TorrentFreak's Latest News

Court Orders Kim Dotcom to Pay Costs After 'Seized Device' Challenge FailedAndy Maxwell, 31 Oct 08:59 AM For more than a decade, Kim Dotcom has chal

Court Orders Kim Dotcom to Pay Costs After 'Seized Device' Challenge Failed Andy Maxwell, 31 Oct 08:59 AM For more than a decade, Kim Dotcom has challenged every detail of New Zealand and United States authorities' attempts to hold him accountable for alleged crimes related to his hosting platform, Megaupload. Just one strand of this complex legal web involved the seizure of 135 devices (made up of around 300 components, including external storage) under a MACMA (Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters) warrant. Most of the devices belonged to Dotcom and some of them had been encrypted. Device Controversy Background In March 2012, FBI investigators went to New Zealand and made clones of 19 devices identified by Dotcom as being most likely to contain relevant evidence. The FBI took one set of clones back to the U.S. and left the other set in New Zealand. Dotcom said that he would hand over passwords to access the encrypted content in exchange for access to a set of clones. After that didn't happen, Dotcom challenged the validity of the search warrants that allowed for the seizure of the devices in the first place. In June 2013, a court found that the search warrants were invalid due to being overly broad. A year later, a remedies judgment declared the MACMA warrants unlawful. The court ruled that no other data from the seized devices should leave New Zealand, and that police should carry out a review to identify irrelevant content and return it to Dotcom. Around 99 devices were returned and 36 devices were retained by New Zealand police, but negotiations to facilitate the exchange of device passwords failed. In February 2014, the Court of Appeal found the warrants were indeed valid. Dotcom appealed to the Supreme Court but in December 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, meaning that the order that prevented data from leaving New Zealand no longer applied. The US Department of Justice responded by demanding access to the original devices so that it could meet evidentiary standards in the united States. In 2017, the NZ Deputy Solicitor-General said that only clones could be sent to the United States but after the New Zealand Supreme Court declared Dotcom eligible for extradition, in 2022 the NZ official said that the U.S. could have the originals. The Attorney-General added that four former or serving police officers, who had signed undertakings not to provide any of Dotcom's encryption codes to anyone, especially the United States, should be released from those undertakings. Continuing his challenge-everything approach, Dotcom responded with an application seeking a judicial review. High Court Rejects Dotcom's Application After considering the application to release the former and current officers from their undertakings regarding encryption codes, this summer the High Court found that since the Court of Appeal's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, there were good grounds to release the officers from their undertakings. The Court went on to thoroughly examine Dotcom's application for judicial review. In part, Dotcom claimed that the 2022 decision to send the original devices to the U.S. was illegitimate since there had been no material change in his case since 2017. The Court said that by 2022 it was clear that the devices contained evidence of conduct which, if proven, constituted criminal offending in both New Zealand and the United States. Based on this and many other factors, the Court denied Dotcom's request for judicial review and found that the Attorney-General/Deputy Solicitor-General were entitled to costs. Parties Could Not Agree on Quantum Since Dotcom and the Attorney-General failed to agree on a costs amount, it was left to the High Court to decide. In common with all other aspects of the Megaupload case, yet more causes for dispute were presented to the Court. A filing from Dotcom claimed that the Judge's statement, that the Attorney-General and the Deputy Solicitor-General ('the Crown parties') were entitled to costs, was "simply an observation of the general rule that costs follow the event, rather than as a final determination of liability for costs." In a judgment handed down on October 20, 2022, Justice Campbell says that when the High Court found that 'the Crown parties' were entitled to costs, it meant exactly that. "That was a definitive statement. It was not (as is sometimes the case) a merely provisional view as to liability for costs," Justice Campbell's decision reads. "That her Honour was determining liability for costs is reinforced by her direction for the filing of memoranda. That direction was conditional on the parties being unable to reach agreement on quantum. Her Honour did not contemplate that anything remained to agree in relation to liability." Liability Accepted: 50% Discount? Dotcom's filing anticipated this outcome, noting that if the court reached the conclusion he was liable, then he should receive a reduction of 50% due to the Crown parties producing a single set of evidence in response to two applications. After significant analysis and published reasoning, the Judge declined the request. With that he ordered Dotcom to pay the Crown parties costs of NZ$39,016.75 and disbursements of NZ$595.65. The Crown parties requested the amount to be paid within 21 days, noting that Dotcom "does not have a record of paying costs awards timeously." The Judge said that was unnecessary. "Costs awards are, as the Crown parties acknowledge, payable as soon as they are fixed. Non-payment has consequences, including the obligation to pay interest. The order sought would delay the date on which those consequences are triggered," the Judge concluded. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 10/31/2022 Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Oct 11:30 PM The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources. This week we have five newcomers on the list. "All Quiet on the Western Front" is the most downloaded title. The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 31 are: Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer Most downloaded movies via torrent sites 1 (…) All Quiet on the Western Front 8.0 / trailer 2 (…) Barbarian 7.2 / trailer 3 (1) Bullet Train 7.4 / trailer 4 (2) Top Gun: Maverick 8.6 / trailer 5 (4) Black Adam 7.1 / trailer 6 (…) Ticket to Paradise 6.3 / trailer 7 (3) Thor: Love and Thunder 6.5 / trailer 8 (…) Don't worry Darling 6.2 / trailer 9 (8) Terrifier 2 6.8 / trailer 10 (…) The Good Nurse 6.9 / trailer Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. 