Omar Akmal

Yao

Vardan

Union City

introvert

Islamabad and yes I like it very much

I am not watching movies anymore.

Huawei Prime Y7

Yes

Facebook

Maton Karahe

0 at the moment

Hard Working

Russia's site-blocking systems aimed at restricting access to copyrighted content and anything else deemed undesirable are not performing to the standards the government demands. Blocking access to internet resources requires lots of hardware but due to sanctions, there are fears in Russia that a breakdown in systems operations may be just months away. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been going on for more than a month. It isn’t going to plan. In parallel with the terrible images being shared around the world, Russia is using its infamous site-blocking systems to deny access to websites that dare to challenge the Kremlin’s narrative of Putin’s ‘Special Operation’. Telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor is working harder than ever to maintain its blockades against everything from Google News, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, to the thousands of pirate sites and other resources on the country’s blacklists. But, like the invasion itself, things aren’t going to plan here either. Urgent Checks Carried Out On Ability to Block A little over a week ago, local telecoms operators supplying internet access to Russian citizens were ordered to carry out “urgent checks” on their ability to continue blocking sites deemed illegal by the state. ISPs were required to carry out an audit and liaise with telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor. Today is the reporting deadline but according to several sources, problems are apparent in the system. With accurate and critical reporting being all but strangled by the state, it is not absolutely clear who or what ordered the review but the consensus is that prescribed blocking standards aren’t being met. As previously reported, local torrent site RuTracker suddenly found itself unblocked earlier this month, reportedly due to issues at an ISP. Problems are also reported with the Roscomnadzor-controlled ‘TSPU’ Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) system embedded into the networks of around 80 local ISPs and recently used to restrict Tor, VPNs and Twitter traffic. Since there is almost no detailed public information on how the TSPU system works, it’s almost impossible to say what the issues are or what caused them. That being said, reports suggest that TPSU is not working on all ISPs and on others it is not configured properly. However, if today’s issues are a concern for the Kremlin, in a few months the problem is likely to get a whole lot worse. Russia’s Internet Sector is Under Threat As sanctions start to bite, Russia is coming under increasing pressure. This includes a lack of telecommunications equipment due to a shortage of components, something that will directly affect not just the effectiveness of Russia’s blocking systems, but the entire telecoms sector. According to a Kommersant report citing a review by Russia’s RSPP Commission for Communications and IT, the dire economic conditions have led to an assessment that ISPs and other telecoms companies only have enough hardware reserves to ensure operability of infrastructure for four to six months. Add in a 40% rise in purchase prices for equipment and predictions that up to 30% of technical experts could leave the country in the next few months, it’s not hard to see the crisis ahead. For Russian authorities, however, the desire to block seems greater than ever, as evidenced by an instruction this week to block a section of Wikipedia. The order, dated March 28 (pdf), demands the blocking of information related to the ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine‘ which appears to accurately describe just that. According to the Kremlin, however, it contains “false reports” of acts of terrorism and false information “distributed under the guise of reliable messages.” The page poses a “threat or harm to life” and could lead to a “mass violation of public order”, the notice adds. Citizens of Russia can file an appeal (here and here) to have a resource unblocked but it seems unlikely much attention will be paid to these in the current environment. If Russia’s blocking system does break down, copyright holders will no doubt be disappointed. But for most of the rest of the world and growing sections of Russian society, it can’t come soon enough.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has obtained a new blocking order in the Netherlands targeting 1337x, LimeTorrents, YTS, RARBG, Kickasstorrents and EZTV. The order was issued against the local ISP Delta but, as a result of a blocking agreement, other ISPs will follow suit. The same order will likely trigger Google to take action as well. stopPirate site blocking is a common practice in dozens of countries around the world. In most cases, ISPs are ordered to take action after a relatively short court proceeding. In the Netherlands, it took more than a decade for the first order to be approved. It took detours through the Supreme Court and the EU Court of Justice before the final order was issued in 2020, targeting The Pirate Bay. With all the legal paperwork in order, the doors were opened to more blocking requests. We expected these to follow sooner but anti-piracy group BREIN remained quiet on the blocking front. This was for good reason as rightsholders and ISPs were working on an agreement behind the scenes. Last November, BREIN signed a deal with all large Dutch Internet providers to streamline the blocking process. Through this “Website Blocking Covenant” Ziggo, KPN, DFN, T-Mobile, Canal+, and members of the industry organization NLConnect, promise to block pirate sites when rightsholders obtain a blocking order against one of the other ISPs. LimeTorrents, YTS, RARBG, Kickasstorrents and EZTV This week, the government-supported agreement is being put to work for the first time. As part of a yet-to-be-published ruling, BREIN obtained a blocking order requiring Internet provider Delta to restrict access to 1337x, LimeTorrents, YTS, RARBG, Kickasstorrents, EZTV, as well as several proxies and mirrors. Delta confirmed that it had lost the blocking battle earlier this month. The provider informed Tweakers that there was a hearing on March 14, where the matter was decided. The new blocking effort was first reported by users of the ISP KPN and later confirmed by the provider’s support staff. While KPN isn’t named in the order, the covenant requires it to block the sites as well. Other Dutch ISPs are expected to follow suit in a matter of days. These blocklist additions don’t come as a surprise. In November 2021, BREIN informed TorrentFreak that it had started a new proceeding to block six sites, without mentioning any names. BREIN director is pleased with the outcome and stresses that this limits the options for pirates in the Netherlands. After the Pirate Bay blockade, many users relocated to other torrent sites, some of which have now been blocked as well. “In combination with sufficient legal supply, illegal use decreases when you act against illegal platforms,” Kuik says, adding that blockades can increase legal use by 10 to 20% and boost revenues as a result. “Free or cheaper options remain attractive compared to legal offerings. The ratio between illegal use and lost turnover in a market such as the Netherlands is roughly between one in three and one in five. The damage is therefore considerable and a measure such as blocking adds about 10 to 20% to legal use,” says Kuik. Google to Follow Suit? The Internet providers are not the only intermediaries to become more cooperative. Google is also working with rightsholders to remove domain names from its search results if there’s a valid ISP blocking order in the country. Thus far, Google has only removed Pirate Bay domains from its search results but we expect that the new additions will follow in due course. According to BREIN director Tim Kuik, Google’s stance is similar to that of the ISPs. “In essence, this is the same situation as recently agreed in the Dutch government-supported covenant between right holders and internet access providers,” Kuik previously informed TorrentFreak. With the six new additions, there are seven domain names blocked in the Netherlands. However, if BREIN follows the path of other rightsholder representatives, many more will follow in the future. Update: We added a response from BREIN director Tim Kuik. The anti-piracy group also published the order on its website with the full list of domain names. These are listed below. 1. (www.)rarbg.to; 2. yts.mx, yts.lt, yts.am, yts.ag; 3. eztv.re, eztv.ag, eztv.it, eztv.ch, eztv.wf eztv.tf, eztv.yt; 4. (www.)limetorrents.pro, limetorrents. info, limetorrents.cc, limetorrents.asia, limetorrents.co, limetorrents.zone, limetor.com, limetor.pro; 5. (www.)1337x.to, (www.)1337x.st, (www)x1337x.ws, (www)x1337x.eu, (www.)x1337x.se, (www.)1337x.gd; 6. kickasstorrents.to, katcr.to, kickasstorrent.cr, kickasstorrents.cr, kat.am;

