Encrypted DNS and SNI Make Pirate Site Blocking Much Harder


Website blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industry to target pirate sites on the Internet.

The practice has been around for well over a decade and has gradually expanded to dozens of countries around the world.

The actual blocking is done by Internet providers, often following a court order. These measures can range from simple DNS blocks to more elaborate schemes involving Server Name Indication (SNI) eavesdropping, or a combination of both.

Thus far, the more thorough blocking efforts have worked relatively well. However, there’s a growing concern among network specialists that blocking and filtering could become problematic in the future as technology moves forward.

For example, tech companies are increasingly starting to adopt DNS over HTTPS (DoH or encrypted DNS). This makes it possible to resolve domain names over the secure HTTPS protocol. As a result, it’s harder for outsiders, including ISPs, to eavesdrop on which sites people access.

Earlier this year, BT’s Principal Network Architect, Andy Fidler, warned that encrypted DNS is a potential game changer in the area. In a presentation before several industry specialists, he outlined a variety of concerns, as ITPro notes.

Among other things, these new developments will make it harder to block websites and to comply with court orders. 

“If UK ISPs are no longer in the DNS path, they may not be able to fulfil certain domain specific court order blocking requests,” Fidler notes in his presentation.

“DNS blocking is the most granular tool in the kit box used by UK ISPs to implement Government / Regulation blocking orders,” he adds.

With regular DNS queries, ISPs such as BT can see which websites users are trying to access, even when people are using a third-party DNS provider. When DNS queries are encrypted, however, Internet providers can no longer see which websites customers visit. 

BT’s Principal Network Architect called on UK Internet providers and the broader industry to see how they can respond to these developments. While increased privacy for users is not a bad thing, ineffective website blockades, useless parental filters, and other issues are seen as problematic. 

This stance was also reiterated previously by a spokesperson for the UK’s Internet Services Providers’ Association, who informed Forbes that encrypted DNS should not break existing protections.

“If internet browser manufacturers switch on DNS encryption by default, they will put users at serious risk by allowing harmful online content to go unchecked.

“We would expect Internet browsers to provide the same protections, uphold the same standards and follow the same laws as U.K. ISPs currently do,” the association’s spokesperson added.

Advancements like this will be hard to stop though. Cloudflare already offers encrypted DNS through its 1.1.1.1 nameserver and Firefox has enabled support for encrypted lookups since Version 62.

And there’s more trouble on the horizon. 

While encrypted DNS will make it harder for ISPs to block sites, it will certainly not be impossible. SNI eavesdropping is still an option, for example.

This may no longer be as easy in the future either. In tandem with increased support for encrypted DNS, more tech companies are embracing encrypted SNI as well, which prevents ISPs from snooping on SNI handshakes.

Last September, Cloudflare announced that encrypted SNI was live across Cloudflare’s network and a few weeks later, Mozilla followed suit by adding support for ESNI to its Firefox browser.

This combination of encrypted DNS and SNI makes it very hard for ISPs to prevent access to pirate sites. Providers can still use blunt tools such as IP-address blocking, but that could become troublesome when sites move to shared IP-addresses. 

While this sounds problematic for site blocking efforts worldwide, it’s not a major issue just yet. Support from browsers and network providers is still limited, and site owners don’t appear to see this as a priority either.

The effectiveness will, of course, rely on which blocking methods an ISP uses, but on the more aggressive ones, a lot of boxes have to be ticked in order to effectively bypass a thorough website blockade. 

For example, when we try to bypass the Pirate Bay blockade with both encrypted DNS and SNI, as well as support for DNSSEC and TLS 1.3, it still doesn’t work. Perhaps the ISP simply nullrouted the path to TPB in our case, as a trace suggests.

It’s also worth pointing out that, although The Pirate Bay uses Cloudflare’s compatible network, the domain doesn’t support DNSSEC, which is a potential vulnerability.

That said, it is still early days, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see site operators and users fiddling around with this in the future. Meanwhile, other blocking-busters such as VPNs and the Tor browser remain an option as well.

