Month: March 2016

UK Internet Providers Expand Pirate Site Blockades

stop-blockedAfter a series of High Court orders obtained since 2012, six of the UK’s major ISPs are required to block access to dozens of the world’s most popular ‘pirate’ sites.

Over the past several years the number of blocked domains has expanded to well over 1,000, with popular torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents being the main targets.

The blocks are somewhat effective, at least in preventing subscribers from accessing the domains directly. However, there are plenty of alternative routes people can use instead, including many reverse proxies.

To remedy the situation the High Court permits copyright holders to expand the blocklists with new domains, provided that they are alternative ways to reach already blocked websites.

This week more than 80 pirate (sub)domains were added, including several proxies for popular torrent sites including The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent and BitSnoop.

More than a dozen of these new additions are subdomains of the proxy portal unblocked.li, which allows UK visitors to bypass the blocking restrictions and visit their favorite pirate sites.

In recent months unblocked.li has gained a steady user-base and it is currently among the 150 most-visited domain names in the UK.

Unblocked.li

unblockedli

Considering the nature of the site, the proxy portal is not going to surrender easily. Indeed, TorrentFreak has learned that the new blockade is seen as only a minor and temporary inconvenience.

“We have several domains ready in case unblocked.li is blocked,” the operator of Unblocked.li says.

“We will launch a new domain once we receive enough complaints of the site not loading or showing blocked. It’s a pretty simple task now since we have automated the migration to new domains with scripts and APIs,” he adds.

At the time of writing the Unblocked site has already switched over to the new unblocked.red domain, and others will likely follow, repeating the same steps in a few months.

And so the whack-a-mole continues, with copyright holders adding new domains to the blocklists, and site owners hopping from domain to domain.

—-

Below is the full list of newly blocked (sub)domains as reported by one of ISPs.

http://1337x.unblocked.li
http://1337x.unblocked2.bz
http://1337x.unblockme.co
http://ahoy.re
http://beemp3.unblocked.li
http://bitsnoop.unblocked.li
http://bittorrent.so
http://emp3world.unblocked.li
http://extratorrent.date
http://extratorrent.unblocked.li
http://extratorrent.unblockme.co
http://fullsongs.science
http://kat.asia
http://kattorrents.co
http://kickass.ac
http://kickass.ag
http://kickass.lv
http://kickass.unblocked.li
http://kickasstorrent.proxy-index.com
http://kickasstorrentsso.com
http://limetorrents.space
http://limtorrents.com
http://mp3bear.tv
http://mp3boo.cc
http://mp3clan.be
http://mp3clan.in
http://mp3clan.media
http://mp3clan.rocks
http://mp3clan.ws
http://mp3skull.ren
http://mp3skull.unblocked.li
http://mp3skull.us
http://mp3skull.yoga
http://newalbumreleases.unblocked.li
http://piratebay.co.in
http://pirateproxy.pw
http://proxy-index.com
http://seedpeer.unblocked.li
http://stafaband.bid
http://stafaband.online
http://stafaband.uk
http://thepairatebay.link
http://thepiratebay.ae
http://thepiratebay.al
http://thepiratebay.bid
http://thepiratebay.rs
http://thepiratebay.tech
http://torlock.unblocked.li
http://torrentbit.unblocked.li
http://torrentdownloads.to
http://torrenthound.site
http://torrenthound.unblocked.li
http://torrentreactor.unblocked.li
http://tpb.immunicity.info
http://ukpirate.org
http://vitorrentz.tv
http://www.bittorrent.so
http://www.extratorrent.date
http://www.fullsongs.science
http://www.kat.asia
http://www.kickass.ac
http://www.kickass.ag
http://www.kickass.lv
http://www.limetorrents.space
http://www.mp3bear.tv
http://www.mp3boo.cc
http://www.mp3skull.ren
http://www.mp3skull.us
http://www.mp3skull.yoga
http://www.stafaband.bid
http://www.stafaband.online
http://www.stafaband.uk
http://www.thepiratebay.ae
http://www.thepiratebay.al
http://www.thepiratebay.bid
http://www.thepiratebay.rs
http://www.thepiratebay.tech
http://www.torrentdownloads.to
http://www.torrenthound.site
http://www.torrentz.futbol
http://www.vitorrentz.tv
http://yatorrents.com

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

RIAA and Tech Giants Clash In Usenet Piracy Case

pirate-clash-fightAdult magazine publisher Perfect 10 has made a business out of suing online services for allegedly facilitating copyright infringement.