Last weekend "CODA" won the Best Picture award at the Oscars. The Apple film is the first streaming release to receive the prestigious prize, which must feel like a slap in the face to Netflix. The win will undoubtedly have boosted the streaming numbers and data collected by TorrentFreak shows that "CODA" piracy surged to an all-time high. CODA filmThe Oscars are the most anticipated movie awards show of the year, closely followed by hundreds of millions of movie fans around the world. This year’s awards ceremony received plenty of attention as well, with most of the media focusing on the Will Smith incident. Luckily, the winners didn’t get unnoticed by the public at large. There are two films that clearly stand out. The first one is “Dune”, which received the most awards, winning in six categories. The other one is “CODA“, which picked up three awards including the most prestigious of “Best Picture”. Historic Win CODA’s win goes in the history books as the first film from a streaming platform to win the top Oscar. This honor goes to Apple, which beat Netflix, which was also in the run for the best picture award with “Don’t Look Up”. In the past we have seen that Oscar wins are not just about prestige, they also increase sales. With a streaming release that’s harder to measure but it’s logical to assume that more people watched the film on Apple’s platform after the awards show. The Oscars also have a direct impact on the interest among pirates. This is something we can measure and the results leave little room for doubt. Based on a sample of torrent downloads tracked by IKnow, we can report that the estimated number of pirated CODA downloads skyrocketed on Monday. Piracy Surge The graph below shows that during the first months of the year CODA had a median of roughly 5,000 downloads per day. When the nominations were announced in early February this number doubled momentarily. Leading up to the awards ceremony there was a gradual increase again, with a surge over more than 60,000 estimated downloads on Monday. CODA Piracy CODA oscar The number of post-Oscar downloads of “CODA” is higher than the pirated downloads per day last August when the film first leaked online. It’s worth keeping in mind that this sample only tracks pirated downloads through torrent sites. Most piracy takes place through unauthorized streaming sites nowadays. These views can’t be tracked publicly, but it means that the total piracy count will be much higher. The data clearly show that the Best Picture award boosted CODA’s piracy numbers; but what about the other major Oscar winner Dune? Will Smith Impact Interestingly, the data show that Dune also got a piracy boost, but nowhere near the levels seen for CODA. We assume that this is in part because Dune was a blockbuster release that many people had watched already. The numbers we’ve seen only include one other film that comes close to the relative piracy boost CODA got and that’s “King Richard”. While the film wasn’t nominated in the Best Picture category, Will Smith won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role as Richard Williams. Apparently, Smith’s controversial behavior on stage at the Oscars also raised people’s interest in the film itself. Oscar Piracy Effects All Oscar All in all, we see that the ‘Oscar effect’ is clearly visible for CODA, Dune, and King Richard. Winning an award definitely impacts the piracy numbers. That is also clear when we contrast the download estimates for the aforementioned films with Netflix’s “Don’t Look Up” which didn’t win anything. More Oscar Piracy Trends There are some other Oscar-related piracy trends that are worth pointing out as well. As we previously observed, screener leaks have become a relatively rare occurrence in recent times. This makes sense, as release windows are dropping or completely disappearing as the result of the online streaming boom. Only three screeners for Oscar-nominated films leaked online this year. This was confirmed by screener-watcher Andy Baio last weekend, who has kept track of these leaks for two decades. The drop in leaks isn’t so much the result of better anti-piracy protection or the Academy banning physical screeners. No, there are simply fewer incentives for release groups to leak screeners, since better quality, pirated copies are often available already. Take CODA, for example. A high-quality copy of the film was shared on pirate sites on the same day it premiered on the Apple TV+ platform. This was long before the first screeners are usually sent out. So, even if a release group has access to a screener, there would be no point in leaking it.

