The U.S. Government's Copyright Office has launched a new consultation seeking guidance on the future of the DMCA's takedown process and safe harbor. Through a set of concrete questions, they hope to find a balance between the interests of copyright holders, Internet services and the public at large. The past week has been quite a tumulteous one for U.S. politics. However, that doesn’t mean that the wheels hve stopped turning. On the day that millions of Americans cast their vote, the Copyright Office posted a new notice in the Federal Register, asking the public for input on future copyright law. Over the past year, the Government already received a lot of input on a possible reform of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Various rightsholders weighed in, as expected, and so did technology companies, law scholars and civil rights groups. The problem for the U.S. Copyright Office is that there’s little agreement on how to move forward. The MPAA, RIAA, and other industry groups are calling for extensive revisions and don’t want services to “hide” behind their safe harbor protections. Among other things, they want a ‘notice-and-stay-down‘ policy to ensure that, once deleted, content doesn’t pop up elsewhere. Many service providers, however, see this an unworkable solution and believe that the current system is capable of dealing with infringing content. On the other end of the spectrum there are calls to implement penalties for abusive notices, so copyright holders can be punished for submitting takedown requests that are false. The Copyright Office has reviewed the various positions, but it is still unclear on how to move forward. It has therefore posed a set of questions seeking additional guidance on various key topics. For the notice-and-stay-down issue, for example, it wants a clear overview of how that would be organized, as well as the benefits and challenges it brings. “Several study participants have proposed some version of a notice-and-stay-down system. Is such a system advisable? Please describe in specific detail how such a system should operate, and include potential legislative language, if appropriate,” the notice reads. “If it is not advisable, what particular problems would such a system impose? Are there ways to mitigate or avoid those problems? What implications, if any, would such as system have for future online innovation and content creation?” Another question deals with the difference in opinions about the effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor system. “How should the divergence in views be considered by policy makers? Is there a neutral way to measure how effective the DMCA safe harbor regime has been in achieving Congress’ twin goals of supporting the growth of the Internet while addressing the problem of online piracy?” In total, the Copyright Office has listed sixteen questions. These also cover the “repeat infringer” issue for ISPs, which Cox took to the appeal court earlier this week. While the previous consultations and hearings have already resulted in a lot of input, the new questions force stakeholders to offer something more concrete. No general overviews but pointed answers. To help to determine the effectiveness of the current system, the Copyright Office also welcomes additional data and studies. Several parties are reportedly conducting empirical research which may help to make an informed decision. The deadline for the submissions is March 8, after which the Copyright Office will try to reach its conclusions. The Copyright Office’s full Federal Register notice is available here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-office-undecided-about-future-of-dmca-takedowns-161114/

Tracker's Name : House-Of-Torrents (HOT) Genre : 0DAY / GENERAL Sign-up Link : https://houseoftorrents.me/signup.php Additional information : House-Of-Torrents (HOT) is a ratioless Private Torrent Tracker for 0DAY / GENERAL

Aussie movie company Village Roadshow has invited aspiring filmmakers to showcase their work in a competition to highlight the effects of piracy on the industry. Entrants have been uploading their work online unprotected, and it's fair to say that most think that piracy is a terrifying thing. When it comes to delivering tough anti-piracy action and rhetoric Down Under, few can match the efforts of movie company Village Roadshow. In addition to holding ISPs responsible for piracy and having sites blocked at the provider level, the company is also threatening to track down and fine regular Australian file-sharers. Village Roadshow co-chief Graham Burke is well known for his outspoken views on piracy, and now he’s encouraging aspiring filmmakers to express theirs via the ‘Unscene‘ short film competition. First aired during the summer, the competition is now nearing its end-November deadline. Filmmakers of all abilities are invited to participate by expressing their views on how piracy will impact their future in the industry. The competition is open to anyone over 18 and films are limited to five minutes duration. For the winner, there’s a cash prize of AUS$10,000 and film equipment up for grabs, plus a chance for their entry to be played before movies in Village Cinemas. After submissions close on November 30, online voting via Facebook begins on December 1 and continues for the rest of the month. Finalists are announced January 15 and the winner will be revealed during a gala event on January 30. Entrants are invited to “impress, inspire or upset” the judges (who include Graham Burke) but thus far all entries are towing the “piracy is evil” line, so the latter category will probably go unfulfilled. Many of the filmmakers have been uploading their films to Vimeo without protection, so they can already be viewed. As can be seen from the handful embedded below, many follow a horror theme depicting a bleak future. ‘Echoes’ by Alessandro Frosali is particularly creative, but they all have something to offer in their own way. Thus far, no one has dared to put forward an entry that challenges the notion that piracy is not destructive, but there are still three weeks left to go, so anything could happen. Turn off the lights, close the curtains. Piracy has never been this scary (NSFW). Echoes | Unscene Short Film Competition Entry from Alessandro Frosali on Vimeo. You've Been Warned from Natalie Carbone on Vimeo. CINEMA. from Zoe Leslie on Vimeo. Blackspot from Troy Blackman on Vimeo. DEMONS OF THE FILM INDUSTRY from jesse wakelin on Vimeo. The Pirates from Andy Burkitt on Vimeo. https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-movie-competition-entries-are-terrifying-161113/

