This week Aurous developer Andrew Sampson settled his legal dispute with the RIAA. He now owes them $3 million.

While the outcome is a financial disaster for the student he doesn’t plan to crawl into a corner, quite the opposite in fact. His torrent search engine Strike was brought back online recently, serving torrents to the masses.

The Strike search engine launched earlier this year and provides users with a tool to find the latest torrents. The site itself doesn’t host any files but pulls data directly from BitTorrent’s DHT. The site’s users can then click on magnet links to download the associated files.

When Sampson was sued by the RIAA in October the Strike search engine was also taken offline. Many assumed that this was a legal precaution and that Strike was one of the infringing activities mentioned in the Aurous complaint.

According to the RIAA the search engine was “specifically designed to promote copyright infringement on the BitTorrent network, which is notorious as a source for pirated music, movies, games, and software.”

Sapmson disagrees.

While he has indeed signed a settlement agreement that prohibits him from operating any services that infringe on the copyrights of the major music labels, Strike is now back online.

According to the Florida-based developer the search engine operated within the boundaries of the law. People who visit the site won’t see any infringing content unless they specifically search for it.

“Strike’s search engine is powered by a blind spider, it can only see hashes, seeders and leechers. This is all the data it collects, from there when a user requests a hash using either our API or the main search interface, information on that hash is fetched and delivered,” Sampson tells TF.

“Strike doesn’t offer any actual torrent downloads nor does it direct you to a place to download it. We do offer magnets, but this is just for ease of use,” he adds.

Indeed, the search engine doesn’t link to external torrent sites. However, the magnet links have a similar function to torrents and provide enough information to download the files which are referenced in search results.

Strike Search Results

Still, Sampson maintains that Strike doesn’t encourage any infringement and that it’s mostly a meta data engine. He will continue the project and says that it’s his ultimate goal to create a set of tools that can power a Home theater PC.

The Strike API helps with that, with tools such as the remote task manager and the remote control functionality.

Technology aside, in copyright infringement cases the legality of a service often boils down to how it’s presented. A neutral torrent client can become blatantly infringing when it’s advertised as the ultimate pirate tool.

The RIAA previously pointed out how Sampson “boasted” about the infringing search results pirates could find with Strike, which is something that’s best to avoid to keep out of trouble.

What’s perhaps most striking about the whole situation is that the RIAA didn’t make Strike an integral part of the out-of-court settlement. This appears to be an oversight, or perhaps they are not bothered too much about the search engine.

TorrentFreak asked the RIAA about their current position on the Strike search engine, but the group did not wish to comment.

To be continued?

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

When long-time software pirate Jakub F was tracked down by the Business Software Alliance, things were looking bleak.

After years of illegally sharing titles including Microsoft’s Windows, the Czech national faced a police raid at his workplace and the confiscation of a computer and related equipment. And that was only the beginning.

As previously reported, Jakub ended up with a three-year suspended sentence and the possibility of getting sued for more money than he could pay in a lifetime.

However, with little chance of collecting such a huge amount, the BSA made Jakub an offer he couldn’t refuse. Make an anti-piracy ad, reach 200,000 YouTube views, and get away with a financial slap on the wrist.

The deal was done and after a slow start the video suddenly went viral. At the time of writing and against the odds, it now has in excess of one million views.

While Jakub might look sombre in the image above, the (presumably) former pirate must be delighted at achieving his target. Two hundred thousand views was a pretty big ask and he must’ve wondered whether it would be possible. But once news began to spread, people seemed more than happy to help.

At the time though, many (myself included) dismissed Jakub’s video as propaganda. It was, after all, a pirate being paraded in public, humiliated even, for the pleasure of corporate giants. But the more one thinks about it, hasn’t this turned out well for everyone?

After keeping up his side of the bargain, the BSA is finally off Jakub’s back and he can relax, free from the worries of financial ruination. Suspended sentence aside, that’s the best result he could’ve hoped for.

The BSA got what they wanted too. Getting a million views and a viral story for an anti-piracy ad is a really spectacular achievement that nothing has come close to matching in recent years. The UK’s Creative Content campaign, for example, has a lot of backing yet its video has only clocked up 123,000 views since October.

But there are other winners too. The campaign, whatever people thought of it, became a huge talking point for a few days, sparking interest in the whole copyright debate. Did Jakub get what he deserved? Did the BSA go too far? Where can I download Jakub’s stuff? Yes, there was some of that too.

Overwhelmingly though, people seem to come out in support of Jakub, the little guy getting picked on by bullies. While each YouTube click might indeed represent a win for the BSA, each view could also be viewed as an Internet upvote for a desperate man down on his luck. And with Adblock turned on, as some vowed, the BSA wouldn’t get a penny.

Nevertheless, to appreciate the true value of the video one needs to view it through forgiving eyes. While some may disagree, I believe that while a dramatized version of events, the video was a pretty realistic depiction of what can happen to some Internet pirates. They do get tracked, they do get raided, they do face prosecution, fines, damages and God knows what else.

In that respect the BSA video is not only cautionary, but educational. It’s intended as a scare piece, no doubt about that, but for many it will function as a useful and helpful reminder that any prolific sharer is in danger of being singled out online if precautions aren’t being taken. Clearly, some people need reminding.

In this instance everyone gained something from the experience and Jakub got off extremely lightly indeed. If you still have doubts, tune in tomorrow for a really shocking story about several young men teetering on the brink of having their lives changed forever. This BSA deal will look like a walk in the park in comparison and no will come out a winner.

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

During the summer of 2014 LionsGate suffered a major setback when a high quality leak of the then unreleased Expendables 3 film appeared online.