Strike 3, the most prolific 'copyright troll' in the United States, is suing an individual said to have pirated its movies using BitTorrent. While that is nothing out of the ordinary, the currently anonymous defendant is now in a battle to prevent Netflix and Google from handing over masses of personal data that the adult movie company somehow claims is relevant to its case. Netflix logoCompanies that file hundreds even thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits with the intention of seeking settlements to avoid trial, are often labeled ‘copyright trolls’. In the United States, the undisputed leader in this space is adult video company Strike 3 Holdings, the owner of brands including Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen. In 2021 alone the company filed over 1,900 such lawsuits in U.S. courts but as far as we’re aware, not a single case has ever gone to trial. That doesn’t mean that Strike 3 isn’t prepared to fight cases tooth and nail though. While most actions are quickly settled behind the scenes, some can face a spirited fightback from defendants. One such case has been running for more than two years already and has just taken a surprising turn, even by ‘copyright troll’ standards. Case Background Against ‘John Doe’ The original lawsuit was filed in a Florida court against an anonymous defendant in March 2020 and was followed by a first amended complaint in August of the same year. According to Strike 3, the defendant used their Frontier Communications account to download and share 36 of its titles “over an extended period of time” using BitTorrent. Also presented as evidence (reportedly collected by Strike 3’s ‘VXN Scan’ monitoring tool) are listings of BitTorrent activity from the same IP address allegedly sharing other rightsholders’ content. The titles are redacted from public records but the obvious suggestion is that infringement goes beyond the plaintiff’s titles. In November 2020, the defendant answered the amended complaint, largely with denials or lack of knowledge, along with a counterclaim. It stated that since Strike 3 had failed to prove any infringement, the court should issue a declaration of noninfringement along with an award for damages, in the defendant’s favor. Mediation in the case went nowhere, so once again Strike 3 went on the offensive with efforts to obtain information from third-party online services. That is not unusual in itself but Strike 3 appears to be pushing the boundaries way too far for the defendant. Seeking Information From Google In addition to seeking information from ISP Frontier Communications (which is standard in such cases), Strike 3 also wants access to huge amounts of the defendant’s user account data stored at Google. Included in the request are all documents identifying the basic registration data for the Google account, all data that Google holds on the subscriber’s alternative email addresses, all IP addresses used to access the Google account since July 2019, all connection logs for the same period, plus records relating to purchases made on ALL Google services and products. strike-demand-google Strike 3 also wants the technical specifications of every device used by the defendant to access all Google services and products, documents identifying every single file uploaded to Google Drive, all videos uploaded to YouTube and – this is a scorcher – all records held by Google relating to internet searches made by the defendant for terms including ‘torrent’, ‘utorrent’ and ‘vpn’ dating back to July 2019. This initial trove of personal information isn’t enough for Strike 3. It also wants access to the defendant’s Netflix account to obtain evidence relating to its adult movie lawsuit, despite Netflix carrying no pornography. So What Information Does Strike 3 Want From Netflix? The basic personal information Netflix holds on subscribers is detailed in a dedicated support page but like many similar platforms, Netflix also builds user profiles to feed its algorithms. This data includes user interactions (viewing history and ratings) plus specific preferences and tastes. To somehow support its allegations that the defendant is responsible for seeding 36 adult movies using BitTorrent, Strike 3 wants all basic registration data from Netflix (full name, email address, phone number) plus additional information, including a list of devices used to access the service. The adult movie company also demands “Clickstream Information”, i.e details of all actions taken by the defendant when logged in to Netflix. This includes profile and device names used, details of every Netflix page visited, the URL of the websites the defendant visited before accessing Netflix, plus dates and times when that happened. In common with the subpoena Strike 3 wants to send to Google, a large proportion of the requested information from Netflix is redacted from the subpoena. However, we can still see that Strike 3 wants to dig deep into the defendant’s devices with requests to receive unique device identifiers, device manufacturers, manufacturers of specific components such as processors, and a whole lot more. Things become even more intrusive with Strike 3’s demand to access the defendant’s gaming activities on Netflix including games played, playing session time length, and just about anything else the porn company can retrieve. Unsurprisingly, the John Doe defendant is pushing back on this massive discovery effort. Motion to Quash Google and Netflix Subpoenas In a motion filed with the court, attorneys for the defendant say there is no need or good cause for the documents being subpoenaed, not least since they represent an invasion of privacy are not proportional to the needs of the case. The first opposition against the Google subpoena lists many issues, noting that documents stored at Google would reveal private and personal information, including privileged communications with counsel. The request for YouTube data is “irrelevant” since there is no evidence of the defendant hosting infringing videos on the platform. On the issue of search query data, the motion notes that such searches should be considered private as they can also contain “highly-personal and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality..” In respect of Netflix, the motion says the request to access “highly invasive personal information unrelated to the simple question of whether Strike 3’s movie data was downloaded on John Doe’s computer” is unacceptable, while access to gaming records is “irrelevant” as Strike 3 does not distribute games. “There is no evidence that either Netflix or Google participated in the production, distribution, or financing of hard-core pornography. Instead, Strike 3 seeks irrelevant information from these two companies with the intent of harvesting John Doe’s personal account information from these two sources. This is manifestly an invasion of privacy. None of this personal account information is relevant to this case,” the motion reads. In summary, John Doe’s attorney believes that no reasonable attorney could have a good faith belief that these broad subpoenas meet the proportionality requirements of the court. Strike 3 should be sanctioned and the court should quash the subpoenas, the motion adds.

