While karaoke might not be the pinnacle of original musical excellence, yesterday the UK’s leading police anti-piracy unit took action which suggests it takes karaoke every bit as seriously as other intellectual property.

And, somewhat interestingly, there could be more to this sing-a-long case than first meets the eye. First, let’s see what the police had to say.

Acting on a complaint initially filed by members of the BPI, City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) initiated an investigation during the summer against individuals allegedly uploading karaoke tracks to the Internet without permission.

That resulted in raids yesterday on three men aged 60, 53, and 50 at their homes in Devon and Bury in the UK.

“The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) has dismantled a gang suspected of uploading and distributing tens of thousands of karaoke tracks online, including artists such as Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Kylie Minogue and Kanye West,” PIPCU said in a statement.

While police use the term ‘gang’ here it’s not one frequently associated with karaoke fans and the further one digs into the activities of the men, the less it seems to fit.

Together the trio formed Karaoke RG (KRG), a release group specializing in karaoke tracks. Police say their activities on KickassTorrents piqued the interest of copyright holders – their still-active account has around 2150 uploads during the past two years.

However, Kickass wasn’t KRG’s home base. In recent times the group has operated from two domains, the first being Karaokerg.info. This Weebly-created site is probably the first indication that KRG aren’t necessarily in the kind of ‘gang’ the police usually have the displeasure of dealing with.

The second and catchily-titled freehomemadekaraoke.wordpress.com probably removes all doubt.

KaraokeRG publishes a master list of the tracks they offer (stored on Dropbox and Box) and there are indeed songs from major artists present. However, their description of what they are offering is certainly food for thought.

“The following is a list of all KaraokeRG homemade CD+G karaoke songs. They were created primarily because they are not available from any professional karaoke manufacturers. However, in some cases, some songs were made available by professional karaoke companies AFTER they were homemade,” KRG write.

That KRG were into the ‘DIY’ side of karaoke is underlined elsewhere too.

“Although our homemade karaoke tracks are free to download, they are time consuming and costly to produce. I.E. Paying for backing tracks (some backing tracks can cost up to £12).”

So, some important points. KRG claim they are servicing a gap in the market by hand-creating their own karaoke titles that aren’t commercially available. In this respect there are parallels with the fan-subbing communities surrounding anime, for example.

However, it’s likely that the backing tracks they’re using are subject to copyright restrictions so even giving those away are likely to cause issues, even with ‘homemade’ subtitling.

The Karaoke Anti-Piracy Agency UK (KAPA UK) which counts the top five karaoke producers in the country among its members (Sunfly, Zoom, Mr Entertainer, SBI, Abraxa), is tasked with cracking down on the unlicensed use of backing tracks in karaoke venues around the country. KAPA UK works closely with the BPI.

Also causing KRG problems is their claim that their activities are protected under copyright law.

“These tracks are NOT FOR SALE. They are provided as a service to singers everywhere under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (The ‘Fair Use’ section). The tracks are made available for private use only and not intended for commercial use. There will be no ‘vocal suppression’ tracks ever included in this list,” they write.

Sadly for KRG, the section cited above is a component of United States copyright law and is not available as a defense (even in the unlikely event it could be applied in this instance) for residents of the UK. In fact, in this case the BPI characterizes the infringement as “commercial scale”, despite money not being a key motivator.

“The Release Groups which set themselves up to gain Kudos from the early release of music repertoire need to understand that this behavior is harmful to the industry that they claim to support. Actions like this send a strong message that this should not and will not be tolerated,” says John Hodge, BPI Head of Internet Investigations.

For their part, PIPCU see groups like KaraokeRG as just another part of the piracy machine costing the music industry “millions of pounds” while threatening thousands of jobs.

“PIPCU will continue to target the individuals and the organized crime gangs facilitating these crimes, working with key partners like the BPI to ensure that those most responsible are brought to justice,” says PIPCU’s Detective Constable Ceri Hunt.

This morning PIPCU confirmed that the “karaoke gang” had been released on bail but whether any more will be heard about them will remain to be seen. Although PIPCU have made many file-sharing related arrests over the past couple of years, no cases have yet ended up in court.

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

The company behind Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) has made a business not only from making movies, but also chasing down those alleged to have shared content online without permission.

In several jurisdictions the company has been bringing in cash settlements from alleged pirates but an attempt to do so in Australia is now close to total collapse.

Earlier this year the company was given permission to obtain the personal details of 4,726 alleged pirates. However, concerns over DBC’s tendency to engage in so-called ‘speculative invoicing’ alarmed the court and resulted in Justice Nye Perram restraining the company’s actions.

Instead of a lucrative business plan, DBC was faced with only being able to claim for the price of the film and a proportion of the amount spent on tracking down an alleged infringer. And, to ensure the company didn’t pull a fast one, the Judge ordered the payment of a huge AUS$600,000 bond.

