In 2014 the European Court of Justice handed down a widely publicized decision which made clear that, in reasonable circumstances, pirate sites can be blocked by European ISPs.

On the back of this ruling, Austrian anti-piracy outfit VAP wrote to several local ISPs (UPC, 3, Tele2 and A1) demanding blockades of streaming sites Movie4K.to and Kinox.to. This would become the local test case on which all future site blockades would be built.

After the ISPs rejected their request, in August 2014 VAP sued the providers. In October VAP emerged victorious and the ISPs were ordered to implement a blockade.

While ISP UPC accepted the decision, Tele2, A1 and 3 filed a further appeal and the case went to the Supreme Court. Now the court has handed down its decision and it’s yet another defeat for the ISPs.

Affirming the earlier ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that blocking websites in Austria is entirely legal. Furthermore, the court also confirmed that the Internet Service Providers will have to bear the costs of blocking the sites, informing them that their business model should allow them to be “financially and technically equipped” to implement blockades.

VAP President Winfred Kunze welcomed the decision.

“Illegal portals do not contribute to film financing and do harm to creators. Legal services strengthen both the creative industry and the telecommunications industry, which indeed benefit from the attractiveness of a legal offer,” Kunze said.

According to Futurezone, the Association of Austrian Internet Providers (ISPA), is less enthusiastic about the outcome, in particular concerning costs and the “slippery slope” potential of web-blocking.

“Today Internet locks, tomorrow …,” the group concludes.

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

For the past several years the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) has been at the forefront of Internet-focused anti-piracy activity in the UK. The government-funded unit has been responsible for several high-profile operations and has been praised by a broad range of entertainment industry companies.

After carrying out raids against the operators of dozens of sites, PIPCU likes to take control of their domains. They do this for two key reasons – one, so that the sites can no longer operate as they did before and two, so they can be used to ‘educate’ former users of the downed sites.

That ‘education’ takes place when visitors to the now-seized ‘pirate’ domains are confronted not with a torrent, proxy, streaming or links site, but a banner published by PIPCU themselves. It’s aim is to send a message that sites offering copyrighted content will be dealt with under the law and to suggest that their visitors have been noted.

Earlier comments by PIPCU suggest that its banner has been seen millions of times by people who tried to access a ‘pirate’ site but subsequently discovered that it no longer exists. Last month in an announcement on Twitter, the unit revealed that since Jul 2015 it has diverted more than 11m ‘pirate’ site visits.

#DidYouKnow since July last year we've diverted over 11m views from pirate sites to our #PIPCU warning page? pic.twitter.com/mhpojq9AP1

— City Police PIPCU (@CityPolicePIPCU) June 15, 2015

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

While the hits continue to mount for many domains PIPCU has seized (or gained control over by forcing site operators or registrars into compliance), it’s now likely that the group’s educational efforts will reach a smaller audience. Tests carried out by TorrentFreak reveal that PIPCU has somehow lost influence over several previously controlled domains.

Instead of the now-familiar PIPCU ‘busted’ banner, visitors to a range of defunct sites are now greeted with expired, advert-laden or ‘for sale’ domains.

MP3lemon.org, for example, currently displays ads/affiliate links. The same goes for Boxingguru.tv, a domain that was linked to a high-profile PIPCU raid in 2014. Former proxies Katunblock.com and Fenopyreverse.info, plus former streaming links site Potlocker.re complete the batch.

Other domains don’t carry ads but are instead listed for sale. They include former anti-censorship tool site Torrenticity.com, proxy index PirateReverse.info and H33T proxy h33tunblock.info.

The fate of the final set of domains is much less glamorous. Movie2KProxy.com, Movie4KProxy.com, EZTVProxy.net, Metricity.org, YIFYProxy.net and TorrentProxies.com all appear to have simply expired.

Whether these domains will be snapped up at the first opportunity or left to die will largely hinge on whether people believe they can make a profit from them. Some have already changed hands and are now being touted for a couple of thousand dollars each but others are lying in limbo.