The people of the United States elected Donald Trump as their next president this week. The election outcome came as a total surprise to many, who are now wondering what's in store for the next four years. According to some, The Pirate Bay and other pirate sites are in for a rough ride, but is that really the case? At TorrentFreak we have no interest in reporting on politics, except when it’s relevant to copyright issues. After the surprising victory of Donald Trump earlier this week, several people asked what this would mean for the country’s stance on piracy and copyright enforcement in general. While we would love to dissect the issue in detail, there are no concrete policy proposals yet. Neither Trump nor Clinton have gone into detail over the past few months. So what do we know? It’s not a secret that Donald Trump made some rather dubious remarks during his election campaign. For example, he suggested that it might be worth considering whether to “close up” the Internet over terrorist threats. Extreme or not, we believe that extrapolating these kinds of one-liners into copyright policy proposals goes a bit far, to say the least. A concrete promise Trump has made on copyright issues came a few hours after his election victory. The president-elect vowed to end foreign trade abuses with help from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which keeps a close eye on pirate sites. “I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately,” Trump said. This is tough language. Still, the promise is hardly any different from the general policy that’s been in place over the past several years. After all, identifying and addressing foreign trade abuses is one of the key goals of the USTR. Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that Trump is not on his own. He needs Congress to steer the country in a new direction, and it may not always be easy to reach consensus. Trump may very well have a pro-copyright agenda. But would that really change anything? Let’s review some of the copyright-related developments that took place under President Obama’s reign. – The Department of Homeland Security seized dozens of domain names of alleged copyright infringing websites, leading to various constitutional complaints. – The Government had to give back some of the seized domains and accidentally took down 84,000 websites. – President Obama’s IP-Czar laid the groundwork for the controversial SOPA and PIPA bills, which were close to becoming law. – The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to keep high staturory damages for copyright infringement intact to deter pirates. – The U.S. Government tried to have UK student Richard O’Dwyer extradited for operating a linking site. – The Department of Justice started major criminal prosecutions against the operators of Megaupload and KickassTorrents. – Several U.S. site owners and other pirates were sent to jail, serving multiple years for copyright infringements. And the list goes on and on. Of course things can easily get more extreme, but thus far there haven’t been any concrete signs of that happening. Ironically, one of Trump’s main promises is to end the TPP trade agreement, which digital rights activists widely condemned for its draconian copyright plans. So that’s definitely not a pro-copyright move. This article is not an attempt to defend or critisize Trump. However, we do try to break away from all the one-sided and sensationalist analyses by trying to put things in perspective. Perhaps it’s a good idea to take a step back and just wait and see. There will be plenty of policy proposals during the coming years, just as we’ve seen under Obama. If the Trump administration goes after The Pirate Bay, that would not be a change of course… https://torrentfreak.com/will-president-trump-be-tough-on-online-piracy-161112/

The Pirate Bay and other pirate sites risk a "repeat offender" ban from Google, but not over copyright infringements. Google has updated its safe browsing service, used by modern browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, which will now block websites for a minimum of thirty days after being repeatedly marked as harmful. Google regularly checks websites for malicious and harmful content to help people avoid running into dangerous situations. This safe browsing service is used by modern browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, which throw up a warning before people attempt to visit risky sites. Frequent users of The Pirate Bay are familiar with these ominous warning signs. The site has been flagged several times over the past few years and twice in recent weeks. This issue is more common on pirate sites as these only have access to lower-tier advertising agencies, some of which have minimal screening procedures for ads. Thus far the browser roadblocks have always disappeared after the rogue advertisements have gone away, but according to Google, the red flag can become more permanent in the future. The company has announced that it has implemented a “repeat offender” policy to address sites that frequently run into these problems. This is to prevent sites from circumventing the security measures by turning malicious content off and on. “Over time, we’ve observed that a small number of websites will cease harming users for long enough to have the warnings removed, and will then revert to harmful activity,” Google’s Safe Browsing Team writes. “Safe Browsing will begin to classify these types of sites as ‘Repeat Offenders’,” the announcement adds. Chrome’s Pirate Bay block The new policy will only affect sites that link to harmful content. So-called ‘hacked’ sites, which Google also warns about, are not part of these measures. Under these new rules, The Pirate Bay is also at risk of being benched for 30 days if it’s caught more than once in a short period of time. The same applies to all other sites on the Internet of course. TorrentFreak asked Google what the timeframe is for sites to get a repeat offender classification, but the company hasn’t yet replied. The Pirate Bay team isn’t really concerned about the new policy. They stress that in their case, the issue lies with third-party advertisers which they have no control over. “Tell Google to get an ad blocker?” TPB’s Spud17 notes. “Seriously though, there aren’t a lot of ad agencies willing to work with sharing sites. The ones we have access to aren’t very concerned with what they put up, and don’t exactly give us a preview of what their clients send them before they air it.” The TPB team doesn’t see their site as a repeat offender. However, for the ad agencies there’s a lot at stake so perhaps this measure will trigger them to be more vigilant. “It’s infrequent enough, I don’t believe TPB will be flagged as a Repeat Offender. Ultimately, that will cost the ad agencies dearly if all their clients were permanently denied visitors. “So maybe in the long run those agencies with a tendency to serve malicious ads will better screen their clients,” Spud17 adds. Even if The Pirate Bay or other pirate sites get banned for thirty days, it’s not the end of the world. People can easily disable the malware checking option in their browser to regain direct access. That is, if they are willing to take the risk. https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-risks-repeat-offender-ban-google-161111/

A university in Canada has taken sweeping action in an effort to stem the tide of piracy notices. The University of Calgary says that after banning BitTorrent usage on several networks, infringement notices immediately dropped by 90%. People wanting access to the protocol will now need to apply for an exemption. Following changes to Canada’s copyright law in early 2015, ISPs are now required to forward copyright infringement notices to their customers. Copyright owners and anti-piracy outfits have taken full advantage, with tens of thousands of users becoming targets for warnings and even demands for cash. With opportunities for generating revenue piling up, the volume of notices has continued to increase, causing headaches for users and ISPs alike. The phenomenon has also been felt at the University of Calgary, which acts as a service provider to thousands of students. Inevitably, some of those students have been using their connections to obtain music and movies for free, which has led to the university receiving large numbers of notices. So, in an effort to reduce the instances of alleged infringement, the university has recently banned BitTorrent usage on several WiFi networks. Speaking to student newspaper The Gauntlet, vice-president finance and services Linda Dalgetty said that the effect was felt immediately. During the first eight days of the ban, the university received 90% fewer notices than usual. “I think what we’re finding is it has definitely made a difference. But we have to monitor that, because statistically, we have to go through a longer time frame than eight days,” Dalgetty said. According to Dalgetty, reducing the number of infringement notices wasn’t the only consideration. The volume of traffic and other threats were also on the agenda. “The more streaming we have on the campus, the more it impacts network performance and that takes away the user experience for other pursuits,” she said. “The third [reason] is security. The more streaming we have, the [higher chance] of inadvertently downloading something that would create issues.” Despite the ban, if people at the university simply must use BitTorrent as part of their academic activities they can apply for an exemption. Any use must be permitted under copyright law for the application to be successful. Moving forward, the university may not stop at only blocking BitTorrent. Speaking with TorrentFreak, The Gauntlet news editor Scott Strasser shared information which indicates that if there are problems with other file-sharing tools, they too could be subjected to a block. The university’s BitTorrent ban is the latest fallout from Canada’s notice-and-notice regime. Earlier this month, Christine McMillan from Ontario made the headlines as the more recent victim of copyright trolls. They accused the 86-year-old of illegally downloading a zombie game and warned that a $5,000 fine could follow. McMillan has refused to pay the fine. https://torrentfreak.com/university-bans-bittorrent-to-stop-flood-of-infringement-notices-161111/