DBC responded by watering down its claim to just 10% of the original subscribers in return for a AUS$60,000 bond. Then last month the company tried to re-convince Perram that it should be able to claim a licensing fee from alleged pirates too.

In a judgment handed down this morning, Justice Nye Perram made it clear that DBC would not be able to do so. Despite having had plenty of opportunity to do so, DBC has not provided any evidence of what a reasonable license fee might be, the Judge explained.

Furthermore, should such evidence be forthcoming it is unlikely to be straightforward. DBC claim that pirates need to pay a fee to obtain a worldwide distribution license but the Judge said that fathoming the cost of a hypothetical BitTorrent license would be laborious.

However, even if that process was undertaken (Perram likens it opening Pandora’s Box), it might then lead to iiNet, whose customers are being targeted, seeking to put a value on a license itself. That would risk further prolonging the case and could possibly trigger a trial within a trial

“It needs to be kept in mind that what is before the Court is a preliminary discovery application, not Ben-Hur,” Perram’s ruling reads.

“The interests of justice are not served in comparatively modest procedural litigation such as the instant case by permitting no stone to go unturned. The enterprises of the parties must be kept proportionate to what they are arguing about.”

After considering legal argument put forward by DBC and its recent maneuvering to change how compensation would be sought, Justice Perram said he saw no reason to deviate from the ruling he handed down during the summer.

“I do not accept that DBC should be permitted to do anything beyond what I indicated in the August Judgment. Since that is not what it is proposing to do, I am not going to lift the stay,” he wrote.

“As a matter of logic this means that the question of whether I should permit a lower bond to be posted because DBC now only proposes to pursue the smaller class of iiNet customers does not arise.”

In addition to throwing out DBC’s most recent application and ordering the company to pay costs, this morning the Judge set the clock ticking on the entire case.

“The present application must be dismissed with costs. Some finality must now be brought to these proceedings,” the Judge said.

“What I will do is make a self-executing order which will terminate the proceedings on Thursday 11 February 2016 at noon, unless DBC takes some step before then.”

Since DBC has shown an impressive amount of determination since the beginning of proceedings, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the company tried to pull something out of the hat, even at this late stage.

However, at this point DBC’s position is one of a gambler, heavily down on his luck, losing more money by the second, but still with an eye on the jackpot. Even now it still might be worth doubling down but with the Judge’s patience and now timing running out too, the odds are not looking great.

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

Last week the trial between Internet provider Cox Communications and BMG Rights Management began, a case that may prove crucial for determining how ISPs deal with piracy in the future.

The music group holds Cox responsible for not doing anything about subscribers who frequently pirate content, claiming millions in lost revenue.

During the trial hearings both sides presented their case and according to BMG the ISP has provided insufficient evidence to reasonably support its defense.

A few hours ago the music publisher submitted a new motion to the court. Instead of leaving it up to the jury, BMG asks the court to rule that Cox is responsible for the mass copyright infringements on its network.

“Cox has failed to controvert the evidence presented by BMG concerning the staggering amount of infringements of BMG’s copyrighted works committed by Cox’s subscribers,” the motion (pdf) begins.

“BMG has shown that Rightscorp detected approximately 1.847 million instances of infringement, where Cox subscribers offered BMG’s copyrighted works for download via the BitTorrent protocol,” it adds.

During the trial hearings BMG revealed that the tracking company Rightscorp downloaded more than 150,000 copies of their copyrighted works directly from Cox subscribers. Because Rightscorp doesn’t capture everything, the true figure is expected to be even higher.

In its defense, Cox pointed out that Rightscorp failed to preserve all copies of its tracking code. As a result, the company argued that the claimed copyright infringements can’t be fully trusted.

BMG disagreed with what it described as “unsupported assertions,” and stated that their own expert found that Rightscorp’s system accurately detects the copyright infringements which are central to the case.

According to BMG it’s “undisputed” that Cox subscribers pirated their works and that the ISP knew about it. Cox received numerous copyright infringement warnings and willingly decided not to act on them.

“The evidence is undisputed that Cox knew that the infringement notices that it blocked provided Cox with notice of infringement of BMG’s copyrights,” the publisher writes.

In addition, the music company argues that the ISP contributed to the infringements by promoting “downloading and sharing music” in its advertising campaigns.

“Cox not only knowingly provides the means by which the infringement of BMG’s copyrights occurs, the evidence is undisputed that Cox promotes its high-speed internet services for the purpose of downloading and sharing music,” they write.

“Because Cox’s network constitutes the sites and facilities by which the infringement of BMG’s occurs through BitTorrent and P2P, Cox has materially contributed to the infringement of BMG’s copyrights as a matter of law. No reasonable jury could find otherwise.”

If the court agrees with BMG then there’s not much left for the jury to decide. One of the outstanding issues would be the amount of damages they award to the music publisher.