Over the past several years the company has targeted a dozen high-profile companies including Google, Amazon, Yandex, MasterCard, Visa, Leaseweb, RapidShare, Depositfiles and Giganews.

Private settlements aside the legal campaigns haven’t been particularly successful for the publisher. Last year Perfect 10 lost another battle against Giganews, with the court ordering the company to pay $5.6 million in legal fees.

This case is now on appeal where it has attracted the attention of several major players, including the RIAA. The music industry group has joined Perfect 10 and argues that Giganews should be held responsible for its infringing activities.

In a brief submitted to the court the RIAA notes that, unlike several decades ago, Usenet is no longer a neutral means to share files. Instead, it’s populated by many “shady” companies who intentionally sell access to pirated content.

“Shady companies now use the Usenet network to copy copyrighted movies, music, software, and images from servers known to host pirated content; store those works on their own servers for extended periods of time to maximize the availability of the infringing content; and then distribute those pirated copies to their users,” the RIAA writes.

“These companies profit handsomely by charging their users monthly fees for private access to this unauthorized content – fees that increase based on the amount of content users download,” the add.

The RIAA goes on to cite a study which suggests that an overwhelming majority of the audio files shared through Giganews are likely to be copyright infringing.

giganews

The appeal has also introduced a dispute over the “volitional conduct rule,” which prescribes that Internet services can only be held directly liable if they also control the decision to copy pirated works.

Among other things the RIAA argues that this rule shouldn’t apply in the current case because it’s widely criticized and questioned by other courts, most recently by the Supreme Court in the Aereo case.

However, this stance is fiercely opposed by several digital rights groups including The Internet Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the EFF and Public Knowledge.

In two separate amicus curiae briefs submitted to the court this week, they urge the Court of Appeals not to reverse the District Court decision, as that may be disastrous for a free and open Internet.

When Internet services face direct liability, they may be inclined to block legitimate content or prevent content being posted, just to avoid legal issues, they argue.

“If an intermediary faces the possibility of potentially unlimited legal liability for content hosted, transmitted, or disseminated through its services by a small minority of users, it will feel compelled to scrutinize and limit all user activities,” the brief filed by EFF and Public Knowledge (pdf) reads.

“This is likely to lead to over-blocking, sacrificing lawful content in an effort to limit potential litigation. The strong incentive to over-block can cause particular harm to free speech where, as here, intermediaries often are not able to easily determine if the content is unlawful on its face,” the groups add.

The Internet Association and the CCIA, which includes prominent members such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft, agree (pdf) that scrapping the volitional conduct rule “would chill legitimate speech.”

According to the RIAA, however, it’s clear that Giganews profits from piracy and a ruling supporting this wouldn’t threaten the future of the Internet.

“This case simply involves defendants who utilize the Usenet to profit from piracy by selling access to infringing content from private servers that they control,” RIAA writes.

“Unlike legitimate service providers involved in the early Usenet cases, the defendants here are committing blatant copyright infringement. Recognizing this fact does not undermine in any way the operation of the open Internet,” they add.

It is now up to the court to weigh up the arguments from both sides.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

Sweden’s Supreme Court Asked to Decide Online Piracy Penalties

jailIt hardly needs to be said but entertainment industry companies see file-sharing as theft on a grand scale. They believe that millions – perhaps billions – of dollars have been lost as a result of people’s love of swapping movies, music and TV shows.

Equally, there are those that believe that the act of sharing is a friendly one that causes no damage and may even stimulate the uptake of legal products. To them, participating in or even running a sharing site is not a serious crime.

