More than two years ago movie studio Voltage Pictures took its legal crusade against pirating BitTorrent users to Canada.

After targeting tens of thousands of people in the US, the company hoped to expose 2,000 Internet subscribers of Canadian ISP TekSavvy. The studio behind “The Hurt Locker” argued that they have a solid case under the Copyright Act.

The efforts led to objections from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) who demanded safeguards so Voltage wouldn’t demand hefty fines from subscribers without oversight. The court agreed on this, but allowed the customers to be exposed.

The only matter that remained were the costs associated with identifying the alleged pirates. According to Voltage these would only be a few hundred Canadian dollars, but Teksavvy claimed more that $350,000.

This week the Federal Court ruled on the matter (pdf), settling the costs at $21,557. This includes $17,057 in technical administrative costs and $4,500 in legal fees associated with the IP-address lookups.

The total sum translates to roughly $11 per IP-address, which is a tiny fraction of the thousands of dollars in settlements Voltage usually requests.

The Court decided not to award any assessment costs, noting that both parties are intent on disparaging each other’s business practices. Taking claims from both sides into account it concluded that neither party should be rewarded for its conduct.

“TekSavvy, without justification, has greatly exaggerated its claim, while Voltage has unreasonably sought to trivialize it based on unreliable and largely irrelevant evidence,” Judge Aronovitch writes.

In the future it would be wise to agree on a fixed rate for linking IP-addresses to the personal details of subscribers before taking the matter to court, the Judge further notes.

“The best practice, in my view, would be for the rights holder to ascertain, in advance, with clarity and precision, the method of correlation used by the ISP, as well as the time and costs attendant on the execution of the work based, to begin, on a hypothetical number of IP addresses.”

The verdict opens the door for more of these cases in Canada. The question is, however, whether the costs and the restrictions still make it worthwhile.

University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who followed the case closely, believes this troll-type activity may not be as financially viable as Voltage has hoped.

“With the cap on liability for non-commercial infringement, the further costs of litigating against individuals, the actual value of the works, and the need to obtain court approval on demand letters, it is hard to see how this is a business model that works,” Geist notes.

Voltage, however, appears to be determined to continue its actions against the subscribers. The studio’s lawyer is happy with the verdict and says the decision “confirms the court’s commitment to facilitate anti-piracy and allow companies like Voltage to pursue pirates.”

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

Porn is huge on the Internet, and so is pirated porn.

In common with other entertainment industries adult producers are battling with a constant stream of illegal content. Most of this content is enjoyed via so-called tube sites where videos can be streamed instantly.

In an effort to put a stop to the unauthorized streams MetArt Network has decided to take several pirate tube sites to court.

The group has filed ten lawsuits in Seattle, Washington, targeting the operators of Spankbang.com, Pornvideoxo.com, Pornburst.xxx, Sextvx.com and other streaming sites that offer their content without permission.

The site owners are accused of various copyright and trademark violations, as well as unfair competition. According to MetArt the sites hide behind the DMCA while profiting heavily from the illegal videos they host.

“The DMCA safe harbor provisions have been systematically abused by internet copyright infringers in an attempt to garner protection for pirate websites displaying copyrighted adult entertainment content without license or authority for free viewing to the public,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

“Under a veneer of DMCA compliance, the owners and operators attempt to hide behind the safe harbor provisions while monetizing the website through premium membership programs and substantial advertising contracts.”

MetArt points out that the site’s operators take no measures to ensure that pirated videos stay offline, nor do they enforce a policy to ban repeat copyright infringers among their users.

Instead of taking proactive steps against piracy, the tube sites are “willfully blind” to the infringements while using MetArt’s brand to advertise its services, the adult group claims.

“Defendants’ acts and omissions allow them to profit from their infringement while imposing the burden of monitoring Defendants’ website onto copyright holders, without sufficient means to prevent continued and unabated infringement,” the complaint reads.

One problem MetArt faces is that some site owners hide behind private Whois registrations. The company has therefore asked the court for a subpoena against Whoisguard, Enom, CloudFlare and various other service providers so it can identify those responsible.

