The Kodi team, operating under the XBMC Foundation, is taking a stand against 'trademark trolls' who abuse the Kodi name for personal profit. They accuse the Canadian trademark owner of actively blackmailing hardware vendors and removing content from Amazon. If needed, the foundation says that it may have to take legal action to keep its software freely accessible. More and more people are starting to use Kodi-powered set-top boxes to stream video content to their TVs. While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, unauthorized add-ons give it a bad name. This is one of the reasons why the Kodi team is actively going after vendors who sell “fully loaded” pirate boxes and YouTubers who misuse their name to promote copyright infringement. However, these “pirates” are not the only intellectual property problem the team is facing; trademark trolls are a serious threat as well. When XBMC changed its name to Kodi, they noticed that several parties swiftly registered the Kodi trademark around the world, presumably to make money off it. This came as a total surprise to the foundation, which never faced any trademark issues before, and it continues to cause problems today. The Kodi team has since convinced some of these “trolls” to hand over the trademarks, but not all are willing to give in. This is causing problems, particularly in Canada, where the local trademark owner is actively blackmailing hardware vendors and removing content from Amazon, the Kodi team says. The Canadian trademark is owned by Geoff Gavora, who is no stranger to the XBMC Foundation. Before the trouble started, Gavora had already sent several emails to the Kodi team, expressing how important the software was to his sales. After the trademark registration, however, the friendly tone changed. “We had hoped, given the positive nature of his past emails, that perhaps he was doing this for the benefit of the Foundation. We learned, unfortunately, that this was not the case,” XBMC Foundation President Nathan Betzen notes. “Instead, companies like Mygica and our sponsor Minix have been delisted by Gavora on Amazon, so that only Gavora’s hardware can be sold, unless those companies pay him a fee to stay on the store,” he adds. Gavora is actively using his trademark to stop the sales of other Kodi based devices in Canada, the XBMC Foundation warns. This means that people who buy a Kodi product in the local Amazon store may end up filling the pocket of the local trademark owner. “Now, if you do a search for Kodi on Amazon.ca, there’s a very real chance that every box you see is giving Gavora money to advertise that they can run what should be the entirely free and open Kodi. Gavora and his company are behaving in true trademark troll fashion,” Betzen writes. There are several reasons why the Kodi team is making this problem public now. For one, they want the public to be aware of the situation. At some point, trademark trolls may even try to stop Kodi from distributing the software through their own site, they warn. However, the foundation is not going to let this happen without a fight. They are ready to deal with the problem head on. Trademark trolls should not be allowed to exploit the Kodi name for financial profit. “We want to let the trolls know that we have caught on to this game and will not accept it. We are actively taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Kodi trademark trolls are dealt with appropriately. There is no value proposition in trolling the Kodi name,’ Betzen writes. If this means that the foundation has to go to court, they are prepared to do so, hoping that the community will have their back. “While our goal has always been to avoid going to the court to ensure Kodi remains free in countries where trolls are attempting to get rich off of the Kodi name, we will not back down from protecting the free, open source nature of our software. “If that time comes for legal action, we hope to have the community’s support,” Betzen concludes. https://torrentfreak.com/kodi-declares-war-on-trademark-trolls-170908/

While millions of people were sending in comments urging the FCC to stop a looming repeal of current net neutrality rules, the MPAA focused on something else. In a recently submitted letter, the Hollywood group doesn't argue for or against the proposals. It merely wants to ensure that future net neutrality regulation doesn't hinder anti-piracy efforts. This summer, millions of people protested the FCC’s plan to repeal the net neutrality rules that were put in place by the former Obama administration. Well over 22 million comments are listed on the FCC site already and among those we spotted a response from the main movie industry lobby group, the MPAA. Acting on behalf of six major Hollywood studios, the MPAA is not getting involved in the repeal debate. It instead highlights that, if the FCC maintains any type of network neutrality rules, these shouldn’t get in the way of its anti-piracy efforts. The Hollywood group stresses that despite an increase in legal services, online piracy remains a problem. Through various anti-piracy measures, rightsholders are working hard to combat this threat, which is their right by law. “Copyright owners and content providers have a right under the Copyright and Communications acts to combat theft of their content, and the law encourages internet intermediaries to collaborate with content creators to do so,” the MPAA writes. Now that the net neutrality rules are facing a possible revision or repeal, the MPAA wants to make it very clear that any future regulation should not get in the way of these anti-piracy efforts. “The MPAA therefore asks that any network neutrality rules the FCC maintains or adopts make explicit that such rules do not limit the ability of copyright owners and their licensees to combat copyright infringement,” the group writes to the FCC. This means that measures such as website blocking, which could be considered to violate net neutrality as it discriminates against specific traffic, should be allowed. The same is true for other filtering and blocking efforts. The MPAA’s position doesn’t come as a surprise and given the FCC’s actions in the past, Hollywood has little to worry about. The current net neutrality rules, which were put in place by the Obama administration, specifically exclude pirate traffic. “Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity,” the current net neutrality order reads. “We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement,” the FCC previously clarified. Still, the MPAA is better safe than sorry. This is not the first time that the MPAA has got involved in net neutrality debates. Behind the scenes the group has been lobbying US lawmakers on this issue for several years, previously arguing for similar net neutrality exceptions in Brazil and India. — The MPAA’s full comments can be found here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-net-neutrality-rules-should-not-hinder-anti-piracy-efforts-170907/

After filing a lawsuit against Giganews for alleged piracy, Perfect 10 has been continually defeated by the Usenet provider. Now, with a final throw of the dice, the company has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, bemoaning the efforts of the courts, Justice Department and Congress, while claiming that Giganews offered 200 times more infringing movies than the infamous Megaupload. Adult publisher Perfect 10 has developed a reputation for being a serial copyright litigant. Over the years the company targeted a number of high-profile defendants, including Google, Amazon, Mastercard, and Visa. Around two dozen of Perfect 10’s lawsuits ended in cash settlements and defaults, in the publisher’s favor. Perhaps buoyed by this success, the company went after Usenet provider Giganews but instead of a company willing to roll over, Perfect 10 found a highly defensive and indeed aggressive opponent. The initial copyright case filed by Perfect 10 alleged that Giganews effectively sold access to Perfect 10 content but things went badly for the publisher. In November 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that Giganews was not liable for the infringing activities of its users. Perfect 10 was ordered to pay Giganews $5.6m in attorney’s fees and costs. Perfect 10 lost again at the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As a result of these failed actions, Giganews is owned millions by Perfect 10 but the publisher has thus far refused to pay up. That resulted in Giganews filing a $20m lawsuit, accusing Perfect 10 and President Dr. Norman Zada of fraud. With all this litigation boiling around in the background and Perfect 10 already bankrupt as a result, one might think the story would be near to a conclusion. That doesn’t seem to be the case. In a fresh announcement, Perfect 10 says it has now appealed its case to the US Supreme Court. “This is an extraordinarily important case, because for the first time, an appellate court has allowed defendants to copy and sell movies, songs, images, and other copyrighted works, without permission or payment to copyright holders,” says Zada. “In this particular case, evidence was presented that defendants were copying and selling access to approximately 25,000 terabytes of unlicensed movies, songs, images, software, and magazines.” Referencing an Amicus brief previously filed by the RIAA which described Giganews as “blatant copyright pirates,” Perfect 10 accuses the Ninth Circuit of allowing Giganews to copy and sell trillions of dollars of other people’s intellectual property “because their copying and selling was done in an automated fashion using a computer.” Noting that “everything is done via computer” these days and with an undertone that the ruling encouraged others to infringe, Perfect 10 says there are now 88 companies similar to Giganews which rely on the automation defense to commit infringement – even involving content owned by people in the US Government. “These exploiters of other people’s property are fearless. They are copying and selling access to pirated versions of pretty much every movie ever made, including films co-produced by treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin,” Nada says. “You would think the justice department would do something to protect the viability of this nation’s movie and recording studios, as unfettered piracy harms jobs and tax revenues, but they have done nothing.” But Zada doesn’t stop at blaming Usenet services, the California District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Department of Justice for his problems – Congress is to blame too. “Copyright holders have nowhere to turn other than the Federal courts, whose judges are ridiculously overworked. For years, Congress has failed to provide the Federal courts with adequate funding. As a result, judges can make mistakes,” he adds. For Zada, those mistakes are particularly notable, particularly since at least one other super high-profile company was shut down in the most aggressive manner possible for allegedly being involved in less piracy than Giganews. Pointing to the now-infamous Megaupload case, Perfect 10 notes that the Department of Justice completely shut that operation down, filing charges of criminal copyright infringement against Kim Dotcom and seizing $175 million “for selling access to movies and songs which they did not own.” “Perfect 10 provided evidence that [Giganews] offered more than 200 times as many full length movies as did megaupload.com. But our evidence fell on deaf ears,” Zada complains. In contrast, Perfect 10 adds, a California District Court found that Giganews had done nothing wrong, allowed it to continue copying and selling access to Perfect 10’s content, and awarded the Usenet provider $5.63m in attorneys fees. “Prior to this case, no court had ever awarded fees to an alleged infringer, unless they were found to either own the copyrights at issue, or established a fair use defense. Neither was the case here,” Zada adds. While Perfect 10 has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, the odds of being granted a review are particularly small. Only time will tell how this case will end, but it seems unlikely that the adult publisher will enjoy a happy ending, one in which it doesn’t have to pay Giganews millions of dollars in attorney’s fees. https://torrentfreak.com/perfect-10-takes-giganews-supreme-court-says-worse-megaupload-170906/