It’s a complex mix that courts have to wade through periodically in order to arrive at a decision in various cases. By now it’s clear that in the United States and Europe the act of distributing or assisting in distribution of copyrighted content without permission (outside the realms of fair use) is an offense. The big question is how those crimes should be punished by the courts.

Thanks to The Pirate Bay and dozens of similar sites, Sweden has had more than its fair share of sharing-related cases but one involving a relatively small site has the potential to draw an important line in the sand for those running ‘pirate’ portals.

Originally known as Swepirate, ‘Biosalongen‘ (Screening Room) was shutdown by authorities in early 2013. A 50-year-old man alleged to have been the main administrator of the site was arrested and charged with sharing at least 125 movies on the site including the classics Rocky, Alien and Star Trek.

The man initially denied committing any crimes but after a trial and subsequent appeal, in the summer of 2015 the Court of Appeal in Gothenburg sentenced him to eight months in prison for copyright infringement offenses.

The man, referred to in court papers as ‘BH’, feels that the punishment was unjust and has now filed a claim with the Supreme Court (HD) in order to have the indictment dismissed.

Interestingly the prosecutor also wants the case to be heard by the ‘Högsta domstolen‘ but on the matter of appropriate sanctions.

“The courts judge differently in these cases. Some think the punishment should be prison, while others think that it is enough to hand out fines and suspended sentences,” Prosecutor My Hedström told IDG.

“There is legal uncertainty there. We want the Supreme Court to determine how to view this type of crime.”

When the case was heard at the Court of Appeal the offenses were categorized as carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months but not always likely to result in detention. Therefore a shorter sentence was handed down. The Prosecutor is looking for a longer term of ten months.

The Supreme Court has been asked to look at file-sharing penalties before. In
2010 a then 25-year old a man was house-sitting for a friend when he was confronted by police officers. The police decided to inspect his computer and found that he was sharing 57 movies through uTorrent.

In the initial court case the man received a $920 fine but on appeal that was increased to around $1,200.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but despite the case being described by a judge as “borderline”, a prison sentence was still not handed down, much to the disappointment of the prosecutor.

However, Prosecutor Hedström feels that the current case and the historical one are different, with the one in hand being much more serious and also involving a commercial element.

“[The earlier case] was on a lower level, it was about a person who downloaded while uploaded movies. The making available was not on the same level as this case,” Hedström says.

IDG reports that the Supreme Court received the Prosecutor’s application (pdf) last Friday but it is not yet known whether leave to appeal will be granted.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

French Arrest and Jail Operator of “Full-Stream” Pirate Site

full-stream-logoFounded in 2013, the streaming site Full-Stream has steadily worked itself to the top of the French piracy community.

With nearly 100,000 streams per day and over a million monthly visitors, it was one of the 150 most visited websites in the country.

This changed last week, when an alleged operator of the site was arrested by local police. According to the prosecution office at d’Aix-en-Provence the 22-year-old man was subsequently jailed.

The man reportedly admitted that he founded the site three years ago and it’s claimed that he profited substantially through advertisements. This revenue was kept offshore in a Hong Kong bank account.

The investigation into Full-Stream began in 2014 after the authorities received a complaint from the local entertainment industry group SACEM and the Association Against Audiovisual Piracy (ALPA).

According to the prosecution office the investigation found that the site offered pirated copies of 2,426 TV-series and 10,152 films. How much revenue the alleged operator made is still being researched.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor applauds the cooperation with the private industry groups which led to the arrest.

“This is the first time in France that, in this legal framework, cooperation between investigators and agents SACEM and ALPA has lead to the arrest of suspects.”

A second man was also detained in Grenoble last week, but he was released after an interrogation. However, the authorities note that other persons may be indicted at a later stage.

On the official Facebook page many people are mourning the loss of Full-Stream. Initially the Full-Stream.org and Full-Stream.me domains remained accessible, but at the time of writing these are offline as well.

The operator of the site will remain in prison for at least four months “because of his behavior and statements made ​​in court,” and he ultimately faces a prison sentence of up to five years.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak