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.

The music industry anti-piracy lobby IFPI has taken a severe beating in Denmark recently. In September the major Danish ISPs issued a joint statement rejecting the IFPI’s demands for a ‘3 strikes’ agreement aimed at ultimately disconnecting alleged pirates from the Internet, labeling it as a “contravention of the law”. However, the defeats don’t end there.

The IFPI also accused two Danish women of being Internet pirates, after they claimed to have monitored illicit file-sharing activities on an IP address registered to one of them. The IFPI demanded $62,000 in compensation from the pair, stating that even if their Wi-Fi had been used without their knowledge, they are ultimately responsible for what happens on their Internet connection. Eventually a court ruled in favor of the women and acquitted them of all charges, much to the displeasure of the IFPI.

Now, the IFPI has suffered another defeat, again in a ‘wireless defense’ case. Previously, a middle-aged man from Randers, Denmark, was found guilty of Internet piracy in a case brought by the IFPI on behalf of music copyright holders. The man was ordered to pay compensation of around $11,000 and told to delete the infringing files from his computer. The defendant denied that he had done any of the alleged infringing and claimed that he operated an unencrypted wireless network which anyone could access.

However, in the Vestre Landsret, one of Denmark’s higher courts, the decision of the Municipal Court in Randers has been reversed, according to a Comon.dk report.

The court found that the IFPI held no proof that the IP address owner - the defendant - was the same person that carried out the infringements. This fact - that an IP address does not positively identify an infringer - is the same worldwide.

The lawyer for the defense, Per Overbeck, who also successfully defended the two women who won their ‘wireless defense’ case in another of Denmark’s higher courts, noted a difference in the cases, but one which didn’t affect the outcome for the defendants:

“The two women who were acquitted by the Østre Landsret, were in a household with multiple computers, so more people in the household had access to them,” he said. “The man in Randers was living alone in his apartment and had only one computer, but his apartment is in a complex so in principle many others can access his Internet connection.”

Although IFPI lawyer Torben Steffenson has yet to comment on the ruling, he is expected to say that the IFPI does not accept the decision of the High Court, and that they will take the case to the Supreme Court in order to win the case.

That is unlikely to change the fact that in these cases the burden of proof is with the plaintiff.

Post from: TorrentFreak

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

IFPI Loses Yet Again in P2P ‘Wireless Defense’ Case torrent downloads.

This August, out of nowhere, The Pirate Bay was “censored” in Italy following a decree from a public prosecutor. The block didn’t prove to be particularly effective, as traffic from Italy only increased. Nevertheless, The Pirate Bay was determined to reverse the decision, and in that mission they have succeeded.

The Court of Bergamo has now lifted the block, and ISPs are again allowed to grant their users access to the most frequently used BitTorrent tracker on the Internet. More details on the decision, and the reason why the block was reversed, will be made public later.

In a previous interview, Pirate Bay’s lawyers Giovanni Battista Gallus and Francesco Micozzi described the order as “‘original’ or ‘creative’ at best,” and said it should not have been ordered in the first place because of the lack of jurisdiction. In addition, they argued that The Pirate Bay is not breaking any laws since it’s not distributing copyright infringing material.

The court’s decision might set an important precedent for BitTorrent sites in Italy, especially for Colombo-BT, the largest Italian torrent site, which was shut down by the same prosecutor responsible for the Pirate Bay block. The action against Colombo-BT was orchestrated by the anti-piracy outlet IFPI, which also hijacked all Italian Pirate Bay visitors following the block.

Post from: TorrentFreak

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

Pirate Bay Wins Court Case, Italian Block Lifted 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 courts.

“We are very divided,” said Ottosen. When asked if there is a chance of reaching any type of voluntary agreement with the music industry, he added, “I can’t imagine.”

Post from: TorrentFreak

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

Danish ISPs Reject Anti-Piracy Proposals torrent downloads.

Some time ago, two women from Denmark, both of which later admitted to having P2P software on their computers, received letters from IFPI anti-piracy affiliates Antipiratgruppen, claiming that they had been engaging in the unauthorized uploading of copyrighted musical works. According to reports, the letters demanded compensation - $152,000 and $160,000 respectively.

The cases went to court and were heard this Friday, and to the file-sharing masses of Denmark, it turned out to be a very important day. The women did not deny the claims that unauthorized file-sharing had taken place on their Internet connections but stated clearly that they were not the ones carrying it out.

They claimed that their Wi-Fi had been piggybacked by persons unknown but the music industry didn’t care. Rather like the lawyers chasing the UK’s alleged pinball pirates, they asserted that an Internet subscriber is responsible for what others do on their connection, and it was up to the women to prove that they had not shared music with others. The court didn’t agree and acquitted the women of all charges.

Lawyer Peter Overbeck told Ritzau: “It is an unusually clear and precise judgement. It is the plaintiff, who has the burden of proof. Many who have received letters with claims have been given the impression that they were required to pay. But we now have the court’s word for that, they do not [have to pay]. It is not enough to say that you are guilty of piracy due to owning a particular Internet access point.”

Piratgruppen, a pro-sharing group and antithesis of Antipiratgruppen, was delighted with the verdict, with spokesman Sebastian Gjerding inviting the anti-piracy outfit to drop all claims of compensation against file-sharers.

“We can not continue to send these demands to people. Antipiratgruppen and the IFPI should send an apology instead. It is an absurd claim that an Internet subsciber must take responsibility for the actions of others. Many networks can be attacked and abused.”