Several EU member states are questioning whether plans to modernize copyright law in Europe are fully compatible with EU law. One of the main problems is the mandatory piracy filters Internet services could be required to use, which could violate existing case law and human rights. Last year, the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal to modernize EU copyright law. Among other things, it will require online services to do more to fight piracy. Specifically, Article 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive requires online services to monitor and filter pirated content, in collaboration with rightsholders. This means that online services, which deal with large volumes of user-uploaded content, must use fingerprinting or other detection mechanisms to block copyright infringing files, similar to YouTube’s Content-ID system. The Commission stressed that the changes are needed to support copyright holders. However, many legal scholars, digital activists, and members of the public worry that they will violate the rights of regular Internet users. They believe that mandatory filters ignore established case law and human rights. This critique is now, in part, backed up by questions from several EU member states. Authorities in Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and the Netherlands have recently sent a series of questions to the Council Legal Service, requesting clarification on several issues. The document (pdf), published by Statewatch, asks whether a mandatory piracy filter is proportionate and compatible with existing law. “Would the standalone measure/ obligation as currently proposed under Article 13 be compatible with the Charter of Human Rights […] in the light of the jurisprudence of the CJEU that aims to secure a fair balance in the application of competing fundamental rights? “Are the proposed measures justified and proportionate?” the member states add. Specifically, the member states suggest that the filters may hinder people’s right to freedom of expression and information, the right to protection of personal data, and freedom to conduct a business. One of the problems is that such filters work by monitoring the communications of all citizens uploading to platforms, which would go against existing EU law. In the Sabam v Netlog case, the European Court of Justice ruled that hosting sites can’t be forced to filter copyrighted content, as this would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information. The letter, which was sent on July 25, also stresses that important copyright exceptions, such as parody and the right to quote, are not taken into account. “The [Commission’s] proposal does not provide for appropriate measures that would enable these users to actually benefit from public interest copyright exceptions. It is important to point out that certain exceptions to copyright, such as e.g. parody or the quotation right are the embodiment in copyright of fundamental rights other than the right to property.” This is not the first time that member states have responded critically to the proposal. Tweakers notes that the Dutch Government previously stressed that there should be a better balance between the rights of consumers and copyright holders. The recent letter from the six member states backs up many of the questions that have been asked by activists, scholars and members of the public, including the “Save the Meme” campaign. These critics hope that the proposal will be changed substantially, ideally without mandatory piracy filters, when it’s voted on in the EU Parliament. https://torrentfreak.com/mandatory-piracy-filters-could-breach-human-rights-eu-members-170906/

Datavalet, a public wi-fi provider that offers its service to several major companies and organizations, is actively blocking TorrentFreak. According to the company, the blockade is triggered by "criminal skills" and "hacking," which sounds rather ominous. At TorrentFreak we regularly write about website blocking efforts around the globe, usually related to well-known pirate sites. Unfortunately, our own news site is not immune to access restrictions either. While no court has ordered ISPs to block access to our articles, some are doing this voluntarily. This is especially true for companies that provide Wi-Fi hotspots, such as Datavalet. This wireless network provider works with various large organizations, including McDonald’s, Starbucks, and airports, to offer customers free Internet access. Or rather to a part of the public Internet, we should say. Over the past several months, we have had several reports from people who are unable to access TorrentFreak on Datavalet’s network. Users who load our website get an ominous warning instead, suggesting that we run some kind of a criminal hacking operation. “Access to TORRENTFREAK.COM is not permitted as it is classified as: CRIMINAL SKILLS / HACKING.” Criminal Skills? Although we see ourselves as skilled writing news in our small niche, which incidentally covers crime and hacking, our own hacking skills are below par. Admittedly, mistakes are easily made but Datavalet’s blocking efforts are rather persistent. The same issue was brought to our attention several years ago. At the time, we reached out to Datavalet and a friendly senior network analyst promised that they would look into it. “We have forwarded your concerns to the proper resources and as soon as we have an update we will let you know,” the response was. But a few years later the block is still active, or active again. Datavalet is just one one the many networks where TorrentFreak is blocked. Often, we are categorized as a file-sharing site, probably due to the word “torrent” in our name. This recently happened at the NYC Brooklyn library, for example. After a reader kindly informed the library that we’re a news site, we were suddenly transferred from the “Peer-to-Peer File Sharing” to the “Proxy Avoidance” category. “It appears that the website you want to access falls under the category ‘Proxy Avoidance’. These are sites that provide information about how to bypass proxy server features or to gain access to URLs in any way that bypass the proxy server,” the library explained. Still blocked of course. At least we’re not the only site facing this censorship battle. Datavelet and others regularly engage in overblocking to keep their network and customers safe. For example, Reddit was recently banned because it offered “nudity,” which is another no-go area. Living up to our “proxy avoidance” reputation, we have to mention that people who regularly face these type of restrictions may want to invest in a VPN. These are generally quite good at bypassing these type of blockades. If they are not blocked themselves, that is. https://torrentfreak.com/datavalet-wi-fi-blocks-torrentfreak-over-criminal-hacking-skills-170903/

With many pirate sites developing reputations for instability recently, there's an increasing need among users for more information about problems and downtime. However, the trend is the opposite, with users left guessing about site outages while communication channels stay silent. But really - are pirates in any position to demand high-quality customer service? Consumers of products and services in the West are now more educated than ever before. They often research before making a purchase and view follow-up assistance as part of the package. Indeed, many companies live and die on the levels of customer support they’re able to offer. In this ultra-competitive world, we send faulty technology items straight back to the store, cancel our unreliable phone providers, and switch to new suppliers for the sake of a few dollars, pounds or euros per month. But does this demanding environment translate to the ‘pirate’ world? It’s important to remember that when the first waves of unauthorized platforms appeared after the turn of the century, content on the Internet was firmly established as being ‘free’. When people first fired up KaZaA, LimeWire, or the few fledgling BitTorrent portals, few could believe their luck. Nevertheless, the fact that there was no charge for content was quickly accepted as the standard. That’s a position that continues today but for reasons that are not entirely clear, some users of pirate sites treat the availability of such platforms as some kind of right, holding them to the same standards of service that they would their ISP, for example. One only has to trawl the comments section on The Pirate Bay to see hundreds of examples of people criticizing the quality of uploaded movies, the fact that a software crack doesn’t work, or that some anonymous uploader failed to deliver the latest album quickly enough. That’s aside from the continual complaints screamed on various external platforms which bemoan the site’s downtime record. For people who recall the sheer joy of finding a working Suprnova mirror for a few minutes almost 15 years ago, this attitude is somewhat baffling. Back then, people didn’t go ballistic when a site went down, they savored the moment when enthusiastic volunteers brought it back up. There was a level of gratefulness that appears somewhat absent today, in a new world where free torrent and streaming sites are suddenly held to the same standards as Comcast or McDonalds. But while a cultural change among users has definitely taken place over the years, the way sites communicate with their users has taken a hit too. Despite the advent of platforms including Twitter and Facebook, the majority of pirate site operators today have a tendency to leave their users completely in the dark when things go wrong, leading to speculation and concern among grateful and entitled users alike. So why does The Pirate Bay’s blog stay completely unattended these days? Why do countless sites let dust gather on Twitter accounts that last made an announcement in 2012? And why don’t site operators announce scheduled downtime in advance or let people know what’s going on when the unexpected happens? “Honestly? I don’t have the time anymore. I also care less than I did,” one site operator told TF. “11 years of doing this shit is enough to grind anybody down. It’s something I need to do but not doing it makes no difference either. People complain in any case. Then if you start [informing people] again they’ll want it always. Not happening.” Rather less complimentary was the operator of a large public site. He told us that two decades ago relationships between operators and users were good but have been getting worse ever since. “Users of pirate content 20 years ago were highly technical. 10 years ago they were somewhat technical. Right now they are fucking watermelon head puppets. They are plain stupid,” he said. “Pirate sites don’t have customers. They have users. The definition of a customer, when related to the web, is a person that actually buys a service. Since pirates sites don’t sell services (I’m talking about public ones) they have no customers.” Another site operator told us that his motivations for not interacting with users are based on the changing legal environment, which has become steadily and markedly worse, year upon year. “I’m not enjoying being open like before. I used to chat keenly with the users, on the site and IRC [Internet Relay Chat] but i’m keeping my distance since a long time ago,” he told us. “There have always been risks but now I lock everything down. I’m not using Facebook in any way personally or for the site and I don’t need the dramas of Twitter. Everytime you engage on there, problems arise with people wanting a piece of you. Some of the staff use it but I advise the contrary where possible.” Interested in where the boundaries lie, we asked a couple of sites whether they should be doing more to keep users informed and if that should be considered a ‘customer service’ obligation these days. “This is not Netflix and i’m not the ‘have a nice day’ guy from McDonalds,” one explained. “If people want Netflix help then go to Netflix. There’s two of us here doing everything and I mean everything. We’re already in a pinch so spending time to answer every retarded question from kids is right out.” Our large public site operator agreed, noting that users complain about the most crazy things, including why they don’t have enough space on a drive to download, why a movie that’s out in 2020 hasn’t been uploaded yet, and why can’t they login – when they haven’t even opened an account yet. While the responses aren’t really a surprise given the ‘free’ nature of the sites and the volume of visitors, things don’t get any better when moving up (we use the term loosely) to paid ‘pirate’ services. Last week, one streaming platform in particular had an absolute nightmare with what appeared to be technical issues. Nevertheless, some of its users, despite only paying a few pounds per month, demanded their pound of flesh from the struggling service. One, who raised the topic on Reddit, was advised to ask for his money back for the trouble caused. It raised a couple of eyebrows. “Put in a ticket and ask [for a refund], morally they should,” the user said. The use of the word “morally” didn’t sit well with some observers, one of which couldn’t understand how the word could possibly be mentioned in the context of a pirate paying another pirate money, for a pirate service that had broken down. “Wait let me get this straight,” the critic said. “You want a refund for a gray market service. It’s like buying drugs off the corner only to find out it’s parsley. Do you go back to the dealer and demand a refund? You live and you learn bud. [Shaking my head] at people in here talking about it being morally responsible…too funny.” It’s not clear when pirate sites started being held to the same standards as regular commercial entities but from anecdotal evidence at least, the problem appears to be getting worse. That being said and from what we’ve heard, users can stop holding their breath waiting for deluxe customer service – it’s not coming anytime soon. “There’s no way to monetize support,” one admin concludes.