Update: we clarified the text to add that in our test TPB was likely nullrouted.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Pirate Party MEP Elected Vice-President of EU Parliament


When the Swedish Pirate Party was founded in early 2006, the majority of the mainstream press was skeptical, with some simply laughing it away.

But they were wrong to dismiss this political movement right off the bat.

Following their victory at the local elections, the Swedish Pirate Party secured a seat at the European Parliament in 2009, with another one being added a year later. The success inspired people in other countries to form their own Pirate parties. In 2014, the Pirate Party kept one of these seats, thanks to German voters.

During the last European Election, just a few weeks ago, this number quadrupled to four, showing that the movement is certainly no fluke. While the Swedes were on the forefront in the early years, Germany and the Czech Republic now lead the way, with one and three MEPs respectively.

These Pirates in the European Parliament are not sitting idly by. During the last term, Julia Reda was at the forefront of many lawmaking discussions, particularly with regard to the new Copyright Directive. While Reda recently left Parliament, the new MEPs obviously have similar ambitions.

It’s clear that the Pirate Party will continue to play a vital role in the European Parliament. The movement can list another achievement too after the first Pirate was elected as a Vice-President of the European Parliament.

With 426 votes, Marcel Kolaja was elected with an absolute majority in the second voting round. He will serve as one of the fourteen Vice-Presidents tasked with replacing the President as chair of the plenary if needed, as well as a variety of other tasks.

The 39-year-old Kolaja is a Czech software engineer and activist, who’s been active in the Pirate Party since the start of the decade.

In his new position, he aims to promote transparency and digitization in the European Parliament.

“My role of a Vice-President would be to make the European Parliament more open and transparent, to help ensure that the rules of the Parliament are applied equally to all Members and to work on improvements of the rules where they are currently lacking,” Kolaja says.

The newly elected Vice-President also hopes that this experience in information technology and digitization can be used to benefit the European Parliament.

“It is my hope that my expertise and insights in these fields will be a valuable contribution in the future Bureau’s discussions on improvement of the work in the European Parliament,” Kolaja adds.

In addition to the vice presidency, Marcel Kolaja will also become a member of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and a substitute member of the Culture and Education (CULT) Committee.

The three other Pirate Party MEPs were also assigned to various committees. Markéta Gregorová will join the International Trade (INTA) committee. Mikuláš Peksa will be a member of the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE), while Patrick Breyer joins the Legal Affairs (JURI) committee.

Needless to say, the Pirates have come a long way since the first raid on The Pirate Bay in 2006, when they were first propelled into the mainstream.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

BREIN Obtains Court Order to Stop Pirate eBook Sharing on Facebook


Pirated eBooks can be downloaded from dozens if not hundreds of places online. From torrent sites like The Pirate Bay and RARBG to so-called DDL (direct download) platforms, eBooks are both quick and easy to obtain.

Of course, with the rise of social media, it’s now easier than ever for like-minded individuals to meet up for all kinds of activities, eBook sharing included. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, which says it has recently targeted a prolific group of sharers.

Acting on an anonymous tip-off, BREIN says it was able to infiltrate two “private and secret” Facebook groups that were dedicated to the uploading and sharing of unlicensed eBooks. More than 8,000 titles were made available by the groups’ members – a total of 3,000 people across the two groups.

Armed with its evidence, BREIN said it went to court and obtained an ex parte order, i.e one that didn’t involve both sides of the dispute to be heard. It subsequently made an agreement with the four managers of the groups, which requires them to cease-and-desist from their activities and pay a settlement to BREIN.

“They signed a declaration of abstention and have now paid more than 6,000 euros to BREIN. If they go wrong again, this amount goes up to 10,000 euros plus 500 euros per illegally offered e-book,” BREIN says.

According to the anti-piracy group, the managers of the Facebook groups acknowledged that their activities and those of their users are illegal via the published rules of the groups.

“Sharing e-books is and remains illegal, that is a choice you make,” the managers reportedly said. BREIN says that one of the managers, a 49-year-old woman, was a prolific sharer in her own right, having personally upload 1,000 eBooks for download.

