Thursday, February 3, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Dutch ISP is Not Required to Forward Piracy Warnings, Court Rules
Ernesto Van der Sar, 03 Feb 10:21 AM

justiceWhen it comes to civil anti-piracy enforcement, BREIN is without a doubt one of the best-known players in the industry.

The group, which receives support from Hollywood and other content industries, has shuttered hundreds of sites and services in recent history.

BREIN has also targeted several prolific BitTorrent uploaders over the years, with success. However, tracking down and going after individual file-sharers is quite resource-intensive and the anti-piracy group aims to cast its net wider.

Sending Warning Letters Pirates

To expand its reach, the group previously obtained permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to track and store the personal data of alleged BitTorrent pirates. This request was granted and roughly a year ago BREIN announced the start of its mass warning campaign.

Unlike other copyright enforcement groups, BREIN is not interested in casual pirates. Instead, it focuses on the bigger fish and asks Internet providers to forward a warning to these subscribers.

This sounds like a balanced approach which would be relatively easy to pull off in the United States and other countries where forwarding piracy notices is standard procedure. In the Netherlands, however, this isn't straightforward at all.

Ziggo Refuses to Forward

When BREIN sent its warnings to the country's largest ISP Ziggo, the company refused to forward the warnings to its subscribers. According to Ziggo, linking IP addresses to specific subscribers raises serious privacy concerns, even if the personal information isn't shared with BREIN.

BREIN was disappointed with this response and it took the matter to court. The group hoped to get the green light, but the Utrecht court decided otherwise.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court sees no reason to conclude that BREIN's warning program is too broad as Ziggo argued. However, the privacy concerns are legitimate.

Dutch privacy law is based on the European GDPR which has strict rules covering how and when personal information can be processed. In this case, that information is tied to potential illegal activity, which means that even stricter guidelines apply.

Court: Ziggo Needs a License

This isn't a problem for BREIN, which already has a license to process the information. However, the court concludes that if Ziggo matches IP addresses to subscriber accounts in order to forward the warnings, it also needs a license.

At the moment, Ziggo doesn't have permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to process these data so the ISP is not required to forward BREIN's warnings.

"BREIN and Ziggo are both responsible for processing the data and therefore they must both comply with all the rules of the GDPR. BREIN complies but Ziggo doesn't," the court explains in a press release.

"Ziggo can only link the IP addresses to the name and address details and forward the warning letters from BREIN if it has that permit."

Appeal

The ruling is a setback for BREIN which has worked on the warning system for many years. However, the anti-piracy group is not giving up and states that Ziggo is acting unlawfully if it does not apply for a license.

BREIN adds that, even without a license, it should be possible for ISPs to forward notices. The anti-piracy group plans to make this case during its appeal, which it announced immediately.

"We believe that the GDPR does provide room for forwarding copyright infringement warnings without having to apply for a license," BREIN director Tim Kuik says.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

iTunes DRM Removal Could Come Back to Haunt Record Labels in Piracy Liability Lawsuit
Ernesto Van der Sar, 02 Feb 10:43 PM

no-drmIn the late 2000s, music fans were delighted by the news that record labels and Apple had agreed to remove all DRM from music files downloaded through the iTunes Store.

The music industry had initially insisted on strong copy protection to make it harder for music pirates to share these files. However, legitimate consumers were inconvenienced by these measures too.

The removal was a breakthrough for anti-DRM advocates and a big step for the music industry, which has become more streaming-focused since. However, well over a decade after the iTunes DRM removal decision, the issue is being revisited in a high-profile piracy case.

Record Labels vs. RCN

Three years ago, several major music labels including Arista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records, filed a lawsuit against U.S. Internet provider RCN. The music companies accused the company of failing to take action against subscribers who were accused of repeat copyright infringements.

There are a few of these piracy liability lawsuits ongoing at the moment. These are not trivial legal battles as there are hundreds of millions of dollars in damages at stake. Therefore, RCN is using all available options to fight back.

After attempts to dismiss the lawsuit and dispute the piracy evidence failed, the Internet provider is now exploring other options to aid its defense.

ISP Zooms in on DRM Removal

To this end, the company would like to know more about the decision to remove DRM from iTunes downloads. Specifically, it asked the music companies during discovery to disclose who were involved in the DRM decision.

