In the United States most large Internet providers forward DMCA notices to subscribers who’re accused of downloading copyrighted material.

Cox Communications is one of the ISPs that does this. In addition, the ISP also implemented a strict set of rules of its own accord to ensure that its customers understand the severity of the allegations.

According to some copyright holders, however, Cox’s efforts are falling short. Last year BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music sued the ISP because it fails to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

The companies, which control the publishing rights to songs by Katy Perry, The Beatles and David Bowie among others, claimed that Cox has given up its DMCA safe harbor protections due to this inaction.

The case revolves around the “repeat infringer” clause of the DMCA, which prescribes that Internet providers must terminate the accounts of persistent pirates. Both parties are currently conducting discovery.

In order to make their case the copyright holders have sent a long list of demands to Cox, but court records show the ISP is reserved in the information it’s willing to hand over.

The company refused, for example, to reveal the identities of roughly 150,000 subscribers who allegedly downloaded infringing works from BMG and Round Hill Music. According to the ISP, the Cable Privacy Act prevents the company from disclosing this information.

The music groups, however, aren’t taking no for an answer and are now asking the court to compel Cox to hand over their personal details. According to them, this information is crucial to proof the direct infringement claims.

The copyright holders are willing to accept a more limited number of accounts to begin with. In a motion to compel, they ask for the personal details of 500 account holders whose accounts were repeatedly used to share pirated material.

“In an effort to narrow the dispute, Copyright Holders only request the identity of and contact information associated with 500 of what appear to be the most egregious infringers,” they write.

“Specifically, Copyright Holders seek the identity of subscribers associated with 250 IP addresses that have infringed the copyrights at issue since the complaint was filed in this case, and the identity of subscribers associated with 250 IP addresses that have infringed in the six months prior to the Complaint being filed,” the companies add.

While the current request is limited to 500 IP-addresses, the music groups reserve the right to request more at a later stage and ask the court to grant permission to do so.

“Copyright Holders also request that the Court issue an open Order requiring Cox to produce the contact information for additional direct infringers of the copyrights at issue in this case, if the need arises,” they write.

There is a hearing scheduled for later this week when the copyright holders will further detail their request, if needed. Cox has yet to respond but it’s unlikely that the company will hand to hand over the requested information without putting up a fight.

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

When it comes to content being made available on file-sharing networks, TV shows have certainly stamped their position as one of the leaders in recent years.

Often enjoying their premiere in the United States, TV shows are illegally downloaded all over the world just minutes after they air, disrupting local licensing and marketing strategies in an instant but giving fans want they want – without the premium price tag.

Until these issues are fully addressed piracy will continue, with dedicated TV show releasing groups happy to fill in the gaps on availability and/or price – until they’re tracked down and stopped of course.

To that end, Hong Kong customs authorities are this morning reporting success in shutting down what they describe as a “well organized cross-border” TV show piracy “syndicate”.

Following an investigation carried out over the past three months, yesterday authorities arrested two men in two areas of the autonomous territory. One, a 25-year-old living in the Southern District, is said to be the group’s founder. Another, a 46-year-old, is being described as a “key member”. A third, said to be the group’s ‘capper‘, is believed to be at large.

According to a government release, four sets of computers were seized and TV shows were discovered stored on the equipment. Overall the group is suspected of distributing around 2,500 shows.

Of interest, however, is that Hong Kong authorities are currently refusing to name the group or their site URL. That’s because the server is located in the United States and at the moment remains fully operational. Nevertheless, the operation is being declared a success.

“This is virtually our first case in which we have discovered such a large quantity of television programs being uploaded to the Internet for downloading,” a Customs officer said.

Under local copyright law anyone distributing an infringing copy of a TV show or other copyright work commits a criminal offense if that negatively affects the copyright owner. The maximum penalty is four years in jail and a fine of around US$6,500 per infringing copy.

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

For several years copyright holder have branded Netload a piracy haven.

A few months ago the MPAA reported the site to the U.S. Government as a “notorious market” and in Germany several music groups have taken the site to court.

Back in 2011 record labels started legal proceedings against the site’s operator, demanding the names and addresses of uploaders. The site owner initially refused to do so, but eventually caved in when faced with a prison sentence.

Now, three years later, trouble continues for Netload. Music industry lawfirm Rasch recently obtained an injunction from a Hamburg Court ordering Netload to stop the distribution of a pirated music album.

“The District Court of Hamburg decided on Netload’s obligation to cease and desist from aiding their users to make a certain album available to the public,” Rasch lawyer Mirko Brüß informs TF, adding that he couldn’t name the album in question.

Under German jurisprudence this means that Netload will have to monitor external forums and search engines to make sure that these are not linking to the infringing work. If the site fails to do so the service faces a fine of hundreds of thousands of euros.