Last week the documentary "Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web" was released to the public. While sales are going well, it was inevitable that the film would be widely shared among pirates too. Today we catch up with director Annie Goldson to hear her thoughts on piracy and how the movie industry should respond. When you make a documentary about Kim Dotcom, someone who’s caught up in one of the largest criminal copyright infringement cases in history, the piracy issue is unavoidable. And indeed, the topic is discussed in depth in “Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web,” which enjoyed its digital release early last week. As happens with most digital releases, a pirated copy soon followed. While no filmmaker would actively encourage people not to pay for their work, director Annie Goldson wasn’t surprised at all when she saw the first unauthorized copies appear online. The documentary highlights that piracy is in part triggered by lacking availability, so it was a little ironic that the film itself wasn’t released worldwide on all services. However, Goldson had no direct influence on the distribution process. “It was inevitable really. We have tried to adopt a distribution model that we hope will encourage viewers to buy legal copies making it available as widely as possible,” Goldson informs TorrentFreak. “We had sold the rights, so didn’t have complete control over reach or pricing which I think are two critical variables that do impact on the degree of piracy. Although I think our sales agent did make good strides towards a worldwide release.” Now that millions of pirates have access to her work for free, it will be interesting to see how this impacts sales. For now, however, there’s still plenty of legitimate interest, with the film now appearing in the iTunes top ten of independent films. In any case, Goldson doesn’t subscribe to the ‘one instance of piracy is a lost sale’ theory and notes that views about piracy are sharply polarized. “Some claim financial devastation while others argue that infringement leads to ‘buzz,’ that this can generate further sales – so we shall see. At one level, watching this unfold is quite an interesting research exercise into distribution, which ironically is one of the big themes of the film of course,” Goldson notes. Piracy overall doesn’t help the industry forward though, she says, as it hurts the development of better distribution models. “I’m opposed to copyright infringement and piracy as it muddies the waters when it comes to devising a better model for distribution, one that would nurture and support artists and creatives, those that do the hard yards.” Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web trailer The director has no issues with copyright enforcement either. Not just to safeguard financial incentives, but also because the author does have moral and ethical rights about how their works are distributed. That said, instead of pouring money into enforcement, it might be better spent on finding a better business model. “I’m with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales who says [in the documentary] that the problem is primarily with the existing business model. If you make films genuinely available at prices people can afford, at the same time throughout the world, piracy would drop to low levels. “I think most people would prefer to access their choice of entertainment legally rather than delving into dark corners of the Internet. I might be wrong of course,” Goldson adds. In any case, ‘simply’ enforcing piracy into oblivion seems to be an unworkable prospect – not without massive censorship, or the shutdown of the entire Internet. “I feel the risk is that anti-piracy efforts will step up and erode important freedoms. Or we have to close down the Internet altogether. After all, the unwieldy beast is a giant copying machine – making copies is what it does well,” Goldson says. The problems is that the industry is keeping piracy intact through its own business model. When people can’t get what they want, when, and where they want it, they often turn to pirate sites. “One problem is that the industry has been slow to change and hence we now have generations of viewers who have had to regularly infringe to be part of a global conversation. “I do feel if the industry is promoting and advertising works internationally, using globalized communication and social media, then denying viewers from easily accessing works, either through geo-blocking or price points, obviously, digitally-savvy viewers will find them regardless,” Goldson adds. And yes, this ironically also applies to her own documentary. The solution is to continue to improve the legal options. This is easier said than done, as Goldson and her team tried hard, so it won’t happen overnight. However, universal access for a decent price would seem to be the future. Unless the movie industry prefers to shut down the Internet entirely, of course. — For those who haven’t seen “Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web yet,” the film is available globally on Vimeo OnDemand, and in a lot of territories on iTunes, the PlayStation Store, Amazon, Google Play, and the Microsoft/Xbox Store. In the US there is also Vudu, Fandango Now & Verizon. If that doesn’t work, then… https://torrentfreak.com/director-of-kim-dotcom-documentary-speaks-out-on-piracy-170902/