A prolific Usenet uploader will pay a cash settlement to Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN. The man, who shared over 1,500 TV shows, agreed to pay a €7,500 fine and has stopped his activities effective immediately. Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been very active over the past months, targeting uploaders on various sharing sites and services. This week the anti-piracy group announced that it has scored yet another victory against a frequent copyright infringer in the Netherlands. The dispute in question deals with a large-scale Usenet uploader, who shared over 1,500 TV shows including episodes of popular series such as Arrow, Blacklist, and Person of Interest. After he was found out the man, who isn’t named, agreed to pay €7,500 in damages and stop his activities effective immediately. If not, an ex-parte court order requires him to pay an additional penalty of €2,000 per day, up to a maximum of €50,000. According to court records (pdf), BREIN used the message-id of the NZB files to link the uploads to the defendant. These files were also traced to various posts on NZB spot-sites where the man advertised his uploads. As usual, BREIN says that the financial situation of the uploader was taken into account to determine a suitable settlement amount. As such, it says more about the pirate’s financial position than the value of the 1,500 TV shows. Over the past months, the Dutch anti-piracy group has focused heavily on catching individual uploaders, whether through Usenet, BitTorrent, Facebook, or other platforms. Shortly, BREIN is planning to go after uploaders on a much larger scale to increase the catch-rate. To achieve this, they have already started to monitor IP-addresses of frequent BitTorrent users. As is common in these type of anti-piracy cases, the settlement money doesn’t go to artists or other rightsholders. Instead, it will be used by BREIN to fund future enforcement campaigns. https://torrentfreak.com/usenet-pirate-hit-with-e7500-fine-for-sharing-1500-tv-shows-161111/

Tracker's Name : HDTurk Genre : MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://hdturk.org/signup.php Additional information : HDTurk is a TURKISH Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL

The Federation Against Copyright Theft says that it will branch out into new areas of IP enforcement. For decades the anti-piracy group has relied on Hollywood for much of its business but with that work now being carried out by the MPA and others, FACT will offer services to companies outside the audio-visual sector. Outside of law enforcement, it’s fair to say that the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) is the most feared anti-piracy outfit operating in the UK today. Over the years, FACT has been central to many high-profile operations targeting torrent and streaming site operators, theater camming incidents, and other Hollywood protection efforts. The group has been responsible for cases which have put several individuals behind bars for a number of years. However, in just a couple of months’ time, FACT’s work in this area will come to an end. In May, Hollywood decided not to renew their 30-year-old membership with the anti-piracy group. With an estimated 50% of its budget disappearing as a result, FACT has a big shortfall to make up. However, in an announcement yesterday the anti-piracy outfit said it will do so by branching out into new areas of IP enforcement, outside the audio-visual sector. “Established for over 33 years, FACT is recognized as the leader in film, TV and sports intellectual property protection,” FACT said. “However, recent changes have created new opportunities for the organization and now FACT’s expertise and technical knowledge are being extended to brands and businesses requiring support in protecting their content, brand and intellectual property.” TorrentFreak contacted FACT for more information on where new partnerships were being forged. Details are scarce, but FACT did confirm that the loss of Hollywood’s membership earlier in the year was the catalyst for change. “The withdrawal of funding earlier this year has given us the opportunity to expand our services to the wider industry,” FACT said. “Unfortunately it is early days into our working relationship and so we are unable to provide you with any more detail into our new customers.” While FACT’s skills have often been deployed to protect Hollywood’s film interests, there’s little doubt that the same expertise will transfer to almost any other content transferred digitally online. Tracking Ebook or gaming pirates, for example, could easily be achieved with the same systems. Equally, FACT’s work with The Premier League, Sky, and BT Sport could provide a good base for further expansion in the same niche – IPTV providers and modded Kodi box sellers be warned. However, the tone seems to suggest that FACT is looking further afield for enforcement opportunities, possibly in the offline counterfeiting sector. “Over the years FACT has built a reputation as experts in intellectual property protection who you can value and trust, but until now our services have been available only to film, TV and sport,” says Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General. “Now we are able to offer our expertise to brands and businesses looking for that extra support when it comes to protecting their products and content.” While pirates of all sizes will welcome FACT’s departure from movie piracy enforcement, a similar role is already being played by the Police Intellectual Property Unit. Equally, for those who get their kicks from recording first-run movies in cinemas, the job of stopping that from happening now falls to the newly-formed Film Content Protection Agency. Only time will tell which direction FACT will take, but it’s likely the group will seek to quickly stamp its authority on its chosen sectors, if its revised budget allows. https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-fact-expands-reach-beyond-hollywood-161110/

Tracker's Name : Buhay Pirata Genre : 0DAY / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://buhaypirata.net/signup.php Additional information : Buhay Pirata is a FILIPINO Private Torrent Tracker for 0DAY / GENERAL

Tracker's Name : Erwomi Genre : MOVIES / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://erwomi.info/signup.php Additional information : Erwomi is a HUNGARIAN Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / GENERAL