'Pirate' Streaming Boxes Boosted Netflix Viewership, Research Finds Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Oct 08:15 PM In recent years, legal video streaming services such as Netflix, HBO and Amazon have flourished. At the same time, millions of people are streaming from unauthorized sources as well, often paired with perfectly legal streaming platforms and devices. This mix of legal devices and illegal add-ons is a challenge for law enforcement. Platforms such as Kodi, Plex, and Roku are perfectly legal but can be configured to access pirated content as well. A few years ago, Kodi found itself at the center of this add-on controversy. The software's creators always distanced themselves from illegal activity but third-party sellers beyond their control marketed "fully loaded" Kodi boxes as ideal tools for piracy. This eventually culminated in several lawsuits where sellers of pre-configured boxes were found liable for copyright infringement. The legal campaign was backed by many Hollywood studios as well as Netflix. They argued that illegal streaming boxes hurt their revenues but new research suggests that this may not always be the case. Do Pirate Boxes Hurt Rightsholders? The pirate streaming box controversy inspired researchers from the University of Delaware and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to find out how these devices actually change people's consumption and spending habits. "The lawsuits brought by content providers and MSOs suggest that Kodi-ready streaming boxes facilitated piracy and meaningfully impacted the profitability of content production and distribution. Yet, as has been the case with many past claims of damages due to piracy, there was no direct empirical evidence to demonstrate economic harm," they write. To obtain empirical evidence, the researchers tapped into panel data from 10,337 households, which captures a wide range of spending and consumption habits. These data include Internet and TV usage reports as well as billing records for a sixteen-month period spanning 2017-2018, when Kodi-powered streaming boxes were widely used. The data allowed the researchers to compare habits before and after purchasing a Kodi-powered box. This isn't a perfect proxy for piracy, as the devices can be used for legitimate purposes as well. However, the article points out that earlier research showed that two-thirds of box owners have pirate add-ons installed. More Netflix, More YouTube, More Piracy When simply comparing households that have a Kodi box to those that don't, it becomes clear that there are vast differences between the two groups. The box owners generate much more internet traffic on average, and they spend more time streaming through Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Twitch, and other platforms. This finding isn't particularly surprising or insightful. What happens to households after they first purchase a Kodi box is what the researchers really want to determine. Here, the data paint a compelling picture. After adopting Kodi, total Internet usage in households increases by 2.88 gigabytes per day. A large part of this traffic is driven by Netflix (0.52 gigabytes) and YouTube (0.57 gigabytes). No significant increases were observed for Amazon Video and Hulu. As expected, there is also a significant rise in traffic categories that are typically associated with piracy. Interestingly, traffic to traditional network channel streaming content also increases. According to the researchers, this suggests that households may use the box to substitute viewership that would otherwise take place through a regular TV connection. Lower Bills Kodi adopters also change their spending habits after buying a box. They sped less money on TV subscriptions and more on their Internet bills as they upgrade to higher tiers. This is in line with what one would expect from cord-cutters. "Kodi adopters spend 4.2% more on internet service than non-adopters. Incorporating household fixed effects, we estimate a further 3.1% reduction in monthly TV payments among TV subscribers and a 0.9% increase in monthly internet payments among Kodi adopters after the adoption date," the researchers write. Overall this suggests that the total monthly bill of Kodi adopters decreases by 1%. This means that there is less revenue going to third parties. However, the researchers caution that this may not translate to lower profits overall, as TV margins tend to be lower than Internet margins. Piracy Benefits Companies? All-in-all, the study shows that piracy can have both positive and negative effects on the broader economy. And this form of streaming box 'piracy' may even help major rightsholders, including Netflix. "Many large SVOD services including Netflix appear to have benefited from Kodi adoption in spite of their support of lawsuits alleging damages," the researchers write, adding that Internet companies also observe an increase in revenue and profits. On the other hand, many broadband companies also generate profit from selling TV subscriptions. So, whether they make more or less profit overall depends on the margins they have for each business. Or as the researchers put it: "As for harm to the MSO, the observed decrease in revenue corresponds to a decrease in profits only if the margin associated with lost TV revenue is large enough to offset the margin associated with increased internet revenue." The study provides valuable insights into the streaming piracy problem. While lawsuits and other legal actions have pretty much put an end to Kodi's piracy add-on problem, this research will help to put future piracy waves in perspective. — A copy of the paper "The Impact of Video Piracy on Content Producers and Distributors" by Zachary Nolan, Jonathan Williams and Haoran Zhang is available here (pdf). This is a working paper that hasn't yet been peer-reviewed From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2022 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Edit your subscription to TorrentFreak