The RIAA's legal campaign to crack down on tools and sites that utilize YouTube to provide unlicensed MP3 song downloads looks set to expand. A DMCA subpoena application filed in the United States reveals that the music industry group is trying to identify the operator of 320ytmp3.com, a huge YouTube-ripping service with an estimated 60 million visits per month. RIAAAfter more than two decades of declining fortunes, 2021 was a blockbuster year for global recorded music revenues. With a growth of 18.5% on the previous year and revenues of $25.9 billion, 2021 marked a return to levels last witnessed pre-Napster in the late 1990s. Nevertheless, more than 20 years later the music industry is still fighting piracy but against a relatively new enemy – YouTube-ripping services. By enabling users to access tracks on YouTube and convert them to MP3 downloads, tools like youtube-dl and sites including Yout, flvto and 2conv are all embroiled in lawsuits involving the IFPI and RIAA, both in the United States and further afield. That being said, there are always more targets for the major labels and two more have just appeared on the radar. RIAA Filed Complaints With Cloudflare In emails dated March 29, the RIAA informed Cloudflare that “users of its system” are engaged in copyright infringement so help is needed to track them down. “We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based on the data available to us,” the emails read. The RIAA emails to Cloudflare reference two YouTube-ripping style platforms – mp3download.to and 320ytmp3.com. According to SimilarWeb stats, the former’s traffic ranges between 3.5 million and 6 million visits per month. The latter, on the other hand, is a much more popular resource. In December 2021, January and February 2022, the site pulled in between 53 million and 61.8 million visitors per month. Almost 30% of users came from the United States with the UK, Canada and India occupying the rest of the top slots. That makes 320ytmp3.com one of the most popular sites of its type online today. Cloudflare Won’t Do Much Without a Court Order The RIAA’s emails asked Cloudflare to take immediate action against both platforms in respect of specific links cited in the RIAA’s complaints, which reference songs by Wham! and Chicago, among others. The emails also ask Cloudflare to “consider the widespread and repeated infringing nature” of the sites in light of the CDN provider’s repeat infringer policy. In reality, though, the RIAA wants something more valuable. Given that Cloudflare won’t give up its customers’ details without authorization, this week the RIAA also filed a DMCA subpoena application at a California court. Listing the same musical works, the music industry group requested an order to compel Cloudflare to hand over the personal details of those behind the two sites, including their names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and payment information. The court quickly signed off on the application, meaning that Cloudflare is now required to hand over information to the RIAA so that its inquiries can be taken to the next level. Whether Cloudflare holds any useful information remains an open question since sites are known to sign up to the service using fake details. However, even in the absence of direct legal action against either of the platforms, there is still a strong chance that one or both will appear in future court-ordered ISP blocking injunctions, mostly actioned by ISPs outside the United States. The RIAA has recently filed DMCA takedown notices against 320ytmp3.com with the aim of removing the site’s links from Google search. Many more have been filed with Google by the BPI in the UK (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) which could be a sign of an upcoming High Court application.