Antipiratgruppen, on the other hand, thinks this is a bad decision by the court and refuses to send out apologies. Their lawyer, Torben Steffensen, says this is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. “We do not believe that this law is appropriate and we disagree with this decision,” he said. “There should be a law that protects artists from losing income due to piracy. Therefore we would like to have the Supreme Court deal with the issue.”

However, lawyers for the two women doubt the case will end up in the Supreme Court, since a lower court and now the High Court has ruled in the same way - it is the plaintiff who has the burden of proof.

There was a similar decision in Germany recently, and if Topware Interactive and Davenport Lyons have the guts to take on a defendant in the UK who actually fights back with a ‘wireless defense‘, there could be one there too:

“The onus is on the party bringing the action to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that the person being sued is responsible for the infringement,” says Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with prominent law firm Pinsent Masons. “The legal wrong isn’t that you left your network open, it’s the file-sharing.”

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Danish File-Sharers Not Responsible For Wi-Fi Theft

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

Danish File-Sharers Not Responsible For Wi-Fi Theft torrent downloads.

Latvia’s Largest BitTorrent Tracker Shutdown, Admins Arrested torrent downloads.

File.lv, Latvia’s largest BitTorrent community, was taken offline a few days ago. The 100,000 member tracker reportedly went dark after a joint effort by the Latvian Economic Police and the IFPI-affiliated Latvian Music Producers Association, otherwise known as LAmpA.

According to various Latvian reports, the site was taken down and two of the main administrators placed under arrest. Other gaming and sport related projects connected to the tracker also disappeared. Reports suggest that up to 40 servers were seized.

The two admins, believed to be known as FileX and Tralivali, are believed to have been detained by the Economic Police, an outfit similar to the Dutch FIOD-ECD which was involved in the closure of OiNK. As usual, rumors are circulating that prolific uploaders are also being investigated, although that is far from certain at this stage .

Reports indicate that in 2007, admin ‘FileX’ received a letter from a German media company which requested the shutdown of File.lv. Failing that, it was demanded that File.lv should at least block users with a German IP address, with legal action threatened should they not comply. It’s unclear whether or not the site complied with the request, or if the threatened action is connected to the site’s recent disappearance.

Almost exactly 12 months ago, the Economic Police and public prosecutors met up at a ‘cyber-crime’ summit in Sigulda, Latvia, to discuss how piracy on the Internet could be detected and recorded in a fashion acceptable to the courts. One of the guest lecturers at the meeting was Jeremy Banks, head of Internet anti-piracy operations at the IFPI.

With this news about File-lv, it sounds like it took them a year to get organized.

If you are Latvian and have any further updates, please email us at tips@torrentfreak.com

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Latvia’s Largest BitTorrent Tracker Shutdown, Admins Arrested

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

Latvia’s Largest BitTorrent Tracker Shutdown, Admins Arrested torrent downloads.

Source TF

Last Friday, Italian ISPs started to prevent their customers from accessing the Pirate Bay. Strangely enough, Pirate Bay traffic is not redirected to Italian authorities, but to the IFPI, the infamous anti-piracy lobby of the music industry. Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde is not happy, and says it’s a scandal.

For now, potential Italian Pirate Bay users are denied access to the BitTorrent tracker, and Italian authorities are investigating whether the site should be blocked indefinitely. The block totally missed its purpose though, as The Pirate Bay saw an increase in traffic from Italy instead of a decline.

The Pirate Bay has already taken several countermeasures to make sure Italians can access the site. These don’t work across all ISPs yet, and those users are redirected to the following page by their ISP. Interestingly, this page is hosted on a server that belongs to IFPI - a reverse IP lookup shows that the page is linked to www.pro-music.org, IFPI’s legal music site.

“I think it’s a scandal,” Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak in response to this remarkable finding. “I hope that people start noticing that IFPI gets more and more into bed with the police. It’s really disturbing that one side of an ongoing fight gets more authority without a legal basis.”

Peter finds it hard to believe that the IFPI now gets all the traffic destined for the Pirate Bay, without any legal grounds, and he urges Italian users to clear their cookies before the IFPI decides to steal them. We have to agree with Peter here, it is indeed very disturbing that the traffic is redirected to a site which belongs to an anti-piracy lobby, instead of diverting neutrally to the ISP or local authorities.

The IFPI was contacted for a response several days ago, but hasn’t replied so far. It’s not the first time that they’ve “hijacked” traffic from a torrent site. Last October they did the same thing with the OiNK domain. That instance was even worse, as they used the opportunity to threaten members of the BitTorrent tracker, in advance of any trial.

Last October, the IFPI lost their .com domain, which was mysteriously transferred to the Pirate Bay, who started International Federation of Pirate Interests. Even though the IFPI managed to get the domain back in their possession, the incident marked an increase in efforts from the organization to take out The Pirate Bay.

Thus far, only John Kennedy, chairman and chief executive of the IFPI, has responded to the Italian move against The Pirate Bay stating: “This decision sends out a clear message that The Pirate Bay’s activities are illegal under Italian law. The Pirate Bay facilitates the mass infringement of copyright across music, film, television and games. Its very name shows the contempt its operators hold for the creators of legitimate content.”

Italy is trying hard to get rid of their fascist label, and some Italians were quite upset about the Pirate Bay calling their country a fascist state, but scandals like this don’t help to improve this image. Things get even worse if you take into account that the IFPI covered up the fact that the organization was founded in Rome, Italy, under the watch of Mussolini, one of the greatest fascist dictators. Enough said.

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

IFPI Hijacks Pirate Bay Traffic torrent downloads.

For now, potential Italian Pirate Bay users are denied access to the BitTorrent tracker, and Italian authorities are investigating whether the site should be blocked indefinitely. The block totally missed its purpose though, as The Pirate Bay saw an increase in traffic from Italy instead of a decline.

