Wednesday, 15 August 2012

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Movie Studios Compiled Scary Private Life Dossier On SurfTheChannel Owner

Posted: 15 Aug 2012 03:58 AM PDT

Anton Vickerman, the owner of TV streaming links site SurfTheChannel, was sentenced to four years jail-time at Newcastle Crown Court yesterday after previously being found guilty of conspiracy to defraud for "facilitating" copyright infringement.

The background investigation into the case was carried out by the Hollywood-funded, MPA-affiliated, UK anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft. FACT has no official powers and is a limited company in the UK, but as this article will reveal it has a surprising level of influence when it comes to obtaining information.

Before being sentenced Vickerman arranged that for his side of the story to be posted on the SurfTheChannel website. In close to 20,000 words he describes the past five years as a “very British miscarriage of justice.” In addition to the story Vickerman also posted an archive containing evidence to back up his claims.

Among other things, the archive contains a FACT document headlined ‘Operation Stemp – Subject Profile: Anton Vickerman’, which is a dossier of information the FACT Intelligence Unit compiled on the SurfTheChannel admin, his family, and his associates.

The document begins by stating that Vickerman is believed to be the operator of two “torrent sites” – surfthechannel.com and snarf-it.org, both of which “sell copyrighted material”. It follows with Vickerman’s home address, notes that his wife lives with him, lists the make, model and license plate of her car, and indicates she was being watched as long ago as May 2008.

According to FACT, Vickerman worked on the famous Suprnova.org torrent site and used several aliases including FD, Shadow, Serious, Casper and Ben Vickerman. But from here things start to get more intimate.

In the next section of the profile FACT conduct a “Financial Analysis” of Vickerman, noting that he had previously defaulted on seven credit agreements.

And then, just when people in the UK might incorrectly presume that their finances are a private affair, FACT notes that Vickerman had two standing loans being paid back at the rate of £209 per month and goes on to describe the details of his mortgage, how much he pays each month, and the fact that he and his wife never missed a payment.

vickfinance

The data gathering continues to include the personal details of Anton Vickerman’s mother and father who are both pensioners.

Kelly Vickerman, Anton’s wife, was described as having two bank accounts and a credit card (with £1,025 outstanding) and an account with the comms provider BT. Initially FACT had considered that an account might have been held with comms provider BSKYB so wrote to the company asking for information – FACT apparently have “an agreement” with BSKYB to obtain information.

FACT2BSKYB

BSKYB responded back saying no accounts were held at the Vickerman’s address

BSKYB2FACT

As noted earlier, FACT incorrectly described streaming links site SurfTheChannel as a BitTorrent site, but they go even further when justifying the need to conduct surveillance on the Vickermans.

VickDVD

The documents go on to list the reports provided by FACT’s private investigators as they track Vickerman up and down the country during and after his meeting with a movie industry undercover operative in a London hotel. They also list requests to use covert filming techniques when an operative posed as a potential housebuyer. Part of the operative’s report and filming is shown below.

VICKCovert

The depth of the investigation and the amount of information obtained by FACT on the Vickermans is quite remarkable. The data and correspondence collated runs to dozens of pages but perhaps what is most noticeable is the manner in which everything is presented. The whole thing looks like a police operation yet it was not – it was an investigation being carried out by a UK company on behalf of other companies in the United States.

But for FACT and their Hollywood paymasters overseas, the effort will have been worth it. Four years in jail for Anton Vickerman is a very aggressive punishment and what could yet prove to be a significant deterrent to others looking to follow in his footsteps. The MPAA will be very pleased with their investment this morning, there can be little doubt about that.

Source: Movie Studios Compiled Scary Private Life Dossier On SurfTheChannel Owner

Kim Dotcom: MPAA / RIAA Corrupted the U.S. Government

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 02:59 PM PDT

dotcomLast Friday the MPAA and RIAA filed a joint submission with Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel.

The two groups gave their recommendations for future IP enforcement policy and among other suggestions offered to help out with future international actions against “rogue sites” such as Megaupload.

"In this case, the Justice Department and other federal agencies are now grappling with a set of wealthy and arrogant defendants who are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to sway public opinion against efforts to hold them accountable," the groups wrote.

An interesting choice of words.