“If we find another (working) link to the album, Netload faces punitive fines of up to 250,000 euro per infringement,” Brüß notes.

The lawfirm served the operator of Netload with this injunction last week, and soon after the site vanished. Initially the lawyers and their clients believed that the site had shut down, but the assessment came too quickly.

While Netload.in is still offline a copy of the site has reappeared at Netload.me. This site is allegedly operated by the same people and the old logins are functional.

“It appears Netload is going to relaunch using the .me-domain. It’s the same company in the imprint and the old user logins are working. Uploads are not working so far,” Brüß tells TF.

Despite the change of address the injunction still stands, so the music industry lawyers will keep a close eye on the site to see if the infringing album appears.

Netload was contacted for a comment on the recent troubles but the company has yet to respond to our inquiry.

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

Branded a “Netflix for Pirates,” the Popcorn Time app quickly gathered a user base of millions of people over the past year.

The application has some of the major media giants worried, including Netflix which sees the pirate app as a serious competitor to its business.

Popcorn Time is also a rival for traditional torrent clients such as uTorrent, albeit of a different kind. However, until now how these different types of BitTorrent traffic compare in volume terms has remained unknown.

New data from network management company Procera sheds some light on how the two stack up against each other. Procera gathered data from a European fixed line network in March and April and shared their findings with TF.

On this particular network, which has a capacity of dozens of Gigabits per second, Popcorn Time accounted for roughly 18 Gigabit per second at its peak. The traffic was lowest at night, dropping to nearly zero.

All the traffic in question was generated by ‘traditional’ video torrents which were then streamed through the Popcorn Time app.

Popcorn Time traffic

The data above comes from one network, so the numbers are not very meaningful without a good comparison standard. For this reason, Procera also monitored the traffic generated by uTorrent.

The graph below shows that uTorrent accounts for at least double the traffic compared to Popcorn Time, with a approximately 44 Gigabit per second at the peak in April.

uTorrent traffic

While the vast majority of uTorrent traffic is generated by video, it’s worth noting that the data above also includes transfers of software, music and other content.

Non-uTorrent BitTorrent transfers were insignificant according to Procera, well below the traffic Popcorn Time generates.

The traffic patterns observed on this European network may be different in other parts of the world. However, with Popcorn Time having a massive user base in Europe, it’s safe to conclude that the app is not rivaling traditional torrent yet, traffic-wise.

It will be interesting to see if Popcorn Time will continue to grow during the coming year. The application is now available on all major operating systems and it’s not unthinkable that it will eventually catch up with uTorrent.

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

Working on behalf of various copyright owners including Warner Bros. and BMG, last year anti-piracy company Rightscorp began sending subpoenas to dozens of smaller ISPs in the United States. The aim, as usual, was to unmask alleged file-sharers so that they could be pursued for cash settlement.

While many ISPs complied with the requests, the practice was controversial. Such subpoenas aren’t considered applicable in file-sharing cases and largely avoid scrutiny since they can by signed by a court clerk and are not reviewed by a judge.

In 2014, telecoms company Birch Communications kicked back by refusing to hand over customer details of subsidiary ISP, CBeyond. The company filed a motion to quash Rightscorp’s subpoena arguing that the anti-piracy outfit had embarked on a fishing exercise with no legal basis.

“CBeyond contends that the section does not apply to service providers that act only as a conduit for data transferred between other parties and that do not store data. The court agrees,” Magistrate Judge Janet King said.

Faced with this setback Rightscorp filed objections to the ruling and sought to have it overturned. The company has now failed in that effort. Last week the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia adopted the earlier ruling and quashed Rightscorp’s subpoena.

“We safeguard our customer information and take privacy issues seriously,” Birch President and Chief Executive Officer Vincent Oddo said in a statement.

“The U.S. District Court did the right thing by backing our view, and we’re very pleased to see that this case will serve to help protect our customers’ private information.”

Birch Senior Vice President and General Counsel Christopher Bunce says the company’s first response is to always protect subscriber privacy.

“Our first order of business when anyone requests access to a customer’s private information is to refuse, absent a valid subpoena or court order, which we then scrutinize as we did with Rightscorp’s illegal subpoena in this matter,” Bunce says.

According to Gardiner Davis who acted as lead litigation counsel for Birch, Rightscorp’s interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was far too liberal.

“They had not even filed a copyright infringement lawsuit,” Davis said. “So this attempt was essentially a fishing expedition and I think this ruling was correctly and wisely decided. The court interpreted the statute as Congress intended.”

The defeat represents another blow to an embattled Rightscorp. The company’s latest financial report reveals a company hemorrhaging cash, despite substantial year-on-year growth.

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