The Pirate Bay has already taken several countermeasures to make sure Italians can access the site. These don’t work across all ISPs yet, and those users are redirected to the following page by their ISP. Interestingly, this page is hosted on a server that belongs to IFPI - a reverse IP lookup shows that the page is linked to www.pro-music.org, IFPI’s legal music site.

“I think it’s a scandal,” Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak in response to this remarkable finding. “I hope that people start noticing that IFPI gets more and more into bed with the police. It’s really disturbing that one side of an ongoing fight gets more authority without a legal basis.”

Peter finds it hard to believe that the IFPI now gets all the traffic destined for the Pirate Bay, without any legal grounds, and he urges Italian users to clear their cookies before the IFPI decides to steal them. We have to agree with Peter here, it is indeed very disturbing that the traffic is redirected to a site which belongs to an anti-piracy lobby, instead of diverting neutrally to the ISP or local authorities.

The IFPI was contacted for a response several days ago, but hasn’t replied so far. It’s not the first time that they’ve “hijacked” traffic from a torrent site. Last October they did the same thing with the OiNK domain. That instance was even worse, as they used the opportunity to threaten members of the BitTorrent tracker, in advance of any trial.

Last October, the IFPI lost their .com domain, which was mysteriously transferred to the Pirate Bay, who started International Federation of Pirate Interests. Even though the IFPI managed to get the domain back in their possession, the incident marked an increase in efforts from the organization to take out The Pirate Bay.

Thus far, only John Kennedy, chairman and chief executive of the IFPI, has responded to the Italian move against The Pirate Bay stating: “This decision sends out a clear message that The Pirate Bay’s activities are illegal under Italian law. The Pirate Bay facilitates the mass infringement of copyright across music, film, television and games. Its very name shows the contempt its operators hold for the creators of legitimate content.”

Italy is trying hard to get rid of their fascist label, and some Italians were quite upset about the Pirate Bay calling their country a fascist state, but scandals like this don’t help to improve this image. Things get even worse if you take into account that the IFPI covered up the fact that the organization was founded in Rome, Italy, under the watch of Mussolini, one of the greatest fascist dictators. Enough said.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

IFPI Hijacks Pirate Bay Traffic

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

IFPI Hijacks Pirate Bay Traffic torrent downloads.

It’s been all over the news this week. Following attempts in other countries to block access to The Pirate Bay, this week saw the Italians take their turn. Could they succeed where they had previously failed and actually force a decrease in traffic to a site they block?

Some ISPs have refused to block the site in the past but in any event, most attempts only seem to provide free advertising for the site and subsequent increases in traffic.

Unfortunately for the people at the IFPI - the driving force behind the block - the results so far aren’t what they’d hoped for. Rather like the increases in traffic experienced at HTTPShare when they tried to block that, this week has seen traffic from Italy to The Pirate Bay increase too.

Brokep from The Pirate Bay has announced that while the tracker has never been “particularly big in Italy”, the recent attempted block actually seems to have done them a favor.

“Since the block we’ve increased traffic from Italy,” he says. “We gained 10 places on Alexa in Italy, and our own stats show a 5% increase in traffic from Italy (which has been quite stable before),” which is understandable considering the masses of worldwide press coverage this week, a fact not lost on brokep:

“It’s quite interesting and my guess (with background about what happened in Denmark) is that the site will gain even more attention over the coming weeks in the media and also get a lot of new visitors.”

It seems unthinkable that there could be any other result. The music and movies industries might hate The Pirate Bay with a passion but millions upon millions of regular people love them. It’s difficult to keep that level enthusiasm down.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

The Pirate Bay Sees Boost in Italian Traffic Following ‘Block’

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

The Pirate Bay Sees Boost in Italian Traffic Following ‘Block’ torrent downloads.

Kevin runs SoMuchSilence.com, a 3-year-old indie music blog based in Phoenix, Arizona, that serves to promote indie rock and hip-hop, both nationally and locally.

Back in May, Kevin from SoMuchSilence saw that the hugely successful band, Travis, were busy completing their new album “Ode to J.Smith“. Kevin managed to acquire a copy of a track from the album, and since Fran Healy from the band had been encouraging people to share the song, he put a link to the track up on the site.

Then, in an email dated July 1st 2008, Kevin got quite a surprise. He told TorrentFreak that he received a notice indicating he had post an ‘infringing file’ and was shocked since Fran Healy had encouraged people to share the track: “It was my first official cease and desist, so I just removed the file and was going to let it go. The IFPI also contacted my server host, who in turn sent me a notice about taking down the file.”

Apart from the fact that Fran Healy gave his permission for people to share the track, the IFPI still didn’t manage to get the takedown request done properly, as they completely neglected to mention Travis in the email, but referenced the band Hercules and Love Affair instead. The letter/email they claimed to have sent earlier was never received.

Kevin told us he decided to contact Travis directly, and Fran Healy himself responded in super-quick time, giving his express permission for Kevin to upload the song:

I guess until they get the correct song you can keep on posting it. You definitely have my blessing as one of the 4 holders of the copyrights to that specific recording. I actually think this is bogus. Anyways thanks for posting that on your site. It was lovely to see it out there doing the rounds. We didn’t take it to radio so you’re helping with the pollination of the nation.

After getting this positive message from Fran, the IFPI responded, back-tracking on their earlier mail. They explained that since there is such a lot of infringing content online, there will be instances where they make incorrect accusations. They further said they were unaware that the band had agreed to the sharing of this track but now that the position had been clarified, Kevin was free to upload the track.

