The law will make it easier for copyright holders to get a court order in order to force ISPs to release the customer info linked to a suspect IP-address. The Local reports that, although the law is based on a EU directive, the current draft goes further than that.

In order to obtain the personal details, copyright holders will have to prove that there is “probable cause” that a person, or rather an IP-address, has actually shared copyrighted material with others. With the current state of evidence gathering, where mistakes and false accusations are fairly common, this may not be that easy to achieve.

The many unsecured Wireless routers complicate the evidence gathering even further, and BitTorrent trackers have also implemented countermeasures of their own. Earlier this week we reported that the Pirate Bay tracker software automatically inserts several “random IP addresses” that are not actually downloading data. This is done on purpose, to pollute the evidence gathering of anti-piracy outfits.

The new law is also heavily opposed by Swedish Pirate Party Chairman Rick Falkvinge who told TorrentFreak: “These laws are written by digital illiterates who behave like blindfolded, drunken elephants trumpeting about in an egg packaging facility. They have no idea how much damage they’re causing, because they lack today’s literacy: an understanding of how the Internet is reshaping the power structures at their core.”

“We have good hope of putting an end to these ridiculous developments. Either the existing politicians start to understand what they’re actually doing at work all day, or they will escalate the conflict to the point where we’re replacing them in office. Either way, copyright will be scaled back,” Falkvinge added.

It is to be expected that opposition against the new anti-piracy law will be great, similar to the public outrage when Sweden introduced a wiretapping law earlier this year, and after the raid on The Pirate Bay in 2006. It wouldn’t surprise us if The Pirate Bay fights this battle at the front, clashing with local politicians and media once again.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Sweden to Introduce Controversial Anti-Piracy Law torrent downloads.

As far as anti-piracy headlines go, the IFPI would prefer those coming from Denmark recently to be kept as quiet as possible. Back in September, Danish ISPs rejected the IFPI “3 strikes” proposals and then the anti-piracy group lost two court cases where alleged file-sharers used the so-called ‘wireless defense’.

This week, however, the IFPI and Danish Antipiratgruppen achieved a small victory in the case of a middle-aged man from Aalborg who used Direct Connect (DC) to share around 13,000 music files in 2005.

According to a Comon.dk report, the IFPI/Antipiratgruppen tracked activity which it linked to an IP address registered to the man. Obviously - as in all such cases - it was not possible to positively identify the person at the keyboard simply via the IP address, but the man made some admissions in what appears to be a generally weak defense, and these seem to help seal his fate.

Having previously lost his case in the district court, the man appealed and the case went to the Vestre Landsret, one of Denmark’s highest courts.

The defendant claimed that he couldn’t figure out how to use Direct Connect but admitted visiting the software’s homepage, albeit on an old PC which dated back to the mid 1990’s. It was also made clear in court that the man did not operate any type of wireless network, eliminating a defense which proved successful in other cases.

The ruling from the Vestre Landsret which was announced yesterday morning, stated that the man was guilty of copyright infringement. “The Court held that no person other than him [the defendant] could have used the IP address, and therefore he was sentenced,” said Antipiratgruppen lawyer, Maria Fred Lund.

The defendant was ordered to pay 160,000 kroner ($24,400) in damages, which was substantially less than the 440,000 kroner ($67,200) the anti-pirates wanted. He was also ordered to delete the music files he had obtained illegally.

Although the damages are less than the IFPI would’ve liked, the defendant’s lawyer, Per OverBech, says they could appeal to get the damages reduced. The court calculated the damages based on the losses estimated to have been suffered following the breach of copyright. The Vestre Landsret set an amount of 80,000 kroner ($12,200) and used the principle of ‘double-up’ to reach a final figure of 160,000 kroner ($24,400).

The ‘double up’ provision in Danish law is comprised of two parts. The first part covers the losses estimated to have been suffered following the breach of copyright. The court then doubles this amount to cover the actual losses and the documenting of such losses, which Antipiratgruppen and IFPI did not do.

“It is worth noting that it certainly pays to deal critically with the requirements of Antipiratgruppen,” said Per OverBech. “But in this case, the Vestre Landsret applied the principle of double-up, and I do not think there is reason for this,” noting that Antipiratgruppen provided no evidence to prove that sales had declined due to the alleged file-sharing activities of his client.

OverBech admits that it is unlikely that he will achieve an acquittal for his client but could go to the Supreme Court to contest the ‘double up’ principle applied by Vestre Landsret.

Thanks Peter_Pan

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

IFPI Wins Danish File-Sharing Case torrent downloads.

Most often, companies such as BayTSP and MediaSentry are hired to connect to BitTorrent trackers, and send takedown notices to the users (via their ISP) who download movies, TV-shows or music albums of a company they represent. This is a fairly easy process, since BitTorrent is far from anonymous: Every user necessarily broadcasts his or her IP-address to other peers in the swarm.

Sometimes anti-piracy outfits use their own trackers to gather evidence. Last week we reported that The Pirate Bay started to actively remove these suspicious trackers from their torrents, with some help from torrenteditor.com. Running a tracker is not required though, to collect information from BitTorrent users. In fact, many attempt to use publicly available trackers such as The Pirate Bay to do so. However, the tracker owners are aware of this, and trick these tracking companies by polluting the list of IP-addresses the tracker returns. That is one of the techniques The Pirate Bay uses, just to show how flawed the evidence gathering is.

Polluting the evidence works like this. When a client asks for a list of peers who are downloading the same torrent, the tracker software automatically inserts several “random IP addresses” that are not in the swarm. They are based on existing sub-nets, but might be from people who may not even be aware that BitTorrent exists. This means that the evidence that’s being gathered by anti-piracy companies includes IPs that belong to people that were not downloading the movie or album they are accused of. Perfect deniability, as the people who coded the tracker software explain.

Of course, this doesn’t work when the pirate-tracking company requires itself to connect to the peer, before the IP-address is collected, since it is impossible to connect to a non-existing peer. A representative from BayTSP told TorrentFreak that they have such a requirement, but several others are less thorough, which makes their claims useless, and impossible to defend in court.

The best solution is of course to ban these anti-piracy companies from using the tracker in the first place. This is something The Pirate Bay is working on as well, and they have blocked many IP-ranges already, but it’s impossible to ban them all. Unlike most of the suits in Hollywood, the companies that go after illicit file-sharers are experts in their field, and know more about BitTorrent than many users. They try to circumvent blocklists such as PeerGuardian whenever possible, and change IPs when they are marked.

Pirate Bay co-founder TiAMO told TorrentFreak that he has several criteria on which he can pick out the suspicious users that might be collecting IP-addresses. He also said that he’s working on a automated warning system which will operate as a sniffer on a monitor port. That project is far from complete, but has the potential to detect suspicious behavior more easily.

Nevertheless, it is impossible (as the name might give away) to keep the prying eyes of Hollywood off public trackers. Even private trackers are far from secure, as most anti-piracy companies have accounts at the larger communities. The private in “private tracker” merely refers to the fact that you have to login, and has nothing to do with “security”. The Pirate Bay (and other tracker owners) take several measures to prevent their users from being tracked by anti-piracy outfits, but there’s only so much they can do.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Pirate Bay Tricks Anti-Pirates with Fake Peers torrent downloads.

Quote Unquote Records is an Internet based record label, run by Bomb the Music Industry! and ‘The Arrogant Sons of Bitches’ frontman Jeff Rosenstock. A forward looking outfit, all artists on the label give their music away for free on the label’s website. Well, they would, if the webhost hadn’t have taken down the site for alleged copyright infringement.

