The prominence of Google in endless Internet-related matters often sees the company get tangled up in the disputes of others. A case from 2014 provides a particularly interesting example.

Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack saw two Canadian entities embroiled in legal action over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products.

Google has no direct links to the case whatsoever, yet it became sucked in when Equustek Solutions claimed that Google’s search results were helping to send visitors to websites operated by the defendants (former Equustek employees) that were selling unlawful products.

Google previously removed links to the sites from its Google.ca results on a voluntary basis, but Equustek wanted a broader response. In a subsequent court ruling handed in British Columbia, Google was ordered to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling had worldwide implications.

Google was given a little under two weeks to comply with the decision but quickly appealed in the hope of achieving a better outcome. Now, a year later, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has handed down its decision and it’s more bad news for Google.

According to an analysis by Canadian law professor Michael Geist, the decision addresses two key questions, both involving jurisdiction.

i) Whether the court has jurisdiction over Google

ii) Whether the injunction handed down in Canada has power outside its borders

On the first issue, Google argued that it does not operate servers in British Columbia, nor does it have any local offices. However, the Court decided that the company does carry out business in the region.

“Google does not have resident employees, business offices, or servers in the Province, but its activities in gathering data through web crawling software, in distributing targeted advertising to users in British Columbia, and in selling advertising to British Columbia businesses are sufficient to uphold the chambers judge’s finding that it does business in the Province,” the ruling (pdf) reads.

On the second issue – whether a court order handed down in British Columbia could have jurisdiction beyond its borders – the Court of Appeal again ruled against Google.

“British Columbia courts are called upon to adjudicate disputes involving foreign residents on a daily basis, and the fact that their decisions may affect the activities of those people outside the borders of British Columbia is not determinative of whether an order may be granted,” the ruling reads.

Noting Google’s concerns that it could potentially be “subjected to restrictive orders from courts in all parts of the world, each concerned with its own domestic law,” the court underlined the importance of exercising caution when handing down orders that have the potential to limit expression in another country. However, it found no problem with the ruling of the lower Court.

“In the case before us, there is no realistic assertion that the judge’s order will offend the sensibilities of any other nation. It has not been suggested that the order prohibiting the defendants from advertising wares that violate the intellectual property rights of the plaintiffs offends the core values of any nation,” the ruling reads.

However, should any nation have an issue with the decision, they are free to appeal, the ruling adds.

“In the unlikely event that any jurisdiction finds the order offensive to its core values, an application could be made to the court to modify the order so as to avoid the problem.”

Dismissing Google’s appeal, Justice Groberman signs off on the blocking injunction in Equustek Solutions’ favor.

“The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the
google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect,” the Judge concludes.

Google is reportedly considering its options, with an escalation to the Supreme Court a potential (but as yet unconfirmed) outcome.

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

While paying subscriptions to services such as Netflix, premium satellite and cable channels, sports broadcasters and PPV outlets are legitimate ways to obtain content on a TV, there are others that require very little outlay.

Apple TV boxes, Android set-top boxes and even the lowly Raspberry PI can run software such as Kodi (previously XBMC) alongside third-party addons to provide all of the above at virtually zero cost. Unsurprisingly, this annoys content providers no end.

While selling any of the above devices alone is entirely legal, over the past couple of years online markets such as eBay and Amazon have been flooded with “fully loaded” boxes (Android-based in particular) that enable free viewing of anything from first run movies to live sports.

Surprisingly, many vendors have been happy to publicly advertise that fact, with many apparently under the impression that if they don’t provide the illegal content themselves then they aren’t liable. In the UK that argument is unlikely to fly and during the past week patience appears to have run out.

Earlier this week Trading Standards officers and police carried out raids on sellers of Android boxes setup to receive unauthorized content. One seller, operating from GeekyKit.com, told customers that his physical shops would not be trading as normal.

“As you may be aware we were visited yesterday by Sky [television] in conjunction with Trading Standards. Whilst we continue to investigate our position the stores will remain closed and support will remain suspended. Our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused,” he explained.

