Following a series of High Court orders, six UK ISPs are currently required to block subscriber access to dozens of the world’s largest torrent sites.

The latest order was issued last month after a complaint from the major record labels. It expands the UK blocklist by 21 torrent sites, including limetorrents.com, nowtorrents.com, picktorrent.com, seedpeer.me and torlock.com.

This weekend both BT and Sky implemented the new changes, making it harder for their subscribers to reach these sites. Interestingly, however, BT appears to have gone above and beyond the court order, limiting access to various other sites as well.

Over the past several days TorrentFreak has received reports from several users of private torrent sites who get an “error blocked” message instead of their favorite sites. These include the popular IPTorrents.com and TorrentDay.com trackers, as well as scene release site Scnsrc.me.

IPTorrents and Torrentday are significant targets. Although both sites require prospective users to obtain an invite from a current member (or from the site itself in exchange for cash), they have over a hundred thousand active users.

The error displayed when BT subscribers try to access the above URLs is similar to that returned when users to try access sites covered by High Court injunctions.

However, there is no known court decision that requires BT to block these URLs. In fact, no UK ISP has ever blocked a private torrent site before.

TF contacted BT’s press contact and customer service team but we have yet to receive a response to our findings. Meanwhile, several of the affected users are discussing on Facebook and Twitter how they can bypass the blockades.

It appears that for now IPTorrents is still accessible via https and via the site’s alternative .me and .ru domains. In addition, VPNs and proxy servers are often cited among suggested workaround techniques.

Whether the private torrent sites will remain blocked and on what grounds remains a mystery for now. We will update this article if BT sends us a response. BT users who spot more unusual blocks are encouraged to get in touch.

Update: The blocked sites are part of a new High Court order that includes 32 sites in total.

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

Back in August TF published a reported on copyright-focused legal action initiated in the United States by ABS-CBN, the largest media and entertainment company in the Philippines.

The media giant filed a lawsuit at a federal court in Oregon looking for millions of dollars in damages from two local husband and wife residents. Their main target, Jeff Ashby, claimed he created several tiny websites so that his wife could enjoy entertainment from her home country. Lawyers for ABS-CBN viewed those sites rather differently.

Last month the case ended badly for the defendants. After branding Ashby a hardcore criminal and using its own news shows to paint him in a poor light, ABS-CBN hit their home run. The media giant reached a consent agreement with Ashby and the Oregon District Court ordered him to pay a mind-blowing $10 million in damages.

Here at TF we suspected that the $10m decision might be of value to ABS-CBN should they wish to begin suing other sites. After all, no one wants to get hit with a $10m bill so settlement offers below this amount might seem more attractive and become more easily arrived at. Sure enough, just weeks later ABS-CBN is back.

In an action filed in a Florida district court, ABS-CBN is now targeting 100 ‘Does’ and another 18 sites in a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit. ABS-CBN says that in the United States it makes its content available through companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV, Cox Communications, AT&T, Verizon and Charter to name just a few, but these ‘pirate’ services are undermining that commercial activity.

“Through their various websites, Defendants hold out to the public that they have ABS-CBN’s content, and re-broadcast ABS-CBN’s TV shows and movies over the Internet, in order to illegally profit from ABS-CBN’s intellectual property, without ABS-CBN’s consent,” court papers read.

“Further, Defendants control the organization and presentation of the content by themselves providing links to ABS-CBN shows and promote and advertise the content as ABS-CBN’s, including through the use of ABS-CBN’s marks; and stream the shows for users’ viewing through their websites.”

The media company also claims that the ‘pirate’ sites distribute malware, spyware and “other nefarious, malicious and harmful software….typically in the guise of software updates ‘needed’ by the viewer in order to enhance their viewing experience of Plaintiffs’ video content.”

Visits to a handful of the sites carried out by TF confirmed that some do indeed request the installation of a browser addon but when those are rejected the sites remain functional.

In order to end any infringement quickly, ABS-CBN is seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions not only against the sites, but also anyone “acting in concert or participation” with them including Internet search engines, web hosts, domain name registrars, and domain name registries.

In respect of domains, ABS-CBN wants all domains put “On Hold” by their registries and then canceled, deleted or transferred “so that they may no longer be used for illegal purposes.”