In a MySpace blog entry, Jeff Rosenstock explained that the Quote Unquote Records site is non-operational, and other sites connected to the label, including the Bomb the Music Industry! and Arrogant Sons of Bitches sites, have all been taken down too. So what happened?

Around a week ago, the label was notified by its webhost that it had some copyright music files on its server, which was no surprise to them since they were tracks by Arrogant Sons of Bitches, one of the label’s bands. The tracks the webhost referred to were actually written by Jeff himself. Jeff spoke with someone at the host on the telephone, explained that they were his own tracks and was informed this wasn’t a problem.

Three days later the labels site went down completely, due to Jeff hosting his own copyright files on his own site - a claimed violation of the hosting company’s Terms of Service. In order to solve the problem, Jeff would have to send his copyright registration forms to the host by mail, to prove he held the copyright, a problem in itself, explains Jeff:

“I called the company to explain that a lot of this material was NOT in fact registered with the US copyright office, instead we did the ol’ poor man’s copyright. The music that was copyrighted was done so under a Creative Commons License, which is a digital copyright that cannot be viewed if the website where the files are posted is down.”

It seems amazing that a host should be proactive like this, especially since it has clearly made a huge mistake. However, a week later and Jeff’s site is still down and he’s quite rightly upset: “I guess the scary thing for me is that it seems that my hosting server employs a guilty before proven innocent policy, which is terrifying for anyone who does not physically mail forms for every small idea they’ve ever had in their bedroom to the US copyright office. What a great new digital age, stuck in the trappings of wasteful forms and red tape.”

If losing your site to a bogus copyright claim isn’t enough, there is a more immediate problem. Jeff is being denied access to his data by the host and he says that since he had a crash on his local hard drive, he no longer has copies of any of the content that was on the Quote Unquote Records server. “So, long story short, I’m looking for any artwork or mp3s that were put on Quote Unquote Records,” he said.

If you can find any of the material Jeff is looking for on P2P networks, please post comments on his blog.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Record Label ‘Infringes’ Own Copyright, Site Pulled torrent downloads.

EPOE, Company for the Protection of Audio-Visual Works (known as Eteria Prostasias Optikoakoustikon Ergon), is a non-profit organization working to protect the copyrights of its for-profit members. Operating at the behest of its members, EPOE is given authority by Greek law enforcement and works under license of the Greek Copyright Organization, which itself is linked to the Ministry of Culture. Its members include many Greek companies but its international members are most easily recognized as they include MPA, Columbia, Fox, Universal, Buena Vista, MGM, Warner and Paramount.

On Tuesday, virtually every site offering user-generated Greek subtitles (fansubs) for English language movies and TV shows received legal threats from EPOE. Within a very short time, all sites including greektvsubs.gr, subtitles.gr, greeksubs, subs4u.gr and apsubs.com had either closed down or removed all subtitles. A sample of the translated complaint issued to greektvsubs is shown below:

According to our information and evidence, in your capacity as owner and manager of the website under the name www.greektvsubs.gr, without right and in violation of the provisions of Law 2121/93, without the required prior written permission of the legitimate beneficiaries of copyright and related rights of our member-companies, are engaged in a totally illegal activity, which consists of right without translation in the English language texts / dialogues and subtitles creation of films or television series, the royalties of which belong to our member companies, which you have then illegally and without right, distributed via the Internet.

So why are the Greeks file-sharers so upset? Yiannis, a user close to the subtitling sites explained to TorrentFreak: “Greek TV networks are most of the times very slow in airing the popular shows (one or two years is common), not showing them at all or the worst, or show a season or two and then forget about them, leaving the fans looking desperately for solutions. DVD distribution companies are no better. Some popular shows do not even exist in a translated form.”

“A couple of years ago dedicated fans started working to translate and create subtitles of their favorite shows and they teamed up to create a few web sites to share them with the rest of the fans,” Yiannis said “One of the biggest was greektvsubs.gr. These people managed to do with hard work, love and dedication what the TV industry failed: translate TV show episodes hours after they were aired and offer the subtitles for Greek speaking people to be able to watch their favorite show.”

There is currently a fierce debate surrounding the legality of such fan-subtitling sites. The Greek subtitles (in common with user-generated subtitles in other locales) are the result of hours of really hard work, listening to the TV show or movie in its native English and then translating by hand into Greek. The ’subbers’ don’t have access to the original scripts, everything is created from scratch since the movie or TV show isn’t even available in Greek, so on this basis some believe the sites operate legally. However, some are suggesting that under Greek copyright law, a translation could be considered as a ‘derivative work’ and as such requires permission from the original copyright holder.

Whatever the truth - and this is echoed in the emails we’ve received here at TorrentFreak from the fans - there is obviously a really healthy demand for these products in Greek language (not to mention from deaf people who absolutely rely on subtitles), yet the media companies spend their money on litigation, instead of addressing the core issue of giving the fans what they want.

In the meantime, while EPOE throws its considerable weight around, the show goes on for Greek subtitling fans as they head to their new home at gr.tvsubtitles.net.

Thanks to Yiannis and fakeb0us

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Anti-Pirates Wipe Out Movie and TV ‘Fansub’ Sites torrent downloads.

Running the largest BitTorrent tracker on the Internet requires a lot of expensive hardware. To keep this hardware running smoothly, The Pirate Bay is constantly optimizing their setup.

One of the latest changes is that they have started to automatically remove duplicate trackers from torrent files, to keep unnecessary connections between BitTorrent clients and their tracker to a minimum.

Pirate Bay co-founder TiAMO explained to TorrentFreak: “It’s totally unnecessary to have more than one of our tracker URLs when they all have the same peers, they just ask the tracker for the same data lots of times.”

“Also, now we can strip out all bad trackers from anti-p2p companies, as well as old ones that stopped working years ago,” he added. So, while they were at it, they have also decided to remove dead trackers, and BitTorrent trackers that are run by anti-piracy organizations. This makes it less likely that the MPAA and RIAA , often though companies like Mediasentry, can keep tabs on the download habits of Pirate Bay users.

Another advantage, of course, is that the number of fake files and spam from companies such as MediaDefender are kept to a minimum. Fake torrents are often used to trick people into downloading useless data instead of Hollywood’s latest blockbuster. The Pirate Bay already had quite a good track record when it comes to removing fakes, and this will only improve with these latest changes.

The Pirate Bay currently has 13 servers dedicated to the tracker, and another 14 servers for the website itself. Yesterday, the tracker broke a new record, with close to 18 million active users on “TV-torrent Tuesday“, and at the current rate, they will be tracking 20 million peers a few weeks from now.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

The Pirate Bay Removes Fake Trackers from Torrents torrent downloads.

Quietly and with little fuss, January 2007 saw the birth of TextBook Torrents, a relatively small site initially, offering a BitTorrent tracker dedicated to the indexing of textbooks. In 6 months the site had accumulated 10,000 members. Just 3 months later, the number of users had doubled to 20,000 and by January 2008 the membership doubled again to an impressive 40,000. By the end of June 2008, almost 70,000 members were registered at TextBook Torrents and more and more people were becoming aware of its existence.

On July 1st 2008, Jeff Young, a writer with The Chronicle of Higher Education, wrote an article entitled Textbook Piracy Grows Online, Prompting a Counterattack From Publishers. The article focused on TextBook Torrents and it quickly gained traction after being picked up by Slashdot and subsequently, many other mainstream publications. In this explosion of publicity the site’s membership grew rapidly, but almost inevitably, the anti-piracy hawks began to circle.