Kevin told us he felt vindicated after the IFPI admitted, sort of, that it was wrong of them to accuse him the way they did, but it would’ve been nicer if they had apologized instead of simply redirecting the blame. Kevin also talked to us about the obvious gap between the different entities involved in the music business and the benefit of talking to the band direct: “For him [Fran Healy] to reply directly and cut out the middle man in this matter meant a lot to me. I was already a huge fan of Travis and this really cemented that bond. I posted the song to help the band and promote its music and, hopefully, encourage sales, and I think it’s clear Travis realizes that. It’s too bad others don’t.”

It’s wonderful that Travis took the time to respond to Kevin, so TorrentFreak took the opportunity to ask the band a question too: What is the position of the band in relation to both the online distribution of the song, and file-sharing in general. Here is what Fran Healy had to say:

Thanks for getting in touch. My view is very simple. But it’s implications are complex. With a view to music, the internet is like radio. The only major difference is that, at the moment, I don’t get a PRS payment everytime my song is listened to.

The problem is, the business is trying to fit old rules on a new model. Like trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. I think someone has to sit down and re-write the rules for the new model. Maybe the PRS rules with stations were put in place when radio was very small and easy to control. The Internet is giant so is hard to govern. Maybe the way ahead would be to look at the big companies like YouTube and MySpace and say, for instance, 2 million people watch a video for a song then they have also been exposed to the advertising that generates profit for YouTube. Maybe PRS could collect money attributed to this in the same way as they do with commercial radio.

I think bands should be paid for broadcast of their material because this goes directly to the band through publishing. Bands have never profited directly from the sale of their records as they are always paying off debts to do with making the record, videos, artwork and TV advertising. PRS has always been the artists friend. Bands make money from publishing, touring and merch. If the record does well, the rewards are considerable, but more often than not records do ‘alright’ and so PRS is what comes in to keep the wolves from the door.

Maybe a way to deal with the situation would be to not go for the guy streaming the content but go for the service provider. If you took away free entertainment from the menu, they’d lose 99% of their business. If I was a gambling man I’d wager Internet is taking over from TV and will probably replace it by 2040.

As far as illegal filesharing goes. There are people who will buy albums and people who will record them off friends. If you took away the Internet this would still happen so I don’t lose any sleep. Goodnight.

You can hear the song that created all the fuss on MySpace , and learn more about the band on their site. Congratulations to the band on some great music and for treating their fans with respect, and thanks to Kevin and good luck with SoMuchSilence.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Travis Defends Fan from IFPI Threats

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

Travis Defends Fan from IFPI Threats torrent downloads.

When the OiNK tracker was shutdown in 2007, a statement appeared on the site’s homepage. This time - and unusually for the UK - it would be the police investigating a file-sharing case, not some anti-piracy group flexing their muscles in civil action. But even now, months after OiNK was shutdown, no-one - including OiNK admin Alan Ellis - has been charged with anything.

Would OiNK users really become a target for the police, despite the presumed civil status of sharing music on P2P networks? If so, why?

Right from the start, there has been a concerted effort by various elements of the music industry to portray everyday citizens using OiNK - presumably including the likes of Trent Reznor - as hardened criminals out to ruin the industry. At the time, BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor called OiNK a “closed criminal network” and unfortunately this type of comment set the general tone for many follow up news articles.

In reality, OiNK offered no music of its own but was the venue of an unlicensed virtual party, where a limited number of people listened to music without fees or charges, in a modern take on pirate radio - but with a twist. If people had some music to share with others then so much the better, they could bring it along, add it to the index (and that’s all OiNK was, an index) and everyone could listen, to see if they liked it too.

Of all things, it was certainly not about money and a large proportion of the members wouldn’t even have considered that sharing music would result in police knocking on the door, any more than as a result of them using YouTube. But knock they did.

According to information received by TorrentFreak, last week police arrested a user of OiNK, who was questioned and later released on police bail. It is alleged that the individual - a normal user of the site who has no previous involvement with the police and no criminal convictions - uploaded a solitary album in early 2007.

Furthermore, information suggests that the police will be arresting and interviewing more users in the course of this investigation but at this stage it is unclear exactly who they are targeting and why. A one-off album uploader seems an unlikely target, particularly as legally in the UK, the fact that the album was allegedly pre-released - as opposed to released after retail - means little.

Going on previous cases, uploading (sharing) would be a civilly actionable offense - lawyers Davenport Lyons in the UK are happy to send out bills to those it claims uploaded its client’s games and the police aren’t interested. But for reasons no-one seems to fully understand, the police are involved in this case and have sent a car full of officers to make an arrest at the individual’s place of work, all for sharing a few minutes of music.

Another issue up for debate is the big question mark sitting over the usefulness of site logs. Stats are manipulated all the time for one reason or another and trackers have to rely on a user’s torrent client reporting data correctly. To be anywhere close to proving infringement it is necessary to track the transfer of data from within the swarm by directly receiving data from the uploader. This is fairly trivial, does not require the site logs and importantly should’ve been done at the time the album was uploaded. Why there has been such a huge delay in taking further action is unknown.

Last year saw an unexplained shift in the way copyright actions are dealt with in the UK. Out of nowhere, both OiNK and the popular TV-Links sites were taken down by police action where one would usually expect a civil lawsuit, leaving prominent legal experts intrigued as to the legal basis.

Uploading one album is not the world’s most heinous crime, in fact, unless the UK legal system changed overnight, it’s not a crime at all since there would’ve been no commercial gain for the user. So what route is this investigation taking? What is the significance of arresting this individual and investigating others over a seemingly small civil issue, and why has it taken so long to do so?