On the copyright front the action seeks the maximum statutory damages from the defendants of $150,000 per infringement plus attorneys’ fees and costs. In respect of abuse of trademarks, ABS-CBN requests $2 million for each counterfeit trademark used.

Finally, the Philippines-based company demands that all funds generated by the pirate sites should be handed over to partially satisfy any judgment handed down.

It seems unlikely that any of the sites (listed below) will go head-to-head with ABS-CBN in court so settlement agreements will have to be reached. Whether the media giant will begin publishing the details of yet more large settlements will remain to be seen, but it’s doubtful that any will have $10m just sitting around.

Sites targeted by ABS-CBN in its latest lawsuit.

1 buhaypinoyofw.net
2 freepinoytvshows.net
2 pinoylovetvshowreplay.com
3 hapeetube.biz
3 lovelytube.biz
3 pinoy-telebisyon.biz
3 pinoy-telebisyon.org
4 lambingan.tk
5 movieserye.com
6 pinaytambayan.org
7 pinoy-ako.me
8 pinoymoviegallery.net
9 pinoytambayan.me
10 pinoytelesine.com
11 pinoytopmovies.com
12 pinoytv.me
13 projectcabbage.com
14 tambayanofwtv.info
15 telebesyon.com
16 telebyuwers.ph
16 telebyuwers.tv
17 teleseryereplay.com
18 yzreplay.com

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

Following the crash and burn of the defunct SOPA legislation in the United States, Hollywood and the recording industry regrouped to formulate a new strategy.

Their new approach is more considered and cautious, but underneath there is still a burning desire to achieve the main goals of SOPA without need for new legislation. One aim is to strangle the finances of allegedly copyright-infringing sites, particularly if those funds touch American soil.

Unsurprisingly payment processors including Visa and MasterCard have become a key focal point. Directly or otherwise, file-sharing related sites worldwide use the services of these U.S.-based companies, a situation the entertainment industries (and their government allies) would love to bring to an end. Today that fight has been given new momentum.

As the former lead sponsor of the defunct controversial Protect IP Act (PIPA), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is no stranger to pro-copyright issues. Today he’s again leading the way with letters to both Visa and MasterCard on the topic of online piracy.

Leahy begins by outlining how the work of America’s artists is being undermined by largely overseas websites dedicated to copyright infringement. This type of “foreign invasion” imagery was rolled out in lobbying efforts for both PIPA and SOPA but this time around Leahy draws on a recent study to support his pitch to the processors.

“A report recently released by NetNames and the Digital Citizens Alliance analyzed the financial performance of leading cyberlockers, which (unlike lawful cloud storage services) exist to unlawfully store and disseminate infringing files around the world,” Leahy writes.

The Senator informs the processors that a vast majority of the “most pernicious cyberlockers” rely on them for their financial viability. The companies surely agree, Leahy says, that no amount of money derived from “unlawful activity” should end up on their balance sheets.

Although the site is not mentioned by name, Leahy praises the work of both MasterCard and Visa in 2006 when they suspended their services to Russian-based music download portal AllofMP3. However, eight years on more work needs to be done to “revise policies” concerning infringing websites.

“The cyberlockers listed in the NetNames report bear red flags of having no legitimate purpose or activity. I ask [Visa / MasterCard] to review the complaints against those cyberlockers and to ensure that payment processing services offered by [both companies] to those sites, or any others dedicated to infringing activity, cease,” Leahy adds.

While there are indeed some dubious sites in the NetNames report, Leahy’s words are bound to further infuriate New Zealand-based file-hosting site Mega.co.nz. Although the status of the complaint is unclear, Mega has already threatened legal action against NetNames after the company included the file-hoster in its report.

Finally, it’s interesting to note that letters like the ones sent by Leahy to MasterCard and Visa usually start out amicably but end in implied threats to intervene should no progress be made. However, Leahy carefully tows the current entertainment industry line of cooperation over confrontation.

Urging the payment processors to work with copyright owners, Leahy says partnerships should develop methods and practices for the “efficient investigation” of sites alleged to be involved in infringement.

