Last year BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music sued Cox Communications, arguing that the ISP fails to terminate accounts that are frequently used to pirate content.

The case is crucial as it may define the obligations of Internet providers hoping to keep their safe harbor protections. Ideally, the music companies would like to have the accounts of repeat infringers terminated.

Both sides are currently preparing for trial and Cox recently submitted a motion to the court, where it asks for a ban on statements and evidence which equate BitTorrent to piracy.

Earlier this week we reported on Cox’s argument that the direct piracy evidence gathered by the music companies can’t be trusted, and now the ISP also wants to cut off alternative arguments.

“Plaintiffs seek to introduce testimony and third-party hearsay — with inflammatory statements such as ‘File-Sharing Is Really About Piracy’ — as proof that BitTorrent use equates to the existence of infringement,” Cox writes (pdf).

“Once they have argued that BitTorrent use is automatically infringing, Plaintiffs seek to introduce other testimony and documents showing that some proportion of data traffic on Cox’s network is associated with BitTorrent in order to mislead the jury into thinking that Cox knew or should have known about the infringement that Plaintiffs allege.”

Instead of generalizing BitTorrent traffic as copyright infringement, the music companies should offer direct proof that Cox subscribers pirated their work. Any other allegations are inappropriate and misleading according to Cox.

“Plaintiffs are free to try to prove that specific BitTorrent users on Cox’s network actually infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights, but the Court should preclude Plaintiffs from relying on mere innuendo that BitTorrent inherently allows individuals to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights.”

The Internet provider further stresses that there are plenty legitimate uses for the popular file-sharing protocol. It’s not just a technology that’s exclusidely used by pirates.

“Cox disputes Plaintiffs’ characterization of BitTorrent — it is demonstrably not true that there are no legitimate uses for BitTorrent,” the ISP writes.

“Plaintiffs have no evidence that most or all use of BitTorrent, which is simply a communication protocol, constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.”

In conclusion, Cox asks the court to prohibit BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music from testifying or arguing that BitTorrent is primarily used for copyright infringement, so that it can’t mislead the jury during trial.

For their part, the music companies submitted a similar request related to Cox’s use of the terms “troll” or “extortionist.” In addition, they don’t want the ISP to argue that their tracking company Rightscorp violated debt collection or private investigation licensing laws.

It’s now up to the court to decide which arguments will be permitted during trial and what will be off-limits.

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

The music and movie industries love to poke the finger at Google and blame the technology giant for a world of woes, not least the appearance of ‘rogue’ sites in its search results.

Well, you know what? They’re not the only ones that can play that game.

Here at TF we do our very best to bring the latest file-sharing news to our readers and always try to bring something fresh to our reports, whether we’re the initial source or not. However, there are other sites who don’t appear to care much about the topics they cover, only the number of clicks they can generate.

I’m talking about headlines like this from the file-sharing experts at Christian Today.

“[W]ith reports saying that Microsoft’s new platform has more stringent security measures against torrents, fans are wondering if TPB and other sites will make it to Windows 10-enabled devices,” the site warns.

The article quotes fellow torrent-nonsense-farmers ‘Venture Capital Post‘ as the source, claiming that people upgrading to Windows 10 “will not have access to torrent sites, as Microsoft will reportedly actively block The Pirate Bay, Kickass Torrents and other file-sharing websites.”

These twisted accounts are based on erroneous claims about Windows 10 that date back to August and have been well and truly debunked. Still, both sites reported them only this week, with more misinformation and scaremongering thrown in for good measure.

Of further concern is how VCPost then links to International Business Times as the source of the story, a site known for its ‘advanced’ SEO techniques and its 2013 banning from Reddit.

Only adding to the hall of mirrors, IBTimes cites Christian Post as its ‘source’ with its totally baseless and speculative article titled “The Pirate Bay Update: After The Takedown Of YIFY, Is The Pirate Bay Next?”

That in turns links to a site called ‘Yibada’ with its article “The Pirate Bay (TPB) Last Man Standing After YTS/YIFY Shutdown: TPB Next In Line?” and home to other gems including (deep breath) “After Taking Down The Pirate Bay, Will MPAA Go Easy On TPB Like It Did With YTS/YIFY? Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom Cries Double Standard.”

Then, shock/horror, Yibada directs back to International Business Times as the source – are we noticing a pattern here? Yeah? Well, the end result when searching for Pirate Bay in Google search often looks something like this.

This sorry state of affairs is entirely the fault of Google. Instead of monitoring and reading every single story in its indexes and carrying out quality control of every opinion and claim linked therein, the search giant is blatantly sending unwitting visitors to uninformed sites which misleads the public and starves creators.

So, just like elements of the entertainment industry, we’re demanding a totally self-serving modification of Google’s algorithm to push this nonsense way down the results. We’re not going to accept no for an answer either. If Google can do it for child porn, malware, and wait – Hollywood and the RIAA, they can do it for us too, surely?

