Responding to a request from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the RIAA and MPAA have sent in their annual list of rogue websites.

TorrentFreak obtained a copy of the submissions in which the entertainment industry groups target a wide variety of websites they say are promoting the illegal distribution of music, movies and TV-shows.

The lists include torrent sites, linking sites, cyberlockers and unauthorized streaming services, which are primarily hosted outside the United States. According to the industry groups these sites are costing U.S. companies millions of dollars in revenue.

The MPAA points out that many sites directly compete with legal services and are “stealing” revenue from the people who created the content.

“Content thieves take advantage of a wide constellation of easy-to-use online technologies, such as direct download and streaming, to create sites and applications with the look and feel of legitimate content distributors,” MPAA’s Joanna McIntosh writes (pdf).

The pirates sites are often able to offer their services in relative anonymity hosted outside of the United States. As targeting them directly is problematic, MPAA says other service providers, such as search engines and hosting companies, should help out.

“All stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem – including hosting providers, advertising networks, payment processors, and search engines – should be actively seeking to reduce support for notoriously infringing sites such as those we have nominated in these comments,” McIntosh notes.

Among the sites listed by the MPAA (attached to this article) are familiar names such as The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents and Torrentz. YTS.to is called out as well, and the Hollywood group mentions its connection to the release group formerly know as YIFY, as well as the popular Popcorn Time application.

The MPAA further highlights streaming sites including Primewire and Nowvideo, the popular Russian social network VK.com, and cyberlockers such as Putlocker and Uploaded.

Stressing the important of third-party services MPAA notes that domain name registrars can also be seen as possible “notorious markets.” It specifically calls out the Indian Public Domain Registry (PDR) which repeatedly refused to take action against pirate sites.

The responsibility of third party service providers is also highlighted in RIAA’s submission (odt). The group lists a total of 57 pirate websites, which in part overlaps with the MPAA.

The Pirate Bay and other popular torrent sites and cyberlockers are called out, as well as specialized music streaming and download sites such as MP3Skull, Stafaband and Albumkings.

In addition, the RIAA counters the argument of “apologists” who oppose stricter anti-piracy enforcement on the basis it could endanger freedom of expression.

“Many of those who profit from the status quo like to disguise their self-interest in rhetoric about free expression. It is long past time to end this dangerous charade. Defending the piracy of creative works in the name of freedom of expression is tantamount to foxes campaigning for open-range chickens,” RIAA’s Neil Turkewitz writes.

“Online enforcement efforts are complicated when intermediaries do not take adequate steps to ensure their services are not being used to facilitate copyright infringement, a problem compounded by the fact that some website operators and intermediaries operate anonymously and outside the boundaries of the law,” he adds.

One of the groups RIAA indirectly refers to as “apologists” is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The civil rights group actively protests the MPAA and RIAA efforts and in their own submission to the USTR they warn that the obligations of third-party services such as domain name registrars is overstated.

According to the EFF, free speech is at risk when these companies respond to requests and complaints without a judicial order. The USTR already listed the Canadian domain registrar Tucows in its overview of notorious markets last year, a decision to which the EFF objects.

“We find it highly rash for the USTR to be calling for foreign domain name registrars to honor extra-judicial demands for the removal of domains, because it is obvious how such demands could backfire spectacularly against U.S. Internet companies, at the behest of foreign governments and special interests seeking to censor U.S. speech,” the EFF writes (pdf).

Below are the full lists as reported to the USTR by the MPAA and RIAA. These, and the other submissions will form the basis of the U.S. Government’s Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which is expected to come out later this year.

—

MPAA’s list of notorious pirate sites (23)

Extratorrent.cc
Kat.cr
Rutracker.org
ThePirateBay.gd (in addition to .la, .mn, and .vg TLDs)
Torrentz.eu
Yts.to
Letitbit.net
Nowvideo.sx and the “Movshare Group” –
Rapidgator.net –
Uploaded.net
Videomega.tv
VK.com
Cuevana.tv
Kinogo.co
Megafilmeshd.net
Movie4k.to
Pelis24.com
Primewire.ag
Putlocker.is
Solarmovie.is
Viooz.ac
Watch32.is
Watchseries.lt

RIAA’s list of notorious pirate sites (57)

Thepiratebay.gd
Kat.cr
Torrentz.eu
Extratorrent.cc
Bitsnoop.com
Isohunt.to
Cpasbien.pw
Torrenthound.com
Torrentdownloads.me
Torrentreactor.com
LimeTorrents.cc
Torrents.net
T411.in
Sumotorrent.sx
Seedpeer.eu
VK.com
MP3Skull
Itemvn.com
Stafaband.info
Viperial.me
Im1music.co
Albumkings.co
Newalbumreleases.net
Warez-bb.org
Israbox.info
Bajui.com
Goear.com
Exvagos.com
Degraca.org
Sobaixar.com
Ex.ua
4shared.com
uploaded.net
Rapidgator.net
Zippyshare.com
Dopefile.com
Chomikuj.pl
Turbobit.net
Hitfile.net
Letitbit.net
1fichier.com
Uploadable.ch
Share-online.biz
Ulozto.cz
Mp3va.com
Soundsbox.com
Iomoio.com
Soundike.com
Payplay.fm
Mp3million.com
Megaboon.com
Melodishop.com
Melodysale.com
Mp3caprice.com
Ivave.com
Mediasack.com
Goldenmp3.ru

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

In 2013, famous anti-piracy prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad filed a motion targeting ThePirateBay.se (the site’s main domain) and PirateBay.se (a lesser used alternative).