The Premier League is engaged in pioneering action to cut down on the availability of pirated matches in the UK. This will inevitably drive up the complexity of obtaining high-quality pirate streams for free and increase costs for premium feeds. Today, TF takes a look at several common 'pirate' setups to see how much people are currently handing over to get 'free' streams. Right now, the English Premier League is engaged in perhaps the most aggressively innovative anti-piracy operation the Internet has ever seen. After obtaining a new High Court order, it now has the ability to block ‘pirate’ streams of matches, in real-time, with no immediate legal oversight. If the Premier League believes a server is streaming one of its matches, it can ask ISPs in the UK to block it, immediately. That’s unprecedented anywhere on the planet. As previously reported, this campaign caused a lot of problems for people trying to access free and premium streams at the start of the season. Many IPTV services were blocked in the UK within minutes of matches starting, with free streams also dropping like flies. According to information obtained by TF, more than 600 illicit streams were blocked during that weekend. While some IPTV providers and free streams continued without problems, it seems likely that it’s only a matter of time before the EPL begins to pick off more and more suppliers. To be clear, the EPL isn’t taking services or streams down, it’s only blocking them, which means that people using circumvention technologies like VPNs can get around the problem. However, this raises the big issue again – that of continuously increasing costs. While piracy is often painted as free, it is not, and as setups get fancier, costs increase too. Below, we take a very general view of a handful of the many ‘pirate’ configurations currently available, to work out how much ‘free’ piracy costs these days. The list is not comprehensive by any means (and excludes more obscure methods such as streaming torrents, which are always free and rarely blocked), but it gives an idea of costs and how the balance of power might eventually tip. Basic beginner setup On a base level, people who pirate online need at least some equipment. That could be an Android smartphone and easily installed free software such as Mobdro or Kodi. An Internet connection is a necessity and if the EPL blocks those all important streams, a VPN provider is required to circumvent the bans. Assuming people already have a phone and the Internet, a VPN can be bought for less than £5 per month. This basic setup is certainly cheap but overall it’s an entry level experience that provides quality equal to the effort and money expended. Equipment: Phone, tablet, PC Comms: Fast Internet connection, decent VPN provider Overal performance: Low quality, unpredictable, often unreliable Cost: £5pm approx for VPN, plus Internet costs Big screen, basic For those who like their matches on the big screen, stepping up the chain costs more money. People need a TV with an HDMI input and a fast Internet connection as a minimum, alongside some kind of set-top device to run the necessary software. Android devices are the most popular and are roughly split into two groups – the small standalone box type and the plug-in ‘stick’ variant such as Amazon’s Firestick. A cheap Android set-top box These cost upwards of £30 to £40 but the software to install on them is free. Like the phone, Mobdro is an option, but most people look to a Kodi setup with third-party addons. That said, all streams received on these setups are now vulnerable to EPL blocking so in the long-term, users will need to run a paid VPN. The problem here is that some devices (including the 1st gen Firestick) aren’t ideal for running a VPN on top of a stream, so people will need to dump their old device and buy something more capable. That could cost another £30 to £40 and more, depending on requirements. Importantly, none of this investment guarantees a decent stream – that’s down to what’s available on the day – but invariably the quality is low and/or intermittent, at best. Equipment: TV, decent Android set-top box or equivalent Comms: Fast Internet connection, decent VPN provider Overall performance: Low to acceptable quality, unpredictable, often unreliable Cost: £30 to £50 for set-top box, £5pm approx for VPN, plus Internet Premium IPTV – PC or Android based At this point, premium IPTV services come into play. People have a choice of spending varying amounts of money, depending on the quality of experience they require. First of all, a monthly IPTV subscription with an established provider that isn’t going to disappear overnight is required, which can be a challenge to find in itself. We’re not here to review or recommend services but needless to say, like official TV packages they come in different flavors to suit varying wallet sizes. Some stick around, many don’t. A decent one with a Sky-like EPG costs between £7 and £15 per month, depending on the quality and depth of streams, and how far in front users are prepared to commit. Fairly typical IPTV with EPG (VOD shown) Paying for a year in advance tends to yield better prices but with providers regularly disappearing and faltering in their service levels, people are often reluctant to do so. That said, some providers experience few problems so it’s a bit like gambling – research can improve the odds but there’s never a guarantee. However, even when a provider, price, and payment period is decided upon, the process of paying for an IPTV service can be less than straightforward. While some providers are happy to accept PayPal, many will only deal in credit cards, bitcoin, or other obscure payment methods. That sets up more barriers to entry that might deter the less determined customer. And, if time is indeed money, fussing around with new payment processors can be pricey, at least to begin with. Once subscribed though, watching these streams is pretty straightforward. On a base level, people can use a phone, tablet, or set-top device to receive them, using software such as Perfect Player IPTV, for example. Currently available in free (ad supported) and premium (£2) variants, this software can be setup in a few clicks and will provide a decent user experience, complete with EPG. Perfect Player IPTV Those wanting to go down the PC route have more options but by far the most popular is receiving IPTV via a Kodi setup. For the complete novice, it’s not always easy to setup but some IPTV providers supply their own free addons, which streamline the process massively. These can also be used on Android-based Kodi setups, of course. Nevertheless, if the EPL blocks the provider, a VPN is still going to be needed to access the IPTV service. An Android tablet running Kodi So, even if we ignore the cost of the PC and Internet connection, users could still find themselves paying between £10 and £20 per month for an IPTV service and a decent VPN. While more channels than simply football will be available from most providers, this is getting dangerously close to the £18 Sky are asking for its latest football package. Equipment: TV, PC, or decent Android set-top box or equivalent Comms: Fast Internet connection, IPTV subscription, decent VPN provider Overal performance: High quality, mostly reliable, user-friendly (once setup) Cost: PC or £30/£50 for set-top box, IPTV subscription £7 to £15pm, £5pm approx for VPN, plus Internet, plus time and patience for obscure payment methods. Note: There are zero refunds when IPTV providers disappoint or disappear Premium IPTV – Deluxe setup Moving up to the top of the range, things get even more costly. Those looking to give themselves the full home entertainment-like experience will often move away from the PC and into the living room in front of the TV, armed with a dedicated set-top box. Weapon of choice: the Mag254. Like Amazon’s FireStick, PC or Android tablet, the Mag254 is an entirely legal, content agnostic device. However, enter the credentials provided by many illicit IPTV suppliers and users are presented with a slick Sky-like experience, far removed from anything available elsewhere. The device is operated by remote control and integrates seamlessly with any HDMI-capable TV. Mag254 IPTV box Something like this costs around £70 in the UK, plus the cost of a WiFi adaptor on top, if needed. The cost of the IPTV provider needs to be figured in too, plus a VPN subscription if the provider gets blocked by EPL, which is likely. However, in this respect the Mag254 has a problem – it can’t run a VPN natively. This means that if streams get blocked and people need to use a VPN, they’ll need to find an external solution. Needless to say, this costs more money. People can either do all the necessary research and buy a VPN-capable router/modem that’s also compatible with their provider (this can stretch to a couple of hundred pounds) or they’ll need to invest in a small ‘travel’ router with VPN client features built in. ‘Travel’ router (with tablet running Mobdro for scale) These devices are available on Amazon for around £25 and sit in between the Mag254 (or indeed any other wireless device) and the user’s own regular router. Once the details of the VPN subscription are entered into the router, all traffic passing through is encrypted and will tunnel through web blocking measures. They usually solve the problem (ymmv) but of course, this is another cost. Equipment: Mag254 or similar, with WiFi Comms: Fast Internet connection, IPTV subscription, decent VPN provider Overall performance: High quality, mostly reliable, very user-friendly Cost: Mag254 around £75 with WiFi, IPTV subscription £7 to £15pm, £5pm for VPN (plus £25 for mini router), plus Internet, plus patience for obscure payment methods. Note: There are zero refunds when IPTV providers disappoint or disappear Conclusion On the whole, people who want a reliable and high-quality Premier League streaming experience cannot get one for free, no matter where they source the content. There are many costs involved, some of which cannot be avoided. If people aren’t screwing around with annoying and unreliable Kodi streams, they’ll be paying for an IPTV provider, VPN and other equipment. Or, if they want an easy life, they’ll be paying Sky, BT or Virgin Media. That might sound harsh to many pirates but it’s the only truly reliable solution. However, for those looking for something that’s merely adequate, costs drop significantly. Indeed, if people don’t mind the hassle of wondering whether a sub-VHS quality stream will appear before the big match and stay on throughout, it can all be done on a shoestring. But perhaps the most important thing to note in respect of costs is the recent changes to the pricing of Premier League content in the UK. As mentioned earlier, Sky now delivers a sports package for £18pm, which sounds like the best deal offered to football fans in recent years. It will be tempting for sure and has all the hallmarks of a price point carefully calculated by Sky. The big question is whether it will be low enough to tip significant numbers of people away from piracy. The reality is that if another couple of thousand streams get hit hard again this weekend – and the next – and the next – many pirating fans will be watching the season drift away for yet another month, unviewed. That’s got to be frustrating. The bottom line is that high-quality streaming piracy is becoming a little bit pricey just for football so if it becomes unreliable too – and that’s the Premier League’s goal – the balance of power could tip. At this point, the EPL will need to treat its new customers with respect, in order to keep them feeling both entertained and unexploited. Fail on those counts – especially the latter – and the cycle will start again. https://torrentfreak.com/how-much-does-free-premier-league-piracy-cost-these-days-170902/

Leading Russian search engines have met with local telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor to work out how the services will stop pirate sites, mirrors, VPNs, and other anonymization tools from appearing in search results. Search engines will now receive lists of banned resources automatically and will mesh their IT systems with the government's so the latter can ascertain compliance. Over the past several years, Russia has become something of a world leader when it comes to website blocking. Tens of thousands of websites are now blocked in the country on copyright infringement and a wide range of other grounds. With circumvention technologies such as VPNs, however, Russian citizens are able to access blocked sites, a position that has irritated Russian authorities who are determined to control what information citizens are allowed to access. After working on new legislation for some time, late July President Vladimir Putin signed a new law which requires local telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor to maintain a list of banned domains while identifying sites, services, and software that provide access to them. Rozcomnadzor is required to contact the operators of such services with a request for them to block banned resources. If they do not, then they themselves will become blocked. In addition, search engines are also required to remove blocked resources from their search results, in order to discourage people from accessing them. With compliance now a matter of law, attention has turned to how search engines can implement the required mechanisms. This week Roskomnadzor hosted a meeting with representatives of the largest Russian search engines including Yandex, Sputnik, Search Mail.ru, where this topic was top of the agenda. Since failure to comply can result in a fine of around $12,000 per breach, search companies have a vested interest in the systems working well against not only pirate sites, but also mirrors and anonymization tools that provide access to them. “During the meeting, a consolidated position on the implementation of new legislative requirements was developed,” Rozcomnadzor reports. “It was determined that the list of blocked resources to be removed from search results will be transferred to the operators of search engines in an automated process.” While sending over lists of domains directly to search engines probably isn’t that groundbreaking, Rozcomnadzor wants to ensure that companies like Yandex are also responding to the removal requests properly. So, instead of simply carrying out test searches itself, it’s been agreed that the watchdog will gain direct access to the search engines’ systems, so that direct verification can take place. “In addition, preliminary agreements have been reached that the verification of the enforcement of the law by the search engines will be carried out through the interaction of the information systems of Roskomnadzor and the operators of search engines,” Rozcomnadzor reports. Time for search engines to come into full compliance is ticking away. The law requiring them to remove listings for ‘pirate’ mirror sites comes into effect October 1. Exactly a month later on November 1, VPNs and anonymization tools will have to be removed too, if they fail to meet the standards required under state regulation. Part of that regulation requires anonymization services to disclose the identities of their owners to the government. https://torrentfreak.com/search-engines-will-open-systems-to-prove-piracy-vpn-blocking-170901/