"[i]dentify all persons who participated in Plaintiffs' decision in or around 2009 to remove Digital Rights Management ('DRM') from sound recordings sold through the iTunes Store," the request reads.

The ISP notes that DRM was supposed to make it harder for people to share iTunes tracks illegally using BitTorrent. So, in theory, removing this protection could have increased the piracy numbers.

"It is certainly reasonable to infer that this decision—along with Plaintiffs' continuing decision not to re-impose the use of DRM—has affected the frequency with which Plaintiffs' music is shared over peer-to-peer networks," RCN writes.

RCN previously asked the music companies for information about its use of DRM but the labels replied that they couldn't find any matching documents. So, talking directly to the people who were involved in the DRM removal decision is their only option.

'DRM is Irrelevant'

The ISP suggests that the labels themselves could have done more to stop piracy and that removing DRM was counterproductive. However, the music companies don't want to share any names and refuse to point out who was involved in the DRM discussions.

In a letter to the New Jersey federal court, the labels point out that the entire DRM issue is irrelevant for this case. It was taken in 2009, which is years before the alleged infringements at the center of the lawsuit took place.

"RCN is seeking information on measures taken (or not taken) in 2009, two years before the first of the infringements identified by Rightscorp's notices and seven years before Plaintiffs knew about any of those infringements.

"Thus, any alleged decisions Plaintiffs made regarding DRM are necessarily limited to pre-injury conduct that is irrelevant to RCN's failure-to-mitigate defense," the labels add.

Memories Have Faded…

Aside from the judicial arguments, the music companies also point out that, after thirteen years, it might not even be possible to find out who was involved. And even if they do, the key players might not accurately recall what happened at the time.

"At this point, it may prove difficult to identify relevant individuals. Further, the identification of such persons is of minimal value in that their memories of this issue will undoubtedly have faded," the companies argue.

It is now up to the court to decide whether the labels must comply with the discovery request or not. If the removal of DRM indeed resulted in more piracy, it doesn't change how RCN responded to it. However, the ISP does believe that it's relevant for the potential damages that are claimed.

—

A copy of the music companies' request to sustain their objections to the DRM removal interrogatory is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Wednesday, February 2, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Manga Publishers' Lawsuit: Cloudflare Fails to Terminate Pirates or Verify Identities
Andy Maxwell, 02 Feb 08:26 AM

cloudflare logoEarly this week news broke that major manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa were about to sue Cloudflare in Japan. The basics are relatively straightforward.

The publishers believe that since Cloudflare is structurally involved in the presentation and delivery of pirate sites that use its services, the company should do more to help copyright holders when Cloudflare's services are used to infringe copyright. Up until now, Cloudflare's responses haven't been considered sufficient.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday at the Tokyo District Court is yet to be made public but in a joint statement, the publishers now lay out their grievances against the US company.

Publishers Demand an Injunction and Damages

According to the four publishers, their lawsuit represents only a "partial claim" against Cloudflare. In total they are demanding 460 million yen (around US$4 million) in damages for copyright infringement in four copyrighted works, one representing each company, and an injunction to restrain the company moving forward.

The publishers say that Cloudflare has violated their copyrights in "nine cases", a reference to nine pirate manga sites that use the company's services. They explain that after identifying the sites to Cloudflare and asking the company "to explain" the infringing content stored on those sites, they demanded action from Cloudflare to bring the infringements to a halt.

Demands Issued to Cloudflare

"With regard to the infringing content illegally stored on the sites, we asked Cloudflare to stop the temporary reproduction (cache) on the company's servers in Japan [and] terminate their contracts with pirate sites that are clearly illegal," the companies say.

The publishers' version of events has Cloudflare responding that they had "taken the necessary measures" against the sites in question but refusing to provide any details on what measures had been taken against which sites. Following a technical analysis, the publishers' experts concluded that the pirate sites were still using Cloudflare's services and caches.

"Based on the above background and recognition of the current situation, the four publishing companies have filed a lawsuit against Cloudflare, seeking an injunction against the public transmission and reproduction of pirated content and compensation for damages," they report.