As usual, there are more questions than answers. If you have any information, please contact TorrentFreak here.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

OiNK Investigation: Police Start Making Arrests

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

OiNK Investigation: Police Start Making Arrests torrent downloads.

Back in February we reported on the IFPI forcing, via the Danish courts, an ISP to block its subscribers from accessing The Pirate Bay. This case was the third occasion where an industry lobby group had flexed its muscles to block a website, a similar measure was used to block allofmp3.com and mp3sparks.com. However, the legality of these actions under European law, specifically the Infosoc directive, is dubious at best.

Nevertheless, two of the largest opposition parties in Danish parliament think it is a good idea – despite the ineffectiveness of the block – to streamline the process, making it quicker and easier to do. A proposal (Danish) before the government seems to create a tribunal to handle these cases.

Whereas in the past cases have involved a rights holder suing an ISP and forcing a block through the courts, this proposal creates a tribunal to do it instead. This tribunal will apparently consist of members appointed by government ministers, who will then rule on blocks with no judicial oversight. Any sites blocked would have to go through the courts to appeal and the site would remain blocked unless and until successful.

If that was not bad enough, there is also talk of a secretariat that would handle ’simple’ cases, so the appointed tribunal would not even have to hear the majority of cases. Cases would be put to the tribunal by copyright holders that feel they have had their rights infringed by the target site. As with the court cases, though, it’s extremely unlikely that the accused site will be invited or even made aware of any such proceedings, and allowed to state their case.

“This is a wet dream for organizations like IFPI,” is the view of Ole Husgaard, chairman of the Danish Pirate Party. “This isn’t even a law proposal, so there is not all the work usually done in our parliament when passing laws; this can be passed in a month or two. If it is, I would guess that we will have at least 2000 sites on the blocking list within 12 months - without a single court case having been decided, if any get started at all.”

He’s not alone in his pessimism. “It’s blatant censorship of course.” is the opinion of The Pirate Bay’s brokep. “It’s not in the interest of the citizens, so I hope the government understands that if they go against the people like that, they should be replaced. It is also not a huge step before they start censoring other stuff - let’s say political parties that have thoughts about changing the current government.”

As analysis of the Pirate Bay block has found it contrary to EU laws, it’s curious as to the motivation behind this proposal. The only rational one would be bribery – either legal or not – and so the question we are forced to ask is, are Danish politicians cheaper to buy than those in New York?

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Danish Copyright Censorship Proposal Revealed

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

Danish Copyright Censorship Proposal Revealed torrent downloads.

The Pirate Bay case hasn’t even got to trial yet and already the controversy surrounding it is building up like some Hollywood plot.

Not only was the police star witness against the Pirate Bay previously employed by one of the plaintiffs, Warner Bros., but it was revealed that after this work he would return to his job as a police officer. Highly suspect to say the least, but not unusual in this case - the IFPI’s expert witness used to work for them too.

Various media and anti-piracy agencies all want a large piece of the Pirate Bay crew and between them are demanding millions of dollars in compensation, a point that is contested by Brokep: “In fact, they owe us a shitload of money. All the time we’ve spent on being called criminals and hunted down by private investigators and getting our stuff stolen by them - it’s gonna be expensive for them.”

Brokep says their initial target is police officer and IT forensics expert Jim Keyzer, who they clearly see as corrupt:

“We reported the police officer yesterday. For a lot of different reasons, at least three criminal complaints were filed. But you know what? It’s illegal to bribe the police as well. So more people have been reported to the police.”

The Pirate Bay crew say that when the case is over, they will demand compensation for all the time and money they have invested in this “media circus”.

Brokep is clearly in defiant mood: “So who’s the fucking criminals really? Hey Hollywood assholes - Be afraid. Very afraid. The law is coming to serve justice.”

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

The Pirate Bay File Police Bribery Complaints

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

The Pirate Bay File Police Bribery Complaints torrent downloads.

IFPI proudly announced their new campaign a few weeks ago, writing: “The campaign comes as millions of people take advantage of the explosion of new ways of accessing music digitally, but still lack clarity on safety and legal issues, on finding legitimate sites, on the basics of copyright and on how to unpick the jargon of digital music.”

IFPI has always been concerned with the safety of children, and on pro-music.org they maintain a list of download stores that are ’safe’ to use. I was of course curious about these legal stores, and since i’m from the Netherlands, I decided to give the Dutch legal stores a try. This turned out to be an interesting experiment.

To my surprise, the first 4 sites on the list were all gone, some had quit, and others redirected to websites that didn’t sell any music. Even worse, commodore.nl -the first site on the list- served ads for a scam site that sells filesharing software.

I finally got something that looked like a music store when I got to the fifth link, dance-tunes. However, when I searched for the latest Radiohead album, nothing came up. The site only has a few mp3s, and nothing of my choice.

The journey continued, and with sixth site, download.nl, I finally found some good music. Interestingly however, the songs I found were not for sale. Instead, I was advised to download LimeWire, Shareaza and Kazaa Lite. This may indeed sound a little confusing, but the IFPI apparently wants kids to use filesharing software after all.

So, to sum up my legal music experiment. I tried the first 6 sites advised by IFPI, 4 didn’t sell any music, the fifth only listed a few songs, and the sixth website I tried advised me to install LimeWire or Kazaa. It gets even worse further down the list where the kids end up at sites that sell hardcore adult movies.

Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media said about the new campaign: “The new guide is a very good example of an initiative that offers simple, practical advice to parents and teachers to keep young people safe and legal while enjoying music on the Internet.

I guess she didn’t try it herself.

Screenshot of a music “store” promoted by IFPI

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

IFPI Advises Kids to Use LimeWire and Kazaa

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

IFPI Advises Kids to Use LimeWire and Kazaa torrent downloads.