“Voluntary agreements, developed and refined over time between the relevant stakeholders, hold great promise for addressing the problem of infringement online,” Leahy concludes.

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

Earlier this year the movie The Expendables 3 leaked in extremely high-quality several weeks before its theatrical debut, causing a huge Hollywood controversy.

A fully finished so-called DVD Screener copy of the action movie featuring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham and Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on July 25 and had already been downloaded millions of times before its official release August 15.

In the U.S., movie distributor LionsGate has been working hard on the legal front, chasing down alleged downloaders and even suing file-sharing sites and domain registrars. News in just a few moments ago reveals that the hunt has traveled across the Atlantic.

According to the Intellectual Property Crime Unit of City of London Police (PIPCU), two people were taken into custody this morning under suspicion of leaking The Expendables 3 online.

Detectives from PIPCU traveled to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, where they arrested a 33-year-old man. PIPCU detectives also arrested a 36-year-old man at his home in Upton, Wirral.

PIPCU informs TorrentFreak that the men are believed to have “stolen the film from a cloud based system” before uploading it to the Internet. The statement raises important questions though. Were the men involved in obtaining the original leaked copy and, crucially, were they the first to leak it online?

“The two suspects are believed to be involved in the leaking of the movie and are currently being questioned by PIPCU detectives,” is all PIPCU would tell TF, adding that the pair are being held at local police stations.

Earlier this year Lionsgate collaborated with the owner of file-hosting site Swankshare in an effort to identify who leaked the movie. That site subsequently shut down but it’s possible that logs were handed over in the meantime. Whether this is the “cloud based system” referred to by PIPCU remains a mystery for now.

“Today’s operation shows you the significant impact intellectual property crime has on our creative industries, with millions of pounds being lost as a result of criminal actions,” Head of PIPCU, Detective Chief Inspector Danny Medlycott said in a statement.

“The public need to be aware that piracy is not a victimless crime. By downloading illegal music, film, TV and books, not only are you exposing your own computer to the risk of viruses and malware, but you are also putting hardworking people’s livelihoods at risk as piracy threatens the security of thousands of jobs in the UK’s creative industries.”

It’s of some interest that the first suspects to be arrested in this super high-profile case are based in the UK. There have been no reports of arrests in the United States where the movie was made and being prepared for distribution.

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

Despite the criminal prosecution of The Pirate Bay four, the notorious torrent site remains available to the public at large.

TPB is setup to make it especially difficult for law enforcement to take it down, so copyright holders have to turn to third parties to address the threat.

One of the main strategies is to ask Google and other search engines to remove infringing Pirate Bay URLs from their search results.

Google in particular is heavily targeted and this week the number of thepiratebay.se URLs submitted to Google reached the three million mark. Nearly all of these links have indeed been removed and can no longer be accessed through search results.

The chart below shows the number of links that have been submitted per week. There is a sharp decline towards the end of 2013 when The Pirate Bay used another domain name. The requests increased again in December when the torrent site switched back.

3 Million Pirate Bay URLs reported

While most of the reported links do indeed point to copyrighted material, some none-infringing pages have been removed as well.

Paramount Pictures, for example, asked to remove this blog post where a comment mentions “the beast of hercules,” not the Hercules movie. Similarly, TPB’s Doodles page is gone because an adult entertainment company confused it with Kelly Madison’s “Yankee Doodle Dame”

In total, the three million URLs were submitted in 135,486 separate takedown notices, averaging more than 22 links per takedown request. A staggering number, but one that pales in comparison to other sites.

Looking at the list of domains for which Google received the most URLs removal requests, The Pirate Bay is currently listed in 23rd place. The top spot goes to rapidgator.net with close to 13 million URLs, followed by 4shared.com, filestube.com, dilandau.eu and zippyshare.com. Torrentz.eu, the first torrent site in the list, comes in 8th with 5.4 million URLs.

For The Pirate Bay the reduced availability in Google is not much of a problem. Previously the Pirate Bay team informed TorrentFreak that they stopped relying on search engines as a traffic source a long time ago.

And indeed, despite the censored pages The Pirate Bay’s traffic has continued to grow. Even today the site remains among the 100 most visited websites on the Internet.

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