Within days, Textbook Torrents’ host and domain registrar received takedown requests. At the time, Geekman, the admin of the tracker told TorrentFreak: “We received a DMCA notice from Pearson Education a week or so prior, which we complied with, but it was a group of publishers that contacted our host.” On July 5th Dreamhost suspended Geekman’s account and refused to speak with him and it took a week to even transfer the domain. It took a month for the site to return.

“I want to see the textbook industry change such that we are no longer needed,” Geekman told TorrentFreak when we asked him in early August about his motivation to bring back the site.

Now, just 2 months later, visitors to the TextBook Torrents site this week were faced with the grim reality that the site has gone. “TextBook Torrents won’t be coming back,” Geekman told TorrentFreak. “I’ve been at it for two years and it has been an awesome two years, but i’m ready to step back and hopefully allow somebody else to rise up in our place.”

Geekman told us that he felt that when it became clear to the copyright owners that simple threats to the site and its host wouldn’t be sufficient to close down the tracker, he himself became the next logical target: “We got word from several credible sources that there was a lawsuit in the works against myself personally,” he explained.

Of course, when anyone invests a huge amount of work into a project, there will be some pain to endure when it comes to an end, and Geekman is no different. “It does hurt. Textbook Torrents was my baby and one of my proudest projects, both personally and certainly as Geekman. At the same time, running the site had become very demanding. Since the attention last summer the site nearly doubled in size in 4 months from 60,000 to over 100,000 members. In all honesty, it was all I could do to keep up with media interview requests.”

Geekman told us that he was sorry to have to shut down the site without notice, but in the absence of others immediately stepping up to take over the running of the site, he had no alternative. He also said that he was disappointed that nobody stepped in with a replacement site when TextBook Torrents was down for 3 weeks in August, but hopes that someone will do so now.

When asked if book publishers have learned anything from the whole affair, Geekman said he doubted that: “Intellectual property corporations are notorious for missing the point. Like I’ve said before, we were out to make a statement, to give out as much free stuff as possible, and I think we’ve made that statement - perhaps not as loudly as we could have given another few months and a little more perseverance - but certainly people have heard, and are talking. Piracy will never be sustainable for the textbook industry, but perhaps this is the first step towards a more sustainable model in the future.”

When a torrent site goes offline, especially when it’s quite a quick shutdown, it’s inevitable that users get nervous that somehow they could be implicated if the site’s logs fall into the wrong hands. However, ex-users of the site have absolutely nothing to fear in this respect: “Textbook Torrents files, including logs and backups, have been permanently removed from all servers where they were stored,” notes Geekman, “We no longer have any data on the site or its users.”

All donations made to the site have been secured for the possibility of mounting a legal defense, should the need arise. However, once it’s established that Geekman is in the clear, whatever money is left over will be donated to a textbook or education-related non-profit organization. For his part, Geekman says he will ceremonially take the last $12 for himself, to cover the only thing he ever paid for on the site - the domain registration.

“I’m an activist, I’ll freely admit it but I believe activism is about a lot more than parading around holding a sign,” Geekman told TorrentFreak. “There are far more effective ways to get peoples’ attention.”

There can be no denying that TextBook Torrents did just that.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

TextBook Torrents Turns The Final Page and Closes Down torrent downloads.

The RIAA has sent a number of John Doe lawsuits to court targeting a wide range of universities and individuals. over 17,000 have been confirmed, but some estimate the real number to be around 30,000. While most lawsuits are set to random, everyday people, a significant percentage have been specifically targeting college students.

It’s no secret that universities are an easier target than commercial ISPs. To universities, Internet connections are a bonus, not their main income source. They also have a wide range of topics to deal with, not just Internet related issues. So, for a few thousand students, there may only be one or two people dealing with copyright infringement, as part of their duties. They may even be unaware of the law, often being IT people drafted to do legal work.

Some universities are fighting back, however, from University of Wisconsin schools refusing to pass on ‘pre litigation letters’ to its students, and now, interestingly, University Of California – Santa Cruz (UCSC) has put a spanner in the procedural works of the RIAA litigation machine. As explained best in the article published a few months ago by RIAA ‘nemesis’ Ray Beckerman, the John Doe lawsuits are often just a legal ploy to get names and addresses, prior to starting a new campaign, and pre-litigation settlement.

However, UCSC has successfully argued that under the law – specifically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – there are restrictions on the conditions for releasing student’s personal details, even in cases where there is a court subpoena. In this case (UMG Recordings v Doe), the court has ruled that the subpoena must have a ‘reply by’ date that is long enough to allow the university to notify the target of the subpoena, and their parents. This can give them the chance to get legal advice which can put them in a stronger position with the RIAA than getting a letter/demand out of the blue.

Of course this is not the first time the RIAA has had such a set back. In 2004 a similar case on the other side of the country, found that the University of Pennsylvania should send a notice to the accused John Doe targets, and give them the chance to quash the motion. If such a motion is not filed within 21 days, the identity is revealed, but if one is filed, the identity is kept hidden until it is dealt with. It would appear, though, that this is only applicable to the ‘Eastern District of Pennsylvania’ and not to the country as a whole.

It is not clear why the courts around the US do not give as much consideration to the accused as to the accuser in these cases, or why they don’t find it necessary to require a defendant to be notified about a case they are a defendant in. UCSC had to fight for what should be considered ‘bare minimum’. In a system where winning generally means having more evidence in your favor, excluding one side from participation means it will always go against them - is that really what the law is about?

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Santa Cruz University Fights Back at RIAA torrent downloads.

More and more over the last year, we have witnessed anti-piracy lobby groups targeting ISPs to force them to either hand over the details of users they allege breach their copyrights, or, more clumsily, pressure them to block access to entire sites. The most famous recent case concerned The Pirate Bay, which was blocked by ISPs in Italy at the behest of the IFPI, who were then forced by a court to unblock the site again.

Now it’s the turn of one of Romania’s largest ISPs, UPC Romania, which is blocking its customers from accessing one of Romania’s most popular trackers, Torrentbits.ro. UPC has around 1 million customers, and according to reports received by TorrentFreak, these customers no longer have access to the BitTorrent tracker, receiving a message in their browser which is usually reserved for sites that simply don’t exist.

Those accessing the site via a proxy or from another ISP receive this message:

Founded in 2006, Torrentbits.ro quickly became one of Romania’s most popular sites but in May 2007 it became the subject of a police raid, resulting in the arrest of the admins. They were later released.

TorrentFreak’s requests for UPC to comment on the site block have so far gone unanswered.

Thanks to Voor

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Major Romanian ISP Blocks BitTorrent Site torrent downloads.

Like many other filmmakers, Moore wants his film to be seen by as many people as possible. However, the ‘rights holders’ have other interests. They want to sell the movie to as many people as possible, making sure they get every penny they are entitled to.

Moore’s latest documentary, Slacker Uprising, is only available for free in Northern America. People who attempt to download the torrent elsewhere get this annoying “Sorry” message. Since there are no geographical restrictions on the official torrent file, however, it was easy to share the film with the rest of the world. It would only take one person to upload the torrent to another site, and the rest of the world would have access to it. That’s exactly what happened.

In last week’s article, we asked the question: “Is this deliberate, or accidental?” Since it is so easy to share the documentary with people outside the US and Canada, we hinted that this might have been done on purpose. A few days later, Michael Moore contacted us, with a direct response to the question we posed.

“What do you think I’m up to? I know it may not be obvious to most, but I think you guys get it,” Moore wrote to us. “I only own the US and Canadian rights. So my hands are tied. But this is the 21st century. What are ‘geographical rights’ ?” Moore continued. “I’ll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?”