Rather than take on the site itself, Ingblad filed a complaint against Punkt SE (IIS), the organization responsible for Sweden’s top level .SE domain.

Ingbland argued that since The Pirate Bay is an illegal operation, the site’s domains are tools used to infringe copyright. The prosecutor said that as the supplier and controller of those domains, IIS should be held liable for the copyright infringements associated with them.

Not surprisingly, IIS held the position that a registry should not be held liable for infringement and that any decision on the fate of a domain should be decided by the courts. As such, IIS flat-out refused to suspend Pirate Bay’s domains.

The case was finally heard this April and in May the Stockholm District Court ruled that The Pirate Bay should forfeit its Sweden-based domains, ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se. However, when considering his long-term aspirations beyond the Pirate Bay, the victory for the prosecutor lacked suitable punch.

All along, IIS said it understood the nature of The Pirate Bay and was prepared to take action against the site’s domains, if ordered to do so by a court. It’s a position taken by many organizations and companies, ISPs in particular, when asked to take anti-piracy actions in the absence of legal precedent.

Due to its refusal to terminate the Pirate Bay’s domains, the Stockholm Court found that IIS did indeed contribute to the copyright infringements of the site. However, as now explained by IIS counsel Elisabeth Ekstrand, it also noted the special circumstances of the case.

“[Unlike] an ISP that provides a service for financial gain, IIS has acted from a different point of view,” Ekstrand says.

“IIS has publicly announced and motivated its approach to the prosecutor’s motion, that is to say that we have no obligation to act but rather an obligation not to act without a direct order (for example, from a law enforcement agency).

“The statement is based on the view that the assignment of managing an important function in society does not include judging over whether an individual case can be considered illegal or not.”

Essentially, IIS believes that it wasn’t its responsibility to decide whether a domain should or should not be closed down and that requesting an official ruling from the court was the proper way of going about things. Ultimately the court agreed that the position taken by IIS was both legitimate and justified.

This meant that although The Pirate Bay’s domains were ordered to be seized, the case against IIS was rejected, with the District Court dismissing the prosecution’s case and awarding the registry close to $40,000 (SEK 332,000) in costs.

It’s now clear that the prosecution is unhappy with the outcome and will take the case to trial at the Court of Appeal. TorrentFreak has contacted Fredrik Ingblad in an effort to find out his precise grounds for appeal and will update this article when those arrive.

In the meantime, however, it seems likely that the prospect of heading to court each and every time the government wants to seize a ‘pirate’ domain is proving too much of a headache.

As it stands today, IIS is considered to be acting reasonably when it refuses to suspend a domain without an explicit instruction from a court or the police, for example. And having gone down that road with The Pirate Bay once before (and being quite vocal while doing so), all the signs point to the registry applying similar standards in future.

“A decision in the Court of Appeals trumps a decision in the District Court, which can mean that we, or the prosecution depending on who ‘wins’, will get a stronger support for their way of looking at it,” Ekstrand concludes.

No date has yet been set for the trial.

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

Earlier this year the General Publishers Group (GAU) discovered that several eBooks belonging to its members were being sold illegally on Google Play.

Using the handle Flamanca Hollanda / Dragonletebooks, a Google Play ‘publisher’ was selling eBooks far below the regular price.

The publishers reached out to local anti-piracy group BREIN, who successfully asked Google to remove the files. However, Google refused to a separate request to identify the account holder.

Citing privacy concerns, Google noted that it would not hand over any data without a court order, which is a common stance for the company. This left BREIN with little other alternative than to take the case to court.

Yesterday a The Hague Court ruled that Google must hand over the personal details tied to the Google Play account as well as the Google account that was used to sign up.

The data includes the IP-address, home address, names, emails and bank account information, even if the person resides outside the European Union.

In its defense, Google had argued that BREIN’s request could violate international privacy laws, if the account holder turns out to be foreign. However, the court noted that it could not be the case that possible international violations prevent Dutch law from being applied.

The court further concluded that in this case the rights of copyright holders outweigh other rights, such as freedom of expression. However, the affected user will be given the opportunity to appeal the handover within two weeks, which the court will then review separately.

The order opens the door for BREIN and Dutch copyright holders to police Google Play and other online services more aggressively.