Companies that make money from threatening alleged file-sharers are known for their bullying tactics but those who are prepared to fight back can enjoy success. A letter sent by a defense lawyer to the copyright trolls behind the movie London Has Fallen provides an excellent and highly entertaining example. After inflicting more than a decade of misery on alleged file-sharers, rightsholders and their online tracking partners are continuing their quest to turn piracy into profit. Letters continue to land in mailboxes all over the world, informing people they are pirates and that a lawsuit will follow if a cash settlement isn’t paid. Thousands of people are intimidated by these threats and choose to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to make the problem disappear. Others fight back and when they do, interesting things can happen. James Collins is one of the countless individuals targeted by the trolls behind the movie London Has Fallen (LHF Productions). Like in many similar cases, LHF accuse Collins of downloading and sharing their movie illegally using BitTorrent. Collins is adamant that he did neither. In a letter obtained by the troll watchers over at DieTrollDie, Collins’ lawyer J. Christopher Lynch informs LHF lawyer David A. Lowe of this stance in no uncertain terms. “As Mr. Collins told you in his letter dated October 6, 2016, he is innocent. Mr. Collins was asleep on the date at the time the Amended Complaint accuses him of being ‘observed infringing’,” Lynch writes. “Likewise, Mr. Collins has no secondary liability because he never aided, directed, facilitated, benefitted from, or shared in the proceeds of any violations of the law by anyone.” Of course, defenses similar to this one are extremely commonplace. Defendants often deny all knowledge of the alleged infringement but are left trying to prove a negative. The trolls, on the other hand, point to the supposed “forensic quality” evidence that they’ve compiled, that will be produced at trial, should a settlement not be forthcoming. However, many trolls are like vampires. Not only do they go straight for the throat, they’re also terrified that the cold light of day will be shone directly on their operations and their sometimes shadowy overseas partners. This point isn’t lost on Lynch in his defense of Mr Collins. In his letter, Lynch calls on LHF’s lawyer to voluntarily dismiss the case against his client, within five business days. Should that go ahead, Lynch says he will seek no fees or costs, but his confident tone suggests a joker up his sleeve. “We are optimistic that your client and its foreign representatives will see the wisdom of dismissing Mr. Collins. We recognize this requires ‘taking our word’ that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent, but, believe me, he is, just like he told you he is,” he writes. “We know your client’s foreign representatives do not like taking someone’s word, but this is a good case to trust Mr. Collins, who is wholly innocent, or me, a member of the bar, who is telling you he is wholly innocent. Going forward is tantamount to saying Mr. Collins and I are lying to you, which, of course, we are not, since Mr. Collins is wholly innocent.” So who are the “foreign representatives” and why are they so important? Well, they’re the ones doing the IP address tracking, monitoring the infringements and compiling the evidence. Well known in trolling circles, notorious companies such as Guardaley, MaverickEye and Crystal Bay Corporation are all in the mix. The location of these outfits raises issues. Lynch points out that in an earlier case it was discovered that the foreign companies had no properly licensed investigating U.S. witnesses, even though they were “engaged in the business of detecting, discovering, or revealing . . . evidence to be used before a court.” In his letter, Lynch says that he doubts that anyone involved in this case is properly licensed either. “Your client’s foreign representatives could have complied with Washington law by hiring a licensed investigator to corroborate the foreign investigation in real time, since the purported location of the entrapped IP addresses is known,” he writes. “But your client’s representatives chose not to invest in compliance with Washington law, and are taking a chance that somehow the foreign witness to the ‘observed infringing’ can testify, and that somehow the entrapped ‘blip’ of the movie in question will be sufficient evidence of U.S. copyright infringement.” The ‘blip’ referenced by Lynch refers to a momentary transfer of a small part of the movie in question. In an earlier case, the foreign investigators were unable to identify which portion of the copyright work this ‘blip’ related to, something which led to a judgment in favor of the defendant. What follows next is an impressive teardown of the foreign investigators, including apparently fictitious witnesses and people operating under dual identities, one of whom (Darren M. Griffen) appears in more than 600 other federal cases against file-sharers. Lynch’s investigation suggests an organized smoke-and-mirrors operation, one that he’ll expose before the court, if that is necessary. “The bottom line is that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent. My firm would not have taken his case if he were not innocent. Mr. Collins will prevail if your client chooses to go forward, and Mr. Collins will seek defense attorneys’ fees for the litigation expenses that could have been avoided by believing him,” Lynch writes. “Or, choose not to believe him (and me) and we will return the favor – adopting the posture that your client’s representatives are also liars. We will seek the truth about ‘Darren M. Griffin’ and his 42 declarations to the [Western District of Washington] and 600 more to federal courts across the country.” As noted by DieTrollDie, that threat proved too much for LHF Productions. The company dismissed the case against Mr Collins in preference to being put under the microscope. There are probably very good reasons for that and ones that other recipients of threatening letters should consider exploring. The whole letter can be found here (pdf). It’s a particularly entertaining read and contains valuable lessons on how not to be intimidated by trolls. https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-troll-backs-down-when-faced-with-exposure-161109/

Tracker's Name : TTHD Genre : HD MOVIES / TV Sign-up Link : http://tthd.org/signup.php Additional information : TTHD is a CHINESE Private Torrent Tracker for HD MOVIES / TV

In a scathing critique, the Free Software Foundation is urging the U.S. Government to drop the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions which protect DRM. The foundation argues that DRM is a violation of users' rights, which under the guise of copyright protection is used to harm, control and spy on people. Late last year the U.S. Copyright office launched a series of public consultations to review critical aspects of the DMCA law. This includes a review of the anti-circumvention provisions (section 1201), which prevent the public from tinkering with DRM protected content and devices. A lot has been said on the topic over the past months. Most copyright industry groups are in favor of keeping tight restrictions, while digital rights groups argue the opposite. Most opponents point out that DRM does more harm than good and some see it as plain evil. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), which is a rightsholder of a lot of GNU/Linux software, clearly falls into the latter category. FSF sees no future for DRM and urges the Copyright Office to repeal the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. “Technological protection measures and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) play no legitimate role in protecting copyrighted works. Instead, they are a means of controlling users and creating ‘lock in’,” FSF’s Donald Robertson writes. According to FSF, copyright is just an excuse, the true purpose is to lock down and control users. Through DRM, companies try to keep users on board, as it often restricts them from easily switching to other platforms or digital stores. “Companies use this control illegitimately with an eye toward extracting maximum revenue from users in ways that have little connection to actual copyright law. In fact, these restrictions are technological impediments to the rights users have under copyright law, such as fair use.” Even if copyright was the main concern, DRM would be an overbroad tool to achieve the goal, the foundation notes. FSF highlights that DRM is not just used to control people but also to spy on them, by sending all kinds of personal data to technology providers. This is done to generate extra income at the expense of users’ rights, they claim. “DRM enables companies to spy on their users, and use that data for profit,” Robertson writes. “DRM is frequently used to spy on users by requiring that they maintain a connection to the Internet so that the program can send information back to the DRM provider about the user’s actions,” he adds. Under current law, there are some exemptions which allow people to circumvent DRM, but FSF says this is by no means sufficient. Abandoning the anti-circumvention provisions entirely is the only right thing to do, they say. The foundation adds that there are plenty of alternatives to address copyright concerns. FSF itself holds the rights to a lot of GNU/Linux software, for example, and says it has resolved many copyright violations without the need for invasive DRM. “All DRM is a violation of the rights of users. The exemptions process as outlined by section 1201 is completely broken beyond repair. No amount of exemptions, except a permanent exemption for all uses, can rectify the situation,” FSF writes. “It is unethical and harmful for the law to treat all users as criminals – which is exactly what DRM does. The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions do too much harm and should be repealed, so that users may once again enjoy their rights under the law without interference.” If the Government is not ready to for a full repeal of the anti-circumvention provisions, it should at minimum broaden the existing permanent exemptions to more uses, FSF argues. The Copyright Office now faces the unenviable task of reconciling the positions of all parties that submitted comments. Given the wide range of positions, it’s impossible to reach a compromise that will please everyone involved. — The full comments of the Free Software Foundation have been published by the Copyright Office in pdf format. https://torrentfreak.com/drm-is-used-to-lock-in-control-and-spy-on-users-161108/