The court decided that for uploading 4,500 music tracks and 30 movies with the filesharing application Direct Connect. The defendant should receive a heavy fine and a suspended prison sentence. Initially the file-sharer had been accused of uploading around 23,000 music tracks, but Sweden’s Anti-Piracy Agency’s (APB) use of questionable investigative techniques forced the prosecutor to withdraw some of the charges.

In its verdict, the Linköping District Court decided that due to the large number of files involved in the case, handing out just fines wasn’t enough, hence the suspended sentence. This situation of sharing many thousands of files at once affects the BitTorrent user a lot less than those using other methods of sharing, which is probably why the music industry prefers to target users using ‘folder sharing’ clients, such as DirectConnect, LimeWire and KaZaA.

Thankfully, the court denied the prosecutor’s request to have the man thrown in prison and said that this is “a task for the government, that by legislative means or in other ways take the necessary actions” to come to a solution to the problem. In fact, the court implied that the reason it issued only a suspended sentence was because the copyright industry has to take some responsibility for the situation it finds itself in.

Although escaping prison would’ve been his number one aim, the fine received by the file-sharer was likely significant. In Sweden there is a system of “day fines” that is regulated by how large an income the guilty party has. In the case of day fines, two figures are given, for example ‘40 day fines of 50 kronor’ (that is to say, 2000 kronor). The first figure shows how seriously the court considers the offense (culpability) and the latter figure is determined depending on the accused’s financial situation.

He was given 40 day fines, plus the suspended sentence.

There were fears that a conviction in this case which resulted in prison time could open up the possibility that in the future, police could be allowed to search file-sharers’ homes in pursuit of evidence, something forbidden up to now. It remains unclear if a suspended sentence is enough to change the position.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

File-Sharer Convicted in Sweden’s Biggest P2P Case

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

File-Sharer Convicted in Sweden’s Biggest P2P Case torrent downloads.

TorrentFreak contacted Cleveland Police, but we were told that there was was no one available at the press office who could comment on the bail extension. Most likely, they need more time to gather evidence from the computers, laptop and mobile phones they still have in their possession.

OiNK was considered by many to be the finest BitTorrent music tracker the world has ever seen. The site tracked hundreds and thousands of torrents of the finest recordings, from virtually every musical genre. With millions of peers, it was more popular than most public trackers.

Jeremy Banks, Head of the IFPI’s Internet Anti-Piracy Unit described OiNK differently, and said the site was central to the illegal distribution of pre-release music online. “This was not a case of friends sharing music for pleasure. This was a worldwide network that got hold of music they did not own the rights to and posted it online,” he said.

Based on information from IFPI and others, Cleveland police claimed that OiNK was a money machine, and that Alan was making hundreds of thousands of pounds. The people who actually visited OiNK, however, know that the site was free to use. This was backed up by Trent Reznor, the frontman of Nine Inch Nails: “If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now.”

The IFPI and BPI did not only feed the police “misleading” information, they also took over the OiNK.cd domain and displayed an ominous message indicating an investigation into the site’s users had begun. These threats were intended to scare former OiNK members, and they succeeded in this until OiNK reclaimed the domain.

With the third extension in a row, the speculation about potential charges continues. At the moment it remains unclear what evidence the police are trying to find, but I assume they have figured out by now that the site is not as evil as the IFPI and BPI wanted them to believe.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

OiNK’s Bail Date Extended Yet Again by Police

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

OiNK’s Bail Date Extended Yet Again by Police torrent downloads.

So far, the IFPI has had little success with their lobby, that’s probably why they decided to put legal pressure on the ISPs. “We believe that ISPs have a special part to play in this and must help us. The discussions we’ve tried to have with the ISPs haven’t led anywhere,” IFPI’s Managing Director in Sweden, Lars Gustafsson, said in response to their recent announcement.

The IFPI claims to have studied several ISPs practices, but according to Lars Gustaffson they intend to focus on one particular company which they claim facilitates filesharing on the Internet. One of the services they hope to stop is their nemesis, The Pirate Bay.

Gustafsson was advised by his legal team not to disclose the name of the ISP yet, but many people think the ISP Bahnhof will be the most likely target, since they are recommended by the pirate community because of their high stance on integrity.

“The ISPs don’t believe they have any responsibility to help when it comes to hindering filesharing,” says Lars Gustafsson. IFPI already sent out letters to several service providers, urging them to start monitoring their customers and filtering websites.

Most ISPs refuse to cooperate with the IFPI though. Last month, Telia Sonera, a large Swedish ISP responded to the IFPI’s request by stating that such actions are illegal under EU law. Norwegian ISPs later responded with similar arguments.

On the other hand, the IFPI claims that restricting access to filesharing sites might actually benefit ISPs. “Illegal P2P file-sharing may have helped drive broadband subscriptions in the past, yet today these activities, particularly in respect of movies, are hogging bandwidth,” they state.

Thus far, the IFPI has won in Denmark. In February, a Danish court ordered the ISP ‘Tele2′ to block its customers from accessing The Pirate Bay. The decision is currently under appeal, and the Pirate Bay recently announced that they will demand compensation for the block.

To be continued…

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

IFPI to Sue Swedish ISP for Facilitating Copyright Infringement

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

IFPI to Sue Swedish ISP for Facilitating Copyright Infringement torrent downloads.

Shocking, yes. But what if there were two similar events, on subsequent days?

Today it has been revealed by Computerworld that the expert witness - the ONLY expert witness - in the Danish Pirate Bay blocking case, was previously employed by the IFPI, a fact revealed through his LinkedIn social networking page.