In the past BREIN has succeeded in obtaining the personal details of torrent site owners from hosting providers and payment providers, often without a direct court order.

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

Earlier this year a coalition of record labels including Capitol Records, Sony Music, Warner Bros. Records and Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against MP3Skull.

With millions of visitors per month the MP3 download site had been one of the prime sources of pirated music for a long time.

Several months have passed since the RIAA members submitted their complaint and since the owners of MP3Skull failed to respond, the labels are now asking for a default judgement.

In their motion filed last Friday at a Florida District Court, the record labels describe MP3Skull as a notorious pirate site that promotes copyright infringement on a commercial scale.

“Defendants designed, promote, support and maintain the MP3Skull website for the well-known, express and overarching purpose of reproducing, distributing, performing and otherwise exploiting unlimited copies of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without any authorization or license.

“By providing to the public the fruits of Plaintiffs’ investment of money, labor and expertise, MP3Skull has become one of the most notorious pirate websites in the world,” the labels add (pdf).

Besides offering a comprehensive database of links to music tracks, the labels also accuse the site’s operators of actively promoting piracy through social media. Among other things, MP3Skull helped users to find pirated tracks after copyright holders removed links from the site.

Based on the blatant piracy carried out by operators and users, the labels argue that MP3Skull is liable for willful copyright infringement.

Listing 148 music tracks as evidence, the companies ask for the maximum $150,000 in statutory damages for each, bringing the total to more than $22 million.

“Under these egregious circumstances, Plaintiffs should be awarded statutory damages in the full amount of $150,000 for each of the 148 works identified in the Complaint, for a total of $22,200,000,” the motion reads.

In addition the RIAA labels request a permanent injunction to make it harder for MP3Skull from continuing to operate the site. The proposed injunction (pdf) prevents domain name registrars and registries form providing services to MP3Skull and orders the transfer of existing domains to the copyright holders.

While a default judgment would be a big hit to the site, most damage has already been done. Last year MP3Skull was listed among the 500 most-visited websites on the Internet according to Alexa, but after Google downranked the site it quickly lost its traffic.

The site subsequently hopped from domain to domain and is currently operating from the .ninja TLD with only a fraction of the number of users it had before.

Given that MP3Juices failed to appear before the court it’s likely that the District Court will approve the proposed default judgment. Whether the record labels will ever see a penny of the claimed millions is doubtful though, as the true owners of the MP3Skull site remain unknown.

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

After suffering ten postponements the extradition hearing of Kim Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk was never likely to be a smooth, straightforward affair, even when it eventually got underway in the Auckland District Court.

The first few days of the hearing were spent by Crown lawyer Christine Gordon QC, who has been acting on behalf the U.S., painting a highly negative picture of the quartet. Incriminating correspondence, culled from their Skype accounts, suggested that there had been knowledge of infringement, she claimed.

After the U.S. finally wrapped up its case last Thursday, Judge Dawson was asked to decide when several applications filed by Dotcom’s team to drop the hearing would be heard. Would it be appropriate to deal with them before the accused took the stand to fight the extradition, or at another time?

In the event Judge Dawson decided that the stay applications – which cover the U.S. freeze on Dotcom’s funds and other ‘unreasonable’ behavior, plus allegations of abuse of process by Crown lawyers – should be heard first.

During this morning’s session defense attorney Grant Illingworth QC motivated the request to stay the case. Illingworth told the Court that due to the ongoing U.S.-ordered freeze on his clients’ funds (and the prospect that any funds sent to the U.S. would have the same fate), they are unable to retain experts on U.S. law.

“We say the issue is that they cannot use restrained funds to pay experts in US law, if those experts are not New Zealand citizens,” Illingworth said.

“Access to such expertise is necessary but being prevented by the US. It means not having the ability to call evidence but also the ability to get advice so counsel can present their case.”

Illingworth said the unfair tactics amounted to an abuse of process which has reduced New Zealand-based lawyers to a position of dealing with U.S. law on a “guess work” basis which could leave them open to accusations of being both negligent and incompetent.

“In any other case we would seek expert advice,” Illingworth said, but in this situation obtaining that is proving impossible. No defense means that the hearing is fundamentally unfair, he argued.

In this afternoon’s session, attention turned to claims by the United States that Bram van der Kolk uploaded a pre-release copy of the Liam Neeson movie ‘Taken’ to Megaupload and shared links with friends.

The U.S. says that nine people downloaded the thriller but lawyers for Van Der Kolk insist that whatever the case, the movie was not ‘pre-release’ since it was already available in more than two dozen countries during 2008. The movie was premiered in the United States during 2009. Pre-release movie piracy is a criminal offense under U.S. law.

The extradition hearing is now in its third week and is expected to last another three, but that could change. If the applications currently being heard are successful, the Judge could order a new case or might even stay the extradition hearing altogether.

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