Oh, and apparently there are hundreds of other companies waiting in the wings with similar plights and demands. Each is keen to feature more prominently in Google’s results and each is prepared to endlessly wail over why its case deserves special attention and how Google must be to blame.

Sadly, and as the pettiness over the mind-bending Google-gaming articles listed above highlights, no one really gives a damn and it’s no wonder that Google doesn’t either. Now excuse me while I cozy up to a few politicians and go crying like a baby to the US government. Need to get in early, there’s going to be massive queue if Google becomes compliant.

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

When Megaupload was raided early 2012 the U.S. Government seized 1,103 servers at Carpathia’s hosting facility in the United States.

Nearly four years have since passed and it’s still uncertain what will happen to the servers, which are safely stored in a Virginia warehouse at the moment.

After a renewed request for guidance on the issue, District Court Judge O’Grady started to explore what options are on the table. He asked the various parties what would be required to release the servers and whether their possible return has any complications.

In a response, hosting company QTS/Carpathia says that most data will still be intact but that retrieving it will be a costly endeavor.

The equipment that was used to link the servers together is no longer on the market. Used parts are still available but this would cost roughly $500,000. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dollars are needed to move the servers and set them up properly.

United States Attorney Dana Boente notes that a successful data return would likely cost millions. However, the Government has no interest in the servers and doesn’t want any of Megaupload’s restrained funds to be released to pay for the costs.

According to the Government some of Megaupload’s money comes from illicit proceeds. In addition, the possible return of the servers is a concern because they contain child pornography.

“The United States further reminds the Court that the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that many of these servers contain, as indicated more particularly under seal, copies of known images of child pornography,” Boente writes (pdf).

The MPAA also responded to questions posed by the court. The Hollywood group says it’s still gravely concerned that the copyrighted movies and TV-shows may fall into the hands of others.

“The MPAA members remain gravely concerned about the potential release of the copyrighted works that are stored on the […] servers at issue here,” the movie industry group writes (pdf).

Transferring the data to Megaupload or another party would be copyright infringement in and by itself, they argue.

“The release of these digital files would not only risk the further infringing distribution of the MPAA members’ highly valuable copyrighted works, but any transfer of these files by QTS to Megaupload or a third party would itself be an infringement of the MPAA members’ copyrights in those works.”

Based on the reasoning above it’s nearly impossible to move any of the data without violating the rights of the movie studios.

However, former Megaupload user Kyle Goodwin, represented by the EFF, stresses that there’s no need to restore the entire infrastructure. He only wants access to the personal files he lost during the raid.

Finally, Megaupload’s defense argues that it can’t pay for the servers as long as their assets are restrained.

Dotcom’s defunct file-hosting service suggests placing the servers “under a litigation hold” at a reputable eDiscovery vendor such as KPMG, to ensure the confidentiality of the files. Recovering the data won’t come cheap though.

“Megaupload had previously received an e-vendor’s estimate of US$7.7 million for forensic duplication of the data needed for e-discovery and evidence purposes,” they write (pdf).

It’s now up to District Court Judge Liam O’Grady to make a recommendation regarding the possible return of Megaupload’s servers. Based on the input from the parties above this may prove to be a difficult task.

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

Almost exactly one year ago, Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry teamed up against Swedish ISP Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company).

In a lawsuit filed at the Stockholm District Court, the entertainment industry plaintiffs argued that Bredbandsbolaget should be held liable for Internet piracy carried out by its own subscribers. The companies argued that if the ISP wants avoid liability it should block its customers from accessing The Pirate Bay and streaming portal Swefilmer.

Telenor subsidiary Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company) has fought the action every step of the way and will find out at the end of November whether those efforts have paid off.

Should it prevail the decision will be a historic one – no other ISP in Europe (complex Netherlands’ case aside) has managed to avoid blocking The Pirate Bay following a legal battle. If the ISP loses (and the odds suggest that it will) the provider will be required to censor the site, something it is desperate to avoid.

In a joint statement this week Patrik Hofbauer, CEO of Telenor and Bredbandsbolaget, and Anna Bystrom, company legal counsel, warned that an adverse ruling could put the model of a free and open Internet at risk.

“When a judgment becomes precedent a trial is about so much more than an Internet service provider and two controversial websites,” the executives begin.

“If the media companies are given the right it will lead to absurd consequences and Internet subscribers will ultimately end up using a severely censored Internet.”

Hofbauer and Bystrom highlight the fact that should the case go the plaintiffs’ way, Bredbandsbolaget and other Internet providers will be regarded as accomplices to infringement committed on sites such as Swefilmer and The Pirate Bay. However, the implications stretch far beyond those two domains.

“A conviction that makes us criminals because we do not block these sites is very dangerous and opens a door must remain closed,” they explain.

“Moving forward, will ISPs then be forced to block social media if we are deemed to contribute to copyright infringement, threats and defamation that may occur there?”