In any event, none of these domains seem destined to display PIPCU’s banner in the future. Whether or not the unit cares right now is up for debate, but if any of the domains spring back into life with a ‘pirate’ mission, that could soon change.

Unlike Megaupload’s old domains they don’t appear linked to obvious scams, so that’s probably the main thing.

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

Over the past few years copyright troll law firm Prenda crossed the line on several occasions.

Most controversial was the clear evidence that Prenda uploaded their own torrents to The Pirate Bay, creating a honeypot for the people they later sued over pirated downloads.

The crucial evidence to back up this allegation came from The Pirate Bay, who shared upload logs with TorrentFreak that tied a user account and uploads to Prenda and its boss John Steele.

This serious allegation together with other violations piqued the interest of the FBI. For a long time there have been suspicions that the authorities are investigating the Prenda operation and today we can confirm that this is indeed the case.

The confirmation comes from Pirate Bay co-founders Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij, who independently informed TF that they were questioned about Prenda during their stays in prison.

“I was told that Prenda Law has been under investigation for over a year, and from the printouts they showed me, I believe that,” Sunde tells TF.

Sunde was visited by Swedish police officers who identified themselves, noting that they were sent on behalf of the FBI. The officers mainly asked questions about Pirate Bay backups and logs.

“They asked many questions about the TPB backups and logs. I told them that even if they have one of the backups that it would be nearly impossible to decrypt,” Sunde says, adding that he couldn’t help them as he’s no longer associated with the site.

A short while after Sunde was questioned in prison the same happened to Neij. Again, the officers said they were gathering information about Pirate Bay’s logs on behalf of the FBI.

“They wanted to know if I could verify the accuracy of the IP-address logs, how they were stored, and how they could be retrieved,” Neij says.

The FBI’s interest in the logs was directly linked to the article we wrote on the Prenda honeypot in 2013. While it confirms that the feds are looking into Prenda, the FBI has not announced anything in public yet.

Both co-founders couldn’t help the FBI as they are no longer running the site, but perhaps they had more luck elsewhere. TF contacted the Swedish police a while ago asking for further details, but received no response.

It’s worth noting that the police officers also asked questions about the current state of The Pirate Bay and who’s running the site. With the recent raid in mind, it’s not unthinkable they may also have had an alternative motive.

In any case, today’s revelations show that Prenda is in serious trouble. The same copyright trolls who abused The Pirate Bay to trap pirates, may also face their demise thanks to the very same site.

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

Up until last year, downloading content using BitTorrent was an activity that needed a reasonable level of technical competence. In addition to choosing the correct software and setting everything up, users needed to make themselves familiar with any number torrent indexes and platforms.

Then along came Popcorn Time and simplified the process to the point that almost anyone can now download the software and access a wide range of (mostly) infringing content within minutes. Needless to say, the various forks of the software have been a thorn in the side of the movie and TV show industry ever since.

With complaints being made against the software in most western countries, it’s now Norway’s turn to make some noise. While the country has expressed concerns about the software in the past, a report published in June by consultancy firm Mediavision is adding fuel to the fire.

According to the company, which analyzes consumer behavior within the sphere of digital media, around 750,000 Norwegians from a five million population are now obtaining video from illegal sources, up 17% on the previous year. However, it is the manner in which they are doing it that’s causing additional concern. According to the researchers, illegal consumption of streaming content has doubled in the past year. And no prizes for guessing who anti-piracy groups are blaming.

“The reason for the increase in piracy is Popcorn Time,” says Rights Alliance Norway chief Willy Johansen.

“It is unfortunately an incredibly easy way to watch movies. But one should be aware that this is a criminal offense. We are now collecting the IP addresses of Norwegian users of Popcorn Time.”