While BREIN clearly takes this kind of unlawful sharing seriously, the anti-piracy group does point out that not every illegal download represents a lost sale. Instead, it highlights the existence of studies which indicate that the “so-called substitution” rate is around one lost sale per three illegal downloads.

However, BREIN also points out that legal eBook platforms give potential purchasers the ability to sample parts of books before committing to buying them, so lost sales in the eBook sector are “probably higher” given the absence of the “sampling effect”.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Charter Profited From Ignoring Piracy, Music Companies Tell Court


In March several major music companies sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 22 million subscribers.

Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others accused Charter of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.

Among other things, they argued that the ISP failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts of repeat infringers, even though it was well aware of them.

Last month Charter responded to these allegations. The company denied that it plays an active role in any infringing activities and believes the music companies’ arguments are flawed.

The labels sued the ISP for two types of secondary liability for copyright infringement; contributory infringement and vicarious liability. While Charter is confident that both claims will ultimately fail, it has only asked the court to dismiss the latter.

In its motion, Charter stressed that there is no evidence that it directly profits from copyright infringement. In addition, the ISP said that it doesn’t have a right and ability to control any infringements either, which negates another element of vicarious liability.

The music companies clearly disagree with Charter’s arguments. In a new reply submitted this week, they reiterate that the ISP failed to terminate repeat infringers, suggesting that it was motivated by profit.

“Since 2012, hundreds of thousands of defendant Charter Communications, Inc.’s subscribers have illegally distributed Plaintiffs’ music through online file-sharing programs like BitTorrent, with some users pirating hundreds of Plaintiffs’ songs,” the music outfits start, setting the tone right away.

Charter previously argued that it couldn’t control or stop piracy. Even if it terminated the accounts of subscribers, this would do little to stop infringement. After all, those people could simply sign up elsewhere and continue their infringing activities there.

The music companies reply that this argument misses the mark. They note that they’re not holding Charter liable for all hypothetical piracy on the Internet. Instead, their claim applies to a specific subset of pirate activities that previously took place on the ISP’s network.

At the very least, Charter had the “contractual right” and “practical ability” to limit piracy by its subscribers by terminating persistent infringers, the music companies argue.

“Pursuant to its terms of service, Charter reserves the right to terminate users’ accounts if they engage in copyright infringement. As courts have repeatedly held, it does not matter that Charter cannot prevent users from accessing infringing material online through other means.”

In addition to the control part, the music companies also state that the Internet provider profited from the alleged infringements, which is another crucial element of vicarious liability.

The music companies and other rightsholders sent the ISP many infringement notices, identifying the accounts of specific subscribers. Even though Charter had the ability to terminate the accounts of frequent offenders, it took no action, allegedly for a profit motive.

“The reason for Charter’s refusal to act is simple: by tolerating users’ infringement, Charter reaps millions of dollars in subscription fees that it would have to forgo if it terminated infringing users’ accounts,” the music companies argue.

This failure to terminate pirates then acted as a ‘draw’ for other potential pirates, the music companies add.

“From Charter’s failure to act, users came to understand that they could infringe Plaintiffs’ works with impunity, which constituted a further draw to the service,” they write.

Based on the above, the music companies argue that Charter’s motion to dismiss the vicarious liability claims should be denied. This would also allow the rightsholders to obtain further evidence for their arguments during discovery. 

The Colorado federal court will now review the arguments from both sides and make a decision whether the case should continue based on the allegations of both vicarious liability and contributory infringement, or just the latter.

In tandem with this case, the music companies have also filed a complaint against Charter subsidiary Bright House in a Florida court. Bright House previously responded to this lawsuit with a near identical motion to dismiss, which was followed with a similar reply from the music companies this week.

—

A copy of the music companies’ opposition to Charter Communications’ motion to dismiss the claim for vicarious liability is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Kaspersky VPN Now Blocks ‘Pirate’ Sites in Russia


In order to prevent citizens from accessing objectionable content, from pirate sites through to extremist material, Russia operates a national blacklist.