“I wish someone would figure out what I am up to,” he concluded. We believe many people have by now. This isn’t the first time Moore has clashed with the ‘rights holders’ of one of his own films. Last year The Weinstein Co. went after websites that hosted “Sicko”, while Moore publicly said that it was ok for people to download his movie illegally. “I’m not a big believer in our copyright laws. I think they’re way too restrictive,” he said at the time.

Even further back, in 2004, Moore also backed the people who downloaded his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. “The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening, he said. “Is it wrong for someone who’s bought a film on DVD to let a friend watch it for free? Of course it’s not. It never has been and never will be. I think information, art and ideas should be shared.”

Perhaps it’s time to do a documentary on the anti-piracy and pro-copyright lobby Mr. Moore? They might not kill our children in the US or overseas, but they do kill creativity, innovation, and the spread of knowledge. Worth looking into.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Michael Moore on Slacker Uprising’s Piracy ‘Problem’ torrent downloads.

The intent of FUD is to make people afraid (Fear) confuse issues and facts (Uncertainty) and make people change their attitudes to what they’ve done (Doubt). In many ways it’s the cheapest and easiest anti-piracy method. It doesn’t rely on facts, but on careful releases of information, and calculated small acts.

A small act could be starting a rumor or giving an interview to a student newspaper. Such tactics are cheap and often have much better returns than costly (and ultimately useless) technology-based methods. They also have the added advantage that if they don’t work, it doesn’t tend to count against you. That is, unless you’re caught at it.

FUD is used everywhere. At Elon University, a small university just east of Greensboro, in North Carolina for example. In a file-sharing piece last week in the student newspaper, the strategy of intimidation was plain to see. If you are unaware of the law regarding copyright infringement, however, you might be taken in.

The article starts with talk of rumors, concerning all manner of things designed to instill fear; RIAA reps roaming the campus, being able to backtrack to things that happened years ago. Rumors that lead to uncertainty (how far back? Will that include something I did?) as well as doubt (anything I can do about it?).

Throughout the article, Assistant Vice President for Technology Chris Fulkerson makes it clear that students should be very careful. However, he’s not afraid to tweak the facts a little, or tell outright lies, for that matter. At one point he states that the fine is “$250,000 per infraction” which is a complete lie. As regular readers and followers of US copyright infringement cases know, the maximum damages that can be awarded per infraction is $150,000 not $250,000 (USC Title 17, § 504 (c)(2)). The most they have managed to get in these cases is $9,250, but even that turned out to be too much.

Of greatest worry was his position on the details of students. Fulkerson has said that when/if the RIAA asks for names and details that correspond to an IP, the university will hand them over if the person can be identified. As the RIAA’s strategy is to file many lawsuits, and try and force a settlement (by making it cheaper to settle than to contest), handing over details is in the worst possible interests of the students, and may be illegal. Regardless of its legality, or how true the statement is in practice, the impact of the statement is chilling to many students.

Fulkerson also makes some other comments designed to disquiet the students. He says that the RIAA has no need to visit Elon, they can just jump on the net and track people down, and that the university ‘must comply’ with the RIAA. Again, this is not even close to the truth. The RIAA is a lobby group, not a government or law enforcement agency, and there is no requirement to comply with them. On the contrary, RIAA’s “tracking company” MediaSentry is not listed as holding a private investigators license by the state, nor are investigators from their home state of Maryland allowed to practice in North Carolina.

Elon is not alone though. In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Lehigh University also has a similar belief. Speaking to their student paper, University security officer Blair Bernhardt said that when they receive a notification of alleged infringement, the target’s Internet access is immediately cut off. “We lock the port instantly because we have to,” he said. “It’s the law to block access to the infringing materials, and it keeps the university from being liable for anything.” What law requires this action is currently unknown.

Unlike the MPAA and RIAA’s campaigns, these FUD methods tend to work, because the universities have student’s personal details. Worse, the person that should be the student’s supporter, is the student’s enemy. Mr Fulkerson did not respond to requests to comment.

More on tackling campus piracy

Part 1 – The P2P Quiz
Part 2 - The Technological Approach

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Tackling Campus Piracy with FUD torrent downloads.

We have recently reported on the situation in the UK where charities and even police forces are threatened with legal action for playing music within earshot of the general public. Hollywood is no stranger to strict royalty collection activities either, and has stooped to a new low.

The Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC), which is charged with collecting royalties for the big studios, recently wrote to 2,500 kindergartens (or playschools as they are known in Ireland), informing them that it is illegal for the kids there to watch DVDs without an appropriate license.

According to The Times, the letter was sent with the knowledge of the Irish Preschool Play Association (IPPA), which represents many schools populated by around 50,000 kids between 3 and 5 years of age. The IPPA had worked out a deal with the Hollywood representatives, and eventually managed to get the royalties down to 3 euros per child.

Despite the lowered fee, most kindergarten owners were stunned by the request. Paula Doran, who runs a playschool in Dublin, said that the only time the kids hardly watch any DVDs at the kindergarten. “We would rarely show DVDs anyway because it’s frowned upon — kids get enough TV at home,” she said. In fact, the only time the kids are allowed to watch a DVD is when they are pretending to go to the cinema. Doran said she couldn’t understand how the MPLC could be acting legally, and refused to pay.

It turned out that she was absolutely right not to pay. The MPLC actually failed to register with the Irish Patent Office, and by demanding payments in the way they have, breached the 2000 Copyright Act. A spokesman from the IPO confirmed that an organization that acts in this manner could be fined or have its staff jailed.

The MPLC belated applied for a license to collect the royalties on Friday. It’s never too late to learn, or for the kids, never too early to start filling Hollywood’s pockets.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Hollywood Illegally Demands Money From Kindergartens torrent downloads.

Darren Bousman, director of Saw II, III and IV, and no stranger to scenes of slaughter, has been caught up in his very own BitTorrent bloodbath. On the official forum for his up-coming movie Repo! the Genetic Opera, Bousman has been rallying support among his forum fans (known as the ‘Repo Army’) to become some kind of highly motivated, organic peer-to-peer version of MediaDefender.

Bousman details his brilliant plan in the forum post:

People will copy and burn the REPO CD and put it out on the web on something called TORRENT SITES. What this means to the movie is devastating. Basically - those who MIGHT have bought the soundtrack will instead download it for free… Thus hurting the soundtrack, and the movie. So what can you do?

Upload FAKE REPO albums to TORRENT sites under the REPO name. Meaning basically people will go online to a TORRENT site and try to search for REPO. They will find it - but alas it wont be REPO. It will be something else… If enough people do this - it becomes harder to STEAL the album.

Pain, something found in abundance in the Saw movies, was evident in the disorganized battle-plan that followed. Technical discussion began, noting the need for a good fake album to have the same number of tracks as the real version. Other suggestions to thwart the evil pirates include renaming and seeding random songs, and uploading audio recordings which preach the importance of buying the album.

After someone pointed out that people would complain about fake torrents in the comments section of torrent sites, solutions offered included the Army posting its own comments saying that the fake isn’t really a fake, and posting on real torrents to say that they were the fakes. Both techniques were doomed to fail before they began.

One of our favorite posts was the user who offered to spam the Ares Galaxy network on her own, and unwittingly came up with the basis of a usable slogan for the fakes campaign: “Wait a minute, did Darren just ask us to essentially Rick-Roll people in the name of Repo? Hell yes.”