Through the lawsuits MetArt eventually hopes to recoup damages which can run into the millions of dollars. In addition, they’re asking the court to transfer the sites’ domain names to stop future infringements.

Whether the adult group’s arguments will hold up in court has yet to be seen but the cases will be watched closely by the adult industry as well as the major Hollywood studios, who face a similar ‘pirate’ steaming problem.

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

The Chinese are known for duplicating just about anything, from entire Apple stores to some of the world’s most famous cars.

Nevertheless and seemingly against the odds, easily copied items are doing well through official channels. China reportedly fueled record global box-office revenues in 2014 and even has official Hollywood movies available online before they air in the United States, ostensibly to beat piracy.

And today brings yet more good news for Chinese citizens who prefer not to pay for their content. When it arrives later in the year, Microsoft are going to gift free upgrades of Windows 10 not only to those who purchased Windows 7 and Windows 8, but also to those who pirated them.

Speaking from the WinHEC technology conference in Shenzhen, China, Terry Myerson, who runs Microsoft’s operating systems unit, said the plan was aimed at bringing the currently non-paying back on board.

“We are upgrading all qualified PCs, genuine and non-genuine, to Windows 10,” Myerson told Reuters. “The plan is to ‘re-engage’ with the hundreds of millions of users of Windows in China,” he said.

In January this year Microsoft said it would offer free upgrades of Windows 10 to legitimate users of Windows 7 and Windows 8 but this is the first time that pirates will be given an official free pass.

The big question now is how this news will be received in the West. In the United States, for example, pirate users of Windows 7 and 8 will be expected to pay top dollar for Microsoft’s newest OS if they too want to jump aboard the legit train. That may raise hackles.

However, the fact that Chinese pirate users will get a free upgrade of Windows 10 could open up avenues for Western pirates to masquerade as their Eastern counterparts in order to avoid paying. Exactly how that will play out will remain to be seen, but it’s more than likely that a ‘pirate’ solution will be found, one way or another.

In the meantime many pirates will remain with their current operating system until a stable version of Windows 10 becomes available, whether that hails from China or elsewhere.

Update: Microsoft has confirmed that all pirates, wherever they’re located, will get a free upgrade.

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

World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events are without doubt the most popular combat-based content available today.

These enterprises are big business. WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014 and while UFC parent Zuffa is rather more tight-lipped about its financial position, the company is believed to be worth several billion dollars.

Both companies’ revenues rely heavily on TV-focused content. In 2013, UFC-parent company Zuffa’s revenues were split roughly 58% for PPV events and ticket sales with the remaining 42% derived from TV, sponsorships and various distribution agreements.

Predictably the company has a track record of reacting furiously to its content being uploaded to the Internet and has active programs to remove links and prosecute individuals, mainly in the United States. Today police in the UK have been doing the organization’s work for them.

This morning officers from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Unit arrested an individual said to be one of the world’s most prolific uploaders of both UFC and WWE content.

Traveling hundreds of miles north to the tiny market town of Coalville in Leicestershire, officers descended on the home of the 55-year-old man.

According to police the man is “believed to be one of the internet’s biggest offenders” when it comes to uploading wrestling and mixed martial arts content to both peer-to-peer and user-generated content sites.

The man’s home was searched and several computers were seized. He was then taken to a local police station for questioning.

Upload monitoring by TorrentFreak reveals there are only a limited number of players in the combat sports release game who act alone. There are fewer still who are relatively easy to identify and are located in the UK. We gave PIPCU a name and asked if that person had been arrested this morning.

“We do not release the name or identity of suspects at arrest stage. This information is only released once an individual has been charged,” a PIPCU spokesperson said.

In any event, PIPCU are throwing some big numbers around. The unit claims that the individual is responsible for uploading more than 3.2 terabytes of data, which is the equivalent of more than 3,000 videos.

Of course, that’s just his uploading. When it comes to total videos distributed things get much, much worse. PIPCU estimates that the files uploaded generated in excess of two million downloads at a cost to the industry of several million pounds.