This centralized database of domains, known locally as FGIS (Federal State Information System), is checked by Internet service providers which then block their subscribers from accessing forbidden sites. Of course, services like VPNs, Tor and various anonymizers, are able to circumvent these measures, a point not lost on the authorities.

In 2017, a new bill was signed into law aiming to close the loophole. As a result, if tools with the ability to circumvent the blacklist don’t play ball by respecting its contents, they also face being blocked by ISPs.

This proposal came to head earlier this year when telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor wrote to several major VPN providers – NordVPN, ExpressVPN, TorGuard, IPVanish, VPN Unlimited, VyprVPN, Kaspersky Secure Connection, HideMyAss!, Hola VPN, and OpenVPN – demanding compliance.

The VPN services above were given 30 days to respond but most either ignored or flat-out rejected the demands. Only Russia-based Kaspersky offered to cooperate and it now appears the security company is censoring websites as ordered.

According to digital rights group Roskomsvoboda, Kaspersky is now fully respecting the contents of the FGIS database and actively blocking domains, including the many ‘pirate’ sites that are permanently blocked in Russia after repeatedly failing to respond to copyright complaints.

Citing tests carried out by various users of Kaspersky Secure Connection, the group says that attempts to access banned domains now result in a warning that the material is inaccessible via the service.

Credit: Roskomsvoboda.org

Users of Kaspersky’s mobile application are reportedly less-well-informed. Rather than the blocking page above which appears in desktop-based browsers, users are greeted with an ‘ERR CONNECTION RESET’ message when they attempt to access a ‘banned’ site.

It’s unclear whether Kaspersky decided to comply simply because it’s based in Russia or whether being blocked itself would be a step too far for the company. It’s likely that both played a role but fresh news coming out of the country suggests that earlier claims that non-compliant VPN providers would be blocked themselves may have been a little premature.

At the start of June, telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor indicated that the blocking of nine previously-contacted VPN providers was imminent but now, less than a month later, authorities might be pulling back from the brink.

“We have the right to block VPN services that do not comply with the law, but there is no obligation to do so at any specific time,” said the head of Roskomnadzor, Alexander Zharov.

“There are nine services that do not execute the law. We may wait for fines under a new law. We are not ready to discuss a specific plan for our actions.”

Last week, Library Genesis (Libgen), a huge online repository of free books and academic articles, became the latest ‘pirate’ addition to Russia’s national blacklist.

Following a lawsuit filed by Springer Nature in 2018, the platform has now been labeled a repeat infringer, meaning that the domains libgen.io and lgmag.org are now permanently blocked by the country’s ISPs.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

The Freedom of Choice


The Freedom of Choice

One of the main tenets of both Kodi and open-source software in general is freedom of choice. By making the software freely and publicly available without charge, users are able to try the software with no financial outlay or risk. As the source code is also available for inspection, the risks of “hidden nasties” such as covert information gathering and other data mining can also be alleviated. Anyone can download, review and audit any part of the software that they wish, as well as submitting any updates, improvements and bug fixes that they may make.

This notion of user choice is also key to the operation and support offered by Team Kodi, both through GitHub and the web forum. One common question is why we don’t do more to combat piracy, especially given our zero tolerance policy towards support (or lack thereof, aside from attempts to completely remove from infected systems). The simple answer is that we believe in user choice, and that if the user makes the conscious and informed decision that they want to use Kodi for such purposes then that is up to them. Similarly, any resultant technical or legal problems which may arise are also down to them, and there’s no liability or responsibility on Team Kodi for what a user has chosen to do.

 

An Informed Choice

Key to that stance, though, is that the user has made an informed choice. This is the reason why third-party repositories are not usable by default in Kodi. The user has to make a specific action to enable their usage, complete with a warning pop-up message about the risks and liabilities involved. We take responsibility for our official repository and what we we allow into it, and content is reviewed and audited before it is included. Any fork of Kodi which seeks to override or remove this default setting would immediately be blacklisted by the team, and no support for it at all would be offered by any official Team Kodi outlet.