Sadly, even with an army of completely well-intentioned and dedicated fans plus a great slogan, victory isn’t guaranteed. After posting some fake torrents on The Pirate Bay, it didn’t take long for the negative comments from regular Pirate Bay users to build up, and the torrents were removed. Despite many attempts by the Army at countering with some fake comments of their own. The ranks of the general public Repo Army went into battle against just a few pirates but were completely unprepared, and suffered a bloody end that would’ve made Jigsaw proud.

One user seemed to be a bit more aware, posting, “You can keep it secret or whatever method you want, it’s not going to work. You can’t fool a pirate that easy, if we just could get scene access and pre it, so it looks real.”

Right now, the fans have regrouped and are currently marking real Demonoid torrents as containing a virus, in order to get them removed. It doesn’t seem to be working.

The Repo Army doesn’t act purely against BitTorrent, since it had been previously ordered to “Attack YouTube” by messaging anyone on the site who uploads any part of the album, and ordering them to take the clip down. Some fans are even creating Repo anti-piracy videos:

In the meantime the fans have ensured that the soundtrack in question, Repo! The Genetic Opera, is currently at 22 in Amazon’s bestsellers chart, largely thanks to 25 five-star reviews, which currently represent 100% of the total reviews on this album. Apparently it’s easier to fool Amazon than the average BitTorrent site.

Thanks to Charax

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

“Saw” Director Recruits ‘Army’ to Post Fake Torrents torrent downloads.

When Michael Moore released his latest movie, Slacker Uprising, he made it clear that not only would the movie be completely free, but he also wanted everyone to “email it, burn it, and share it with anyone and everyone”. However, there was one rule - this generous offer from Moore would only apply to people living in the United States and Canada.

As we reported earlier, the decision to use BitTorrent for facilitating distribution of the movie made a bit of a mockery of the limitations of Moore’s offer, since using The Pirate Bay’s tracker sent the movie worldwide. So, even for a completely free movie, it seemed inevitable that the legal profession would get involved at some point, it was just a question of time.

It didn’t take long. In a letter dated September 25th, lawyers representing Westside Productions LLC, owner of the Slacker Uprising copyright sprang into action, demanding the removal of a torrent linking to the movie. However, they managed to make a novice error. Instead of contacting the host of the torrent site in question, the Swedish-hosted BTJunkie, they actually sent the US copyright takedown request (email & fedex) to their DNS provider, easyDNS.

easyDNS are based in Canada and, just like BTJunkie in Sweden, are not subject to the laws of the United States, although most lawyers don’t seem to understand this. Furthermore, since easyDNS aren’t even BTJunkie’s host, they are in no position to do anything about the torrent anyway.

Mark Jeftovic, a co-founder of easyDNS wrote: “But really, come on folks, please tell us that isn’t the basis for this take down request. Anybody with half a clue knows the net doesn’t work like that. In any case, I’ve sent them our standard ‘we’re not the web host, we’re just the lowly DNS service’, but I did point out this seeming contradiction in Michael Moore’s message vs his lawyer’s actions.”

Now that the lawyers managed to get a grasp of the role of a DNS server, they have withdrawn the complaint against easyDNS. They state that the problem is due to the fact that the infringing .torrent was hosted outside of the US and Canada, a situation which for some reason is unacceptable to their client and a ‘problem’ worth spending large sums of money on to remedy. Let’s be clear - no amount of money will solve this issue and it is absolutely absurd to even try.

“I’ve replied that they [the lawyers] should know it is highly impractical to attempt to impose geographical constraints on otherwise freely available files,” said Mark at easyDNS, “but I guess they want to give it a shot.”

Meanwhile, the admin of BTJunkie told us he has not yet received a takedown request.

Mo(o)re money down the drain….

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Slacker Uprising BitTorrent Takedown Sent to DNS Provider torrent downloads.

Founded in May 2005, Torrent.is had around 26,500 active users before the site was taken offline. The site only allowed Icelandic IPs to connect to the tracker, and it was by far the largest and most famous private BitTorrent tracker in Iceland.

Its popularity didn’t go unnoticed with the local anti-piracy lobby either. During November last year, Svavar Kjarrval, the owner of the tracker, received a preliminary injunction. While the majority of BitTorrent tracker owners would throw in the towel when confronted with legal action, Svavar decided to put up a fight. “I’m going to fight this as far as I possibly can. The general public seems to be on our side,” he told TorrentFreak at the time.

It turned out that he made the right decision. In March the court ruled in favor of the BitTorrent tracker. Svavar, and all Icelandic BitTorrent users were pleased with the outcome, but the legal bullying was far from over. As expected, the preliminary injunction stayed in effect, as the Icelandic movie and music industries announced they would appeal the decision at the Icelandic Supreme Court.

This May, the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and Torrent.is won again. The case was dismissed because some of the plaintiffs were found to have no legal grounds to pursue an injunction, and Torrent.is received an additional 400,000 ISK ($5025 US or 3250 Euros) on top of the 500,000 ISK that was already awarded in March.

Speaking to TorrentFreak, Torrent.is owner, Svavar Kjarrval, said he was “very happy with the decision.” He even planned to reopen the tracker on the May 16th. However, it never got that far as STEF (the Icelandic RIAA) filed a new lawsuit, demanding the shutdown of the site and some form of financial compensation.

This case was heard, and yesterday - yet again - the District Court ruled in favor of Torrent.is. The court again dismissed STEF’s demand to confirm the injunction. However, the legal bullying is still not over. Not all demands were dismissed directly, and STEF is likely to appeal at the Supreme Court for the ones that weren’t.

“I am happy about that partial victory even though I hoped for a complete dismissal,” Svavar told TorrentFreak in a response to the latest ruling. “The future is uncertain but I have confidence that the Icelandic court system will see that the case is based on a shaky foundation.”

Svavar further said that he’s not sure whether he will reopen the site once this action is over, however long that may take.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Legal Bullying Continues for Icelandic BitTorrent Tracker torrent downloads.

It was a midweek battle that left the RIAA’s campaign against file-sharers reeling on the ropes. Until now, the RIAA’s approach was to throw money at attorneys, who would then take on random targets, unless money and promises were given - ‘legal mugging’ as it were.

It must have felt like an attack from behind when the RIAA heard that they lost its only major court victory, with a mistrial being declared in Capitol V Thomas. Making things worse, the Department of Justice, viewed by some to be the bully’s trusted lieutenant, turned on the content industries by soundly criticizing a bill aiming to increase copyright and patent enforcement powers.

The Thomas case is now a proverbial millstone around the neck of the RIAA. At first it looks impressive, and gives a frightening impression to anyone that thinks to challenge them, but now it’s starting to drag them down. Not only was the decision in the case thrown out, the statement by the judge in support of the mistrial reads like a critique of the legal arguments put forward by the RIAA over the last 5 years.

Yet, the millstone around the neck is not just in the refuting of legal arguments. It also extends to the excessive damages that were awarded in the first trial. The $9250 per infringement has been argued to be so far past constitutional restrictions on excessive punishments, that it has brought it into public attention. Because of this, it may end up reducing the maximum amount of damages and fines that can be awarded, which may also undermine the settlement encouragement (or ‘pay instead of fight’) strategy. The end of the judge’s order says it all:

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs – the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

While 24 songs is more like two CDs (than the three the court states), that damages should go from 4000x losses (assuming 3CDs) to 100x, means that the $222,000 would be more like $5,550. That’s quite a difference. The same could be applied to amounts demanded in pre-trial settlements, where the RIAA has often asked too much. The court’s math is far more reasonable, despite being calculated using retail CD prices, which have all manner of mark-ups and distribution costs that are not relevant to digital music included. A digital download doesn’t have to pay for the CD blank and doesn’t have to pay for transportation to the store. There are no printing costs or middlemen profit. The court gives an estimated cost of $2.25 per track, the actual cost for a download is more than seven times less than that.

