After many years of virtual stagnation on the development front, during the summer of 2014 The Pirate Bay announced the launch of a new site.

Designed especially for mobile devices, TheMobileBay.org provided a new and clean interface rather than a simply scaled-down version of its existing site.

As can be seen in the image below, the new layout got rid of the clutter and made the site much more easy to navigate on phones and tablets.

The new vs. old mobile look

Since the launch of TheMobileBay.org 18 months ago users of mobile devices have been automatically diverted to this special version of The Pirate Bay. However, this week those diversions faltered and then completely broke down. The reason, once again, is that The Pirate Bay has lost yet another domain.

Like several other Pirate Bay domains in recent months, TheMobileBay.org has been suspended by its registrar. Back in December the site’s .LA, .GD, .MN and .VG domains were all listed as “clienthold” by registrar 1API GmbH, and now TheMobileBay.org has suffered the same fate.

As a result of these fresh domain troubles The Pirate Bay is currently not reachable by visiting TheMobileBay.org. Additionally, those visiting ThePirateBay.se can’t access it either, unless they instruct their browsers to access the desktop version of the site instead. Sadly even this has its drawbacks as it’s the old, mobile-unfriendly version of the site that loads.

While mobile users of the site will be variously denied access to the site or simply disappointed by a return to the old layout, the loss of TheMobileBay.org domain will be felt strongly in the UK. For reasons that remain unclear, since its launch The Mobile Bay has not been blocked by UK ISPs, meaning that users have been able to evade the High Court blockade won by rightsholders in 2013.

Considering The Pirate Bay’s standing it’s likely that a copyright holder complaint triggered the suspension of The Mobile Bay, but that hasn’t been officially confirmed.

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

When perusing various file-sharing sites throughout the year it’s not uncommon to find posts which inquire when users can expect to find DVD screener copies of brand new films for illegal download.

Indeed, the practice is so common these days that when one types “when do dv” into Google the search engine helpfully autocompletes the question.

The point is that the leaking of DVD screeners online every year is all but guaranteed and there doesn’t appear to be a single thing that Hollywood can do about it. This past Christmas leaks descended into a massive free-for-all, prompting angry industry executives to slam the attacks on their industry.

So assuming that most or all Hollywood executives really do believe that screener leaks aren’t free promotion, why after years of unrelenting leaks isn’t their security much better?

Well, according to Variety it seems like a straightforward case of failing to adapt to the digital age, topped off with a fear of – wait for it – piracy.

The most obvious approach would be to stop sending out physical discs to Oscar voters, granting them access to streaming copies instead. However, according to the report studio executives are worried that providing multiple secure digital video delivery platforms will lead to confusion and even stop people from voting.

Perhaps the great irony here is that in comparison pirates have to jump through many hoops to get hold of leaked screeners online yet are able to do so in their millions, despite it not being part of their job. Viewing apathy is not part of the equation. Are awards voters really that disinterested in movies?

Apparently the MPAA is aware that forcing awards voters to use multiple video platforms could act as a deterrent to watching screeners so is reportedly working with an outside vendor to supply an app that will provide a single point of access.

Interestingly there is no such app available to the general public who are forced to subscribe to dozens of services if they want access to all movies.

But things get really bizarre when one reads about the discussions surrounding potential platforms for the distribution of digital screeners. Prime Focus Technologies offers a service called SecureScreener which it says eliminates the need for DVD copies.

“Have peace of mind with CLEAR’s Secure Player as it is unbreakable. It cleverly blocks any download attempt so you know your content is safe,” the company explains.

“And to top it, it offers high-quality viewing experience so your users don’t miss the DVD feel. No more wait for feedback – Access to information like who viewed, liked, shared, and downloaded your content at your fingertips, literally!”

The system even offers a double verification system involving a username and password combo backed up a special code sent to the designated viewer’s (voter’s) cell phone. But somewhat hilariously this is apparently too advanced for some awards voters.

“Some film reps are concerned that not all Academy voters have cell phones to receive text notification,” Variety reports.

But even for those that do, the studios are still concerned about how screeners will be viewed if delivered digitally.