Publishers: Cloudflare is Strategically Important to Pirates

Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa acknowledge that CDN providers including Cloudflare are a vital part of today's internet ecosystem. However, they complain that while other major CDN providers properly identify site operators when they sign a service contract (to ensure the site is not illegal), Cloudflare's free service can be accessed and used without "sufficient verification of identity".

This has reportedly led to abuse. The publishers claim that as of December 2021, Cloudflare was supplying services to "9 of the top 10 malicious piracy sites with the highest number of accesses" while keeping pirate site server origins and IP addresses confidential.

"Because of these characteristics, many pirate site operators who do not want their identities to be identified are turning to CloudFlare's CDN service," the publishers add.

In addition to some level of anonymity, the publishers claim that Cloudflare enables pirate sites to stay online when their own infrastructures are incapable of handling high levels of traffic. The suggestion is that if it wasn't for Cloudflare, they might not be financially viable.

"The origin servers and other communication infrastructure used by pirate sites must be able to handle more than 100 million transactions per month [but the] communication infrastructures used by pirate sites do not have the capacity to handle more than 100 million accesses per month from an operational cost perspective," they note.

"Therefore, if Cloudflare stops providing CDN services, it will be impossible or extremely difficult to operate many malicious pirate sites. In other words, Cloudflare's CDN service has become indispensable for the operation of many malicious pirate sites."

Lawsuit Aims to Question What Behavior is "Appropriate"

In closing, Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa say the overarching purpose of the lawsuit is to determine whether the position taken by Cloudflare over the past few years in response to anti-piracy requests is appropriate for a company in such a powerful position.

"Through this lawsuit, the four companies and their legal advisors would like to question whether the uncooperative stance Cloudflare has shown over the past few years in response to requests for cooperation in the fight against piracy is appropriate for a company that provides a public service such as telecommunications infrastructure," they conclude.

Statement from Cloudflare:

By making security and performance services readily available to tens of millions of websites around the world, Cloudflare is helping make the Internet more secure, efficient, and reliable. Cloudflare's CDN and pass-through security services do not contribute to infringement, which a United States federal court recently recognized.

Cloudflare nonetheless takes these issues very seriously and has gone above and beyond its obligations to assist rightsholders in Japan. In addition to adopting an abuse process that connects rightsholders with the hosting providers and website operators actually able to remove infringing content from the Internet, Cloudflare also agreed to a framework with certain publishers that allows them to seek expedited resolution of their complaints in court. We therefore take a number of steps to facilitate actions against the parties that are actually responsible for this issue.

We have not seen the referenced lawsuit, however, Cloudflare is not the solution to this ongoing problem. We will continue to actively engage in discussions with rightsholders and the Japanese government: we have incorporated their input into our processes and have provided support assessing how other governments are managing these issues.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

U.S. Seeks Significant Prison Sentence for SPARKS Member to Deter Other Pirates
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Feb 08:23 PM

pirate-flagFor several decades, The Scene has been the main source of all pirated content made available on the Internet.

Technically, release groups operate in a closed ecosystem, but the reality is different. The vast majority of the files published on private Scene servers eventually find their way to public pirate sites.

Feds Bust SPARKS Group

The secretive nature of The Scene has been a major challenge for law enforcement but in the summer of 2020, the US Department of Justice made a major breakthrough. Following a thorough investigation, three members of the illustrious SPARKS group were indicted.

One of the defendants, British national George Bridi, was apprehended in Cyprus and eventually extradited to the United States. The Brit pleaded guilty to being part of a criminal copyright conspiracy. Among other things, he obtained pre-release Blu-ray discs from distributors in New York, several weeks before their retail release dates.

While Bridi pleaded guilty, he stressed that there was no financial motive. The real goal of SPARKS was to get the newest releases out first, thus beating other Scene groups. It was all about internal competition and the prestige that came with winning these races.

"It became like a race, we had to win because there were other groups buying from the same distributor," Bridi said previously, explaining his involvement.

Defense Asks for Reduced Sentence

Later this month Bridi will be sentenced and based on the guidelines that were agreed upon in the plea deal, a 27 to 33 months prison sentence is the starting point. This is substantial but lower than the potential maximum of five years imprisonment.

In a letter to the court, Bridi's attorney Louis Freeman argues that a lower sentence is warranted. Due to various personal and health issues, as well as the low likelihood that his client will make the same mistake again, a "time served" sentence should be sufficient.