Of course, other arguments, ranging from definition semantics, to trying to use criminal law as precedent, were denied as well. Some of these arguments were novel, others seemed like desperation.

The other news from Wednesday didn’t help either, especially in the muddling of civil and criminal enforcement of copyright. The Department of Justice sent a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter over the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act (EIPRA) of 2008, which passed through the Senate judiciary committee last week. It stated that the Departments of Justice and Commerce had ’strong and significant concerns’ with portions of the act. In short, they said they didn’t want to be used as free lawyers for the entertainment industry, and also felt that the position of an ‘Anti-Piracy Czar’ would be, surprisingly, unconstitutional. When even the US Justice department, which has seemed indifferent to the US Constitution in recent years, uses it as an excuse to oppose new powers, it could be likened to rats leaving a sinking ship.

Of course, the past week hasn’t been only bad news for the RIAA and its members, it’s been bad press for them too. On Monday, they elected to proceed to a jury trial in Maverick V Harper, with a date set for November. The RIAA were unwilling to accept a $200/infringement settlement offered by the judge. In taking the offer, they would have had a win, but at a lower amount, and left the potential for innocent infringement defenses. However, with the Thomas mistrial ruling two days later, negating any precedent they hoped to point to, and undermining some of the possible defenses, it may seem they have gambled on a treble-or-nothing bet.

The case in question centers around 38 songs, although only 6 were downloaded by MediaSentry. What can make this case interesting is that MediaSentry may be in violation of the law, regarding Texas based investigators, and that the age of the defendant – Whitney Harper was 16 when the infringements allegedly occurred – make an innocent infringement defence possible. Attacking a young girl for actions in her teens may not play well with a jury.

All in all, a bad week for the RIAA, and it may only be the first of many. We may never know if the article written by New York based attorney Ray Backerman did anything to to bring about a closer examination of the RIAA’s cases. Nor can it be overlooked that Wednesdays are not the RIAA’s best days – exactly a week before the Thomas and DOJ setbacks, they set themselves up as targets of ridicule by suing Beckerman. They accused him of allegedly doing what they have been repeatedly accused of doing – irony indeed. Many people are doubtless wondering what excitement October 1st will bring.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

RIAA’s Week of Hell torrent downloads.

We recently reported how Ohio University spent more than $75,000 on the CopySense anti-piracy system, and we promised an insight into how the system works. CopySense is the network equivalent of the Eye of Sauron, watching over the lands it controls, looking for something of interest, and attempting to kill it. Instead of Orcs, however, it uses RST packets.

As stated previously, for your money you get a box that you plug into your network as close as possible to the Internet connection. Here it monitors all the traffic it can see, looking for data that matches the fingerprints stored in it. If it detects a transfer matching a fingerprint, it terminates the connection, in the same way Sandvine does , by sending RST packets to both ends of the connection, spoofed to look like the other sent it.

Although it seems like a fairer system than the Sandvine box Comcast used, it still has some significant flaws. Perhaps of greatest interest, is that it can be configured to act just like Sandvine, but more so. Literature for the system claims it “automatically filters copyright infringements, operating in a manner similar to a virus filter, without disrupting legitimate file trades.” But does it live up to the hype?

Audible Magic’s support site contains the answers to the basic questions most of us have about CopySense.

Q: What P2P protocols/programs are recognized?
A: The CopySense Appliance recognizes signatures from over 150 popular P2P applications and their derivatives. As new P2P applications are introduced, additional recognition capabilities are provided as software updates under your maintenance agreement
Q: How does it block traffic?
A: The appliance can be instructed to block all P2P traffic or to block only copyrighted content from P2P applications. The CopySense Appliance uses a patented packet-resetting process, and it sends a packet reset to both the requesting and sending IP addresses each time they attempt a P2P transfer that is to be blocked. The P2P application is thus forced to time out with an unsuccessful transfer.
Q: How does it recognize copyrighted content?
A: The CopySense technology examines the perceptual characteristics of a media file and compares that signature with those contained in a database of protected works. Publishers of media content register their works in Audible Magic’s database. The database is regularly updated in the CopySense Appliance as part of a content update subscription.

As the name of the site is TorrentFreak, and the main protocol in use is BitTorrent, let’s start there. Torrents are non-sequential downloads (illustration), that take ‘random’ (generally rarest first of what’s available) pieces from peers on the torrent, in 16KiB chunks. Also, although chunks might be sequential, pieces rarely are. A data stream may consist of 5 chunks from the start, then 2 from the back, and 1 from the middle. From just that 128KiB of data, Audible Magic claim they can identify a copyrighted work, and then terminate the connection.

If it sounds implausible, that’s because it is. It may work with systems like DC++, or possibly eD2k (as well as SoulSeek and KaZaA), but there is no way it can be accurate or effective with BitTorrent. Such methods would work better with HTTP (like Rapidshare) or FTP transfers, but aside from CopySense saying they don’t interfere with anything non-P2P, there is another problem.

As highlighted in the recent case involving the baby dancing to a Prince soundtrack, fair use is a perfectly adequate defence. This system makes no allocation for fair use at all. In the case, the judge ruled that before copyright enforcement can take place, the copyright owner is required to consider if the usage is fair use. An automated system is incapable of that. There have also been doubts surrounding the effectiveness of the streaming content version, which is based on the same technology.

So, in essence, CopySense does not (and can not) work to inhibit the most popular p2p protocol out there. If it could, then we would simply see a resurgence in passworded RAR files being torrented, with the passwords posted either on the torrent site, or even in the comment field of the torrent. CopySense also fails to check if a copyrighted file that it might identify (if you’re using a protocol that it can actually detect) is being used in a way consistent with fair use, or is licensed for use (although extremely improbable, the possibility exists, especially if copyrighted recording is right at the start).

In part two, we will look at claims that have been made from those who have used CopySense, and how that affects copyright infringement cases already in progress, and just how you get your content protected.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

CopySense Sleek Predator, or White Elephant? torrent downloads.

It’s been a quite a long journey, but today, six people appeared in Magistrates Court, charged with offenses relating to their alleged activities on the now-defunct OiNK BitTorrent tracker.

During October 2007, Operation Ark Royal achieved its aims. OiNK was shut down in a joint effort by Dutch and British law enforcement, followed by a number of arrests carried out by Cleveland police over the next few months. Site administrator Alan Ellis was eventually charged with Conspiracy to Defraud, while five other users who uploaded just a single album each were charged with Copyright Infringement. One of them earlier told TorrentFreak “I think it’s a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.”

This morning at 09:45 they appeared before Teeside magistrates. The case of Alan Ellis was, as expected, passed on to the Crown Court. The next hearing is set at October 2nd. It is not clear whether the other individuals will have to reappear at a Crown Court at a later date as well. We’ll update this post today as more information on the uploaders comes in.

In any event, those accused will be confronted with evidence gathered by Cleveland police, who have found themselves surrounded in their own copyright controversy. A little while ago we reported on the reluctance of certain police forces in the UK to buy an appropriate license from the music industry to allow them to listen to radios or other music on their premises. Put bluntly, this means that police forces in the UK without a license, are themselves copyright infringers. At the time we joked that it would be highly inappropriate for Cleveland police to get involved. Seems like it’s too late.