According to a proposed jury instruction there are 1,397 copyrighted works as part of this suit, each with a maximum of $150,000 in damages. This brings the total maximum damages to a mind-boggling $209,550,000.

Cox hasn’t had an easy defense during the trial. A week before it started Judge O’Grady issued an order declaring that Cox is not entitled to DMCA safe-harbor protections, as the company failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

With millions at stake, as well as the future of ISPs’ copyright infringement policies, the trial outcome will be closely watched by both the telecoms industry and copyright holders.

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

Taken for granted by hundreds of millions of Internet users on a daily basis, domain names are part of the crucial glue holding the Internet together.

Websites can exist without domains but finding sites using IP addresses alone represents a huge step back for most humans who find words more convenient than long sequences of numbers.

Last week The Pirate Bay had a serious issue with one of its key domains, when the original ThePirateBay.org was suspended by its registrar EuroDNS due to an ICANN verification complaint.

That problem was fixed several days later with a switch to a new registrar but the site has issues affecting a much broader range of domains.

First up and illustrated below, ThePirateBay.com is now under suspension following action by EuroDNS. Once again the problems appear to stem back to verification issues with domain governing body ICANN.

Since January 1, 2014, ICANN has required that the contact details provided to register a domain are verified annually. If this doesn’t happen, problems like those now facing The Pirate Bay can occur.

As a result, similar suspension pages are now also displayed on several other Pirate Bay related domains including ThePirateBay.net, PirateBay.net and PirateBay.org. While none of these domains are currently being utilized as main domains for the site, all were being held as backups in case of an emergency.

Also affected today are domains related to Pirate Browser, the TOR-based anti-censorship tool released by The Pirate Bay during August 2013.

Less than a year after its release the tool had been downloaded more than five million times but earlier today its three main domains – piratebrowser.com, piratebrowser.net and piratebrowser.org – were all reporting suspensions.

It’s somewhat ironic that one of the most popular website/domain unblocking tools has itself become blocked due to a domain issue. However, for those keen to download PirateBrowser the site still exists at its less-memorable IP address of 151.80.2.54.

All seven domains identified by TorrentFreak as being under suspension are registered to the same person, Pirate Bay co-founder Fredrik Neij. He is also the official registrant of dozens of other Pirate Bay-related domains but the others are not registered with EuroDNS and don’t appear to be affected by the current issues.

Since last week’s problems with ThePirateBay.org were solved by transferring the domain to Canada-based EasyDNS, it’s likely that a similar process will bring the currently suspended domains back to life in the not too distant future.

In the meantime The Pirate Bay sails on, almost as if nothing had happened.

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

Last May, Grooveshark shut down after settling with the RIAA. However, within days a “clone” was launched aiming to take its place.

The RIAA feared the worst and took the matter to court, where it swiftly obtained an injunction, preventing various Internet service providers from offering their services to the site.

Through the lawsuit the record labels hoped to stop the site from gaining a large user base, something that previously happened to clones of other shuttered sites such as isoHunt.

This strategy paid off. Initially the Grooveshark ‘clone’ remained online for a few weeks, hopping from domain name to domain name, but it eventually vanished from the Internet.

The operator of the site went silent as well. Initially he widely promoted the clone in various media, but in court there was no response at all. This prompted the RIAA to file for a default judgment which has now been granted by U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan.

“Defendants have engaged in willful copyright infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights through the Counterfeit Service, which allows users to download and stream infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings directly from servers operated or controlled by Defendants, in violation of Plaintiffs’ copyrights,” the judgement reads.

Grooveshark clone

Aside from a permanent injunction preventing the owner of the site from keeping it online, RIAA has also win millions in damages.

In the original complaint the record labels listed 89 tracks as evidence. The court awarded the maximum statutory damages ($150,000) for each infringement (pdf) which brings the total to a massive $13,350,000.

In addition, the operator of the site is ordered to pay $4 million for willful counterfeiting of two Grooveshark marks and another $400,000 for cybersquatting, by registering four Grooveshark domain names in bad faith.

The court further ordered the transfer of the Grooveshark domain names to the RIAA, so they can’t be used for any infringing actions in the future.

Finally, District Court Judge Alison Nathan stressed that CloudFlare still has an obligation to disconnect any new Grooveshark clones if they are notified by the record labels.

The mention of CloudFlare is noteworthy, as it’s the first time that the company has been specifically mentioned in a permanent injunction against a pirate site. Initially the RIAA wanted Cloudflare to detect any new Grooveshark clones, but the CDN company successfully fought that request.

The RIAA has yet to comment on the outcome of the case. On paper the $17 million judgment is a massive success, but since the site’s operator has yet to be identified it is doubtful that they will ever see a penny.

That said, the main goal was probably to stop the site from operating and deter others from starting their own clones. This mission is accomplished, for now.

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