Ignoring whether or not the statements apply to Dotcom or not, being “wealthy and arrogant” is by no means a crime. In fact, many people in Hollywood and the music business can easily be described using the same terms. In addition, “swaying public opinion” is one of the main goals of both the MPAA and RIAA.

In a response to the name-calling, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom says the insults are a sign of weakness. According to him there is absolutely no need to “sway anything.”

“They are calling me names because the case against Megaupload is a stillborn cripple,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak.

“There is no need to sway public opinion because everyone can see how the MPAA and RIAA are corrupting the system by infiltrating their own people into key government positions. They are openly paying politicians and hiring public officials who are favorable to them.”

Dotcom is referring to the so-called “revolving door” between the U.S. Government and the copyright industries. As a result, the MPAA and the U.S. authorities prosecuting Megaupload can be considered a close group of friends.

“A recent example is the senior vice president of the MPAA Marc Miller who recently called me a ‘career criminal’ at a press briefing regarding the potential dismissal of the Megaupload case,” Dotcom says.

“He is a former prosecutor and colleague of Jay Prabhu, one of the US Attorneys behind the prosecution of Megaupload. They worked together in the Computer Crime division at the Department of Justice and they jointly won the Anti-Piracy Leadership Award from the SIIA.”

“Good friends help each other,” Dotcom adds.

One of the most crucial employees at the MPAA is its CEO Chris Dodd, who joined the movie industry group in 2011 after serving as a senator for thirty years.

“The MPAA made the ultimate hire with former Senator and Joe Biden’s best friend Chris Dodd. They now own the ear drums at the White House. And Chris Dodd is using his influence,” Dotcom says.

“The US Attorney [Neil MacBride] leading this case was a former copyright lobbyist and lawyer of Joe Biden. He is also a buddy of Chris Dodd. This gang of friends plotted the takedown of Megaupload in bad faith,” Dotcom adds.

As mentioned before, Kim Dotcom and his legal team claim to have evidence that vice president Joe Biden was the one who ordered the shutdown of Megaupload. According to Dotcom the vice president admitted this in public.

“At a recent fundraiser luncheon Joe Biden openly admitted and bragged that he was behind the Megaupload termination. And that he had to convince Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to back him and Chris Dodd. We have a credible witness who has provided our legal team with evidence.”

Dotcom is convinced that Biden is the mastermind, and that people such as assistant U.S. attorney Jay Prabhu are nothing more than foot soldiers waiting in line to walk through the revolving door.

“Who believes that Jay Prabhu, a semi-talented assistant US Attorney with little respect inside the DOJ has the balls to take down a global cloud storage business with millions of legitimate users and 4% of all Internet traffic? He is just a soldier following orders.”

“And when the Megaupload case finally arrives at the bullshit graveyard Jay Prabhu might get a job at the MPAA just like his former colleague Marc Miller. That is, if the MPAA still exists after Megaupload, it’s business partners and our users sue them and the studios for damages.”

While the entertainment industry and the U.S. Government succeeded in taking Megaupload out, at least temporarily, Dotcom believes that the truth will come out in the end.

“The evidence of corruption is surfacing thanks to whistleblowers. This time they went too far and it’s going to bite them where it hurts,” Dotcom says.

“We are innocent. We can prove it. The legal experts are siding with us. We are winning important court battles. And we have the people of the Internet on our side. The public and the media are becoming more interested in this case, making it increasingly difficult for the US government to get away with lies and dirty tricks.”

Megaupload’s founder already scored a victory in New Zealand, and he believes that more will follow.

“Independent New Zealand judges see right through the politically motivated maliciousness of this case and won’t become an accessory after the fact for big content billionaires in the US,” he says.

According to Dotcom the public has an important role to play in turning this case in favor of Megaupload. Voting Obama out of office is a good start, as he is in the pockets of the MPAA and RIAA.

“Remember the Mr President song? ‘Don’t let them get away with that’. You can start by voting for a new administration in November if Obama isn’t turning this around. Hollywood and the MPAA are only backing Obama’s re-election and can’t expect any favors from Mitt Romney. Romney is simply the better bet for a free Internet.

“You have the power to send a strong message to the next President of the United States. Get involved. Tell your friends. Blog and tweet. Take your Internet back while you still can,” Dotcom concludes.

Source: Kim Dotcom: MPAA / RIAA Corrupted the U.S. Government

SurfTheChannel Owner Sentenced to Four Years in Jail

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 07:46 AM PDT

In 2010, SurfTheChannel.com was among the most-visited streaming link websites on the Internet. The site had more than 400,000 visitors a day who were mostly looking for popular TV-shows.