Thus far, 52-year-old Bridi has spent 17 months in prison and prolonging this term is not beneficial, according to his attorney.

"[A time served] sentence provides Mr. Bridi with specific deterrence to not commit any future crimes and also provides the public with a message of general deterrence to not commit crimes of this nature," Freeman argued in his letter.

U.S. Attorney Weighs In

This week, the U.S. Government shared its thoughts on the matter. In a detailed sentencing letter, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams starts off by stressing that Mr. Bridi was part of a serious and sophisticated criminal conspiracy that actively defrauded movie distributors.

"The defendant had multiple functions in the Sparks Group. He defrauded a disc distributor based in Brooklyn and New Jersey to obtain DVDs and Blu-Ray discs prior to the retail release date. He arranged for the discs to be delivered to other members and associates of the Sparks Group, who then 'cracked' the discs using special software that compromised the copyright protections on the discs.

"He then arranged for the copyrighted works to be uploaded to servers controlled by the Sparks Group, where the movies and television shows were disseminated across the Internet. Over the course of the conspiracy, the Sparks Group successfully reproduced and disseminated hundreds of movies and television shows prior to their retail release date," Williams adds.

The U.S. Attorney notes that the government previously agreed to a reduced sentence for Mr. Correa, another defendant in the SPARKS conspiracy. However, Mr. Bridi's role was larger and the sentence should reflect that.

Among other things, Mr. Bridi served as a manager and supervisor in the SPARKS Group. He purchased the discs from the distributors, coordinated shipments to lower lever members of the group, and urged at least one other individual to upload discs as soon as possible.

bridi sentencing

The SPARKS group itself wasn't a minor player. The group was the driving force behind hundreds of movie and TV show releases, which also came out under related tags such as "DRONES," "ROVERS," "GECKOS," and "SPRINTER."

'Significant Prison Sentence is Justified'

Taking the seriousness and economic harm of the defendant's conduct into consideration, the U.S. Attorney argues that a sentence within the guideline range of 27 to 33 months' imprisonment is sufficient, but not greater than necessary.

"[T]he Government respectfully submits that a significant sentence here is necessary in the interests of general deterrence. Copyright infringement causes millions of dollars in losses to movie production studios on an annual basis, which ultimately harms the individual employees who depend on this industry for their livelihood."

A significant sentence will also act as a deterrent to other pirate groups, who often operate from outside of the United States. This includes the third indicted member of the SPARKS group, Norway resident Umar Ahmad, who is still considered a fugitive.

"Indeed, one of the co-defendants in this case remains at-large in Norway. As a result, a significant sentence is needed here to promote respect for the copyright laws and to protect the producers of creative content in the United States," the U.S. Attorney writes.

Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York will now have to weigh the sentencing arguments from both sides. The Court is expected to announce the final sentence later this month.

—

A copy of the U.S. Government's full brief with the sentencing proposal is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Anti-Piracy Group Received $290K in Settlements from Usenet Pirates in 2021
Andy Maxwell, 01 Feb 10:17 AM

usenetIt's one of the oldest methods for sharing large files online but despite advances in modern technology, Usenet (also knows as newsgroups) still has a considerable following among enthusiasts.

While it can be used for a multitude of other things, Usenet's popularity and longevity have certainly been boosted by the mountains of copyrighted content that exist on the sprawling system. Over the years, finding such content has been made more simple with the assistance of indexing sites, which in broad terms operate like torrent portals, offering links to content without actually storing it.

Popular with users, these sites can also attract the attention of anti-piracy groups, Netherlands-based BREIN in particular.

BREIN Took Down Five Indexers in 2021

Unlike the majority of enforcement entities, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has maintained its interest in tackling piracy on Usenet and in 2021, that position remained unchanged. The group says that last year and following consistent pressure, a number of uploaders and site administrators decided to "quit their illegal practices". In total, five Usenet indexes shut down.

BREIN rarely names the sites it takes offline but due to their profile, some are particularly visible. In August 2021, for example, Usenet indexer NZBXS agreed to shut down and as part of a confidential settlement, agreed to hand over the personal details of some of the platform's users.