Will voters watch the movie on a smartphone and lose the cinematic experience? will they watch on a tablet and miss out on a meticulously arranged soundtrack? One can hear Tarantino wringing his hands right now, torn between a pre-release of The Hateful Eight and an Ultra Panavision extravaganza being displayed on a 7″ tablet.

So while millions of Hollywood’s customers are yearning for content to be delivered to them digitally in every possible way, the studios appear to be hamstrung by fears that industry voters – the people one might hope are on the cutting edge – can’t be universally trusted with anything more advanced than a DVD.

Of course, times will eventually change and following the DVD screener debacle of 2015, a greater urgency is definitely required to avoid a repeat in 2016/17 and beyond. Whatever happens though, it’s likely that the DVD screener has a few more years in it yet. And that will be great news for pirates.

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

Last month a Virginia federal jury ruled that Internet provider Cox Communications was responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers.

The ISP was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and must now pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

BMG held the ISP responsible for tens of thousands of copyright infringements. During trial hearings it was revealed that tracking company Rightscorp downloaded more than 150,000 copies of their copyrighted works directly from Cox subscribers.

The verdict was a massive victory for the music company and a disaster for Cox, but the case is not over yet.

This week Cox renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, hoping to escape the jury verdict. Alternatively, the ISP wants the court to grant a new trial.

BMG opposes this motion and has submitted a request for a permanent injunction instead. According to the music publisher, Cox has failed to take any action to prevent further copyright infringements.

“Now, more than a month later, Cox’s network continues to be the site of massive, ongoing infringement of BMG’s copyrights. This ongoing infringement inflicts irreparable harm on BMG,” the music publisher writes.

When contacted on the matter, Cox’s legal counsel informed BMG that the ISP was still analyzing all aspects of its processes and procedures. However, the music publisher doesn’t want to wait any longer and has requested a permanent injunction from the court, ordering the Internet provider to take action.

Besides forwarding all future takedown notices to subscribers whose accounts are linked to copyright infringements, BMG also requests an overview of the actions Cox takes to prevent further infringements.

In addition, BMG also wants the personal details of all associated account holders, including their names, email addresses and phone numbers.

The Proposed Injunction

BMG does not state how it intends to use these personal details, but given its relationship with Rightscorp it’s likely that the associated subscribers may be contacted to pay a settlement fee.

The music publisher believes that the proposed injunction is fair, considering the alleged harm it continues to suffer from the mass infringements on Cox’s network.

“Requiring Cox to prevent further use of its network for infringement by specified infringers at identified IP addresses imposes no undue burden on Cox and is narrowly tailored to reduce the enormous and irreparable harm that BMG suffers from infringement over Cox’s network,” the company writes.

It is now up to Judge O’Grady to review the requests from both parties.

If he sides with BMG then Cox will have to share the personal details of potentially tens of thousands of subscribers. If Cox has its way the jury verdict may be moot, or alternatively there will be a new trial.

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

One only has to look at Google’s Transparency Report to see how many apparently unauthorized music services exist on the web today. They’re a thorn in the sides of rightsholders and the DMCA notices sent out because of them run into the tens of millions.

Most are relatively thoughtless affairs that pull in music from anywhere it’s available, much of it from Russia – unlicensed and very much illegal. While free to access, the majority of unofficial sites don’t spend much time over user experience. The same cannot be said of a new service just launched out of Spain.

When one first accesses Wefre.com the site has an immediately familiar feel and it’s clear from the start that Spotify is its inspiration. One also gets the feeling that this service is going to cause disruption so think of this piece as less of a review and more of heads-up of things to come.

Wefre requires users to open an account but that’s as simple as providing a username and email address which at the time of writing isn’t checked as being valid. Nevertheless, the value of signing up becomes clear when testing Wefre out.

The first thing that becomes evident is the similarity between Wefre’s web-based interface and Spotify’s desktop software. Eschewing the black theme for an off-white affair, Wefre’s layout is extremely clear. For users of Spotify (who of course won’t need the service) it feels like home from home.

Wefre provides convenient links for popular albums, new releases, top 50 tracks and even popular genres, which unlike other third-party services makes it excellent for music discovery.

Just like with Spotify, skipping around tracks, selecting new albums and finding new content from related artists is a pretty seamless experience. Not only is the service lightning fast (yes, as quick as Spotify) it’s remarkably good to look at too.