The website was a thorn in the side of the UK and US entertainment industries who went to extremes to bring the site down. Among other things, the MPAA and FACT hired an undercover agent to gain access to the defendants' house under false pretenses.

The case eventually went to trial in May and today a judge at Newcastle Crown Court sentenced 38-year old site owner Anton Vickerman to four years imprisonment. Vickerman’s wife faced the same charges but was found not guilty in June.


SurfTheChannel

stc

Today’s sentencing marks the first time that the owner of a linking website has been found guilty of conspiring to defraud the entertainment industry.

A previous attempt at making the same charge stick against the owner of the OiNK BitTorrent tracker failed during 2010.

Although SurfTheChannel did not store any copyrighted material itself, the site did organize links to copyrighted streams on third-party sites. According to the prosecution, the website was making at least £35,000 a month.

The UK Pirate Party is deeply concerned by the sentencing.

“The way this issue was investigated, prosecuted and the resulting sentence are, deeply concerning, inappropriate and disproportionate given the activities that Anton Vickerman was engaged in. A four year prison sentence is twice the maximum that could have been handed down if Vickers had been charged with online copyright infringement,” party leader Loz Kaye says.

"As we have said before, this was not a case brought using copyright law. The interest groups involved couldn't present a case of copyright infringement and decided to press for the use of the common law offence of "conspiracy to defraud". This offence is incredibly controversial in English law as it criminalises conduct by two or more parties that would not be criminal when performed by an individual," he added.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), the local anti-piracy group which played an essential role in the investigation, is delighted on the other hand.

"This case conclusively shows that running a website that deliberately sets out to direct users to illegal copies of films and TV shows will result in a criminal conviction and a long jail sentence,” FACT Director General Kieron Sharp says.

“The sentencing indicates the severity of the offenses committed and the sophistication of [Vickerman's] criminal enterprise and should send a very strong message to those running similar sites that they can be found, arrested and end up in prison."

The MPAA previously noted that it would use the sentencing of Vickerman to support the extradition process of TVShack owner Richard O’Dwyer. While the two sites were indeed comparable, the crucial difference is that O’Dwyer is not charged with fraud but copyright infringement.

That said, the sentencing today definitely spells trouble for UK-based website owners who operate similar streaming sites.

Source: SurfTheChannel Owner Sentenced to Four Years in Jail

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Virgin Media Blocks File-Sharing Site After Receiving Court Order

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 12:45 AM PDT

In what would become a pioneering battle to have a file-sharing site blocked at the ISP level in the UK, last year ISP BT found itself taking on the might of the major Hollywood studios.

The Motion Picture Association were seeking a High Court injunction ordering BT to block subscriber access to Newzbin2, a site they say causes the industry significant losses by helping people to locate movies and TV shows on the Usenet binaries system. The MPA won.

"In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold in the High Court last July.

In October 2011 the parties returned to court and BT was given just 14 days to use its Cleanfeed censorship system to block subscriber access to Newzbin2.

However, unlike this year’s blockade of The Pirate Bay, only BT were affected by the High Court order. The MPA had asked other ISPs to voluntarily block Newzbin2 following the ruling but they refused. In December 2011, ISP SKY confirmed that they had received an order to block Newzbin2 and in early January 2012 an order was issued for TalkTalk to block access.

All this time Virgin Media, a company that has a monopoly on cable Internet access in the UK, had continued to provide access to Newzbin2. That will soon change.

“We’ve received an order from the courts requiring us to prevent access to Newzbin in order to help protect against copyright infringement,” the company announced yesterday.

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to us, but we strongly believe that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives to give consumers access to great content at the right price.”

At the time of writing, Newzbin2 remains accessible through Virgin Media and the ISP has not indicated how long it has been given to comply with the court order. Spokesman for Newzbin2 Mr.White said that he believes the block will kick in today.

When The Pirate Bay was blocked earlier this year, dozens of proxy sites popped up that gave UK Internet subscribers plenty of options to continue getting access to the torrent resource. Newzbin2, probably due to its lower profile, did not receive the same level of support, although the operators did release their own encryption software to allow users to circumvent bans. It received its latest update last week.