With a fresh batch of DMCA subpoena applications filed in the US, the MPA and ACE want Cloudflare to hand over the personal details of dozens more pirate streaming site operators. One application is of particular interest since it contains what appear to be questionable piracy allegations designed to obtain information on domains that carry no infringing content. ACE logoThe Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment is a global anti-piracy coalition that counts the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and dozens more media giants among its members. From Apple TV+ to the BBC, Bell Canada, and Canal+, ACE members want pirate streaming platforms out of business but to do that effectively, identifying pirate site operators is a key aim. This can be achieved in a number of ways. One of the most popular options is to obtain DMCA subpoenas in the United States that compel infrastructure and domain companies to hand over the detail of their clients. DMCA subpoenas requesting data on the operators of hundreds of ‘pirate’ domains have been filed in recent years, with many targets eventually ending up in ISP blocking applications. Others are hit with cease-and-desist notices and/or direct legal action. The fate of those behind dozens of domains targeted in the new batch of ACE/MPA subpoenas detailed below is yet to be determined but a mix of the above options is to be expected during the next few months. DMCA Subpoena 1 – Streaming Sites/Portals “ACE includes some of the world’s largest and most respected motion picture and television rights owners including, among many others, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Universal City Studios LLC, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Amazon Content Services LLC and Netflix Studios,” the legal requests filed in the US targeting Cloudflare begin. “As is stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the Motion Picture Association, Inc. (on behalf of the ACE Members) information sufficient to identify the infringers. This would include the individuals’ names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history.” The targeted domains reads as follows: hdss.nu, filmesonlinex.org, megafilmeshd20.pro, filmesonlinegratisbr.xyz, superfilmesonline.pro, filmesonlines.org, zfilmesonlines.net, onionplay.se, imaple.tv, ssphim.net, btnull.org, pttplay.cc, idlix.cc, filmpalast.to, ummagurau.com, tamilblasters.com, watchmovierulz.co, extramovies.wine, vizjer.com, vizjer.pl, layarkacaxxi.isu, moviemochha.com This first list is mainly comprised of streaming portals together displaying a decent geographical spread. For example, imaple.tv is one of the most popular pirate sites in Taiwan while Vizjer is massively popular in both Poland and to a lesser extent, the UK. Filmesonlinex.org receives more than 96% of its traffic from Brazil while almost all of ssphim.net’s traffic comes from Vietnam. Whatever the location in the world, the domains are all accused of infringing the rights of ACE members, with the specific movies and related rightsholders shown in the table below. movies-sub1 The documents for this subpoena can be found here (1,2,3, pdf) DMCA Subpoena 2 – ‘Pirate’ IPTV Services The copyright infringement allegations in this DMCA subpoena application relate only to two movies, Frozen II and Godzilla vs. Kong. In turn, the request for information targets just two IPTV providers – strims.tv and tvlinkcanada.cc movies-sub2 As the image shows, the ACE members list the main domains of the platforms but also the ‘backend’ URLs from where the allegedly-infringing content was streamed. As the redacted sections show, ACE investigators clearly have accounts on those platforms that they wish to keep secret. Any leak of that information might allow the platforms to identify MPA investigators, their IP addresses and payment information. That wouldn’t be helpful to the anti-piracy group which prefers disclosure to run in the opposite direction. The documents for this subpoena can be found here (1,2,3, pdf) DMCA Subpoena 3 Raises Some Questions This request to Cloudflare sees ACE/MPA demanding information on the operators of four domains – hdss.to, primewirestatus.org, soapgate.cc, and onionplay.network. However, these are not pirate site domains in the traditional sense. All four domains are information portals that provide details on what domains are active for certain pirate sites but, importantly, none of them carry any infringing content whatsoever. There are some subtle differences to note though. The soapgate.cc domain states clearly that it is run by the Soap2day team and it also carries clickable links to various Soap2day domains. From a purely independent and informational perspective, that isn’t exactly optimal, but it doesn’t mean that the site carries infringing content either. Hdss.to also has clickable links but nowhere does it say it’s run by the people behind the HDSS streaming site. primewire pgp When looking at the two remaining domains – primewirestatus.org and onionplay.network – claims that the sites infringe copyrights are stretched to breaking point. Both domains carry a single page of text, there are no clickable links to other domains, and definitely no infringing copies of Hollywood movies. This time, however, the DMCA subpoena application filed by ACE/MPA is framed differently. As the image below shows, the domains in question are listed as ‘index domains’ that reference other domains that in turn link to infringing content. But that doesn’t alter the fact that they do not carry infringing content themselves. movies-sub3 This disconnect is referenced in the text of the DMCA subpoena application, with ACE/MPA noting that, “The subpoena requires that you [Cloudflare] provide information concerning the individuals offering the websites that link to websites offering infringing material described in the attached notice.” Even if there are valid claims in respect of soapgate.cc and hdss.to for offering links to the main domains of pirate sites, on primewirestatus.org and onionplay.network there are no hyperlinks to any other websites whatsoever, which if nothing else appears a little disingenuous on the part of the applicants. But here’s the thing. DMCA subpoenas don’t have to be reviewed or even seen by a judge, so these will likely just get signed off by a clerk. And even then, if Cloudflare does spot the ‘error’ when conducting its own review, it seems highly unlikely it will put up a fight under the circumstances. Add in the fact that it is extremely unlikely that anyone behind these domains will put up a defense either, and the ACE/MPA ‘oversight’ won’t make much difference at all, despite it being legally questionable. Hard to knock them for trying though, particularly given the scale of the infringement on the sites they’re actually interested in.