TVAddons hosts thousands of third-party addons for Kodi but one, which was submitted last week by now-retired developer MetalKettle, has drawn criticism from the makers of Plex. In a strongly worded legal letter, Plex threatened tough action. But, after TVAddons promptly assisted, the dispute was quickly settled. This, TVAddons says, is a demonstration of how disputes should be handled. Earlier this week, TF reported on the surprise retirement of established and respected Kodi addon developer, MetalKettle. After several years of producing and distributing a wide range of addons for the popular media center, ‘MK’ threw in the towel. “Over the past year or so Kodi has become more mainstream and public we’ve all seen the actions of others become highlighted legally, with authorities determined to target 3rd party addons making traction,” MK announced. “This has eventually caused me to consider ‘what if?’ – the result of which never ends well in my mind.” The “what if?” here is whether MK himself would ever find himself targeted by legal action. As the recent case filed against Kodi addons site TVAddons by Bell, Videotron, Groupe TVA, and Rogers shows, copyright holders are prepared to act aggressively to protect their rights. While we don’t doubt MK’s reasons for retirement, it now transpires that MK was already in the spotlight of Plex Inc., the company behind Plex. They seem particularly unimpressed with some of his recent work. Plex is a system which allows users to manage and organize their entire media library, import artwork and all kinds of metadata, and then stream it to any device, such as TVs, phones, and set-top boxes. For people with content already around it’s a beautiful Netflix-beating system that’s free to use up to a point, but it also comes with premium features as part of a $5pm Plex Pass subscription. Those extras include a Kodi addon. “Currently available as a preview to our premium Plex Pass subscribers, the Plex for Kodi add-on gives users the best of both worlds; the advanced customization of Kodi home theater and the beauty and simplicity of Plex for access on any device, anywhere, anytime,” the Plex site reads. MK Plex, the addon produced by MetalKettle, unlocks the restrictions. Installable in Kodi with just a few clicks, the addon allows users of Plex to achieve the above without the need for a Plex Pass subscription. The addon was submitted by MK to the TVAddons repository last week but it took only days for Plex’s legal department to swing into action. TorrentFreak obtained a copy of the company’s letter to TVAddons from a source close to the platform. “We represent Plex, Inc. of Los Gatos, California, USA (‘Plex’) in trademark and other intellectual property legal matters. Plex recently learned that you offer a software product called MK Plex that is promoted on [your] website,” it begins. “The designation MK Plex infringes on Plex’s intellectual property rights and therefore Plex hereby demands that you remove all web pages that use the designation MK Plex, delete all software branded MK Plex and disable all downloading, and cease all other use of Plex’s trademarks immediately.” While this request would’ve been enough for TVAddons to respond, the lawyers went on in some detail about trademark issues, reiterating that “the designation ‘unofficial plugin’ indicates that your use of MK Plex is intended to trade on the reputation and goodwill of the Plex brand.” In summary, Plex said that by presenting itself as an unofficial plug-in, MK Plex infringes trademark and unfair competition law in the United States. There was no mention at all of the features provided by the software, the entire issue was framed as a trademark dispute. Plex’s lawyers continued by threatening formal legal action against TVAddons, including a claim for damages and a court order to shut down the entire site. That’s pretty aggressive for a letter that references an addon that was completely produced by a third-party. Nevertheless, TVAddons informs TF that it had no problem complying with Plex’s takedown request as a matter of urgency. “We love Plex and would never do anything to cause them grief. The user generated addon in question should never have made its way into our repository in the first place and we apologize for that,” a site representative said. “We’d like to stress, however, that we took swift action as soon as Plex made us aware of the issue. This is why it’s so important that all web sites with user generated institute a legitimate takedown notice system, so that issues like this can be amicably resolved much faster than they could be in court, without any harm done to either party. TV ADDONS has always and will continue to respect the rights of others.” TVAddons doesn’t know if MK himself is fully aware of the problem Plex has with his addon or whether he’s going to put it into retirement along with himself. However, the undertone in our conversation indicated that might be a prudent course of action. TVAddons said they responded immediately to all of Plex’s demands and were thanked for dealing with the matter comprehensively, so it’s at least possible that MK has similar options available. While a trademark dispute for a Kodi addon is interesting enough, this case offers a perfect illustration of how problems with intellectual property can be worked through, if the parties are prepared to work together. In the ongoing case of the Canadian broadcasters against TVAddons, not a single takedown notice or piece of correspondence was sent to TVAddons in advance of super-aggressive legal action. Had a simple email been sent, the problem could’ve been solved in a day, rather than the years currently expected. https://torrentfreak.com/plex-gets-tough-over-unofficial-kodi-addon-but-crisis-quickly-averted-170831/

Kim Dotcom hopes that his new file-sharing service K.im will create a "copyright revolution." The platform will offer a secure platform for people to share files and get paid for them while offering copyright holders the option to monetize piracy. For many people Kim Dotcom is synonymous with Megaupload, the file-sharing giant that was taken down by the U.S. Government early 2012. While Megaupload is no more, the New Zealand Internet entrepreneur is working on a new file-sharing site. Initially dubbed Megaupload 2, the new service will be called K.im, and it will be quite different from its predecessor. This week Dotcom, who’s officially the chief “evangelist” of the service, showed a demo to a few thousand people revealing more about what it’s going to offer. K.im is not a central hosting service, quite the contrary. It will allow users to upload content and distribute it to dozens of other services, including Dropbox, Google, Reddit, Storj, and even torrent sites. The files are distributed across the Internet where they can be accessed freely. However, there is a catch. The uploaders set a price for each download and people who want a copy can only unlock it through the K.im app or browser addon, after they’ve paid. Pick your price K.im, paired with Bitcache, is basically a micropayment solution. It allows creators to charge the public for everything they upload. Every download is tied to a Bitcoin transaction, turning files into their own “stores.” Kim Dotcom tells TorrentFreak that he sees the service as a copyright revolution. It should be a win-win solution for independent creators, rightsholders, and people who are used to pirating stuff. “I’m working for both sides. For the copyright holders and also for the people who what to pay for content but have been geo-blocked and then are forced to download for free,” Dotcom says. Like any other site that allows user uploaded content, K.im can also be used by pirates who want to charge a small fee for spreading infringing content. This is something Dotcom is aware of, but he has a solution in mind. Much like YouTube, which allows rightsholders to “monetize” videos that use their work, K.im will provide an option to claim pirated content. Rightsholders can then change the price and all revenue will go to them. So, if someone uploads a pirated copy of the Game of Thrones season finale through K.im, HBO can claim that file, charge an appropriate fee, and profit from it. The uploader, meanwhile, maintains his privacy. “It is the holy grail of copyright enforcement. It is my gift to Hollywood, the movie studios, and everyone else,” Dotcom says. Dotcom believes that piracy is in large part caused by an availability problem. People can often not find the content they’re looking for so it’s K.im’s goal to distribute files as widely as possible. This includes several torrent sites, which are currently featured in the demo. Torrent uploads? Interestingly, it will be hard to upload content to sites such as YTS, EZTV, KickassTorrents, and RARBG, as they’ve been shut down or don’t allow user uploads. However, Dotcom stresses that the names are just examples, and that they are still working on partnering with various sites. Whether torrent sites will be eager to cooperate has yet to be seen. It’s possible that the encrypted files, which can’t be opened without paying, will be seen as “spam” by traditional torrent sites. Also, from a user perspective, one has to wonder how many people are willing to pay for something if they set out to pirate it. After all, there will always be plenty of free options for those who refuse to or can’t pay. Dotcom, however, is convinced that K.im can create a “copyright revolution.” He stresses that site owners and uploaders can greatly benefit from it as they receive affiliate fees, even after a pirated file is claimed by a rightsholder. In addition, he says it will revolutionize copyright enforcement, as copyright holders can monetize the work of pirates. That is, if they are willing to work with the service. “Rightsholders can turn piracy traffic into revenue and users can access the content on any platform. Since every file is a store, it doesn’t matter where it ends up,” Dotcom says. Dotcom does have a very valid point here. Many people have simply grown used to pirating because it’s much more convenient than using a dozen different services. In Dotcom’s vision, people can just use one site to access everything. The ideas don’t stop at sharing files either. In the future, Dotcom also wants to use the micropayment option to offer YouTubers and media organizations to accept payments from the public, BBC notes. There’s still a long way to go before K.im and Bitcache go public though. The expected launch date is not final yet, but the services are expected to go live in mid-to-late 2018. https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-wants-k-im-to-trigger-a-copyright-revolution-170831/

The Pirate Bay suffered some downtime today, welcoming users with a Cloudflare error message, which is nothing new really. But earlier this week the site was hard to reach for a more unusual reason; the Game of Thrones season finale overloaded the torrent site with visitors. The Pirate Bay was unreachable for several hours today, after it already experienced connectivity issues on Monday and Tuesday. Today’s downtime was due to a DDoS attack, we were informed, and at the time of writing the site is working fine again. What’s interesting, though, is that the site’s connectivity issues earlier this week were triggered by something more unusual. A massive increase in “Game of Thrones” traffic. Yesterday, the TPB-team said traffic to the site quadrupled on Monday after the season finale was uploaded. A 400% increase means millions of extra visitors, something that can easily grind a site down to a halt. The Pirate Bay is capable of handling some traffic peaks, we were told, but the Game of Thrones surge was hard to manage. The spike in visitors is not unique to The Pirate Bay website. It affected other torrent sites too, especially after The Pirate Bay became unreachable in some parts of the world. One torrent site owner found the traffic surge so unprecedented and sudden, that it almost seemed like a DDoS attack. The problems are not limited to torrent sites alone. Plenty of legal streaming platforms had trouble keeping up with the Game of Thrones demand as well. For example, a lot of HBO Go users complained that they couldn’t access the service when the season finale aired. Finally, to illustrate how Game of Thrones traffic is dominating torrents sites we only have to look at the most shared files on The Pirate Bay. Currently, top seven are all GoT related. Now that Game of Thrones has come to an end, for this season at least, things are likely to calm down a bit. TPB’s most shared torrents https://torrentfreak.com/game-thrones-traffic-surge-slowed-pirate-bay-170830/

As the top grossing film for two weeks in a row, The Hitman's Bodyguard is doing very well at the US box office. This week the makers of the action comedy are faced with a serious setback though, as a high definition copy of the film has leaked online. It's unknown how this will impact future grosses, but movie studio Millennium Films might have to confront pirates head-on. The Hitman’s Bodyguard is an action comedy movie featuring Hollywood stars Samuel L. Jackson and Ryan Reynolds. While this hasn’t been a great summer at the box office, the makers of the film can’t complain as they’ve taken the top spot two weeks in a row. While this is reason for a small celebration, the fun didn’t last for long. A few days ago several high-quality copies of the film started to appear on various pirate sites. While movie leaks happen every day, it’s very unusual that it happens just a few days after the theatrical release. In several countries including Australia, China, and Germany, it hasn’t even premiered yet. Many pirates appear to be genuinely surprised by the early release as well, based on various comments. “August 18 was the premiere, how did you do this magic?” one downloader writes. “OK, this was nothing short of perfection. 8 days post theatrical release… perfect 1080p clarity… no hardcoded subs… English translation AND full English subs… 5.1 audio. Does it get any better?” another commenter added. The pirated copies of the movie are tagged as a “Web-DL” which means that they were ripped from an online streaming service. While the source is not revealed anywhere, the movie is currently available on Netflix in Japan, which makes it a likely candidate. Screenshot of the leak While the public often call for a simultaneous theatrical and Internet release, the current leak shows that this might come with a significant risk. It’s clear that The Hitman’s Bodyguard production company Millennium Films is going to be outraged. The company has taken an aggressive stance against piracy in recent years. Among other things, it demanded automated cash settlements from alleged BitTorrent pirates and is also linked to various ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits. Whether downloaders of The Hitman’s Bodyguard will be pursued as well has yet to be seen. For now, there is still plenty of interest from pirates. The movie was the most downloaded title on BitTorrent last week and is still doing well. https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-disaster-strikes-the-hitmans-bodyguard-170829/