Source: Virgin Media Blocks File-Sharing Site After Receiving Court Order

I Know What You Downloaded On BitTorrent This Summer

Posted: 13 Aug 2012 02:09 PM PDT

Unless BitTorrent users are taking steps to hide their identities through the use of a VPN, proxy, or seedbox, their sharing activities are available for almost anyone to snoop on.

By their very nature BitTorrent networks are very happy to spill the locations of any user in the swarm. After all, there’s data to be shared, and without knowing where to send it that can’t happen.

Despite this fairly common knowledge, even some experienced BitTorrent users can be a little surprised to learn that someone has been monitoring their activities. This was highlighted perfectly when a site called YouHaveDownloaded appeared in 2011 claiming to have gathered data on more than 51 million BitTorrent users sharing more than 103,000 torrents.

Although it generated considerable interest, YouHaveDownloaded stopped collecting data last year and is currently offline. However, we’ve now been made aware of another site offering a service that is just as scary.

ScanEye is a product of Polish company called Kalasoft Sp. z o.o. The company told TorrentFreak that it pulls torrents from two indexes – TorrentReactor and adult site NuTorrent – but where the .torrent files come from is largely irrelevant since they are available from many other sites too.

The main ScanEye system has been operating out of a Polish datacenter since November 2011. To date its operators say they have collected 430,000 torrents, that’s 400% more than the haul at YouHaveDownloaded. This figure is reportedly increasing by 1000 torrents every day.

In an attempt to blend in, the peers ScanEye uses masquerade as various torrent clients and are operated behind dynamic IP addresses in the three separate countries – Poland, Sweden and Romania. Despite these measures at least one peer was easy to spot – we were alerted to ScanEye by a reader who noticed some unusual activity in a BitTorrent swarm.

But while YouHaveDownloaded said their aim was to draw attention to the lack of anonymity on BitTorrent networks, the operators of ScanEye have a very different agenda. They are a piracy intelligence company gathering information on behalf of their customers.

For privacy reasons regular visitors can only see information on their own IP-address. Full addresses are only shared with parties who either own the content that was allegedly downloaded, or the IP-addresses that were “caught”.

“Copyright holders can view IP addresses of specific countries for very specific copyrighted content. For example, BMW AG can check who has downloaded ‘BMW DVD Navigation 2012′, but they can not see what else the IP has downloaded,” the company told TorrentFreak. “Network owners, for example Al Jouf University, Saudi Arabia, can view all shared content for its own network.”

But it is the public-facing service, the IP check, that is the same kind of product previously offered by YouHaveDownloaded. By visiting this page your current IP address will be matched against the databases held by ScanEye and a list of your downloads from the past few months should appear.

TorrentFreak carried out a few tests and as can be seen from the screenshot below, we got busted for downloading a VODO torrent.

TFBusted

Of course, users with dynamic IP addresses might find they get ‘busted’ for someone else’s downloads, or find that ScanEye reports they’ve never downloaded anything at all. Users who share an Internet connection with other file-sharers may very well get ‘busted’ for their behavior. Nothing much can be done about that, such is the nature of IP address evidence.

Source: I Know What You Downloaded On BitTorrent This Summer

MPAA / RIAA Want U.S. to Help Quash The Pirate Bay

Posted: 13 Aug 2012 06:39 AM PDT

tpbThe U.S. Government is constantly evaluating and updating its copyright enforcement policies. To this end, Copyright Czar Victoria Espinel recently asked “the public” to come up with recommendations for the future strategy.

The call resulted in dozens of submissions from individuals, entrepreneurs, digital rights groups and copyright holders. The RIAA and MPAA did not miss out on the opportunity either – they filed a joint recommendation last Friday.

More has to be done to combat online piracy according to the two groups, and the U.S. Government should play an active role in these efforts.

The Problem

After emphasizing that the public has a wealth of legal media at their fingertips, the MPAA and RIAA identify the biggest threats to the entertainment industry, starting with cyberlockers. They describe these file-hosting sites as “hubs for unauthorized distribution” and the “business model of choice for copyright thieves.”

“Operators encourage users to post infringing material or offer incentives to users whose uploaded content is frequently downloaded by others. In other words, unlike legitimate cloud storage services, these sites are focused, not on ‘storing’ files, but instead on illegitimately distributing professionally produced entertainment products,” they write.