Kristian Løkkegaard is now working for DtecNet Software, an anti-piracy company. DtecNet Software originally stems from Antipiratgruppen (Danish Anti-Piracy outfit) and Johan Schlüter Law Firm, where several of the partners are co-owners of the internationally successful firm.

Kristian Løkkegaard had also been employed for two years at Johan Schlüter Law Firm, which has the IFPI as a client, something which many find shocking, like Morten Agervig Helles who represented Tele2, the ISP ordered to block The Pirate Bay in Denmark. “I couldn’t in my wildest dreams believe that they would use a witness that had previously been employed by them” he said.

The court in Frederiksberg probably had no knowledge of that fact when it ordered Tele2 to block The Pirate Bay in February this year, however that doesn’t change the fact that Løkkegaard had a conflict of interests. Right now, the court doesn’t wish to comment on this situation.

According to Lars Bo Langsted who is a lawyer and faculty-leader at Aalborg University, witnesses must be objective. He says that there is a difference between a representative for one of the sides in a trial and an objective witness. “If you give testimony as an objective profesional and not as a representative of one of the parts in the trial, then you give testimony as an independent expert. In relation to that, it is of course very important that it is clear weather the person in question is capable of that or not.”

In the interests of transparency, this information about previous employment should have been known to the court but it is nowhere to be found in the court documents. Morten Agervig Helles, who represented Tele2 says this is also news to him: “I didn’t know that. No one told me. Neither that he had interests in the case nor that he had been employed.”

Kristian Løkkegaard said that he only appeared in the courtroom for very limited time: “I do not remember how exactly it went, but normally the judge or a clerk asks who I am, what my background is, my employment and so on. And then I answer those questions.”

He says that because of his expertise he has been called as an witness in similar cases by Johan Schlüter Lawfirm. “I wasn’t in the courtroom during the whole hearing,” he said “and I cant remember exactly which questions they asked. But this is not something I want to try to hide or have tried to hide.”

Thanks to Peter_Pan

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

IFPI Expert Witness in Pirate Bay Case Worked for IFPI

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

IFPI Expert Witness in Pirate Bay Case Worked for IFPI torrent downloads.

Like most of the music industry associations around the world, the IFPI claims to champion the cause of the artist, by promoting them and protecting their interests. One such artist is Max Peezay, a Swedish hip-hop artist who is mentioned in the IFPI legal case against The Pirate Bay. It’s claimed that money was lost as a result of Max’s music being available for download via the site.

The thing is, the CEO of the IFPI in Sweden, Lars Gustafsson, never asked Max Peezay if he wanted to be used in the case against The Pirate Bay. If he had, he might’ve been clear on Max’s views on this matter, in that he wants nothing to do with it.

Brokep of The Pirate Bay told TorrentFreak: “He’s pro-file sharing. Some of his lyrics already state that. And he’s not willing to feel like a sell-out to please Ifpi - who never actually asked him for his permission to sue in his name.”

Characteristically over-stepping the mark, the IFPI forgot a little detail when putting Max Peezay forward in The Pirate Bay case says Brokep: “In fact, they [IFPI] didn’t even own the rights to his music.”

According to a SVD report, due to the refusal of Max to being involved in the case, the IFPI have reduced the amount of money they are claiming from The Pirate Bay by roughly 12,000 EUR (apprx $19,000), which unfortunately won’t reduce the $2.5m total claim by much.

Brokep has a message for all of the other pro-filesharing artists: “What we’re waiting for now is all of those other artists to speak up as well. We know many of the artists actually put up their albums on The Pirate Bay themselves - and we’re really happy about that! And we know that you don’t like to be abused by the record labels in this farce. So we want you to show your support. Not necessarily for TPB but for your fans. It’s an important message to send to the community.”

The Pirate Bay case will generate huge amounts of publicity when it kicks into high gear so it’ll be interesting to see where the artists really stand on this issue and who they align themselves with, the IFPI - or the public.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

Hip-Hop Artist Refuses To Stand Against The Pirate Bay

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

Hip-Hop Artist Refuses To Stand Against The Pirate Bay torrent downloads.

In February, a Danish court ordered the ISP “Tele2″ to block its customers from accessing The Pirate Bay. The decision, which is currently under appeal, once again heated the debate on ISPs Internet filtering.

The court case was initiated by the IFPI - the infamous anti-piracy organization that represents the recording industry. The IFPI later tried to use the “landmark decision” to force Swedish ISPs to do the same, but failed. In fact, it seems that filtering traffic to The Pirate Bay is actually illegal according to European law.

Pirate Bay’s Brokep told TorrentFreak that they will file a complaint, and ask for compensation for the time they were blocked in Denmark. The Pirate Bay already fought back by launching The Jesper Bay, giving affected customers detailed instructions on how to regain access to The Pirate Bay. However, they think that it is only fair to ask compensation for the inconvenience the IFPI block has cost .

The money, which will be managed by the Danish Piratgruppen, could be used to fund Danish artists who want to share their music, according to Brokep, who assured us that they will only ask for a reasonable amount of money, unlike the IFPI. “The grant will give out money to Danish aspiring artists for making music and releasing it for free. And all will be sponsored by IFPI since they tried to fuck those people over. Poetic justice.”

Strangely enough, The Pirate Bay was never heard in the IFPI vs. Tele2 case. “Nobody ever asked us what we think about the block, although it does affect only us and we’re the reason for the lawsuit,” brokep said.

This is not the first time The Pirate Bay has fought fire with fire, last year they took legal action against 10 major media companies, including Paramount Home Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox and Universal Music Group, for using MediaDefender to sabotage their BitTorrent tracker.