Today we bring you the next episode of the Steal This Show podcast, discussing renegade media and the latest file-sharing and copyright news. In this episode, we talk to Steve Phillips of The Pursuance Project. If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits! In this episode, we meet Steve Phillips of The Pursuance Project. Pursuance is a new tool for organising activists and journalists online which springs directly from the work of journalist Barrett Brown and Barrett’s experience handling the Stratfor HBGary leaks around 2012-2013, which resulted in him going to prison. We discuss the tech behind the Panama Papers and Snowden leaks, the details behind the HB Gary leaks, how Steve was inspired by the story of Anonymous’ first big online hit and how organizational tools are the new frontier online – whether for corporate teams or activist groups. — Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing copyright and file-sharing news. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis. The guests for our news discussions will vary, and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds. Host: Jamie King Guest: Steve Phillips Produced by Jamie King Edited & Mixed by Riley Byrne Original Music by David Triana Web Production by Siraje Amarniss https://torrentfreak.com/steal-show-s03e07-connecting-counterculture/

The season finale of Game of Thrones is the highlight of the year for many TV fans, including those who get their fix on pirate sites. Like previous years, Game of Thrones piracy peaks after the final episode. For HBO this also ends a period of rough weeks full of leaks and hacker threats. The seventh season of Game of Thrones has been the most-viewed thus far, with record-breaking TV ratings. Traditionally, the season finale is among the most-viewed episodes of the season. This is true on official channels, but also on pirate sites. Despite numerous legal options, Game of Thrones remains extremely popular among pirates. Minutes after the official broadcast ended last night people flocked to various torrent and streaming sites, to watch it for free. Looking at the torrent download numbers we see that the latest episode is topping all previous ones of this season. At the time of writing, more than 400,000 people were actively sharing one of the many available torrents. Some of the more popular GoT torrents While the demand is significant, there is no all time “swarm record” as we saw two years ago. In part, this may be due to improved legal options, but the recent rise of pirate streaming sites and services are also ‘stealing’ traffic. While there is no hard data available, millions of people now use streaming sites and services to watch pirated episodes of Game of Thrones. Record or not, there is little doubt that Game of Thrones will end up being the most pirated show of the year once again. That will be the sixth year in a row, which is unprecedented. In recent years, HBO has tried to contain piracy by sending DMCA takedown notices to pirate sites. In addition, the company also warned tens of thousands of BitTorrent downloaders directly. Nonetheless, many people still find their way to this unofficial market. While HBO has grown used to mass-scale piracy in recent years, it encountered some other major setbacks this season. Hackers leaked preliminary outlines of various episodes before they aired. The same hackers also threatened to release the season finale, but that never happened. There were two episode leaks this year, but these were unrelated to the aforementioned. The fourth episode leaked through the Indian media processing company Prime Focus Technologies, which resulted in several arrests. Two weeks later, HBO Spain accidentally made the sixth episode public days in advance, which spread online soon after. On the upside. Piracy aside, the interest of the media and millions of ‘legal’ viewers appears to be on a high as well, so there’s certainly something left to celebrate. https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-piracy-peaks-after-season-finale-170828/

Last weekend millions of people were glued to their television to watch the megafight between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor. While the event was a sporting and financial success, not everyone was willing to pay close to a hundred dollars to view it. This resulted in a surge in pirate IPTV streams on Saturday night. The boxing matchup between Mayweather and McGregor was an unusual sporting event in many ways, not least financially. With close to a billion dollars at stake, various rightsholders did their best to ensure that piracy was kept to a minimum. However, despite an injunction against pirate streaming sites and mysterious tracking codes embedded in streams, they were easily defeated. New data published by Canadian broadband management company Sandvine reveals that there was a massive surge in live streaming piracy around the fight. The company monitored traffic at a fixed access tier-1 network in North America and found that many people tuned into pirate IPTV services. Generally speaking, a single pirate live streaming channel never accounts for more than five percent of the total bandwidth generated by these unauthorized broadcasts. However, it was quite different last weekend. “On Saturday that all changed, as the report below shows: at its peak, the pirated UFC and PPV channels for the Mayweather/McGregor fight accounted for 50% of all pirate TV streams,” Sandvine notes. Streaming piracy boost According to Sandvine, roughly 8% of the sampled subscribers have pirate live streaming devices at their homes and many of these were tuning into the fight between Mayweather and McGregor. Towards the end of the event, 3.5 percent of total bandwidth consumed on the network came from these pirate streams. To give an illustration of the traffic that was generated, Sandvine notes that the unauthorized boxing streams totaled more traffic than Twitch, Facebook, and Instagram together. Streaming piracy market share While the figures are based on a sample of North American fixed access network traffic, Sandvine believes that it provides a good indication of the total traffic. In the near future, the company plans to release more details on this pirate streaming trend, to better understand what’s going on. Sandvine informed TorrentFreak that the current numbers apply to pirate IPTV services, not the live streams that people watch in their regular browser. This means that the complete piracy numbers are even higher. There is a wide varietyof live streaming options available to pirates, and tracking outfit Irdeto estimates that close to 3 million people watched streams through YouTube, Facebook, Periscope and various pirate streaming sites. It’s safe to say that in theory, the rightsholders could have made millions more. But then again, with hundreds of millions fresh in the bank, they’re not doing too badly at the moment. https://torrentfreak.com/mayweather-vs-mcgregor-caused-massive-surge-in-streaming-piracy-170828/

The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'Hitman's Bodyguard' tops the chart this week, followed by ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2'. 'Baywatch' completes the top three. This week we have two newcomers in our chart. Hitman’s Bodyguard is the most downloaded movie. The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise. RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart. THIS WEEK’S MOST DOWNLOADED MOVIES ARE: Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer Most downloaded movies via torrents 1 (…) Hitman’s Bodyguard 7.2 / trailer 2 (2) Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 8.0 / trailer 3 (1) Baywatch 5.7 / trailer 4 (3) The Mummy 2017 5.8 / trailer 5 (5) Wonder Woman (Subbed HDrip) 8.2 / trailer 6 (4) King Arthur: Legend of the Sword 7.2 / trailer 7 (7) Spider-Man: Homecoming (HDTS) 8.0 / trailer 8 (…) Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie 6.5 / trailer 9 (8) The Boss Baby 6.5 / trailer 10 (9) Despicable Me 3 (HDTS) 6.4 / trailer

Over the years, many new technologies have tried to stop camcording piracy at movie theaters. From infrared beams, through night-vision goggles, to watermarks, thus far the problem still persists. Continuing the search for the ultimate anti-piracy tool, Philips now joins the quest with a proposal to use ambient lighting to mess with pirate recordings. The movie industry sees illegally recorded movies as one of the biggest piracy threats and goes to extremes to stop it. Over the years, movie theaters have used audio and video watermarking tools to detect pirates, for example. And during prominent events, night-vision goggles and other spy tech is used to monitor movie goers. Most anti-piracy efforts are not particularly pleasing for the public, but a new technology from Philips hopes to change this. In a recent patent application the technology company proposes an ambient lighting system for movie theaters that will hinder pirate recordings. “The major motion picture studios are losing large amounts of money due to piracy. The worldwide motion picture industry, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators, lose each year billions of dollars as a result of piracy,” the company begins. Philips notes that many of the current security measures, such as watermarking, make piracy traceable. However, they don’t prevent actual recording and distribution. Watermarks can be simply rendered useless if pirates remove them afterwards, for example. “The problem with current security measures in digital cinema is that they do not prevent pirates from filming the content from the cinema screen. Watermarks can help to identify the source of pirate content, but it does not prevent the actual copying and spreading of the content.” The ambient lighting solution is different and Philips believes that it could reduce piracy substantially. The concept is quite easy. By shining light on the visitors from the side, at a certain frequency, the pirate recordings will be severely degraded up to a point where they’ll become completely unwatchable. “The solution proposed here is to shine visible light from an (additional) light source with a pre-determined modulation frequency at the cinema screen while the movie plays,” the patent application reads. “When the frequency is chosen well, a camera will not be able to properly film the content, because the light source runs out of sync with the camera resulting in stripes running through the movie content.” The idea is partly inspired by Philips existing Ambilight technology for TVs. This generates lighting effects around the TV that correspond to the video content. The cinema setup will do the same while hindering pirates in the process. A win-win situation, according to Philips. “It is yet a further aspect to provide a more immersive experience when watching video content on a display device in combination with anti-piracy measures,” the patent application reads. It’s unclear whether there are concrete plans to roll out the technology at movie theaters. Philips, however, is no stranger to these type of anti-piracy solutions. The company previously rolled out CineFence, a forensic marking technology for both image and sound, targeted at digital cinema content. In any case, it’s a good marketing message to get movie theaters to try ambient lighting. Whether it’s really effective has yet to be seen though. https://torrentfreak.com/philips-wants-to-stop-piracy-with-ambilight-technology-170729/

