In 2014, the application known as Popcorn Time burst onto the scene to transform the BitTorrent landscape.
Instead of accessing torrent files from indexing platforms such as The Pirate Bay to download them in a comparatively boring regular client, users were given a beautiful, Netflix-style, all-in-one solution.
Very quickly, Popcorn Time became a smash-hit sensation but it also attracted movie and TV show companies determined to shut it down. While some success was booked on this front, Popcorn Time's open-source nature meant that it could be replicated by enthusiasts, such as those who ultimately ended up operating from PopcornTime.sh.
While there are other variants, Reddit's /r/popcorntime considers the .sh domain as offering the 'official' version of PopcornTime and the site was previously linked from the official Github repository. As the image below shows, the website and associated services attached to the app via the .sh domain were working just fine on November 3, 2019.
All systems were functioning Nov 3, 2019
The situation today, however, is very much different. PopcornTime.sh and all the sub-domains which allow its app to work as intended have been rendered inaccessible.
According to WHOIS data, late on Monday the domain was updated. It isn't due to expire for another year but its domain status is currently listed as "clientHold", which can signal bad news.
PopcornTime.sh – clientHold
'ClientHold' status is set by the domain registrar, 101domain.com in this case, and informs the registry not to activate the DNS for PopcornTime.sh. As a result, the website in question has been rendered inaccessible.
"This status code tells your domain's registry to not activate your domain in the DNS and as a consequence, it will not resolve," ICANN's official advice reads. "It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes, non-payment, or when your domain is subject to deletion."
We have been unable to officially confirm why PopcornTime.sh has been given this treatment but in the past, clientHold status has proven problematic for domains and has sometimes signaled legal issues. Information received earlier today adds at least some weight to that theory.
This afternoon we received an email from the folks at InternetProtocol.co who, citing anonymous police sources, claim that the site's operator may (and that's a pretty big 'may') have been arrested in Tunisia.
The publication also posted an image that supposedly shows items confiscated as evidence as part of a "raid" carried out in "cooperation with some international copyright organization."
Unable to confirm the allegations from any other source and given its worldwide position on anti-piracy enforcement, TorrentFreak contacted the Alliance For Creativity and Entertainment seeking confirmation or indeed denial that it was involved in this alleged and as-yet unconfirmed action.
We were told by their spokesperson that at this point in time, he wasn't able to provide us with any information.
Although the moderators of the official PopcornTime sub on Reddit claim to have no direct connection with the software distributed and maintained from the .sh domain, TorrentFreak requested comments from all of them. At the time of publication, however, we were yet to hear back.
Whether the domain issue will be solved in time is unclear but that seems largely reliant on whether the information about a supposed arrest in North Africa holds up as credible.
Similar action in that region is extremely rare, perhaps unheard of as far as popular applications go, so there will be a waiting game for the full picture to emerge, if it ever does. Last year, PopcornTime.sh was targeted by movie companies seeking the identity of its operator but what ultimately became of that remains unclear.
Piracy settlement letters have become a serious threat in several countries.
Dutch Internet users have been spared from this practice, but local movie distributor Dutch Filmworks (DFW), planned to change that.
Two years ago the movie company received permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to track the IP-addresses of BitTorrent users who shared pirated movies.
However, that was only the first hurdle, as Dutch Internet provider Ziggo refused to share any customer data without a court order.
The case went to court, where the movie company requested the personal details of 377 account holders whose addresses were allegedly used to share a copy of the movie "The Hitman's Bodyguard".
Dutch Filmworks lost this case but swiftly announced an appeal. This ruling was initially expected during this summer, but the Court of Appeal postponed it due to the complexity of the case. After additional deliberation, the Court announced its verdict today.
The Court of Appeal in Arnhem sided with the lower court, rejecting the request for subscriber details. In its ruling, the Court explains that it must find a balance between the privacy rights of subscribers and Dutch Filmworks' intellectual property rights.
In this specific case, copyright doesn't outweigh the privacy rights of Internet subscribers. This is, in part, because it remains uncertain what the movie company plans to do with the personal data it obtains. Dutch Filmworks explained that it could either warn subscribers or request damages, but that it would decide this on a case-by-case basis.
"By not being transparent about the criteria it applies when carrying out its intended actions, the interests of the involved Ziggo customer are harmed," the Court notes.
"In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, this leads to a disturbance of the [rights] balance, in particular in the situation that it is uncertain whether the Ziggo customer involved is actually the infringer," the Court adds, noting that the subscriber in question may be a third-party.
In addition, it remains unclear how large the proposed settlements will be. An initial figure of €150 per infringement has been mentioned in the past, but this number could also be significantly higher. Transparency is lacking here as well, which means more uncertainty for the potential targets.
After weighing all evidence, the Court of Appeal concludes that the lower court made the right decision. Based on the presented information, the Court can't grant the request to hand over the personal details of alleged infringers.
"There are no clear and comprehensible criteria based on which an estimate can be made of the consequences for the relevant Ziggo customers, if their personal data is disclosed. It cannot be checked whether the intended measures are in reasonable proportion to the importance that it serves DFW and the privacy interest of the Ziggo customer whose privacy is violated."
In addition, the Court ordered the movie company to pay €4,000 in costs. Whether Dutch Filmworks will continue to appeal the case is unknown at the time of publication. For now, however, Ziggo customers don't have to worry about a settlement letter from Dutch Filmworks.
No comments:
Post a Comment