The U.S. government has responded to the request to dismiss the criminal indictment against the alleged operator of KickassTorrents. According to United States Attorney Zachary Fardon, the defense is downplaying the significance of “torrent” sites, which are more akin to flea markets for infringing movies, TV shows, games, music, and software. Last month the legal defense team of alleged KickassTorrents owner Artem Vaulin asked the Illinois District Court to dismiss the criminal indictment against their client. The fundamental flaw of the case, according to the defense, is that torrent files themselves are not copyrighted content. In addition, it was argued that the secondary copyright infringement claims would fail as these are non-existent under criminal law. A few days ago United States Attorney Zachary Fardon submitted a response to the request. According to the Government, torrent sites are not merely search engines and are more harmful than the defense makes them seem. “First, the defendant downplays the significance of ‘torrent’ sites like the defendant’s,” Fardon notes. The U.S. Attorney explains that KAT specialized in indexing torrent files that pointed to copyright infringing content including movies and music, likening it to a pirate flea market. “These indexed files enabled users to obtain copyrighted content from other users, including from the defendant’s own servers. KAT therefore functioned like a (lucrative) flea market for infringing movies, television shows, video games, music, and computer software.” In their defense, KAT’s lawyers stressed that the alleged operator never touched any of the infringing content himself. However, the U.S. argues that this doesn’t matter, as the conspiracy actively helped others to commit crimes. The U.S. Attorney equates KAT’s alleged owner to a drug dealer, who can be criminally liable as well, even if he never touched any drugs. “For the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution because he earned money by directing users to download infringing content from other users is much like a drug broker claiming immunity because he never touched the drugs,” Fardon adds. Similarly, the U.S. argues that KAT was not just a search engine which provided hyperlinks as the defense claimed. Fardon highlights that the site had several features through which copyright infringement was allegedly promoted or encouraged. “Instead, as alleged, they sought out infringing material and trumpeted that to their users, targeting the infringement-minded with rewards and honors for posting torrents for copyright infringement material in order to blatantly promote and encourage the availability of entire categories of infringing works.” Also, the U.S. Attorney disputes the notion that the defendant isn’t guilty of criminal copyright infringement because “secondary” copyright infringement doesn’t exist under criminal law. This argument is central to the defense in this case as well as the Megaupload prosecution. However, according to U.S. Attorney Fardon it falls flat. According to the U.S. Government there is no distinction between “direct” and “secondary” copyright infringement, for defendants that are charged with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. As long as the defendant conspired to assist users of the site in criminal actions, they can be held liable. “In sum, if users criminally infringed copyrighted works through torrent files offered on the defendant’s websites — as the defendant appears to acknowledge in his motion — then the defendant and his co-defendants may be charged with conspiring with and aiding and abetting those users. “Nothing about the defendant’s use of BitTorrent technology to carry out his crime makes him categorically above the law,” Fardon adds. The U.S. Government asks the federal court to deny the motion to dismiss and let the case run its course. If the defense wants to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, it should do so in a jury trial. It is now up the court to decide how to move forward but given the gravity of the case, it’s not expected to end anytime soon. The U.S. Attorney’s full response is available here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/kickasstorrents-was-a-lucrative-piracy-flea-market-us-argues-161107/