Last night, during the megafight between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, some fans viewing via pirate sources had additional information to digest at several points during the fight. Hardly visible during the action, what appeared to be some kind of code appeared on screen, raising suspicions that someone, somewhere, was trying to find out who was 'stealing' streams. For many hardcore boxing fans, it was the fight that should never have taken place. But last night, undefeated legend Floyd Mayweather stepped into the ring against UFC lightweight champion and supposed boxing novice, Conor McGregor. A known slow starter, Mayweather came out true to form, arguably losing the first three rounds to the brash Irishman who had previously promised to bounce the 40-year-old’s head off the canvas in round one. But by round 10 it was all over, with McGregor running out of gas and with no answer to Mayweather’s increasingly vicious punches. TKO Mayweather. While viewing figures won’t be in for some time, the event is likely to have been a massive PPV success all over the world, with millions tuning in for what turned out to be a value-for-money event. But despite widespread availability, it’s likely that hundreds of thousands – maybe even millions – tuned into the fight from unofficial sources. Interestingly, some of those had a little extra something thrown in for free. During the fight, TF received an unsubstantiated report that an unusual watermark was being embedded into streams originally broadcast by Sky Box Office in the UK. The message we received simply told us there were codes on the screen, but we were unable to get any further information from the source who had already gone offline. Quick inquiries with two other sources watching pirate streams confirmed that codes had appeared on their screens too. One managed to take a series of photographs which are included below. (Note: portions of the code are redacted to protect the source) The mystery sequence of numbers The letter and number combinations briefly appeared in 20 to 23 sets of pairs, which according to the images seen by TF stayed the same throughout the broadcast. It is possible there was some variation but nothing we’ve seen suggests that. The big question, of course, is why they were put there and by whom. According to our sources, these codes didn’t appear when the main action was taking place but when the camera turned to people in each corner. Since no digits appeared over the top of the fight itself, it might suggest that they were put there by a broadcaster, in this instance Sky Box Office, who were licensed to show the fight in the UK. If that was indeed the case, it’s certainly possible that the sequence of numbers would allow Sky to track the illicit stream back to a subscriber and/or a set-top box tied to a particular account. Since that subscriber has then re-streamed that content back online illegally, the code would act as a homing beacon and could spell bad news for the individual involved. The other possibility is that the codes were not put there by Sky or another official broadcaster in the chain, but by someone in the illicit streaming market. Pirate streams are vulnerable to being ‘stolen’ in much the same way that official streams are, so it’s possible that a provider wanted to keep tabs on where its streams were ending up. The big question is why, with all the sophisticated technology available in 2017, were the watermark codes so visible? It’s possible to track content pretty much invisibly these days, so this overt display isn’t really necessary, if it was put there by professionals, that is. Of course, by being this obvious there might be a little bit of psychological warfare at play by whoever put the codes on the screen. Or, indeed, there might be a more benign explanation relating to certain equipment used in the process. Only time will tell, but it’s safe to say that neither Mayweather nor McGregor will be too worried, having bagged hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the showpiece event. https://torrentfreak.com/mystery-codes-appear-in-pirate-mayweather-v-mcgregor-streams-170827/

Many thousands of people without access to the Mayweather v McGregor fight tonight will download the spectacle tomorrow using BitTorrent. What many won't know, however, is that the fight will also be streamed live using torrent technology. Unlike ordinary streams, that will groan and strain under unprecedented demand, live torrents will thrive under the pressure. Tonight, August 26, at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, Floyd Mayweather Jr. will finally meet UFC lightweight champion Conor McGregor in what is being billed as the biggest fight in boxing history. Although tickets for inside the arena are still available for those with a lot of money to burn, most fans will be viewing on a screen of some kind, whether that’s in a cinema, sports bar, or at home in front of a TV. The fight will be available on Showtime in the United States but the promoters also say they’ve done their best to make it accessible to millions of people in dozens of countries, with varying price tags dependent on region. Nevertheless, due to generally high prices, it’s likely that untold thousands around the world will attempt to watch the fight without paying. That will definitely be possible. Although Showtime has won a pre-emptive injunctionto stop some sites offering the fight, many hundreds of others are likely to fill in the gaps, offering generally lower-quality streams to the eager masses. Whether all of these sites will be able to cope with what could be unprecedented demand will remain to be seen, but there is one method that will thrive under the pressure. Torrent technology is best known for offering content after it’s aired, whether that’s the latest episode of Game of Thrones or indeed a recording of the big fight scheduled for the weekend. However, what most ‘point-and-click’ file-sharers won’t know is that there’s a torrent-based technology that offers live sporting events week in, week out. Without going into too many technical details, AceStream / Ace Player HD is a torrent engine built into the ever-popular VLC media player. It’s available on Windows, Android and Linux, costs nothing to install, and is incredibly easy to use. Where regular torrent clients handle both .torrent files and magnet links, AceStream relies on an AceStream Content ID to find streams to play instead. This ID is a hash value (similar to one seen in magnet links, but prefaced with ‘acestream://’) which relates to the stream users want to view. Once found, these can be copied to the user’s clipboard and pasted into the ‘Open Ace Stream Content ID’ section of the player’s file menu. Click ‘play’ and it’s done – it really is that simple. AceStream is simplicity itself Of course, any kind of content – both authorized and unauthorized – can be streamed and shared using AceStream and there are hundreds of live channels available, some in very high quality, 24/7. Inevitably, however, there’s quite an emphasis on premium content from sports broadcasters around the world, with fresh links to content shared on a daily basis. The screenshot below shows a typical AceStream Content ID indexing site, with channels on the left, AceStream Content IDs in the center, plus language and then stream speed on the far right. (Note: TF has redacted the links since many will still be live at time of publication) A typical AceSteam Content ID listing While streams of most major TV channels are relatively easy to find, specialist channels showing PPV events are a little bit more difficult to discover. For those who know where to look, however, the big fight will be only a cut-and-paste away and in much better quality than that found on most web-based streaming portals. All that being said, for torrent enthusiasts the magic lies in the ability of the technology to adapt to surging demand. While websites and streams wilt under the load Saturday night, it’s likely that AceStream streams will thrive under the pressure, with viewers (downloaders/streamers) also becoming distributors (uploaders) to others watching the event unfold. With this in mind, it’s worth noting that while AceStream is efficient and resilient, using it to watch infringing content is illegal in most regions, since simultaneous uploading also takes place. Still, that’s unlikely to frighten away enthusiasts, who will already be aware of the risks and behind a VPN. Ace Streams do have an Achilles heel though. Unlike a regular torrent swarm, where the initial seeder can disappear once a full copy of the movie or TV show is distributed around other peers, AceStreams are completely reliant on the initial stream seeder at all times. If he or she disappears, the live stream dies and it is all over. For this reason, people looking to stream often have a couple of extra stream hashes standing by. But for big fans (who also have the money to spend, of course), the decision to pirate rather than pay is one not to be taken lightly. The fight will be a huge spectacle that will probably go down in history as the biggest combat sports event of all time. If streams go down early, that moment will be gone forever, so forget telling your kids about the time you watched McGregor knock out Mayweather in Round Two. https://torrentfreak.com/live-mayweather-v-mcgregor-streams-will-thrive-on-torrents-tonight-170826/

A Florida court has ordered the operators of KissAsian to pay $1,810,000 in damages for copyright and trademark infringement offenses. The default judgment is in favor of media giant ABS-CBN, which managed to score several victories in US courts this year. Despite the hefty verdict and the loss of its domain name, KissAsian continues to serve pirated content. ABS-CBN, the largest media and entertainment company in the Philippines, continues its legal campaign against pirate sites in the US. The company has singled out dozens of streaming sites that offer access to ‘Pinoy’ content without permission, both in the US and abroad. This week a federal court in Florida signed a default judgment against KissAsian, one of the biggest targets thus far. Since the defendants failed to show up it was a relatively easy win. The lawsuit in question was filed in February and accused KissAsian of both copyright and trademark infringement. According to ABS-CBN, the site was using its trademarks and copyrighted content to draw visitors and generate profit. “ABS-CBN is suffering irreparable and indivisible injury and has suffered substantial damages as a result of Defendant’sunauthorized and unlawful use of the ABS-CBN Marks and Copyrighted Works,” the complaint read. When the operators of the pirate site failed to respond to the allegations, the media company asked for a default judgment. United States District Judge William Dimitrouleas has now approved the company’s request, granting it $1 million in trademark damages, and another $810,000 for copyright infringement. The order (pdf) In addition, the judge granted a request to hand over the KissAsian.com domain name to ABS-CBN, which hasn’t happened thus far. While the order is a clear win for the Philippine media conglomerate, it might be hard to recoup the damages from the unknown operators of the site. In fact, it doesn’t appear that the site is going to cease its activities anytime soon, as the order requires. Soon after KissAsian.com was put at risk, the site’s operators simply relocated to a new domain name; KissAsian.ch. “We are transferring domain, new domain is kissasian.ch, and kissasian beta mirror is not working temporarily, it will be done in next 5-10mins. Sorry for the inconvenience!” a statement on Facebook reads. And so it continues. https://torrentfreak.com/florida-court-orders-pirate-site-kissasian-to-pay-1-8m-in-damages-170825/