Fearing a massive loss in revenue the movie studio sued the operators of several websites that allegedly failed to remove the infringing files.

Over the past year there has been little progress in the case as most of the accused site operators failed to respond to LionsGate’s complaint.

In a new filing at the California district court LionsGate indicates a desire to move forward by asking for a default judgment (pdf) against the operators of LimeTorrents and the defunct Dotsemper and Swankshare sites.

While the sites have nothing to do with the original leak, they allegedly failed to respond to a slew of takedown requests sent by the movie studio in the days after the film leaked.

According to the court papers LimeTorrents is operated by Javed Ashraf, who like the other two operators is not based in the United States.

“Prior to filing this lawsuit Lions Gate sent multiple demand letters to Defendant Ashraf demanding that he immediately cease his infringement but received no response, and the infringement did not stop,” the studio writes.

This inaction contributed to the millions of pirated downloads that occurred before the film officially premiered, LionsGate argues, accusing the defendants of causing “substantial and irreparable damage.”

The movie studio is now asking the court to issue a default judgment preventing the site operators from offering or linking to pirated copies of The Expendables 3.

In addition, LionsGate demands the maximum $150,000 statutory damages for willful copyright infringement from each of them, as well as compensation for attorney fees and additional costs.

Previously LionsGate settled with the operator of video hosting service Played.to. Without the other defendants showing up in court, it is also expected to win this case easily.

Whether the accused site operators will actually cough up the money is another matter.

At the time of writing both Swankshare and Dotsemper are offline, and have been for a while. LimeTorrents and TorrentDownload.biz remain operational though.

In fact, while LimeTorrents blocked the “Expendables 3″ term from its search results, there are still hundreds of individual torrent download pages available that link to the film.

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

A few days ago the Pirate Bay’s original .org domain name was suspended by its registrar EuroDNS due to an administrative issue.

Instead of being greeted by the iconic pirate ship logo, users saw a warning message indicating that the domain registrant had failed to verify their WHOIS details.

This verification process is a requirement of domain oversight body ICANN.

While the .org was no longer the primary domain name of The Pirate Bay many people still actively used it, so the suspension was widely noticed.

However, the troubles didn’t last long and were resolved a few hours ago. At the time of writing thepiratebay.org is fully accessible, allowing people to browse the site without being redirected.

Whether the registrant, which is listed as Pirate Bay co-founder Fredrik Neij, verified the domain details is unclear. The domain was moved to a new registrar this week, which may have been used to circumvent the verification process.

ThePiratebay.org Whois

The .org domain was transferred to the Canada-based company EasyDNS, which has a track record for defending the rights of its customers.

For example, EasyDNS previously objected to domain suspension requests from City of London Police. The company took the matter to ICANN which ruled that registrars are not required to suspend a domain name without a valid court order.

For now it’s smooth sailing again for the notorious torrent site. Whether it’s through the .org domain, or one of several other official domains it uses.

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

While entertainment companies and their anti-piracy allies continue to try, removing copyright-infringing content from the Internet is a huge challenge.

Media can indeed be removed from file-hosting and storage sites, but removing content from BitTorrent networks is a daunting prospect that cannot be achieved by attacking one central point. It’s a multi-pronged effort that returns mixed results, at best.

To this end content providers are focusing on making pirated content harder to find. While it may still exist, if users can’t easily locate it then download numbers will drop – they hope. As a result, one of the focus points is the role that search engines play in helping people to discover infringing content and infringing sites.

While slow, progress has been steady in the United States and Europe, with Google now downranking sites in search results based on the number of DMCA notices filed against them. Now it is the turn of Russia to ramp up the pressure on search engines via local telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor.

This week the agency, best known for its work to have infringing sites blocked at the ISP level, announced it would create a working group to examine, among other things, the regulation of search engine results.

Just like in the US and elsewhere, rightsholders want search engines including market leader Yandex to either demote or entirely remove infringing sites from search results to make pirate content harder to find. Roskomnadzor agrees that things can be done, but note that it won’t be easy.

“I do not think that Yandex is on the side of the pirates,” said Roskomnadzor chief Alexander Zharov.

“Take a look at what will happen when the work begins on the permanent blocking of pirate sites. The position of rights holders is understandable, but this issue will not be solved today,” he said.

In comments to Russian news outlet Izvestia, Zharov said that the regulation of search results will be considered by a working group comprised of rightsholders, search engine representatives, and other online platforms.

In the meantime, however, Yandex suggests that rather than simply looking at how pirate sites could be attacked, perhaps legitimate content providers learn from their example to make legitimate products more visible.

“Maybe we should think about what could be done to promote legal consumption. The guys who tout the illegal content do an excellent job with their task. Maybe we should look on the positive side,” said Marina Yanina, Vice President of Corporate Relations at Yandex.

Perhaps unsurprisingly Yandex also mirrored sentiments previously held by Google. Since rightsholders have tools to remove content at its source, perhaps they should do so. When that is successful, content will not appear in search results.

“Copyright protection on the Internet is needed, and we encourage copyright holders to apply directly to the hosting providers [hosting the content]. If illegal content disappears from those sites, then the links disappear from search results,” Yandex said.

The working group will have other challenges too, including finding a solution to the problem of website block circumvention. According to Roskomnadzor the rise of mobile apps and other resources are enabling people to get around bans, despite aggressive action being taken by the Moscow Court.

Also, it appears that the country’s website blocking mechanism was ill-prepared to tackle so-called mirror sites – domains that spring up offering identical content to sites already blocked at the ISP level. The working group will be tasked to define in legal terms what a mirror site is, with the possibility of adding such operations to court orders when blocks are handed down.

The working group’s findings will be announced in February 2016.

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