Representatives from the movie, music, TV show, games and publishing industries have penned an open letter criticizing the Swedish government for not doing enough to tackle piracy. The legal system must be given powerful new tools to crack down on the "criminal groups" behind pirate sites, they argue. Despite hundreds of arrests, the closure of dozens of pirate sites and numerous successful prosecutions, most entities fighting piracy believe that the tools at their disposal need to be improved. In daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter, a broad coalition of content creators, distributors and anti-piracy bodies from the movie, music, TV show, games and publishing industries, come together to seek more support to defeat piracy. Representatives from the IFPI, Rights Alliance (which represents Hollywood) and half a dozen powerful distribution, gaming and publishing groups say that the government isn’t doing anywhere enough to protect creators and clamp down on illegal activity. Their open letter (Swedish) welcomes a promise in the September budget to increasing funding for informational campaigns and the possibility of introducing a new offense of “serious copyright violation”, but says they represent just “small steps” and won’t be anywhere near enough to stop the problem. “When will the government see the potential of the creative industries and ensure a decent protection for creative content online?” the groups ask. “Intellectual and creative content industries are playing an increasingly important role in the digital knowledge society that is emerging. European governments are competing to lay the foundation for growth in the intangible economy. A strong legal protection of copyright in the digital market is a key part of that effort.” Noting that Sweden is often considered to be among the digital elite due to its superb broadband system and successful tech startups, the industry groups say that the country is among the very worst when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights. Almost a third of Swedes use illegal sites to access film and television, they say. “The winners of today’s order are often heavily criminal groups abroad who earn millions of dollars running illegal sites distributing pirated movies, TV shows, music, books and games,” the industry groups write. “The creative industries and its creators are losing billions, which affects growth and employment, but also the supply of culture as new investments are canceled due to lack of finances.” So what can be done to stop the rot? Unsurprisingly, the huge corporations behind the open letter want a more useful and sympathetic legal system. “We need stricter laws. The judiciary still lacks the necessary tools to access the often heavy criminal actors behind the illegal sites. For Sweden to move from the bottom rung to at least a decent level of protection for creative content, single points are not enough,” they add. When it comes to their actual demands, the shortlist isn’t much of a surprise. The industry groups want to be able to do three things – deal with piracy at its roots, close a perceived loophole in the law, and if all else fails, stop the public from accessing pirate sites. The first involves introducing new legislation which would frame high levels of copyright infringement in a more serious light. This would enable rightsholders to more effectively target the “heavy criminals” behind pirate sites. The second request involves the continued rise of streaming. As recently reported, the number of citizens involved in P2P file-sharing is on the decline in Sweden, but the same cannot be said about those who stream unauthorized content from web-based services. To that end, the industry groups want legal clarification regarding “temporary copies of copyrighted works.” Finally, they seek “clarification of the Internet operators’ responsibility to block illegal sites as they do in the other Nordic countries and in numerous European countries.” This request stems from frustrations with efforts to have The Pirate Bay and other sites blocked by local ISPs and/or have their domains seized by the state. A case involving the latter is headed to the Supreme Court after a prolonged legal battle and earlier this year, police called website blocks without legal process. “The government must recognize the seriousness of the situation and be prepared to go the distance. The government must also dare to look ahead,” the industry groups write. “Creative professions are expected to become increasingly important for employment and growth in the future. So why hesitate? Sweden can not afford to wait. When will the government act to ensure adequate protection of creative content in the digital market?” they conclude. https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-studios-publishers-demand-tough-anti-piracy-measures-161107/

The next President of the United States will help to shape the future of copyright legislation during the years to come. While none of the candidates have tabled a detailed overview of their plans, donation records suggest that the top entertainment industries clearly favor Hillary Clinton. This coming Tuesday the world will find out who is going to be the President of the United States during the years to come. During the past several months, news coverage have been dominated by mud-slinging from various sides, while surprisingly little has been said about future policy. That’s odd considering the fact that the next President has an important say in the direction the country will take going forward. Today we’ll take a look at which candidate is favored by various entertainment industries. This includes the major movie studios, record labels, and TV-production companies. While most of these organizations haven’t publicly endorsed a candidate for the presidential election, their publicly listed donations paint a clear picture. Pretty much all copyright industries favor Hillary clinton by a landslide. Counting all donations that were made during the 2016 election cycle, released publicly by the Federal Election Commission, we see a pattern emerging. Companies and individuals in the copyright-heavy TV, music and movie sector want Hillary for president. Together they donated $6,835,455 to Hillary Clinton compared to only $139,429 for Donald Trump. TV / Movies / Music donations Looking in more detail at the various subsections, we see that the Motion Picture Production & Distribution industry, with players such as Dreamworks, Sony Corp, 21st Century Fox and Time Warner, also favor the democratic candidate. Together, they have donated $2,634,014 to Clinton, and $33,548 to Trump. The gap is even greater in the TV production category where companies such as CBS, ABC and Walt Disney donated $634,757 to Clinton, versus a measly $3,455 to Trump. In the music business the same trend emerges. Hillary Clinton received a healthy $737,955 in donations from companies such as Vivendi, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, while Trump got $17,850. Overall it’s safe to conclude that these copyright industry related companies favor Hillary in the White House. This, in contrast to copyright industry adversary Kim Dotcom, who’s one of the main critics of the Democratic candidate. Over the past weeks Dotcom hasn’t spared Clinton his critique on Twitter, to say the least… That said, the copyright industries are not alone in their financial support for Hillary, who has raised more than twice as much money than Trump. Clinton is the favorite in most sectors. Many Internet companies which are often positioned against copyright interests, also favor Clinton over Trump. Is there no-one favoring Donald then? Well… the building materials & equipment companies in the construction sector favor Trump over Clinton, $270,175 vs. $159,441. So what does this all mean? As with pretty much all facts and figures discussed in the election campaigns, it’s a matter of spin. Clinton will be pleased to see that these companies and related individuals have so much trust in her, while Trump will see it as a sign of a corrupt system where industries can buy favors. And so the mud-throwing continues. In any case, don’t shoot the messenger… — The donation data reported in this article was obtained through the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington D.C. based nonpartisan research group. The industry data includes both donations from the companies directly and related individuals, as explained here. https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industries-back-hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-161106/

Producers of movies and TV shows in Russia say they want companies including Google, Yandex and Microsoft to wipe piracy from their search engines. The rightsholders want the companies to remove links to pirate sites from their search listings on demand, or face being held liable for third party infringement. While millions of users visit pirate sites directly to get their content fix, others prefer to use the services of search engines. As a result, companies like Google and Bing are considered major drivers of traffic to torrent and streaming sites, a point not lost on the world’s entertainment industry groups. In an effort to stem the flow, both get hit with millions of DMCA-style notices every week. The engines comply by removing millions of links. Over in Russia the situation is more complex and content groups want a change in the law to tip the balance in their favor. They’re demanding that search engines remove links to pirate sites from their results entirely, or face being held liable for third-party infringement. The proposals from the Association of Film and Television Producers (APKIT) have already been sent to the Ministry of Culture, which is currently drafting a new anti-piracy law. They foresee companies like Google, Yandex and Microsoft being forced to deal with infringement, or else. “The members of our association believe that search engines are the main problem of piracy,” APKIT’s Sergey Semenov told Izvestia. “Search engines – this is the best place to stop the infringement. We want direct instructions in the law that search engines themselves become responsible for infringement, if they do not remove the links after they became aware of copyright infringement.” According to anti-piracy chief Maxim Ryabyko of AZAPO, there is a difference of opinion among lawyers when it comes to search engine liability and whether they need to remove links. It all comes down to whether they can be defined as information brokers, information intermediaries, or something else. APKIT’s Semenov says that since there is no clarity on what defines an information broker, it is necessary to write into law where search engines stand and from there determine liability. Yandex, on the other hand, believes that clarity already exists. “Regulation of the activities of search engines in the form offered by the rightsholders – including holding them liable for copyright infringement – is inappropriate and legally incorrect, as existing legislation and judicial practice have a clear understanding of the impossibility of holding search engines liable for violating intellectual property rights,” a Yandex spokesperson said. “The courts take the position that the search engines are not information intermediaries due to the nature of their work. This position is confirmed by numerous judicial practice.” Back in August, Eksmo, a publisher responsible for around 30% of all Russian books, filed a complaint with Yandex which demanded it removed links to infringing content indexed by leading Russian torrent site, RuTracker. Yandex was given 48 hours to “cease publishing any information necessary to access the forbidden resource rutracker.org.” Yandex refused to comply and the case went to court, with rightsholders demanding that the search engine should be blocked by ISPs. The Moscow Court rejected the application. https://torrentfreak.com/movie-companies-want-to-hold-search-engines-liable-for-piracy-161106/