“We do not control the content that is accessible on the internet via the product that we sell. We are currently working with Trading Standards to ensure that we can sell our products whilst adhering to UK copyright laws.”

Although no details on changes were provided by GeekyKit, the signs on the front of one of their shops will be the first thing to go after leaving little to the imagination.

A source who asked to remain anonymous told TorrentFreak that raids were also carried out at home addresses. In those cases officers reportedly seized computer equipment and mobile phones. A 38-year-old man was arrested under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act.

The raids have certainly provided food for thought for other companies involved in the supply of similar devices. DroidSticks, one of the most prominent UK suppliers, is now limiting discussion on its Twitter account to matters relating only to the device.

Whether or not the company intends to continue packaging third-party addons with its boxes will remain to be seen, but for now ‘pirate’ talk is strictly off-limits. DroidSticks did not respond to our request for comment.

Finally, complying with UK legislation should be a fairly straightforward process if sellers want to play it safe, but that will probably mean never mentioning the “special features” of these boxes in a sales pitch ever again.

It could also mean relying on users to install their own third-party addons from scratch. It’s a simple enough process for those with patience but something unlikely to appeal to Joe Public who increasingly wants a simple plug-and-play device.

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

After months of trouble with a hostile takeover as the climax, popular TV-torrent distribution group EZTV called it quits last month.

In the ten years since its founding the group had built up a reputation of quality and consistency, but today it is no longer active.

Instead, EZTV’s domain is now run by an outsider who pretends that nothing has changed. On the site’s homepage people still see the latest TV-torrents.

Initially these torrents were imported from other groups, but recently a person pretending to be EZTV’s Novaking announced that they had started releasing their own torrents again.

“We have a great news for you. [eztv] has started releasing torrents again. No more nested/unneeded files/folders you have complained about. The same quality like before.”

While unsuspecting users might fall for the impersonation, people in the know have cut their ties with the site. The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents, for example, are warning their users to look our for fake files and have disabled or suspended the official EZTV account.

But it’s not only the torrent experts who have seen through the facade, Google has too.

For many years the EZTV.it domain (later EZTV.ch) was the top listed result when searching for the term EZTV using Google. This is no surprise, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of backlinks to the site.

Interestingly, however, the “official” domain has now been completely stripped from the top results. Even several pages down the EZTV.ch domain doesn’t appear.

It’s worth noting that the main EZTV.ch domain was removed following a takedown notice from Lionsgate. However, usually other pages on the same domain quickly take its place, as happened to ExtraTorrent and others.

The absence of the EZTV domain is remarkable and stands out when comparing it to other search engines.

For example, roughly a week ago both Bing and DuckDuckGo continued to place EZTV.ch on top. Today, both search engines still show the domain among the top results, although no longer in first place.

With the site no longer being the top result in Google and elsewhere, search traffic to EZTV is minimal.

Whether the site’s total traffic will also go down in the long run has yet to be seen. For now the site is still among the most popular torrent sites on the Internet, and many users either don’t know or don’t care who runs the show.

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

Late 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull asked the Australian Cabinet to approve the development of a new system which would allow rightsholders to obtain site-blocking injunctions against ISPs. In March a draft of that legislation was introduced to parliament.

Since then the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 has been under investigation by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. After examining the framework which allows rightsholders to apply for blocks against ‘pirate’ sites located overseas, this morning the Committee published a report that notes four recommendations but otherwise gives the legislation a green light.

Recommendations

When an application is made by a rightsholder for a blocking injunction, the Bill in its current form requires the Court to consider at least eight factors when determining whether an application should be granted. These include whether a site shows a general disregard for copyright, whether it has been blocked already in another jurisdiction, and the ‘flagrancy’ of any infringement.

Responding to rightsholder complaints that the bar had been set too high, alongside a belief that the thresholds for proving infringement had been narrowly established elsewhere in the Bill, the Committee advised an amendment from “is to take the following matters into account” to the watered down “may take the following matters into account”.

The recommendations also address VPNs, noting that “the Bill does not explicitly
contemplate the introduction of injunctions against VPNs”, adding that “VPNs are unlikely to meet the ‘primary purpose test’ [designed for infringing uses].” The Committee noted, however, that it would be “reassured” if the government clarified the status of such tools.