According to GazetteLive, Cleveland police have not bought a license from the Performing Rights Society (PRS). So, while they continue to play music on their premises, they are actually breaking the law.

Deputy Chief Constable Derek Bonnard, sounding very much like he doesn’t want to pay said: “We continue to assess the position and are seeking advice to determine if we are required by law to spend a significant amount of public money, which we consider is better committed to crime fighting, in this way.”

Hear, hear Mr Bonnard, I agree with you completely. Hopefully the magistrates in Teeside today consider the amount of money spent bringing the OiNK six to court, and come to the conclusion that in this case too, public money is better spent elsewhere, rather than on the interests of the music industry.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

OiNK Six Appear in Court, Faced By Pirating Police torrent downloads.

In mid-2007, after a battle with copyright group SABAM, a court in Belgium ruled that Internet Service Providers can be forced to block and/or filter copyright infringing files on P2P networks. Although most people familiar with the technical hurdles recognized that this was a massive if not impossible task, the judge in the case ruled that ISPs are indeed capable of blocking infringing content and gave Scarlet six months to comply.

Scarlet said right from the start that it believed that if it complied with the court order it would be breaking the law. The ISP claimed that Belgian law forbids it from spying on its customers so it lodged an appeal against the ruling, with managing director Gert Post saying: “This measure is nothing else than playing Big Brother on the Internet. If we don’t challenge it today, we leave the door open to permanent, and invisible and illegal, checks of personal data.”

Now, over a year later, Scarlet’s lawyers argued in court that the company simply cannot stop the flow of illicit files, which is a serious situation since the ISP has to pay compensation of 2,500 Euros for each day it fails to do so. According to a report, Scarlet has tried different techniques to try to comply with the ruling but has had no success.

First of all, Scarlet slowed down P2P traffic with the help of some Cisco technology. All this led to was complaints from the customers, and it did nothing to stop the availability of the illicit files. A lawyer for Scarlet, Christoph Preter said: “We have actually received complaints that P2P traffic was slower, but it remained possible. It is only a deterrent measure.”

The ISP quite rightly refused to block all P2P traffic, since it said it would be blocking legitimate traffic too. However, copyright group SABAM said this was not a valid excuse. “The argument put forward by Scarlet,” said SABAM’s lawyer, “is not about the impossibility of blocking, but about the consequences.” SABAM clearly doesn’t care who is affected, as long as it gets its way, stating that Scarlet simply hasn’t tried hard enough to comply with the court.

The second solution, the filtering of illicit files, was a solution put forward last year by SABAM itself. On the advice of an appointed P2P ‘expert’, the court ruled that Scarlet must use the content filtering technology offered by Audible Magic. However, Scarlet tried this system and it didn’t work when scanning for files on their network. During last year’s court case it was claimed that Audible Magic had experience with filtering in the US with Verizon and in Asia with another ISP. However, Scarlet made inquiries with Verizon about the partnership but was told that no such deal exists and Audible Magic refused to reveal who the Asian ISP is.

“We have misled the court,” said SABAM’s lawyer. “But SABAM followed the expert in the choice of Audible Magic, so we were acting in good faith.”

A ruling in the case is not expected until 2010.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

ISP: It’s Impossible For Us to Stop Illegal P2P torrent downloads.

In order to better understand the position of this teenager and the craziness of today’s society, I’m reading this news through my memory of what it was like to be 14 again. School, friends, acne, the opposite sex - and computers, I loved them, in all their 8-bit glory.

So, customs officials in Hong Kong have arrested a 14 year old boy. The boy is suspected to have uploaded 2,000 Chinese-language pop songs onto the Internet. I’d love to be able to tell you this kid’s name, but (un)fortunately the law says he’s too young to be named. I’m sure kids today are much smarter and advanced than I was, so hopefully he’s not too young to understand what’s happening to him. The ‘not knowing’ would add considerably to his ordeal.

According to customs spokesman Michael Kwan, the teenager had been sharing Cantonese pop songs, known locally as Cantopop. When I was 14, I had cassette tapes filled with pop music too, all of it copied from anyone who had a copy. I doubt I had 2000 tracks, but I certainly had an impressive arsenal of jam-packed C90’s, and I happily copied them for anyone with a blank tape. In fact, faced with no money but a thirst for pop music, all my friends copied off each other, and the recipients of those copies all shared those with everyone else. It never crossed our minds that we would be arrested for it. Not once, since arrests seemed to be reserved for the glue-sniffing vandals who my parents warned me to stay away from, which I did, happily.

Copyright infringements in Hong Kong apparently carry a maximum penalty of four years in jail and a fine of HK$50,000 (US$6,400) for every item violated. A worrying amount for an adult, even ones who have the means to raise the cash. I once ran up a $30 telephone bill for my parents through my generous use of a 1200/75 modem. Through my kid’s vision it seemed like the end of the world, even though the phone company was the boogeyman, not the police or entertainment companies.

Mr Kwan, a head at Hong Kong’s Copyright Investigation Division, told at a press conference that the boy made a post on a forum indicating he had the songs for download. A press conference? For a 14 year old kid sharing music? Could I have imagined being arrested at 14 for taping music, taken away and then be the subject of discussion at a government press conference? Hardly. But maybe I should’ve been - they say standards are slipping in society, maybe the police and media companies coming down hard on children is the solution?

The Kid With No Name has been set free on a bail of 2,000 Hong Kong dollars, roughly US$260, and has not been charged while the police make further inquiries. Hopefully the investigation won’t interfere too much with his school work and revision at this crucial point in his education. Or maybe any diversion away from school work is cool in the eyes of a hormonal teenager? I think I’d have been happy to have a few disrupted maths lessons, but there again, in hindsight I didn’t understand how important they were. After all, I was just a kid.

But of course, eventually all kids grow up. We leave school and start earning our own money and start making those important decisions about where to spend it, which are probably shaped by previous life experiences and dreams for the future. We also decide who to vote for. I didn’t grow up in a ‘lock up pirates and throw away the key’ environment yet i’m still disturbed and concerned at how copyright enforcement is heading. Going to war against today’s potential customers seems foolish. Punishing and polarizing children - tomorrow’s customers - at the behest of big-business, is in a completely different league.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Customs Officials Arrest 14 Year Pirate torrent downloads.

In BitTorrent terms, TorrentIt has quite a long history. The tracker started out in 2004 as 123Torrents. In early 2005, they lost the 123Torrents domain, and while negotiating to get it back, took on the domain torrentit.com. When negotiations failed, they decided to keep the TorrentIt name, and applied it to the newly created pirate theme for the site.

TorrentIt, which had 27,000 members at its peak, was known for having a large mix of scene and non-scene torrents, and for a very tight community. In April 2006, BREIN went after the original owner, who lived in the Netherlands, forcing the shutdown of the site under legal pressure. The TorrentIt crew decided it was better to take the site down than to have him take the heat, and took the site down.

Almost a year later in January 2007, some of the former staff members decided to bring the site back, under a new domain, one not attached to the original owner. The intention was to open by the end of May, but that never happened. The deadline was missed, and it took more than a year before the site was ready for its official relaunch.

BlastGT1, one of the original crew members, and an Admiral (equivalent to SysOp) at the new site told TorrentFreak: “Unfortunately, due to real life commitments, we missed that deadline, and after months of stagnation, I took it upon myself to find good coders within the torrent community who could help us finish the site, and try to repair the damage we had done to TiT’s good name.”

TorrentIt teamed up with the coders from DigitalHive, who were looking to start a new side project themselves, and this eventually led to the long awaited resurrection of the tracker. “Now, we’re back with a different domain, a different source and the drive to succeed,” BlastGT1 said.