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

The Pirate Bay Demands Compensation for IFPI Block

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

The Pirate Bay Demands Compensation for IFPI Block torrent downloads.

International organizations with fine traditions don’t normally miss an opportunity to celebrate anniversaries. It’s also common practice to inform the public about their founding and history on their websites. This is not the case when the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) celebrates its 75th anniversary this year. How come? Thanks to Copyriot, here is the story that the IFPI wants to hide from the world.

In 1933 the phonographic industry held a congress in Rome, Italy, to form an international federation. The fact that Italy had been a fascist dictatorship for eleven years under Benito Mussolini, wasn’t something that bothered them.

On the contrary, the IFPI returned to fascist Italy for the next congress, held in the northern tourist resort of Stresa in 1934. Specially invited was CISAC, the France-based International Confederation of Authors and Composers Societies. They had heavily opposed the IFPI’s goal in giving the phonographic producers rights of their own within the framework of the Berne convention, since they feared this would lessen the composers’ rights. At the meeting in Stresa, the IFPI convinced CISAC to support an alternative line, where the record companies’ rights would be guaranteed in a special convention.

However, CISAC emphasized that this protection were not to be constructed so that the artists’ rights are diminished. The Italian government also showed interest for such a solution of the issue and had a special commission put forward a convention draft on the subject.

Memo from Swedish Department of Justice, 1953

This quote shows it wasn’t just the Mediterranean climate that made the IFPI organize its first activities in fascist Italy. The regime provided especially good support for their lobbying cause.

After the preparations had been made through detailed debates within the jurisprudence, the Rome active International Institute for Unification of Private Rights made the initiative in 1939 to gather an expert committee that would put forward concrete proposals on the subject.

Memo from Swedish Department of Justice, 1953

The committee was headed by Dr.Ostertag and quickly proposed a draft. For a change - or maybe because Mussolini’s Italy at the time was on the verge of World War - the committee’s first meeting was held in Samedan in neutral Switzerland. The committee members were probably less than neutral. Since the committee members had been appointed by the judicial institute in Rome, we can safely assume they were loyal to the fascist regime.

The conclusion from the committee was a proposal to combine the rights of the phonographic industry and the rights of the ‘performers’ (i.e. musicians and actors) in one convention. This had a large impact on the continuing legislation that to this day in 2008, regulate the music economy.

The continued work on the Samaden proposals was postponed because of WW2. After the end of the war, the work was restarted within the permanent committee of the Bern union. This was first assembled in 1949 in Neuchâtel and it was decided to refer the Samaden proposals back to Bern union member states and other states for consideration. The following meeting was held in October 1950 in Lisbon and is essential to the continued development.

Lisbon? Why did the IFPI, five years after WW2, chose fascist dictatorship Portugal as the site to continue the work that had started in fascist dictatorship Italy?

It might have been a coincidence, but the convention texts that were put together with great efficiency during these meetings were far from obvious. On the contrary, they competed with parallel attempts to reach an international convention that would extend something resembling copyright to musicians, who were organized by ILO in close cooperation with the musicians’ labor unions. They cared less for the wishes of the phonographic industry. Rather, they strove to protect jobs for live musicians, who seemed threatened by the ‘mechanization’.

These intentions took time and were discussed in detail, but if they had been quicker it is very possible that the international copyright would’ve taken another direction, where musicians - not record companies - were seen as legitimate rights holders of the music that is played in radio and public speakers.

Now, this never happened. The expert commissions, assisted by the fascist regime in Italy, had been quicker - to the great joy of the phonographic industry. The Samaden proposal led to the ‘Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations’, finally signed in 1961 and today a deeply integrated part of Swedish copyright law. It is thanks to this that record companies can claim outlandish damages against The Pirate Bay.

As opposed to music publishers, record companies don’t have copyright in the right meaning, but thanks to the Rome convention they have something called ‘neighboring rights’, that over time have come to be just as important.

In addition, we note how George H.C. Bodenhausen - one of the lawyers that during the 1950s developed the Rome convention - referred to fascist Italian laws on the subject (legislated during the war in 1941) as a model, “the most up-to-date legislation”.

This does not mean the Rome convention is ‘fascist’. However, it’s hard to disregard its strong characteristics of corporatism, which have made a strong impression on the copyright bureaucracy. It’s also important to remember that the musicians’ labor unions suggested an entirely different solution, which didn’t have the same institutionalized feeding of the record companies. Without suggesting that the IFPI as an organization had fascist sympathies, they strategically used the fascist regime’s anti-union stance and corporative policies during the 1930s. The outcome of this tug-of-war still characterizes how copyright policies are formed.

That the IFPI was founded in fascist Italy in 1933, is little know today. The information has previously been posted on Wikipedia:

It was formed /…/ during 1933 in Rome, Italy, under the fascist government of Benito Mussolini by companies mainly owned or controlled by General Electric in the United States of America

In April 2005, someone removed the mention of fascism but left the fact about where and when the IFPI was founded - until August 25th 2006. On that date, the Wikipedia page was edited by someone with IP address 195.40.39.2 who deleted all information about the IFPI having a history at all. That is how it’s remained on Wikipedia’s IFPI page until now.

The person who deleted the information about IFPI’s founding did it from IFPI’s headquarters in London. The IP address points there.

Why is the IFPI so scared of its own history that it tries to keep it a secret that 2008 is its 75th anniversary?

This is an article from: TorrentFreak

IFPI Erases Evidence Of Fascist Roots For 75th Anniversary

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

IFPI Erases Evidence Of Fascist Roots For 75th Anniversary torrent downloads.