and amount of incentives that users are entitled to receive.

4. Membership Tiers and Benefits. Please describe any membership tiers, subscription plans or service levels that you offer (e.g., “free,” “premium,” etc.), indicating for each any payments required and the main benefits users receive. Are paying users entitled to enhanced benefits related to downloading or otherwise accessing files uploaded by other users, such as faster access speeds, higher allowances for total amount of data accessed, or the reduction/elimination of wait times, captchas or advertising? If so, please describe the related terms.

5. Forum Codes. Do you offer “forum codes,” “URL codes,” “HTML codes” or other features that facilitate the incorporation of links to uploaded files on third-party websites? If so, please describe such features.

6. Link Checker. Do you offer users a link checker or other functionality that helps users determine whether links to uploaded files have been disabled. If so, please describe such functionality.

7. File Deletion. Please describe any practices you employ related to the expiration, purging or other automated deletion of uploaded files. Is the timing of a file’s deletion influenced by the frequency with which it is downloaded or otherwise accessed? If so, please explain.

8. Information Collection. Do you collect information about the uploaders of files? If so, please describe your related practices, including whether you collect any of the following: name, postal address, email address and IP address.

9. Repeat Infringement. Please describe any practices you employ to prevent users of your system from uploading copyright infringing files on multiple occasions. Please include information about any technological methods you use to identify repeat infringers, such as methods involving the IP addresses of computers used to upload files. If a policy or other information related to repeat infringement is available on your website, please provide a link.

10. Copyright Infringement Reports. Please describe your practices related to soliciting, receiving and responding to reports from third parties about copyright-infringing files accessible through your service. If a policy, reporting instructions or other information related to such practices (e.g., a DMCA policy) is available on your website, please provide a link.

11. Illegal File Reports. Please describe your practices related to soliciting, receiving and responding to reports from third parties about illegal files accessible through your service (other than reports of copyright infringement covered by Item 10 above). If a policy, reporting instructions or other information related to such practices is available on your website, please provide a link.

12. Monitoring. Do you employ any practices involving the monitoring of uploaded files to identify and remove copyright infringing files or other illegal files? If so, please describe those practices, including any manual review or automated scanning of files performed by your staff or by any third-party firms. Please indicate the names and website URLs of any such third-party firms.

13. Law Enforcement Cooperation. Please describe your practices with respect to responding to requests or orders from law enforcement, courts or other government bodies, such as information requests, discovery orders, search warrants and subpoenas.

14. Child Exploitation. Please describe any actions you take if you become aware that a file uploaded to your system involves child exploitation or any sexually-oriented depiction of a minor.

15. Other Controls. If you employ any processes or controls not otherwise covered in your responses to this questionnaire that are aimed at preventing or otherwise addressing any actual or potential use of your system for the storage or transfer of illegal files or for other illegal activities, please describe them.

16. Point of Contact. Please identify and provide contact information (including phone number and email address) for a person who will serve as PayPal’s point of contact with respect to our review of your business and any future inquiries or concerns we may have.

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

After having fought pressure from Hollywood for over a decade, SlySoft threw in the towel earlier this week.

The company shut down its main website at Slysoft.com and ceased to provide new updates to its popular Blu-Ray ripping tool AnyDVD. An announcement posted in the forums suggests that the decision is part of a deal.

“We were not allowed to respond to any request nor to post any statement, but now it is official: SlySoft has been shut down after almost 13 years,” SlySoft’s Tom announced.

“I am really sorry for that, but this is final. SlySoft is gone..,” he adds

To most laypeople the news may be easily discarded as ‘just’ another company falling victim to Hollywood’s copyright enforcement. However, insiders warn that it may have a massive impact on millions of movie pirates.

For many years AnyDVD (HD) has been the go-to tool to crack Blu-Ray encryption, pretty much without competition.

In recent days TorrentFreak has spoken to several prominent release group insiders who fear that future Blu-Ray releases will take much longer to appear because their copy protection will be harder to circumvent.

“This will delay things for new releases that have updated AACS protection or completely kill AACS decryption from SlySoft,” the operator of a popular P2P group informed TF.

“Alternatives usually delay updates two to three months. If they don’t pick up the slack Hollywood have just won a huge victory, because future releases that have updated AACS protection will be delayed,” he adds.

Another insider confirms the concerns, noting that SlySoft has often gone to great lengths to ensure that new copy protections are cracked as soon as possible.

“Over the past decade SlySoft has been the main ripping tool for Scene groups, P2P groups and just about everyone,” our second source says.

While it’s currently unclear what will happen during the weeks and months to come, a feeling of uncertainty appears to dominate among many pirate movie release and distribution groups.

“The loss of SlySoft is being rapidly discussed among all movie pirate groups and there is no consensus yet for what is to come next, just concern,” our source says.

As for the future, there are a few things that may happen.