“We don’t care about racing sites for pre times, we don’t care about having the biggest userbase. We care about having quality torrents, scene and non-scene, and most of all, we care about community. That is what made TorrentIt stand out before, and so many are already loving its return, finding their cabins kept warm and cozy,” BlastGT1 added.

The new and improved tracker changed its domain extension from .info to .eu, and now runs on Gazelle. Two days ago, they sent out almost 10K invites to former members, and many of them have joined the new site since. Unfortunately, an invite is needed to sign up, so not everybody will be able to celebrate and participate.

BlastGT1 has a word of advice for newcomers though: “Bide your time, get a good honest reputation elsewhere, have patience like people did once upon a time. Sooner or later you’ll make the right friend and snag an invite.”

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

TorrentIt Makes Long Awaited Comeback torrent downloads.

aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW (aPC), was thought to be first organized ‘warez‘ group to coordinate the pre-release uploading of mp3s to the Internet. Founded in 1997 by members known as acid^rain and Viper, aPC’s forté was the pre-release of music CDs which they obtained from music industry insiders and magazine workers. The group was raided as part of Operation Fastlink.

According to evidence presented at his May 2008 trial, Barry E. Gitarts, aka ‘Dextro’, operated and financed a server based in Texas which was used by aPC to store thousands of music files, movies, software and games. The New York resident was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Copyright Infringement.

On Friday, Gitarts, aged 25, was sentenced in Alexandria federal court to 18 months in jail for his role in aPC.

Another ex-member of aPC, Jacob Stahler, aka Lunatik, was on the witness list at the May trial, and there has been speculation that he testified against Gitarts. Stahler himself was also convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Copyright Infringement, but was later sentenced to just 2 years probation.

So far there have been a total 15 criminal convictions of aPC members, including that of Mark Shumaker of Florida (aka ‘MarkAlso’), a previous leader of the group who already admitted criminal copyright infringement back in 2003.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Warez Scene Member Sentenced to 18 Months Jail torrent downloads.

Following a Federación Antipiratería (Anti-piracy Federation) investigation in 2006, 15 people were arrested in Spain in connection with the operation of Sharemula.com, an eDonkey (eD2k) indexing site. eD2k links are similar to URLs or .torrent files, in that they contain no copyright material themselves, but may point to such works.

Spain’s Brigade of Technological Investigations claimed that the site was illegal and should be closed. Just under a year ago the case was heard, but sadly for the entertainment industry, the court ruled that the case against Sharemula should be dismissed. It said that neither the site nor administrators had operated illegally by offering links to copyright works, since they had not done so for profit or commercial gain.

However, the entertainment industry - including but not limited to Columbia, Disney Company Iberia, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner, Universal, Paramount, Sony and MGM, did not accept the ruling and appealed the decision.

Yesterday, the Provincial Court of Madrid ruled that the entertainment industry has no case against Sharemula, and since it has broken no laws, the case should be dismissed. This dismissal is final and cannot be appealed.

The court rejected all allegations that were made by the entertainment industry and concluded that indexing eD2k links (or torrent files) can not be seen as copyright infringement (pdf in Spanish). Sharemula’s main purpose is to index links, and they are not responsible for where these links go according to the court decision. Whether or not Sharemula makes profit is irrelevant.

“The hearing confirms the position of the defense that linking to P2P networks does not constitute a criminal offense,” wrote David Bravo, a lawyer in the case, noting that Sharemula did not store any copyrighted material. The site simply links to files that are hosted elsewhere, on computers of P2P users.

It is on this same premise that The Pirate Bay claims to operate legally. With upcoming cases against The Pirate Bay and Mininova in Europe, this decision is very welcome for p2p-site administrators.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Linking to P2P Downloads Confirmed Legal in Spain torrent downloads.

In many countries, police and anti-piracy agencies are combining forces to target people who pre-release media onto the Internet. Those that put music or movies onto the Internet before their official release dates are treated much more harshly than regular file-sharers, as the music and movie industries claim they are more damaging than those who leak media later on in the product’s life-cycle. We have seen how harshly the pre-releasers at EliteTorrents were treated by the US legal system, and the UK music industry is lining up people who pre-released music on OiNK.

Now it is the turn of Japan to target a pre-releaser, this time of the movie ‘Wanted‘. The movie, starring James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie, was released early September in the United States and Europe, but won’t enjoy an official Japanese release until Saturday. The movie is, of course, already available for download on P2P networks in its native English, but thanks to the work of Kazushi Hirata, a 33 year-old from the city of Sendai, the movie is also available with Japanese subtitles.

According to the authorities, after adding his own home-made subtitles to an already-released pirate version of the movie, Hirata uploaded it onto the Winny network, which is hugely popular in Japan. Hirata was tracked down on Thursday by the Kyoto Prefectural Police, who were also responsible for the 2004 arrest of Isamu Kaneko, the creator of the Winny software.

The arrest of Mr Hirata is believed to be the first in Japan relating to the uploading of a pre-release movie. According to a report, he faces up to 10 years in jail and a $95,000 fine.

The Winny network has always been touted as anonymous, and indeed functions on this level to a degree. The police were unable to crack the encryption used by the file-sharing part of the software, however, they did manage to exploit a loophole to identify certain users. Winny’s forum feature fails to protect the anonymity of people who start discussion threads. In the past the police have searched for copyright material in such threads and recorded the IP address of the poster. By initiating a file-transfer but denying connections from all IP addresses apart from the suspected infringer, when someone started to upload to them they knew that the original poster was sharing the illicit material.

Post from: TorrentFreak

torrentlog.com - Full movie downloads (dvdrips and divx)

Police Arrest ‘Wanted’ P2P Pre-Releaser torrent downloads.

Efforts to reach a voluntary agreement between the IFPI and ISPs in Denmark on the issue of unauthorized file-sharing have failed. The telecoms companies have completely rejected the demands of the music industry.

The IFPI wanted to be able to hunt down file-sharers, report them to their ISP and have them implement a so-called “3 strikes” policy. They proposed that the first time someone got caught sharing copyrighted files, they would receive a warning from the ISP, the second time they would have their Internet connection slowed down. After a third warning, or strike, the user would be disconnected from his ISP and banished from the Internet.

ISPs in the UK recently reached an agreement with the IFPI to send out warnings to alleged file-sharers, but rejected any further sanctions against their customers such as speed capping or disconnection. However, according to a Comon report, the Danish ISPs have rejected the proposals completely. They say they will not take part in “detection and monitoring activities” and believe that the proposals would constitute a contravention of the law, and would upset the balance between the interests of the individual and economic interests.

“The Internet must be protected as a credible media, where each citizen can feel comfortable with the certainty that he will be on an equal footing with other media, such as confidentiality of correspondence in the mail, etc,” said the statement. “The proposals that have been seen by others in the European debate, which have also been raised in Denmark - for example, to disconnect users or deny users Internet access - will counteract this objective, and is in no way proportionate to the situation.”

President of the Telecommunications Industry Association Jens Ottosen says the plan presented by the IFPI to the Ministry of Culture has a number of serious weaknesses. He believes that the rights holders cannot accurately identify people who are engaged in unauthorized file-sharing. Among other things, the IFPI model of warning/slowing/disconnecting an IP address, NOT a person, means that even if they owner of an Internet connection did nothing wrong, they would be the one who got punished. Those who are the victim of a wireless hacking are equally vulnerable, something which the ISPs aren’t prepared to accept, and neither are the