Similarly, this is why the team does not allow forks with pre-installed add-ons to be made without complete rebranding and disassociation from Kodi, and why no “builds” are supported. By “build”, here we use the term in the common user parlance (as can be found on many of the third-party YouTube videos and parasitic “fan” websites that we would rather did not exist) for collections of add-ons either grouped into an “all in one” installation, or even images of Kodi with such add-ons pre-installed. This obviously completely removes the user choice element, aside from the choice to install the build in the first place.

The main issues here are twofold. Firstly, whilst such builds tend to install popular piracy add-ons, they often also quietly install other code under the hood with little or no visibility to the user. This can range from scripts that try to maintain the installation (given the limited lifespan of such add-ons) to ones that aim to sabotage or remove those of rival suppliers – and, in the extreme, even to malicious malware scripts to form botnets, mine digital coinage or perform other nefarious actions behind the user’s back.

Secondly, such builds tend to be advertised on websites and in videos as being official, legal and legitimate. This is often deliberately done to confuse the naive user that they are getting something for nothing and a good deal. Of course, a moment’s thought and common sense should tell anyone that if media providers such as Sky, HBO and Disney charge people what they do for their officially-provided services, then offers of them for free cannot be above board. Similarly, sources or add-ons offering media that wouldn’t normally be available, such as movies that are still in cinema theatres, should also ring alarm bells in the head of any consumer.

 

Uncommon Sense, or Stating the Obvious?

Unfortunately in this day and age such common sense does not seem to apply to the internet. We often see this on the forum when new users request support for such installations and then apologise with “sorry, I didn’t know” or similar when we decline to assist. They completely miss the point that it was their choice and basic greed that led them there, and a moment’s thought should have given them pause. For some reason users seem to willingly accept the most obviously dodgy deals on the internet, ones that they wouldn’t touch if offered in a pub car park, car boot sale or other “real world” environment.

Our simple advice is to apply the same judgement to your Kodi installation as you would to anything else in life. If the deal you’re being offered seems too good to be true, it quite probably is and there will be a catch somewhere. The team works hard to provide the Kodi software and also to curate the official repository. Both of these can be safely used when obtained from our official site. However, beyond that, the principles of caveat emptor apply. We expect and enforce that users are responsible for their own actions and the repercussions from them.

So before using any third party repository or add-on, take a moment to consider what you know about the authors, their reputation and what they are offering. Don’t be fooled by false promises and dodgy deals – in the end the person responsible for your devices’ safety and security is you.

Tags: 
Addon
Banned addons
Education
tips





Source link

/0 Comments/by

New Foxtel Blocking Application Targets Streaming, Torrent & Proxy Sites


Following the introduction of amendments to copyright law in 2018, it is now easier than ever to have ‘pirate’ sites blocked by ISPs in Australia.

The new rules mean that regular ‘pirate’ sites such as streaming and torrent platforms, as well as any service that has the primary purpose and/or primary effect of facilitating access to infringing content, can be targeted.

On June 18, 2019, Foxtel returned to the Federal Court in Sydney with a new blocking application. The court has yet to make the associated documents public but TorrentFreak was able to obtain them via a third-party source.

They reveal Foxtel writing to ISPs – TPG, Telstra, Optus, Vocus, Vodafone, plus their subsidiaries (52 in total) – at the end of May, indicating its intention to file an application to have a total of 35 torrent, streaming and proxy site domains blocked via court order.

Streaming ‘Target Online Locations’

The sites in this category are described as providing Internet users “with a browsable and/or searchable index or directory of digital (including audiovisual) content from which they can select content of their choice”.

Transmission of this content from the sites either takes place directly or through a “frame” which presents the content from another location. Or, alternatively, the sites provide lists of hyperlinks that allow users to access content after being redirected to another platform.

The sites targeted are ShareMovies, SeriesOnline8, Movie4U, SeeHD, StreamDreams and MoviesOnline.

Torrent ‘Target Online Locations’

Sites under this heading are described as having a browsable or searchable index of digital content or facilitating access to the same on other ‘online locations’. They provide users with access to .torrent files (or links to the same) which provide access to content without charge.