Where many wannabe-Spotify services break down is their lack of support for doing anything creative with individual tracks beyond simply playing them. Wefre does not fall into the same trap. As can be seen in the image below, it offers a similar range of options to Spotify and even allows people to email their friends with links to a track.

Of course, it hasn’t been long since we first reported on Aurous, the now defunct but similar service that was battered into submission by the RIAA. However, while Aurous was criticized for utilizing pirate music from unauthorized sources in the East, Wefre claims its content is from entirely legal sources.

Behind the scenes Wefre appears to be a clever YouTube / Spotify mashup which utilizes the APIs officially made available by both companies to create its own take on music presentation. According to Felix Ramallo at Infotechnology.com, Wefre pulls music tracks from YouTube while utilizing the musical catalog of Spotify.

Wefre creator Boris Vera, who appears to be based in Tenerife, one of the Spanish Canary Islands, says his service is all above-board.

“YouTube and Spotify offer APIs for developers. We created Wefre fulfilling their terms,” he explains.

“We offer legal services and we operate correctly under the terms of use. When you click on a song a YouTube video is actually playing in the background and thanks to the Spotify API for developers we can organize music, so Wefre does not store a single song,” he explains.

While Wefre currently works through a browser, the service has iOS and Android apps under development which are subject to a Kickstarter campaign. “Wefre is a new completely free music streaming service. All the music from your favorite artists on-demand and ad-free,” it reads.

Wefre doesn’t appear to have made the big mistakes Aurous did early on but history tells us that a service that works as well as this one is likely to attract the negative attentions of the labels. Indeed, the fact that Wefre’s music comes from YouTube probably won’t help it either. In the Aurous case, the RIAA said the following about content pulled from YouTube and Soundcloud.

“Plaintiffs have not authorized the streaming or downloading (copying) of their recorded music from websites except pursuant to agreements that control the terms on which such works are made available,” the RIAA said.

“Defendants can only cause such downloads to occur by circumventing the protections such sites have against such downloading and violating the sites’ terms of service that expressly prohibit such conduct.”

Whether the Wefre package as a whole will be enough to prompt the labels into action remains to be seen, but if it looks like Spotify and works like Spotify, it’s likely the labels will feel entitled to a piece of the action. We almost certainly haven’t heard the last of this one.

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

Earlier this month Netflix announced that it would increase its efforts to block subscribers who circumvent geo-blockades.

This means that it will be harder to use VPN services and proxies to access Netflix content from other countries, as movie studios have requested.

With the application of commercial blacklist data Netflix blocks IP-addresses that are linked to such services. The announcement caused concern among many people who live and work abroad, including U.S. military personnel.

Many soldiers stationed in the Middle East and elsewhere use Netflix in combination with a VPN, to feel ‘at home.’ Soon, this may no longer be possible, at least not for those who live off-base.

While Netflix is determined to take stronger action against VPN-pirates, the company also says that all U.S. military bases are exempt from blockades, Stars and Stripes reports

“Netflix always exempts U.S. military bases around the world. They will still be able to access the U.S. catalog,” Netflix spokesperson Anne Marie Squeo said.

This is an interesting decision, since most military bases abroad are not considered U.S. soil. Also, we are not aware of a similar treatment for other overseas workers or military bases of non-U.S. countries.

Still, for most soldiers this gesture is not enough, as they live off-base.

Jesse Fowler, a hospital corpsman stationed in Bahrain, says he’s not disappointed with the local offering of Netflix but relies on a VPN to access some shows that are not available.

“…I’m mad if I can’t change where my Internet is so I can’t watch my own shows,” Fowler says.

This sentiment is shared by the Bahrain-stationed Navy counselor Eric Cutright. “My VPN hasn’t been blocked. But if it does, I will be pissed. Netflix Bahrain is trash,” he said.

TorrentFreak has kept a close eye on the recent developments and Netflix has indeed started to block more VPN providers. However, blocking all of them appears to be a difficult task, especially because several providers continue to add new IP-addresses.

Ironically, many soldiers may switch to piracy again when Netflix is no longer an option, turning the clock back half a decade.

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