While users will be disappointed to hear that they are being tracked by a Hollywood-backed anti-piracy outfit, the big question is what Rights Alliance will choose to do with that data. The group says their hand may be forced.

“We have hoped for the longest time that we do not have to take on the end-user. But it is clear that if this does not stop, we will have no choice. Most people are now aware that they are doing something illegal, but many continue because ‘everyone else is doing it’,” Johansen says.

Also on the horizon are lawsuits against local ISPs. Rights Alliance hopes that by obtaining a blocking injunction against Popcorn Time-affiliated sites and services, the problem might be brought under control. However, things aren’t straightforward.

“It takes time in the Norwegian legal system, so there is a protracted process,” Johansen notes.

“There is nothing that can be sent to the court today. But we’re working on it together with our attorneys to look into the possibility of getting this stopped through a lawsuit against broadband providers.”

After changes in the law two years ago, these kinds of injunctions were supposed to be easy for groups like Rights Alliance to obtain, but it appears there are still significant hurdles to overcome. Not only are there very stringent requirements in order to obtain an injunction, all expenses incurred must be paid by the plaintiff.

“No independent licensees in Norway have the opportunity [to get injunctions], because they do not have the finances to do so. If we are to stop something, it must be an overall industry behind the lawsuit. It requires a very detailed presentation of evidence, says Johansen.

Interestingly, however, the group has been working on getting an injunction against another site, most probably The Pirate Bay. The results should become evident in a few weeks.

“The case we’re working on already started before Popcorn Time existed. The problem is that evidence is so extensive that the whole Popcorn Time phenomenon arose during the time we spent gathering evidence from the previous service,” the Rights Alliance chief adds.

As usual, however, the industry isn’t getting much help from ISPs including Telenor, Norway’s largest provider.

“We wish to contribute by relating to parliamentary procedure adopted in such cases,” says Telenor director Tormod Sandstø.

“So the court must make decisions in individual cases, also we will of course abide by those decisions. As an Internet provider we will not be a censorship body.”

The news that Norway may target end users is disappointing. The country has all but eliminated music piracy yet still prefers anti-piracy aggression over business model changes in the video sector.

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

In recent months there have been several lawsuits in the U.S. in which copyright holders were granted broad injunctions, allowing them to seize domain names of alleged pirate sites.

In addition, these injunctions were sometimes directed at hosting providers, search engines and ISPs, preventing these companies from doing business with these sites.

Most recently, such a request came from the publishing company Elsevier, who sued the websites Libgen.org and Sci-Hub.org. The publisher asked for a preliminary injunction targeting several third-party services.

While the operators of the “pirate” sites have yet to respond, several tech companies have joined in to protest the request. This week the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which includes members such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft, asked the court to limit the proposed injunction.

In its current form the proposal targets any search engine, ISP and hosting company, without naming any in particular, which isn’t allowed according to the tech companies.

“What Plaintiffs here are seeking is, in essence, an injunction against the world. It is well established that such a sweeping injunction against nonparty intermediaries is impermissible,” CCIA writes (pdf).

According to the tech companies, neutral service providers are not “in active concert or participation” with the defendant, and should therefore be excluded from the proposed text.

The CCIA gives the example of search engines, which may link to pirate websites but can’t be seen as “aiders and abettors,” or as collaborating with these sites to violate the law.

Even if one of the third party services could be found liable, the matter should be resolved under the DMCA and not through an injunction, the CCIA claims.

“The DMCA thus puts bedrock limits on the injunctions that can be imposed on qualifying providers if they are named as defendants and are held liable as infringers. Plaintiffs here ignore that.”

“What they seek, in the posture of a preliminary injunction against nonparties, goes beyond what Congress was willing to permit, even against service providers who come before a court as defendants against whom an actual judgment of infringement has been entered. That request must be rejected.”

The New York federal court has scheduled a hearing later this month after which it will decide whether to issue the preliminary injunction or not. Thus far, Elsevier hasn’t responded to CCIA’s opposition.

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