The Business Software Alliance, a trade group representing Adobe, Apple and Microsoft, is well known for its aggressive anti-piracy campaigns. The organization actively encourages people to snitch on software pirates, luring them with big cash rewards. Amusingly, however, the page where people can report unlicensed software is using 'unlicensed' jQuery code. Copyright is a double-edged sword. Those who sharpen one side often get cut by the other, with all the painful consequences that come with it. That’s exactly what’s happening to the Business Software Alliance (BSA) this week. Representing major software companies, the BSA uses Facebook ads to encourage people to report businesses that use unlicensed software. If one of these reports results in a successful court case, the pirate snitch can look forward to a cash reward. While BSA’s original “No Piracy” page is no longer active, they do support a new campaign which is operating under the “Australia Cybercrime Watch” name. This group only appears to exist on Facebook and is running paid ads to convince people to snitch on software pirates. Below is an ad that ran during Halloween, promising people thousands of dollars in rewards in return for their cooperation. What’s just as creepy…? There’s plenty to say about these kind of tactics, and by taking a glance through the Facebook comments it’s clear that many people are not fans, to say the least. However, it’s not just the advertising ethics that’s raising eyebrows. If we visit the linked BSA page where people can report unlicensed software, we can’t help but notice that it violates the license of some of the jQuery code. Looking at the source of the page we see that it includes custom builds of both jQuery and jQuery mobile. The files in question both use jQuery in their name and despite the modifications, they show plenty of similarities with the original code. BSA (left) – Original (right) In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem. Millions of websites all around the world use jQuery, which is free software as long as you adhere to the license. Ironically, BSA appears to be using it ‘unlicensed.’ jQuery doesn’t mind people copying, modifying or even selling their code on the condition that that the original license is included. This requirement is spelled out in every copy of the code, something all developers should know. “The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software,” it clearly reads. jQuery license However, we have combed through both modified jQuery files on BSA’s servers but none of them includes or references the license. Admittingly, this type of “offense” is very common, but for an anti-piracy outfit it’s quite painful to say the least. The license was probably omitted by mistake, as the original site also includes properly licensed files. However, BSA usually doesn’t show any mercy to the organizations that “forget” to license their Windows copies. This isn’t the first time that one of the BSA’s anti-piracy campaigns has exposed its own wrongdoings. Previously, the group ‘stole’ a photograph for an advertisement, which they have quietly since removed. Perhaps someone should report the BSA to the BSA for their infringing actions? Apparently you can get an award up to $20,000! https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-uses-pirated-code-on-its-website-161105/

All unused invites will be removed on 10th November 2016! We are developing new and better invite system!

Hey Guys !Thank you very much guys for you help without yours help its near to impossible to run this site.Again asking for cooperate if you can hopefully you will do.I have to pay a 80$ invoice on 6th NOV 2016 but now a days i have run short of money.Expect from you guys you will help the Site.Most Important : You will get double upload credit . After Donate ping back to me i'll add Double upload credit in yours account .Regards & Thanks

Tracker's Name : PirateTheNet (PTN) Genre : MOVIES Sign-up Link : http://piratethe.net/comeandplay.php Additional information : PirateTheNet (PTN) is a Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES Applications are open!

A man from Croatia has earned the dubious honor of becoming the country's first ever pirate site casualty. The 31-year-old was arrested after being accused of illegally distributing more than 1,250 movies online. A woman was also detained on suspicion of money laundering offenses. Many countries around the EU have taken a hostile stance towards those sharing content without permission. However, evidence suggests that the further east a pirate operates, the less likely he is to get in trouble. As a result, pirates have free reign in a number of countries but as of this week, Croatia can be crossed off that list. Authorities there have just arrested their very first Internet pirate and it’s all over local media. According to reports, police swooped on a 31-year-old resident of Rijeka, Croatia’s principal seaport and its third-largest city. Matej Kalanj was arrested following claims he’d been operating pirate site Filmovita since 2014. While Filmovita may not be a huge player on the world stage, the site is extremely popular locally and is currently Croatia’s 47th most popular overall. The site’s Facebook page has more than 165,000 members. Local authorities claim that Kalanj published more than 1,250 movies with subtitles online. Via his site and promotion via Facebook, he earned around $89,000 in ad revenue, mainly from foreign companies. Overall it’s claimed that the 31-year-old caused damages of more than $592,000 to local rights holders, although no evidence to back that up has been released. Vlaho Hrdalo, a lawyer from Zagreb, informs TF that despite the large numbers involved, a prosecution may not be straightforward. “Croatia has a very special formulation in its Criminal Code which regulates that the prerequisite of an existence of a piracy-related felony is that there was excessive damage to the copyright holders,” Hrdalo explains. “However, the prosecution will have problems proving that since they are claiming damage was done to local distributors. Furthermore, the site was not on a Croatian domain (.hr) but an international one (.com), which is why they will have to go to extreme lengths to prove it.” In addition to the infringement charges, Kalanj is also accused of unlawfully accessing the Internet via a modem operated by a third person, believed to be a neighbor with insecure WiFi. Hrdalo says that this too could be on shaky ground. “The site operator supposedly used his neighbor’s internet connection so that his IP address wouldn’t show up. Even if that is so, this doesn’t fall within the scope of Article 266 [Croatian Criminal Code] which says that a felony exists if someone gains unauthorized access to a ‘computer system or computer data’. Using other people’s WiFi does not represent the use of a ‘computer system or computer data’ and connecting to other people’s routers is certainly not a felony,” he explains. Also under investigation is a woman in her late twenties, believed to be Kalanj’s wife. She stands accused by the District Attorney of money laundering offenses. It’s alleged that together with Kalanj, the woman tried to hide the source of the site’s advertising revenue by shifting money between bank accounts. Perhaps surprisingly given Croatia’s previous lack of interest in prosecuting pirates, authorities have chosen to detain Kalanj in advance of his trial. The detention was ordered to stop potential witnesses being influenced and further infringement, a move that has prompted local media to compare Kalanj with alleged KickassTorrents founder, Artem Vaulin. The woman, on the other hand, has been released. For reasons that have not been made public, the arrest of the Filmovita’s alleged operator hasn’t affected the site itself. Despite being targeted by Croatia’s hi-tech crime unit, it remains operational through its usual URL. https://torrentfreak.com/croatia-arrests-its-first-ever-pirate-site-operator-161105/