TorGuard has settled a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by several movie companies last year. The VPN provider stood accused of failing to take action against subscribers who were pirating films. As part of the settlement, TorGuard agrees to block BitTorrent traffic on U.S. servers; however, it stresses that user privacy is in no way affected by this decision. torguard logoAmidst growing concerns surrounding online privacy and security, VPN services have become increasingly popular in recent years. Millions of people use VPNs to stay secure and to prevent outsiders from tracking their online activities. As with regular Internet providers, a subsection of these subscribers may be engaged in piracy activities. Over the past few years, we have seen copyright holders take several ISPs to court, accusing them of failing to disconnect repeat copyright infringers. These lawsuits have expanded recently, with VPN providers and hosting companies as the main targets. The VPN lawsuits are filed by a group of independent movies companies that previously went after piracy sites and apps. They include the makers of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Dallas Buyers Club, and London Has Fallen. Filmmakers sued Torguard In one of these cases, the filmmakers accused Torguard of being involved in widespread copyright infringement. The company allegedly ‘encouraged’ subscribers to use pirate sites while helping to conceal movie piracy. “TorGuard knows and encourages its end users to use its VPN service to access The Pirate Bay and pirate content” the complaint read, pointing to a topic in the Torguard forums. “When TorGuard’s end users have trouble accessing Pirate Bay, TorGuard’s official moderators give them advice on how to fix their settings so that the end users can freely pirate content,” the movie companies added. In response to this complaint, TorGuard asked a Florida federal court to dismiss the case. Among other things, the VPN company argued that the movie companies never sent any of their alleged copyright infringement and takedown notices to TorGuard’s designated DMCA agent. Settlement & U.S. Torrent Blocking The court hasn’t ruled on this motion yet, and that’s no longer needed either. Earlier this month, both parties agreed to end the legal dispute with a confidential settlement agreement. There is no evidence that any money will change hands and both sides have agreed to cover their own costs. However, the settlement comes with a twist. As Bleeping Computer spotted, Torguard agrees to block BitTorrent traffic on U.S. servers. “Pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, Plaintiffs have requested, and Defendant has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to block BitTorrent traffic on its servers in the United States using firewall technology,” a joint statement reads. torguard block This is quite a far-reaching measure as a broad BitTorrent blockade will also affect legal traffic, which includes software updates from Twitter and Facebook. That said, people can still use BitTorrent on servers in other regions. TorGuard Responds TorrentFreak reached out to TorGuard and a spokesperson shared the company’s official comment, which was also posted on its own website a few minutes ago. The company confirms that it’s blocking torrent traffic on U.S. servers, but that doesn’t change anything for the privacy of users. “TorGuard has not been forced to log network usage data. Due to the nature of shared IP’s and related hardware technicalities of how TorGuard’s network was built it is impossible for us to do so,” the VPN provider writes. “We have a responsibility to provide high quality uninterrupted VPN and proxy services to our client base at large while mitigating any related network abuse that should arise. This commitment to user privacy and service reliability is the reason we have taken measures to block Bittorrent traffic on servers within the United States.” TorGuard is not the first VPN service to agree to block BitTorrent traffic to settle a lawsuit filed by these movie companies. VPN Unlimited signed a similar deal a few weeks ago and last year VPN.ht also agreed to block torrent traffic on U.S. servers. Fallout? While the settlement effectively ends TorGuard’s legal dispute with the filmmakers, it could fuel the flames of another lawsuit that was deemed to be over. Last December, a Florida federal court dismissed copyright infringement claims the filmmakers had lodged against hosting company QuadraNet. The case was dismissed, as Quadranet wasn’t aware of any specific infringements, nor could it control or stop any specific piracy activity. The filmmakers were not happy with this ruling and asked the court to reconsider the order. They hope that, when allowed, they can properly back up their claims when sufficient evidence is gathered. Some extra evidence could come from TorGuard, which previously leased servers from QuadraNet. As part of the settlement, the VPN provider also signed a list of undisputed facts, where the hosting company is prominently featured. For example, the movie companies sent 97,640 Notices to QuadraNet of alleged piracy activities on SOCKS5 IP addresses that were assigned to TorGuard. However, these were never forwarded to the VPN provider. “Had Quadranet sent these Notices to our DMCA agent, TorGuard’s ordinary business practices would have been to immediately take steps to stop further piracy,” TorGuard states, adding that “Quadranet never took any disciplinary actions against TorGuard in response to these Notices.” As far as we can see, the Florida federal court has yet to rule on this motion for reconsideration. Given the track record of the movie companies, this is probably not the last we’ve heard of it.

Anti-piracy company MarkMonitor is a trusted partner of the major record labels. Among other things, the company provided evidence and testimony for the ongoing piracy lawsuit against Internet provider Bright House. This week, MarkMonitor asked the court to keep this information confidential, fearing that TorrentFreak will share it with the broader public, which could include pirates. markmonitorAt TorrentFreak we do our best to keep readers updated on the latest copyright and piracy news, highlighting issues from different points of view. We report on the opinions and efforts of copyright holders when it comes to online piracy and have active dialogues with anti-piracy outfits. At the same time, we also make room for those who oppose them. That’s how balanced reporting works in our view. There is probably no site on the Internet that reports on the negative consequences of piracy as much as we do and but for some reason, the term “pro-piracy” is sometimes attached to our reporting. In most cases we shrug off these characterizations, concluding that those who portray us in this light are simply uninformed. However, when these words are part of a court filing intended to keep information from the public, we have to respond. MarkMonitor Evidence This week, anti-piracy MarkMonitor sent a request to a federal court in Florida, asking for the option to file some evidence under seal. This information includes documents, source code, and witness testimony regarding the company’s efforts to track online pirates. The filing is part of the legal battle between several record labels and ISP Bright House, which is accused of failing to terminate repeat copyright infringement. This accusation is based on evidence from MarkMonitor. MarkMonitor believes that the requested information is confidential and asks the court to keep it out of the public’s view. This isn’t an unusual request as sealed filings are quite common. However, the argumentation certainly stands out. TorrentFreak Threat? The anti-piracy outfit informs the court that it’s particularly concerned about a particular news site named TorrentFreak. “The designation and maintaining the confidential nature of this information by keeping it filed under seal also helps avoid unrestricted publication of the Confidential Information by Torrent Freak,” MarkMonitor writes. The request explains that TF and others share news with the public at large, including people who may be involved in hacking or piracy. That can potentially reach the pirating subscribers who are at the center of the lawsuit. Later on in the filing, MarkMonitor’s legal team uses the term “pro-piracy”, without giving any further explanation of how TorrentFreak would fit into this category. “[T]he Confidential Information here is proprietary in nature […] with the public’s interest being low, but for competitors who wish to gain an unfair advantage over MarkMonitor or others that wish to publicize or exploit MarkMonitor’s highly sensitive technical information in the pro-piracy sector of the general public.” MarkMonitor’s filing is in support of a sealing request by the two main parties in the lawsuit. In the original motion, the record labels clarify that some of the MarkMonitor evidence could help pirates to evade detection. Perplexed Needless to say, we are perplexed after reading this filing. While it is totally understandable that MarkMonitor and the record labels don’t want to share proprietary or confidential information in public, singling out TorrentFreak is completely unnecessary. Even worse, using the “pro-piracy” term is wholly inaccurate. Judging from the responses we get, our readership is rather diverse. In fact, copyright holders often approach us with news and regularly cite our independent reporting, even MarkMonitor did so in the past. While it’s certainly true that we report on these types of lawsuits in detail, we cover the good and the bad for all sides. This also includes positive news for MarkMonitor and the record labels. This isn’t the first time that the name of this publication has shown up in court filings. The record labels previously portrayed TorrentFreak as an unreliable source. In addition, the music companies were particularly interested to know whether potential jurors in these cases read our news coverage.