In respect of the “reasonable steps” ISPs will be expected to take in order to “disable access to an online location”, the Committee advised that these may include the posting of a landing page, similar to those currently used in the UK, which advise visitors that the site in question has been blocked alongside details of the order.

In another recommendation the Committee calls upon the government to provide greater clarity and guidance on the issue of costs and liability for ISPs after they comply with a court order to block a site.

“The committee urges the government to clarify its position regarding the
attribution of costs of compliance with orders where injunctive relief is granted,” the report reads.

“The committee notes the persuasive evidence of service providers to the effect that as [an ISP] bears no fault or liability for the infringement of copyright by its subscribers, [the ISP] should not be required to contribute to the cost of the remedy. The committee is of the view that more clarity is required to reassure [ISPs] that the costs associated with site-blocking will primarily be borne by those parties who are seeking the remedy.”

In other words, if rightsholders want to benefit from a site block, they should be the ones to pay for its implementation.

Finally, the Committee advises that the new legislation should be given an initial 24 months to do its work. At this point it should be re-examined to assess its performance.

“The committee recommends that the government conduct a formal review
of the effectiveness of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill2015, to be completed two years after its enactment,” the Committee concludes.

Dissenting Report – Australian Greens

In a second report published alongside the Committee’s this morning, Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens slams the Bill as the “latest in a long line of misguided attempts by the government to monitor, control and censor the Internet.”

Noting that the Bill hands “significant” new censorship powers to the court, Ludlam says that the evidence shows that it will be relatively easy to bypass the Bill’s provisions. Furthermore, the Bill lacks safeguards to ensure that legitimate online sources aren’t subjected to overblocking.

“Most importantly, there is also a significant weight of evidence showing that
the Bill will not meet its aims, as it does not address the underlying cause of online copyright infringement: The continual refusal of offshore rights holders to make their content available in a timely, convenient and affordable manner to Australians,” Ludlam concludes.

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

In recent years Coppersurfer.tk has quickly become one of the most used BitTorrent trackers.

Running on the beerware-licensed Opentracker software, the standalone tracker offers a non-commercial service which doesn’t host or link to torrent files itself.

Despite the content neutral setup, the tracker and its hosting providers have become the targets of various copyright holder groups in recent months.

In April, Coppersurfer was forced to leave its Dutch hosting provider following a complaint from Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN. The tracker then moved its service to a German hosting provider, but that didn’t end the trouble.

The tracker’s operator recently informed TF that a German court ordered the tracker’s hosting provider to disclose the personal details of the associated account holder. The request came from the German lawfirm Rasch, who act on behalf of several major music labels.

The order (pdf) came as a surprise to Coppersurfer’s operator as he complied with previous takedown requests from the same lawyers, and even offered them a hash blocking tool.

The copyright holder, however, appeared determined to shut the site down. Facing this mounting pressure the operator decided to look for help, which he found in the Pirate Party of Greece (PPGR).

The Greek Pirates inform TF that they have decided to officially adopt the tracker to protect it from further threats, by any means necessary.

“The owner of the tracker has faced the absurd requests of the copyright lobby many times in the past, even though he was being wholly lawful. After these attacks we decided to adopt the tracker,” the PPGR board tells us.

“Our decision gives political support to the tracker, which is very important in this context,” they add.

The party also informed the German Pirate Party and MEP Julia Reda about the recent court order, and will see if there are any options to get it overturned. Meanwhile, the tracker is hosted in another European country, operating in accordance with local laws.

The Greek Pirates aren’t under the illusion that the tracker will be shielded from legal pressure under their wings. However, they are prepared to fight the “copyright lobby” in order to protect the free flow of information.

“Unfortunately, our experience, but also our knowledge of similar cases so far predisposes us to believe that we will see this kind of incident again. But they can’t scare us. On the contrary, it gives us courage to work harder in order to achieve a free society,” the PPGR board says.

“A society where the exchange of ideas, files and information will be treated as what they really are: a basic human need,” they add.

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