The sites targeted are WatchSoMuch, TorrentKen and SkyTorrents.

Proxy “Target Online Locations”

Given the changes to the law last year, proxy sites – which often exist to enable access to sites that are blocked by court order – can now be subject to blocking requests since they have the “primary effect” of facilitating access to infringing content.

The sites in the Foxtel application are described as providing Internet users with a browsable/searchable index of proxies providing access to streaming and torrent sites, including those sites listed above.

“[E]ach of the Proxy TOLs provides, or facilitates, free access for Internet users to content which it is not licensed to provide” the application reads, adding that none have “legitimate functions”.

The sites targeted are Unblocked.lol, Unblocked.win, Unblockall, Unblocker, and MyUnblock.

A case management hearing is booked for July 11, 2019.

The full list of URLs requested for blocking is as follows: sharemovies.net, seriesonline8.co, seriesonline8.com, movie4u.live, movie4u.cc, movie4u.co, seehd.uno, seehd.biz, streamdreams.org, streamdreams.me, streamdreams.co, streamdreams.online, streamdreams.video, stream-dreams.com, moviesonline.mx, wsmmirror.info, watchsomuch.info, watchsomuch.com, seventorrentsmirror.info, seventorrentsproxy.com, 7tmirror.info, torrentken.site, skytorrents.lol, unblocked.lol, unblocked.is, unblocked.ms, unblocked.win, unblocked.gdn, unblocked.vet, unblocked,sh, unblocked.mx, unblockall.org, unblocker.cc, unblock.win, myunblock.com

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Spanish Court Throws Out Copyright Trolling Case


Spanish ISP Euskaltel is one of the few ISPs in the world to be putting up a fight against so-called copyright trolls.

These mostly movie-related companies obtain the IP addresses of computers said to be participating in BitTorrent swarms and then apply to the courts to force related ISPs to hand over their customers’ data for further action.

This usually takes the form of “pay-up-or-else” letters, demanding hundreds or even thousands of euros or dollars, to make supposed lawsuits go away. In Spain, however, things aren’t going as planned.

Euskaltel reports that the Commercial Court No. 2 of Bilbao has dismissed demands by producer She Fighter Ltd against a customer alleged to have downloaded and shared the movie Lady Bloodfight.

According to a detailed summary of the case, success rested on three elements: the existence of unlawful action, showing damages, and the causal relationship between the damages and the unlawful action. In respect of the damages element, the rightsholder opted for a “hypothetical royalty” but failed to provide evidence to justify why 150 euros was demanded. This is what caused the case to fail.

“This is one of the first decisions in the trials against those affected after being reported by various film producers for what they considered ‘illegal downloading of movies on P2P networks’,” Euskaltel said in a statement.

The ruling, which was handed down June 25, denies the producer an opportunity to appeal and requires it to pay the full costs of the process.

While the ISP has welcomed the decision, the battle against copyright trolls appears to be heating up in other areas of the country. Euskaltel is just one of the ISPs being targeted by movie companies and courts in other areas of the country have received similar requests.

“The fact that the first people affected have been clients of Euskaltel, is due to the fact that the Bilbao Courts – the headquarters of the Basque operator – have been the first in the State to meet and resolve these demands, for reasons of distribution and work management, while the Madrid courts – which deal with the demands of the clients of the operators based in the capital of Spain – are still in a preliminary phase of the process,” the ISP explained.

Meanwhile, Euskaltel says it will continue to fight to protect its customers’ rights. As reported last month, the ISP reported copyright troll Venice PI to Spain’s data protection agency (AEPD) after being forced by a court to hand over the personal details of subscribers said to have downloaded the Bruce Willis movie Once Upon a Time in Venice.

The ISP said that Venice PI’s use of that data, which involved contacting subscribers with demands to pay a 150 euro settlement, constituted a breach of Spain’s Data Protection regulations. According to Euskaltel, the movie outfit was not “free to decide what to do with the data” once it had obtained it.

In addition to the earlier Venice PI referral to the AEPD, Euskaltel says that on June 7 it referred Reliance Entertainment Productions LLC to the data protection watchdog. Then, just three days later, it filed a similar complaint against Wind River Production LLC, highlighting potential abuses of customer data.