While the United States is still trying to have Kim Dotcom extradited, in one of the largest copyright infringement cases ever, a documentary about the unprecedented case is topping various official download charts. Meanwhile, in what some might see as an ironic twist, various pirated copies of the film have just started to appear online. In recent years, we have writen dozens of articles on Kim Dotcom, Megaupload’s shutdown, and all the intrigue surrounding the case. It’s a story worth documenting and not just in writing. This is what the people behind the documentary Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Webrealized as well. With cooperation from the mastermind behind the defunct file-sharing site, they made a thrilling documentary that captures the essence of the story, which is far from over. This week the film was released to the wider public, made available for sale on various online platforms including iTunes and Amazon Prime. Thus far things are going well, with the movie making its way into various top charts, including a first place in the iTunes documentary category. However, if we believe entertainment industry rhetoric, this meteoric rise will soon be all over. Earlier today the first pirated copies of “Caught in The Web” started to appear online. It is widely available on The Pirate Bay, for example, and shows up on various other “pirate” download and streaming sites as well. The leaked documentary Leaks happen every day, and this one’s not any different. That being said, people who followed the Dotcom saga may appreciate the irony, since Megaupload was a popular destination for pirates as well. So, a chunk of the site’s former users probably prefers to grab a free version. To sample, of course. This is especially true for those who hit several roadblocks in trying to access the film from official outlets. Over the past few days, some people complained that “Caught in the Web” isn’t legally available through their preferred legal channel due to geographical restrictions. Dotcom, still accused by the US Government of depriving copyright holders of $500 million in one of the country’s largest copyright infringement cases, responded appropriately when a Twitter follower pointed this out. Not available “They are wondering why people are pirating? If you’re willing to pay but you can’t find it legally, why is it your or my fault?” he wrote. “If the Megaupload documentary is only available in the US iTunes store then I totally understand if you download or stream it elsewhere,” Dotcom added in another tweet. The documentary is available in more countries, but not in all Amazon or iTunes stores. So, with the sympathy of the documentary’s main subject, people with no legal alternatives don’t have to feel as bad when they choose to pirate it instead. That doesn’t make it less illegal, of course, but we doubt that the makers will actively pursue people for it. Meanwhile, the people who were tasked with distributing the film may want to have another chat with Kim Dotcom. In recent years he has repeatedly sent out a concise list of tips on how to stop piracy. Worth a read. Twitter Ads info and privacy https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-leak-copy-of-kim-dotcom-documentary-online-170824/

The husband-and-wife team behind YouTube channel h3h3Productions have won an important copyright case in New York. After the pair uploaded a reaction video poking fun at YouTuber Matt Hoss he sued them, claiming that republication of his clips amounted to copyright infringement. A summary judgment handed down yesterday rejected that argument in favor of fair use. Hila and Ethan Klein are the duo behind h3h3productions, a YouTube channel dedicated to the comedy found in Internet culture. With more than 4.6 million subscribers the channel is doing extremely well, but last year faced a fight for its very existence. In May 2016, the pair announced they were being sued by YouTuber Matt Hosseinzadeh, who also produces comedy content and publishes it on his MattHossZone channel. The problem lay in a video produced by H3h3productions (published on a sister channel in February 2016) in which they poked fun at Hosseinzadeh, using clips of their rival’s videos for material. The Kleins said this was fair use but Hosseinzadeh viewed it as copyright infringement. According to the Kleins, Hosseinzadeh initially approached them with settlement offers of a few thousand dollars and also gave them the opportunity to publicly apologize and promote his content. The Kleins refused to back down so at this point, Hosseinzadeh sued for copyright infringement and defamation. Fighting a lawsuit is extremely expensive but the Kleins received overwhelming support online, particularly via a GoFundMe campaign that pulled in over $170,000. With the legal battle well underway, both sides asked the court for a summary judgment in their favor in advance of a full trial. In a decision handed down yesterday by District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, the Kleins prevailed. In a 21-page ruling, the Judge wastes no time in getting straight to the point. Describing the Klein’s video and the critique contained within as “quintessential criticism and comment” equivalent to the kind one might find in a film studies class, Judge Forrest goes on to examine the cornerstones of fair use, including the purpose of the work, the amount of copyrighted content used, and the effect of the use of the content on its potential market. “Any review of the Klein video leaves no doubt that it constitutes critical commentary of the Hoss video; there is also no doubt that the Klein video is decidedly not a market substitute for the Hoss video,” Judge Forrest writes, noting that the former effectively transformed the latter into “fodder for caustic, moment-by-moment commentary and mockery.” “For these and the other reasons set forth below, defendants’ use of clips from the Hoss video constitutes fair use as a matter of law,” the Judge concludes. On the defamation front, Hosseinzadeh fared no better, with the Judge noting that truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. “Further, it is clear that defendants’ comments regarding the lawsuit are either non-actionable opinions or substantially true as a matter of law. For these and the other reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s defamation claim fails. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.” The news was quickly welcomed by Ethan Klein. Twitter Ads info and privacy What happens next is largely up to Hosseinzadeh. He still has the opportunity to appeal the case but whether he will take that opportunity given the clarity of the ruling and the additional costs involved will remain to be seen. In the meantime, the decision (via Techcrunch) provides food for thought and guidance for other YouTubers making reaction videos. The ruling doesn’t give YouTubers blanket clearance to continue with impunity but does clarify how much content can be used, provided adequate commentary and criticism is present. They’re valuable guidelines in a notoriously difficult area of copyright law. https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-fair-use-case-ends-in-victory-for-h3h3productions-170824/

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is actively going after developers of infringing Kodi builds. The group has thus far signed settlements with ten individuals, but more are likely to follow. Pursuing sellers and developers of pirate Kodi add-ons has become a prime focus in recent months after the European Court of Justice handed down a landmark ruling. A surge of cheap media players, which often use the open source Kodi software, has made it easy for people to stream video from the Internet directly to their TVs. The media players themselves are perfectly legal, and the Kodi software is too, but when these are loaded with pirate add-ons, legal issues arise. Earlier this year the European Court of Justice ruled that selling or using devices pre-configured to obtain copyright-infringing content is illegal. With this decision in hand, anti-piracy group BREIN has pressured dozens of vendors to halt their sales, but the action hasn’t stopped there. Aside from going after sellers, BREIN is also targeting people who make “pirate” Kodi builds, which are prepackaged bundles of add-ons. “We are also going after people who are involved in illegal builds, those with add-ons for unauthorized content,” BREIN director Tim Kuik confirmed to TorrentFreak without highlighting any specific targets. Thus far, the group has focused on three ‘pirate’ builds and settled with ten people connected to them. BREIN settlements generally include an agreement not to offer any infringing material in the future. This is also the case here. The developers face a penalty of 500 euros per infringing link per day. Aside from the Filmspeler (Film Player) judgment of the EU Court of Justice, BREIN’s actions also use the Geenstijl ruling as a basis. This confirmed that merely linking to copyrighted works without permission can be seen as infringement, especially when it’s done with a profit motive. In addition to targeting developers, BREIN previously announced that it had successfully halted the infringing activities of 200 sellers of ‘pirate’ media players. Despite BREIN’s efforts, there are still plenty of infringing players, builds, and add-ons circulating in the wild, even on eBay. However, with pressure from various sides, it has become increasingly risky for the people involved, which is a dramatic change compared to a year ago. https://torrentfreak.com/brein-goes-after-developers-of-pirate-kodi-builds-170823/

Two founders of The Pirate Bay have been ordered by a court in Finland to pay record labels more than $477,000 in compensation. Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm were found liable for ongoing copyright breaches on the site. Neither appeared to mount a defense so both were found guilty in their absence. In November 2011, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), with support from Finnish anti-piracy group Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Center (CIAPC), filed a lawsuit in the Helsinki District Court against The Pirate Bay. IFPI, which represents the world’s major labels, demanded that the site’s operators stop facilitating the unauthorized distribution of music and pay compensation to IFPI and CIAPC-affiliated rightsholders for the damages caused through their website. Progress in the case has been somewhat glacial but this morning, almost six years after the complaint was first filed, a decision was handed down. Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm, two founder members of the site, were ordered by the District Court to cease-and-desist the illegal operations of The Pirate Bay. They were also ordered to jointly and severally pay compensation to IFPI record labels to the tune of 405,000 euros ($477,000). The Court was reportedly unable to contact Neij (aka TiAMO) or Svartholm (aka Anakata) in connection with the case. With no response received from the defendants by the deadline, the Court heard the case in their absence, handing a default judgment to the plaintiffs. Last year a similar verdict was handed down by the Helsinki District Court to Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde. Sony Music Entertainment Finland, Universal Music, Warner Music, and EMI Finland sued Sunde claiming that the music of 60 of their artists has been shared illegally through The Pirate Bay. Sunde was also found liable in his absence and ordered to pay the major labels around 350,000 euros ($412,000) in damages and 55,000 euros ($65,000) in costs. He later announced plans to sue the labels for defamation. “I’m a public person in Finland and they’re calling me a criminal when they KNOW I’m not involved in what they’re suing me for,” Sunde told TorrentFreak at the time. “It’s defamation.” Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Peter Sunde all owe large sums of money to copyright holders following decisions relating to The Pirate Bay dating back at least eight years. In all cases, the plaintiffs have recovered nothing so the latest judgment only seems likely to add to the growing list of unpaid bills. Meanwhile, The Pirate Bay sails on, seemingly oblivious to the news. https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-ordered-to-pay-music-labels-477000-170823/