Hi there,

To continue editing your subscription to TorrentFreak click here. You can also click here to unsubscribe.

If you're not trying to edit your subscription, no action is needed and you can safely ignore this email.

Thank you!

TorrentFreak's Latest News

Notorious: IPTV Providers & Free Streaming Sites Submitted For ActionAndy Maxwell, 29 Oct 06:56 PM Even in the wake of dozens of operations aimed at

Notorious: IPTV Providers & Free Streaming Sites Submitted For Action Andy Maxwell, 29 Oct 06:56 PM Even in the wake of dozens of operations aimed at disrupting illegal IPTV services, people looking to buy IPTV packages containing thousands of channels remain spoilt for choice. At $10/€10/£10 per month, give or take, illegal subscriptions are extremely cheap compared to those offered by legal broadcasters. But for pirates determined never to pay for anything, free alternatives are also available. They tend to be unreliable but can indeed offer a full subscription-like service for zero cost, albeit for limited periods. Sports leagues and broadcasters such as Premier League and beIN would like to see both disappear for good, a position shared by anti-piracy coalition IBCAP and its partners operating in the same field – ACE, MPA, AAPA, and AVIA, for example. Lists of services causing specific problems were recently outlined in submissions to the US government. Whether they will be branded 'notorious markets' remains to be seen, but it's interesting to see which platforms could face unexpected pressure in the months and years to come. Note: Text in italics represents direct quotes from submissions Premier League: Free Streaming Sites Premium IPTV providers are all causing problems for Premier League but a number of its recommendations focus on free streaming platforms, most with no barriers to entry. Lalastreams / istream2watch.com (Germany) Lalastreams / istream2watch.com is a family of Streaming Websites that have amassed almost 60 million global visits so far in 2022. Approximately 20 domains redirect to istream2watch.com. As Premier League points out, there's certainly no shortage of redirecting domains; alastreams.me, stream2watch.club, stream2watch.one, stream2watch.sx, streamgaroo.com are just a few examples. The Premier League says that it detected over 1,000 infringing live streams on istream2watch.com over the course of the 2021/2022 season. It also claims to have traced "the likely operator" of the platform to Germany. Livekoora.online Livekoora is an Arabic language Streaming Website that provides links to live football matches from around the world, including the Premier League. The site provides a list of infringing streams for each match, allowing users to select what they want to watch and play the stream within the website. Livetv.sx – (Cyprus/Kazakhstan/Russia) Livetv.sx is a Streaming Website that has historically operated through multiple domains to provide an index of links to live streams of a very broad range of sports events, including live Matches. According to a Premier League investigation, Livetv.sx has received 125 million visits from its global audience in 2022 alone. The football league also reveals that despite "successful" legal proceedings brought by other rightsholders, the site continues its operations. Soccerstreams / Weakstreams (Egypt) Soccerstreams was originally a sub-thread on the Reddit platform which had attracted over 400,000 subscribers. Following pressure by a number of legitimate content owners, including the Premier League, the thread was suspended by Reddit in January 2019. Shortly afterwards, however, a website with the same brand name appeared, claiming to be 'by the founders of /r/SoccerStreams'. SoccerStreams was once the UK's most popular pirate site with a global reach in excess of 25 million visits per month. Traffic today appears to be down about three million visits per month but the Premier League believes that Weakstreams.com is potentially linked since it drives traffic to SoccerStreams. Overall, it