“In the latter complaint, in addition to asking the AEPD to analyze the reported facts to verify whether the alleged administrative violations have incurred, the AEPD has also been requested to adopt provisional measures, consisting of ordering the production company to stop sending more letters to users,” Euskaltel says.

“In this complaint, as in the two previous ones, the possible criminal responsibility which the producers may have incurred has been placed on the table,” the ISP concludes.

Euskaltel has published advice to customers being targeted by copyright trolls, including that they should report potential data protection abuses to the authorities.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Netflix and Hollywood Want Millions in Piracy Damages from SET TV


Last year the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the global anti-piracy alliance featuring several Hollywood studios, Amazon, Netflix, and other entertainment companies, sued Florida-based SET Broadcast, LLC.

The company offered a popular software-based IPTV service and also sold pre-loaded set-top boxes.

While it was marketed as a legal service, according to ACE members SET TV’s software was little more than a pirate tool, allowing buyers to stream copyright-infringing content.

“Defendants market and sell subscriptions to ‘Setvnow,’ a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion pictures and television shows,” the complaint read.

Initially, SET TV hired an attorney who informed the court that it had stopped offering its service and subscriptions. At the same time, the copyright infringement allegations were denied. After this initial response, however, things quietened down.

When the copyright holders requested to depose owner SET TV owner Jason Labossiere and its employee Nelson Johnson, who are both listed as defendants, they failed to respond. The same was true for the corporate entity.

Not much later SET TV’s lawyer withdrew from the case, citing unpaid invoices. This lack of progress eventually prompted the copyright holders to file for an entry of default. This was awarded and a few days ago Netflix, Amazon and the Hollywood studios submitted their demands.

According to a filing at a California Federal court, the rightsholders argue that SET TV (Set Broadcast) is guilty of willful copyright infringement. To compensate their losses, they request the maximum statutory damages for a total of 51 works.

“Set Broadcast has willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works and, in
doing so, caused Plaintiffs and their entire business model immense damage. The $7,650,000 statutory damages sought here therefore represents only a fraction of the actual damages inflicted by Set Broadcast on Plaintiffs,” the motion reads.

The motion notes that SET TV had 260,000 monthly users, of which a significant percentage accessed copyright-infringing content. The 51 works that are mentioned in the motion are just the tip of the iceberg, the rightsholders note, which further supports the request for substantial damages.

In addition to monetary relief, the companies also request a permanent injunction to prevent any infringements of their works going forward. This is needed, they argue, because it’s possible that the infringing activities will continue at a later date.

“Though the Setvnow service appears to no longer be available, Set Broadcast’s apparent cessation of its willful and flagrant infringement does not and should not prevent this Court from exercising its discretion to permanently enjoin Set Broadcast from infringing Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.

“There is a significant threat of continuing irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs,” they add.

With SET TV no longer defending itself, it is likely that the court will side with the copyright holders. However, the question remains whether they will ever see a piece of the millions that they’re after.

In a similar copyright infringement case,  SET TV previously reached a settlement with Dish last November, agreeing to pay more than $90 million in damages. Considering this, it’s doubtful that there is much money left to take.

–=

A copy of the motion for default judgment, submitted on behalf of Amazon, Netflix, Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Television, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Universal Cable Productions, Universal Television, and Warner Bros. is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 07/01/19


This week we have five newcomers in our chart.

Dumbo is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (…) Shazam! 7.3 / trailer
2 (…) Pet Sematary 6.0 / trailer
3 (1) Dumbo 6.5 / trailer
4 (…) Alita: Battle Angel 7.5 / trailer
5 (…) Shaft 6.4 / trailer
6 (3) Escape Plan: The Extractors 4.5 / trailer
7 (4) Captain Marvel 7.1 / trailer
8 (…) After 5.5 / trailer
9 (2) Brightburn (Subbed HDRip) 6.4 / trailer
10 (6) Pokémon Detective Pikachu 6.9 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.





Source link

/0 Comments/by