It’s possible for competitors such as DVDFab to pick up the slack and release their copy protection cracks in a timely fashion. However, the latter has already announced that it won’t break the copy protection of Ultra HD Blu-Ray discs, so there’s not much faith in this option.

It’s also possible that AnyDVD will make a comeback in some shape or form. Or perhaps defiant members of the old team will re-brand it and continue their work from another jurisdiction. Alternatively, they could continue to offer their services in the background, without a public facing website.

The third option is a more grim scenario for pirates, one in which copy protection becomes more effective, possibly delaying pirate Blu-Ray releases by weeks or months.

This is the scenario AACS and Hollywood are hoping for.

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

Last month 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 already 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.

Instead of providing access to the latest video entertainment, Netflix then serves the following error message to these blocked users.

In recent weeks TorrentFreak has kept a close eye on the expanding blockade and its aftermath. We’ve learned that servers belonging to many popular commercial VPN services have been added to the blocklist, including ExpressVPN, Mullvad, Private Internet Access and StrongVPN.

While the blocks are being rolled out in phases, it’s already clear that some VPN users can’t access Netflix, even if the VPN server is located in the same country as they are. This means that Americans can no longer use a U.S. VPN server to protect their privacy.

Ironically, Netflix is even restricting access to its own original series, despite being the primary rightsholder.

This approach is meeting fierce resistance from many sides. To coordinate the protest Digital rights organization OpenMedia has started an OpenMedia petition urging Netflix to rethink its approach, which has already been signed by more than 33,000 people.

“Privacy is a huge priority for us as a digital rights organization, and that VPNs are probably the simplest, most user-friendly way for everyday Internet users to safeguard their online activities,” OpenMedia spokesperson David Christopher informs TorrentFreak.

“Given that a huge percentage of the population uses Netflix, if they were all forced to stop using VPNs, that would represent a major setback for privacy,” he adds.

OpenMedia itself has been affected by the new measures as well, as some of their staff members can no longer watch Netflix without having to turn off their VPN.

The group is concerned that Internet users are being forced to give up their privacy when they are not even trying to circumvent any geo-blockades. A better way would be to restrict content based on people’s credit card addresses, which doesn’t require any VPN blocking.

“We’re cooking up plans to take this message directly to Netflix and hope that if enough people speak up, Netflix will listen to their customers and find a better way,” Christopher says.

Meanwhile, the complaints keep pouring in on social media. There are even reports from users who are blocked without even using a VPN. In addition, several people claim to have ended their Netflix subscriptions due to the restrictive policies, and some hint at going back to their old pirate ways.

Despite the public outrage, Netflix said that it’s not worried about a subscriber exodus. “I don’t think we will see any impact,” CEO Reed Hastings said in a shareholders’ interview last month.

In the long-term the company hopes to make the entire geo-blocking discussion obsolete by offering movies and TV-shows worldwide. But given Hollywood’s reluctance to adapt, it may take a few years before this will be realized.

Tweets about netflix vpn block OR blocked OR blocking OR detecting OR work OR working
<script>!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

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

Over the past several years numerous studies have looked at the effects of piracy on the music industry.

One very consistent result seems to be that pirates are not by definition cheapskates. On the contrary, they tend to spend more money on merchandise, theater visits and concerts.

This week a new study conducted by the entertainment industry research firm MusicWatch confirmed this trend.

First off, the results of the survey debunk a popular belief that the number of music pirates is falling. While P2P sharing appears to be down, the use of popular alternatives including mobile apps and direct download sites has increased.

Overall, the study estimates that 57 million Americans between the ages of 13 and 50 admit to acquiring music through unauthorized sources. That’s a very significant number which will undoubtedly cause concern among music industry executives.

In part people turn to piracy because they don’t want to pay. However, there’s also a large group of legal music consumers who pirate tracks in addition to buying CDs or paying for legal downloads.

More than one-third of all music buyers (35%) pirate tracks on the side. Interestingly, this group appears to consist of the music industry’s most valuable customers.

The results show that average Americans (pirates included) spend $19 on CDs and music downloads per year, a number that goes up to $33 among pirates alone.

Similarly, the study finds that the average music buyer (pirates included) spend an average of $45 per year, compared to $61 for the subgroup of pirating music buyers. Extra data which MusicWatch kindly shared shows that non-pirates spent just $36 on average.

In addition, the results also show that pirates are more likely to use paid streaming services.

Money ($) spent on CDs and paid downloads

The findings clearly show that pirates spend more money on legal music than those who only consume music through authorized sites and services. So how can this be?

The most logical explanation for this finding is that “pirates” are more engaged than those who don’t share, and that they complement their legal purchases with unauthorized downloads.

Of course, none of the above says anything about the effect of piracy on legal consumption. The people who are now classified as pirates may pay even more if piracy disappeared overnight, or less because they can’t sample any music.

What it does show is that half of all music pirates are paying customers and these people are bringing in a lot of money. If anything, the music industry should be cautious to brand these pirates as thieves, because they are their most valuable consumers.

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