estimates that the domains have pulled in 230 million visits to date in 2022. Totalsportek (Poland) Totalsportek12 is a major pirate sports Streaming Website that provides links to multiple live sporting events. The site does not post links until about an hour before each live football match starts and when it does, it provides an index of up to 40 links. The site attracted over 150 million global visits in the last year (October 2021 – September 2022). The Premier League believes that this website is operated by an individual in Poland. Premier League: Premium IPTV Providers BestBuyIPTV is already listed by the USTR as a 'notorious market'. The Premier League claims that the service carries channels from all over the globe, including those carrying Premier League content. Following an investigation, the Premier League says it has located the operator of the service in Vietnam. That doesn't appear to have affected the service's availability, however. BestBuyIPTV is happy to sell subscriptions to the public ($70 per year/7300 channels/9600 VOD titles), resellers, and restreamers alike. Other IPTV providers listed by the Premier League include Chaloos (Iraq), EV Pad (Hong Kong/China), Globe IPTV (Lebanon), and Redline (Turkey). Free M3U IPTV Playlists Earlier this year the Premier League complained to the European Commission about so-called "Open Web Piracy", i.e freely accessible content available on the web without users having to pay anything. In their joint submission to the USTR, sports broadcaster beIN and Miramax (which the former controls) list a large number of IPTV-related services that have mostly been covered in one form or another. However, the companies also draw attention to what they say is a "serious and rapidly growing problem." Players in the IPTV system that provide rather than consume content, often have access to management dashboards. Known simply as 'panels', these interfaces allow for the distribution of IPTV channels and chosen access controls. They can also generate 'playlists' in the form of small, portable text files, usually in .M3U format. These files are appearing online more than ever before, and since they often carry login credentials, access to pirate IPTV platforms becomes essentially free. They can be opened in software such as VLC but unlike torrent files, playlists can be remotely disabled at any moment. Playlists are quick and cheap, but despite being unreliable too, beIN would like those who distribute them to be labeled as 'notorious' when the USTR publishes its report. These temporary playlists have, in recent years, been distributed online by a number of sources.This has become a very popular means to access pirate sports content, in particular, given that the playlists are available shortly before games commence. Some of the fora dedicated to sharing these illegal IPTV playlists, and which are notorious for piracy, include: • https://iptvlistm3u.com/ • https://m.tousecurity.com/ • https://usa.m3uiptv.com/ • https://artiptv.net/ • https://www.dailyiptvlist.com/ • http://iptvhit.com/freeiptv • https://best.freeiptv.life/ • https://www.iptvsource.comhttps://m3u.bestfreeiptv.com/ • https://dwdvb.com/all-country-free-iptv-channel-links-m3u-playlis-2022/ • https://talysports.com/free-iptv-channel-links-m3u-playlist/ Finally, it's interesting to see which sites and services are nominated for action but at the same time, some extremely big platforms are not put forward by rightsholders at all. It seems unlikely that they're unaware of their existence, so that raises the question of why they're absent from the list. Information like that isn't made public, but since submissions are, perhaps it's a case of not rocking the boat during sensitive periods or simply waiting until the time is right. Three IPTV-related submissions to the USTR can be found here (1,2,3) Image credit: Pixabay/geralt From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2022 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company