“Today’s operation serves as a clear warning to anyone thinking of uploading copyrighted material to pirate sites. This is not a victimless crime as copyright infringement is costing our creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds,” said PIPCU chief DCI Danny Medlycott.

“Our team is dedicated to combating criminals ripping off other’s intellectual property and so those who are thinking of taking this path should think twice, as it might result in a knock on the door from our officers.”

Jim Langham, WWE Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel expressed thanks for PIPCU’s action this morning.

“WWE provides many options for our fans to watch our content lawfully – on television, pay-per-view, and digitally via YouTube and the WWE Network. We will continue to protect our intellectual property aggressively and combat piracy in any form,” Langham said.

UFC Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick said that he hoped that this morning’s arrest would lead to a “significant decrease” in the unlawful online distribution of UFC events.

“We take online piracy very seriously and will continue to work with law enforcement officials around the world to prevent illegal sharing of UFC content,” Hendrick said.

If the individual does indeed turn out to be the person we believe he is, a significant “brand name” will now disappear from the UFC and WWE uploads scene during the coming week. That will no doubt disorient some downloaders, but plenty more uploaders exist.

At least 10 different groups uploaded last weekend’s UFC 185 PPV event, with the majority capturing the event from non-UK sources. Viewers in the UK are able to view events relatively cheaply via the subscription channel BT Sport, but illegal captures from this source are now likely to disappear, at least in the short term.

Update: Still no confirmation from any official source, but multiple lines of investigation across multiple torrent and other communities all lead to the almost inevitable conclusion that the person arrested this morning is known online as ‘Sir Paul’.

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

For many years Australia has struggled with a reputation for being a country of file-sharing pirates. Following a period of heated debate, during the summer of 2014 two key piracy-tackling strategies boiled to the surface.

First, in some way, shape or form, copyright holders would get access, indirectly if necessary, to communicate with errant Internet users found to be downloading and sharing copyrighted material without permission.

Pressure built, with the government warning ISPs that they must come up with a voluntary solution to the problem or have one forced upon them. Last month in collaboration with rightsholders, proposals were placed on the table. It now seems almost certain that Aussie file-sharers will be subjected to a three-strikes style regime.

The second element involved the ‘pirate’ sites themselves. Australian law allows local authorities to easily close down sites in their own territory should the need arise. While that’s not unheard of – a 400,000 member torrent tracker was shut down in 2008 – Australia isn’t best known for hosting popular torrent sites. The problem, according to the government, comes from overseas.

Early December 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull asked the Cabinet to approve the development of a new legal mechanism which would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking injunctions against ISPs. And now, just three months later, it is all systems go.

This week the government will deliver new legislation to tackle the problem. Led by Brandis, the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill was today cleared for introduction into parliament. And things are moving extremely quickly.

According to ITNews, the legislation is planned to be introduced into parliament Wednesday or Thursday with a view to having it passed by the end of the week.

Despite many countries now making extensive use of the process, site blocking itself is highly controversial. In the UK, for example, rightsholders initially have to go court but are then free to add news sites to existing injunctions, even ones that don’t directly infringe any copyrights.

So what mechanism does the Aussie model envision? Somewhat disappointingly those details are being kept a secret. The text of the bill hasn’t yet been made public and even the country’s ISPs are being kept in the dark.

John Stanton, CEO of the Communications Alliance, the body that proposed the recent “three strikes” system on behalf of ISPs, said he is “disappointed” that his group hadn’t been consulted. Some consultation would have of course been preferable, since it is the ISPs who will be expected to put the site blocks into place.

Whether copyright holders have a greater insight isn’t clear, but the head of the Australian Home Entertainment Distributors Association confirmed that he hadn’t seen a copy of the draft legislation either.

In any event, introducing site blocking to Australian Internet users should be an interesting thing to behold, especially when compared to other site-block regions with different consumption pattern backgrounds.

After years of being treated as second-class content consumers who have to wait longer and pay more for their content, Aussies have become extremely adept at using VPN and proxy services to access legal services such as Netflix. Those same tools can be used to easily evade site bans and recent concerns over the introduction of a strikes mechanism has only boosted interest in them.

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