This week Google received its 50 millionth takedown request for the popular file-hosting service 4shared. The staggering number clearly shows that there is plenty of infringing content being shared on the service. Still, several major music industry groups don't seem very eager to resolve their issues with 4shared directly. As one of the largest online file-sharing services, 4sharedis closely watched by copyright holders whose work is made available on the site. The site itself has a DMCA takedown procedure in place so rightholders can remove files directly, but Google also receives its fair share of takedown notices for the site. Over the past several years the search engine has received a mind-boggling 50 million takedown requests for 4shared URLs. Most of these, 35 million, were submitted during the past year alone. The popular file-hosting site tops Google’s list of most reported domain names at the moment, way out in front of rapidgator.net and uploaded.net, which are in second and third place respectively. Over 50 million takedown requests While it may look like 4shared is the piracy kingpin of the Internet, over the years the service has taken various measures to decrease infringing activity. For example, the site uses advanced fingerprinting technology to scan for pirated music files based on a unique audio watermark. When infringing files are found they are removed from public view. Interestingly, leading music industry groups RIAA and IFPI haven’t shown much interest in this tool thus far. “We tried communicating with RIAA and IFPI, especially because of their possible participation in our music identification system,” 4shared’s Mike Wilson previously told TorrentFreak. “We did not receive any assistance, so we started with music ID by ourselves and in just one year it helped to reduce the number of copyright complaints by 16 times, while the volume of stored information is actually still growing.” Instead of working with 4shared directly the music industry group are taking their complaints to Google, resulting in the 50 million milestone this week. On top of that, the RIAA also reported 4shared to the U.S. Government, listing it as one of the prime pirate sites on the Internet, and scolding the fingerprinting system they apparently aren’t using themselves. “4shared remains one of the most popular cyberlocker sites in the world. It is also the source of a staggering volume of infringing files,” RIAA wrote adding: “Clearly their audio fingerprinting is at the very least ineffective.” https://torrentfreak.com/google-asked-to-remove-50-million-4shared-links-161104/

Cloudflare has hit back at the entertainment industry's anti-piracy groups, RIAA and MPAA, which accused the service of helping pirate sites to hide. The CDN provider informs the U.S. Government that its services adhere to the law and adds that the industry groups' characterizations are distorted and misleading. Last month several copyright holder groups sent their annual “Notorious Markets” submissions to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The U.S. Government uses this input to create an overview of threats to various copyright industries. The recommendations usually include well-known piracy sites such as The Pirate Bay, but this year Cloudflare was also added to the mix. For example, both the MPAA and RIAA mentioned the CDN provider as a key player, claiming that it frustrates enforcement by helping pirate sites to “hide”. Cloudflare was not pleased with this description, to say the least, and has now sent a rebuttal to the USTR. The company highlights that it’s a legitimate business and scolds the MPAA and RIAA for their misleading descriptions. “The submissions by the RIAA and MPAA present distorted descriptions of services that companies like Cloudflare provide. These descriptions fail to provide the USTR with an accurate description of the true intent, purpose, and value of Cloudflare’s services,” Cloudflare’s General Counsel Doug Kramer writes. The company is disappointed in the industry groups, which fail to mention the efforts they have taken so far to address abuse. “Potentially even more troubling than the RIAA and MPAA’s descriptions of Cloudflare’s services is their complete omission of Cloudflare’s efforts to address the small minority of users about which they complain.” In fact, it’s not hard at all for the MPAA and RIAA to find out where notorious pirate sites are hosted. Both RIAA and MPAA are part of the “Trusted Reporter” program Cloudflare has created. This allows rightsholders to obtain the actual IP-addresses of Cloudflare-hosted websites that engage in widespread copyright infringement. Kramer says that the industry groups are frequent users of the system. In addition, Cloudflare is currently discussing with the MPAA and RIAA how the program can be improved to make it more efficient in the future. The bottom line, according to Cloudflare, is that the company is following the law. They swiftly process thousands of complaints every week and don’t make it any harder for rightsholders to enforce their rights. “Cloudflare does not make the process of enforcing intellectual property rights online any harder — or any easier. We follow all applicable laws and regulations,” Kramer explains. The CDN provider believes that the submissions of the MPAA and RIAA are tainted. Together they list 48 websites which are supposedly obfuscated by Cloudflare, even though Cloudflare already identified the real IP-addresses of 27 of those sites following complaints. For the remaining 21 “notorious” pirate sites, they apparently didn’t even bother to use the Trusted Notifier program to get more info. “What they fail to mention is that the RIAA and MPAA requested the allegedly ‘obfuscated’ information from Cloudflare for 27 of those sites and received the relevant host information in a matter of hours,” Kramer writes. “Even though they were well aware of the system, they never even requested information on the remaining 21 sites mentioned in their letters. Yet they included those sites in their submission to the USTR without attempting to use available resources to get the information.” Cloudflare hopes the USTR understands that all accusations of its alleged involvement in illegal activities are unwarranted, and that the company has no place in the USTR’s Notorious Markets inquiry. — Cloudflare’s full rebuttal is available here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-slams-mpaa-and-riaas-distorted-piracy-claims-161104/