Indeed, copyright is the tip of the iceberg. Could ISPs’ liability stretch further still, to controversial sites such as Wikileaks for example?

“Will sites where whistle-blowers can reach out with secret classified material also need to be blocked? If so, Sweden would then be subjected to a harsh level of censorship unique in the EU,” Hofbauer and Bystrom warn.

While the copyright holders in the legal action are clear on their goals, it’s clear that Bredbandsbolaget is concerned that this case represents the thin end of a wedge, one that starts with copyright but has the potential to expand into unforeseen areas. Once the genie is out of the bottle, the company argues, the threat to the open Internet could be great.

Bredbandsbolaget says the legal and ethical choices it is confronted with are not always easy ones and it sometimes finds itself in the middle of contradictory demands from legislators on one side and stakeholders on the other. But on this issue, initially involving The Pirate Bay but with the potential to spread much further, the ISP’s position has been easy.

“Our role in society should be about making information available and we can not risk engaging in censorship,” the ISP explains.

“When we faced pressure from individual players in this case, we put our values ​​to the test. We are against piracy, but the idea that under threat of punishment ISPs must make assessments of the sites that Swedish people visit is absurd.”

In conclusion and while welcoming a positive outcome to the case, the executives say that if they’re forced to bend to the whims of outside influences, people may have to kiss goodbye to a free and open Internet.

“The day when we and other operators must be guided by private interests, that may represent the beginning of the end for what we in Sweden know as the open Internet. With that said, we welcome a decision that will hopefully strengthen our conviction,” Hofbauer and Bystrom conclude.

Whichever way it goes, there’s only two weeks left to find out.

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

Late last month one of the biggest piracy icons ended its operation.

Faced with a multi-million dollar lawsuit from Hollywood the operator of YTS and the YIFY release group decided to throw in the towel.

However, that doesn’t mean that these famous have disappeared for good. Several unrelated sites are trying to take over YIFY’s dedicated followers, with YTS.ag being the most successful thus far.

The site, which is connected to the people who hijacked EZTV earlier this year, want the public to believe that they are the real YTS. They misleadingly use the name of a member of the real YTS team, for example, and suggest that YTS simply decided to move to a new domain.

This strategy appears to have worked since hundreds of thousands of visitors have viewed the site already. And after the ‘fake’ YTS decided to encode their own rips, many believe that it’s business as usual.

Hoping to push the traffic numbers up even further, YTS.ag also contacted several of the most popular torrent sites, asking if they can release their torrents there as well.

In their email the operators make it clear that they have nothing to do with the original YTS/YIFY team. However, they say they would like to pick up where the original group left off.

“Do we have acknowledgement from previous YIFY team to do this? The answer is that we could not reach them,” the email reads.

“We do our best to continue their work, thus so far we have uploaded our own encodes/releases with very similar quality/size of previous YTS team and even improving a bit the audio part of the encodes. We have our own seedboxes and upload very fast the releases.”

The YTS.ag team offers the torrent sites a “partnership” and hopes it will be able to add their releases to these sites, using the popular YTS brand.

“You have a very strong community and your users are searching daily for new YTS releases. Even though they can find them at yts.ag we would like to partnership with you and add our new releases to your website,” they write.

TF spoke with several torrent site operators who say they will not allow YTS.ag to publish on their websites with a YTS or YIFY inspired tag, stating that it would be inappropriate.

RARBG isn’t allowing any YTS.ag rips on their site and ExtraTorrent is banning YTS and YIFY impostors as well.

“They are cheap groups who want to benefit and make a quick name by jumping on something that was already there,” the ET team tells us, adding that the same thing happened when aXXo disappeared several years ago.

“They will fade away, even though many downloaders will fall prey to the scam,” they add.

KickassTorrents is another site taking a similar stance. The KAT team says it will only accept releases if YTS.ag uses an unrelated name.

“Here at KAT we don’t think it’s a good idea for a release group to use the name of the other group confusing our users. So no platform will be provided at least until they choose another name,” the team informs us.

KAT moderator Mr. Black understands that other groups want to trade on the popular YIFY/YTS name but adds that in addition to the possible confusion, KAT would never allow it out of respect for the original group.

“This is something that is always going to happen but we also understand that the quality of these groups will never be the same. To allow this would be insulting to the original release group who we trusted in the past and gained so much respect with us,” he says.

“Over the past weeks we thanked YIFY for his input to our site over the years. His reply was that the appreciation from ourselves made them pleased and he thanked us for having trust in them.”

That being said, KAT can’t ban regular users from uploading the releases.

None of the torrent sites we spoke with will allow YTS.ag to take over from the old group but the releases are presently appearing on some automated search engines including isoHunt.

While the operators and moderators at the major torrent sites are quite loyal, many users don’t seem to care. They are happy as long as they can get their weekly dose of pirated movies.

At the time of writing thousands of people are sharing the YTS.ag releases as if nothing ever happened.

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