Hosting company Quadranet has scored a crucial victory in a "VPN piracy" lawsuit filed by several film companies earlier this year. A Florida federal court dismissed the claims that the hosting company is liable for infringements of its customers' subscribers. The filmmakers are not allowed to amend their claims either, as that would be futile. pirate-flagA group of independent film companies has taken the piracy liability issue to a new level this year. After targeting site operators and individual pirates, the makers of films such as “London Has Fallen”, “Outpost” and “Dallas Buyers Club” started going after VPN providers. They didn’t stop there either. Over the past few months, several hosting companies have been sued as well. This includes the Californian hosting company Quadranet which leased servers to VPN provider LiquidVPN. The filmmakers argued that the hosting company can be held liable for copyright infringement because some LiquidVPN subscribers were pirating. Quadranet should have taken appropriate action after receiving repeated copyright infringement warnings, they said. For example, the hosting provider could have cut off the power cord or null-routed the IP addresses of LiquidVPN’s server. In addition, it could have terminated its agreement with the company. Quadranet Denied Piracy Allgetions Quadranet vehemently disagreed with the accusations. Through a motion to dismiss, the company challenged the filmmakers’ claims, including the allegation that it is contributorily and vicariously liable for the alleged piracy activities. Null-routing IP addresses would mean effectively pulling the plug on all LiquidVPN subscribers, including those who use the service for legitimate purposes, it countered. The hosting provider sees itself as a neutral service provider and it told the court that it’s at least two steps removed from any ‘involvement’ in the alleged copyright infringements. Court Sides With Quadranet After allowing the filmmakers to amend their complaints to address potential deficiencies in their pleading, the Florida federal court ruled on the motion to dismiss this week. This resulted in a clear victory for the hosting provider. District Court Judge Beth Bloom concluded that there isn’t sufficient ground to argue that Quadranet is liable for contributory copyright infringement. This would require the rightsholders to show that culpable intent was involved, which isn’t the case here. The filmmakers cited jurisprudence that shows that third-party services can be required to take ‘appropriate’ action if they are made aware of infringing activity. However, in this case, the court concludes that Quadranet was not aware of any specific infringements since the pirated traffic was encrypted. “The [complaint] instead alleges that Quadranet provides servers to VPN companies. Quadranet notes that VPN companies encrypt their clients’ (‘end users’) online activity, which means Quadranet was never aware of the end users’ online activity on Quadranet’s servers. “As such, even if Plaintiffs sent notices of copyright infringement to Quadranet, which neither Party disputes, Quadranet was unaware of any specific infringing activity,” Judge Bloom adds, while dismissing the contributory infringement claim. No Vicarious Copyright Infringement Either The filmmakers’ second copyright claim relates to ‘vicarious’ infringement. They argued that the hosting company purposefully failed to update Whois records, which was seen as an appealing feature by VPN companies that have pirating subscribers. To back up this allegation, the rightsholders had to show that Quadranet directly profited from the piracy activities and that it had the right and ability to control the alleged infringements. According to the court, this is not the case. VPN providers such as LiquidVPN would pay for the servers regardless of any piracy activity, Judge Bloom notes. “VPN companies, not the end users, paid Quadranet for its services, and it is apparent that Quadranet was paid by the VPN companies regardless of whether the end users engaged in infringing activities or legitimate activities.” Similarly, the hosting provider didn’t have any straightforward options to stop or control the infringing activities either. Disconnecting or null routing the servers is not seen as a viable option, as that would affect legitimate VPN users too. “If Quadranet were to terminate the accounts of VPN companies, Quadranet would be interfering with the relationship between VPN companies and their customers, many of whom may be engaged in lawful uses of VPN. “Therefore, the measure that Plaintiffs suggest – namely, null-routing VPN companies – is an impermissibly broad measure that does not constitute a ‘practical ability to police infringing activities of [third parties]’,” Judge Bloom adds, citing jurisprudence. broad Dismissed With Prejudice Based on these and other arguments, the court decided to dismiss the complaint. The filmmakers previously requested to have the option to file an amended version to correct any failures but this request was denied as well. District Court Judge Bloom writes that the plaintiffs already had two opportunities to file an amended complaint and doesn’t believe another shot is warranted. As such, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. “Considering the Parties’ arguments and Plaintiffs’ previous opportunities to amend the complaint, a third opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile, and Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint would likely not survive another motion to dismiss,” Judge Bloom writes. This outcome is a major victory for Quadranet. The filmmakers, for their part, will be disappointed. However, they still have several other cases pending against VPN providers, hosting companies, and ISPs. So we will likely hear from them again in the near future.