These kinds of deals are important since at least in part, obtaining sensitive site and user data gives BREIN the opportunity to support and escalate existing investigations or even launch new ones.

In the same month, Newzbin – another portal popular with Dutch users – took the decision to shut down, citing a wariness among uploaders of linking to copyright material. There can be little doubt that BREIN's actions played a major role here too and the group warned that it would keep pursuing Newzbin's operators, despite the shutdown.

Targeting Uploaders

While BREIN doesn't have a strong reputation for targeting low-end consumers of pirated content, those that become part of the ecosystem by uploading or even linking to copyrighted material can become a target.

BREIN says that following its investigations, in 2021 it identified and approached 38 uploaders, some of whom took the option to settle their cases by agreeing to pay a cash settlement. In total, BREIN says that during the year it collected more than 260,000 euros (around $290k) in settlements from pirates, who are usually required to cease-and-desist from the activities moving forward to avoid further action.

The overall amount suggests an average payment to BREIN in excess of 6,800 euros per uploader but in some cases it's clear that some people can be asked to pay more. The amount depends on what evidence BREIN holds on pirates' offending but also their status in the ecosystem, with the latter having the potential to push settlements higher.

As an example, BREIN mentions a specific case against a man from Alkmaar in the province of North Holland. According to the anti-piracy group, the man was active for years under various aliases as an uploader on Usenet and as an administrator of various sites with links to illegal content. He did not earn money from his activities but BREIN says the damage he caused was considerable.

"BREIN addressed the man after an in-depth investigation yielded his identity and name, address and place of residence. Following BREIN's legal action, the man chose to settle by paying 10,800 euros and provide information about other parties involved. For the future, a penalty clause has been agreed of 2,500 euros per day (or part thereof) that infringement occurs, with a maximum of 50,000 euros," BREIN reports.

In terms of overall importance in the global piracy ecosystem, Usenet isn't as significant as it once was but in the Netherlands at least, BREIN is set to ensure the copyright infringement free-for-all doesn't go unchecked.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

ETTV Gone? The Iconic Pirate Group Has Quietly Disappeared
Ernesto Van der Sar, 31 Jan 09:00 PM

ettv logoFive years ago, the torrent community was hit hard when the popular torrent site ExtraTorrent suddenly shut its doors.

The site provided a safe harbor for millions of file-sharers and was also the birthing ground for several popular releasers and distribution groups. This included ETTV, which is short for ExtraTorrent TV.

With its home gone, ETTV decided to carry on independently by launching its own website. Over the past years, this had grown out to become a medium-sized torrent site with a dedicated and vetted group of regular uploaders.

ETTV Goes Down

Over the past few days, however, ETTV has disappeared. The official site and its backup domain now show a Cloudflare error message, which indicates that the site's server is offline. The same is also true for the status page (archived), which is hosted on yet another domain.

ettv cloudflare

All of this is happening without an official word from the site's 'operator'. TorrentFreak reached out to a contact at the site before the weekend but we haven't received a response. This means that it's possible that the site is not coming back at all.

Troubled Past

This isn't the first sign of trouble at ETTV. The site has suffered downtime in the past and behind the scenes, there were plenty of problems as well. The internal issues started roughly two years ago when the main ETTV operator who controlled the domains, servers, and ads, suddenly went missing.

With the ETTV ship adrift, administrator 'sidekickbob' stepped in and took the helm. At the time, he told us that it wasn't the plan to keep managing the site permanently due to a lack of time. Selling it to a third-party with a good track record seemed to be the preferred option.

"Ultimately my intention is to sell it to somebody that wants to run the torrent site. Preferably somebody that has experience in running a medium-traffic torrent site. I'm not going to give it to some random kids," sidekickbob said at the time.

Uncertain Future

As far as we know the site was never sold. Sidekickbob didn't respond to our requests for comment on the current downtime so the future of the site remains uncertain.

In addition to the site, ETTV's upload bots are also offline. These are scripts that pull videos from private sources to make them available to the public, also on external torrent sites such as 1337x.org. It's an effective system but one that relies on central servers as well.

The ETTV bots started having issues last year. The last upload on 1337x was more than three months ago and things have gone quiet since then. Perhaps that was already an early sign of the trouble ahead.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company