A federal court in Florida maintains that there is no reason to believe that hosting company Quadranet is liable for the pirating activities of its VPN customers. A group of filmmakers suggests that the provider could have null-routed IP-addresses, but the court doesn't see this as a practical or effective measure. blackholeA group of independent film companies has taken the issue of piracy liability to a new level over the past year. After pursuing lawsuits against file-sharers, pirate site operators, and app developers, they started going after VPN providers and their hosting companies. This strategy has resulted in a few settlement agreements already. VPN providers Torguard, VPN Unlimited, and VPN.ht all agreed to block torrent traffic on U.S. servers. Hosting company Sharktech did the same and also promised to block popular torrent sites including The Pirate Bay, YTS, and RARBG. It’s unclear whether any damages were paid as part of any of these settlements. What we do know is that the agreements are now being used as ammunition in other cases, as we previously predicted. Filmmakers vs. Quadranet This is also happening in a lawsuit filed by a group of filmmakers against hosting provider Quadranet. The Californian company was not inclined to settle and fought back, with success. Last December, a Florida federal court dismissed the complaint. The filmmakers’ tried to hold the hosting company accountable for pirating subscribers of VPN companies that hired servers at Quadranet. According to the court, the hosting company didn’t have any straightforward options to stop or control the infringing activities. The court left no option open to amend the complaint and present new evidence, but the filmmakers were not giving up just yet. They submitted a motion for reconsideration arguing that there is new evidence and sufficient ground to move the case forward. Null-Routing Part of the filmmakers’ legal theory is related to the measures that the hosting company could have taken in response to the copyright infringement notices it received. This includes the null-routing of IP-addresses, which makes them unusable, and would stop the infringing activity. The court previously concluded that this measure would go too far as legitimate VPN users could use the same IP-addresses. In addition, Quadranet would interfere with the relationship between VPN companies and their customers, which makes it an “impermissibly broad measure.” The filmmakers disagreed. In their motion for reconsideration, they cited statements from VPN provider TorGuard which said that null-routing is a standard practice among some VPN providers. This would not harm other customers. reconsider In the motion for reconsideration, they further suggested that the court should not confuse null-routing of an IP address with null-routing an account. Court Rejects Filmmakers Arguments This week, Florida District Court Judge Beth Bloom ruled on the motion, which didn’t convince her to drastically change the previous order. Instead, Judge Bloom doubled down on the conclusion that null-routing is not an effective anti-piracy measure in this instance. “The Court recognizes the technological distinction between null-routing an IP address and null-routing an account that Plaintiffs now seek to emphasize. However, Plaintiffs fail to persuade the Court that null-routing IP addresses is a practical, effective measure,” Judge Bloom wrote. The TorGuard declaration doesn’t change this and has no bearing on Quadranet, Judge Bloom says. The same is true for the argument that another hosting company, Sharktech, voluntarily chose to block torrent traffic and torrent sites. “The manner in which Sharktech operates and is willing to implement systems to attempt to block pirating websites is from an unrelated settlement agreement that has no bearing on Quadranet’s ability and alleged obligation to implement similar measures,” Judge Bloom wrote. After putting aside TorGuard’s statements and Sharktech’s settlement agreement, the court sees no new evidence of measures Quadranet could have taken in response to the alleged copyright infringements. Not a Practical Anti-Piracy Measure Even if the TorGuard and Sharktech information was taken into account, the court would still conclude that null-routing isn’t an effective measure. For one, alleged infringers could easily get a new IP-address. “[A]ssuming for the sake of argument that Quadranet could null-route a specific IP address — static or dynamic — without interfering with other end users’ legitimate use of the same IP address, Quadranet’s actions would be wholly ineffective as the copyright infringer could get a new IP address to continue infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. “In other words, null-routing an IP address or an account is not a practical measure to police infringing activity,” Judge Bloom adds. bloom order All in all, the court sees no reason to amend its earlier conclusion that the filmmakers failed to allege that Quadranet has the practical ability to police infringing activities of third parties. In addition, the motion for reconsideration was denied on other grounds as well. The only part of the motion that was granted is the request to remove several companies, including After Productions, SF Film, and Hunter Killer Productions from the list of plaintiffs. While the order is clearly a setback for the filmmakers, it also comes with a silver lining. Filmmakers Demand Millions from LiquidVPN Now that the claims against Quadranet and Torguard have been dismissed, they can go ahead with the motion for default judgment against LiquidVPN. The court previously denied this motion, as it could lead to inconsistent judgments, as the claims against the other defendants were still pending. The filmmakers didn’t waste any time. Yesterday, they filed their motion for a default judgment against LiquidVPN, which failed to defend itself in court. Among other things, the companies request $9,900,000 in damages for the copyright infringement of 66 works and $4,950,000 for violating the DMCA by altering copyright management information. On top of those and other damages, the filmmakers also request that LiquidVPN, whose homepage disappeared months ago, starts blocking popular torrent sites including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, and 1337x.

1

Start the Counting from 1000 backwards to 0 I will start, its very Simple 999