The MPAA and RIAA haven’t shied away from naming several of these “rogue” sites which they equate to the now defunct MegaUpload.

“The efforts by the U.S. government to shut down Megaupload have had an immediate and positive impact on the marketplace. However, significant distribution of illegal content continues through similar websites, such as Rapidgator, Turbobit, DepositFiles, and PutLocker.”

The cyberlockers are immediately followed by P2P sites, of which The Pirate Bay is the prime example. The entertainment industry groups are quick to point out that this “criminal operation” continues to operate despite the fact that the previous owners were convicted.

“While its operators have been criminally adjudicated, The Pirate Bay (TPB) continues to be one of the top sites in the world providing access to unlicensed content. TPB and many other similar operators of p2p networks still enable users to illegally download complete copies of illegally copied movie, television and music content for free, while profiting from advertising, subscriptions or donations.”

In addition to these top threats the MPAA and RIAA also name linking websites (such as TVShack) and Usenet as facilitators of copyright infringement. They further point out that search engines and server farms are not doing enough to stop the above threats from continuing to operate.

The Solution

The MPAA and RIAA argue that the U.S. Government has an important role to play in countering the threats outlined above. One of the key solutions they list is the creation of “best practices” in industries that play a key role in the piracy problem.

The groups suggest that the Government should play a role in convincing advertising companies and search engines to work with copyright holders to decrease online piracy. In the most ideal scenario, advertisers should ban websites that facilitate copyright infringement while search engines should make it harder to find pirated content, or delist rogue sites altogether.

The Government should also encourage domain registrars to cooperate with copyright holders. The MPAA and RIAA want to eliminate fake Whois entries and are arguing for the implementation of strict identification guidelines so new top-level domains will not be used for piracy.

“The proliferation of new generic Top Level Domain registries risks offering new opportunities for pirates to evade detection and to escape the reach of U.S. courts and law enforcement; a strong set of anti-infringement best practices among the major registries and registrars could help to reduce this risk,” they write.

Despite the failed SOPA and PIPA bills the MPAA and RIAA also want the Government to continue their efforts to introduce stronger copyright legislation. Despite public protests, streaming copyrighted movies and music should become a felony, and harsher sentences should be introduced to deter piracy.

“For example, increasing sentencing guidelines for intellectual property offenses committed by organized criminals and repeat intellectual property offenders would help deter gangs and other criminals from incorporating infringement into their portfolios.”

“In addition, it remains important for Congress to clarify that, in appropriate circumstances, infringement by internet streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony,” they write.

Laws aside, the U.S. should continue to work with other countries to crack down on piracy. If the entertainment industries have their way the actions against MegaUpload earlier this year will become the standard.

Judging from previous consultations, the recommendations of the MPAA and RIAA will not go unheard by Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, but whether the proposed solutions will be good enough to quash The Pirate Bay remains to be seen.

Source: MPAA / RIAA Want U.S. to Help Quash The Pirate Bay

Monday, 13 August 2012

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent

Posted: 13 Aug 2012 01:08 AM PDT

This week there are four newcomers in our chart and one returnee.

The Hunger Games is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Week ending August 12, 2012
Ranking (last week) Movie IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1 (2) The Hunger Games 7.6 / trailer
2 (6) The Dictator 6.8 / trailer
3 (1) Battleship 6.1 / trailer
4 (…) The Five-Year Engagement 6.7 / trailer
5 (…) The Babymakers 3.9 / trailer
6 (5) The Dark Knight Rises (CAM/TS) 9.0 / trailer
7 (…) Total Recall (TS) 6.3 / trailer
8 (…) Freelancers 3.4 / trailer
9 (4) One In The Chamber 3.9 / trailer
10 (back) Project X 6.6 / trailer

Source: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent

Is There ANY Part Of The Copyright Monopoly That Meets Legislative Quality Bars?

Posted: 12 Aug 2012 01:44 PM PDT

Any new law that is being made somewhere needs to fulfill three quality criteria to be legislated – honorably legislated, at least. It needs to be necessary, effective, and proportionate:

It needs to be necessary – the law being made needs to address a real (or at least perceived) problem.

It needs to be effective – the law being made needs to solve the targeted problem, if enacted.

It needs to be proportionate – the law being made must not create worse problems than the one being solved.

Let’s see how these legislative quality criteria measure up against the different copyright monopolies, shall we?

There are four parts of the copyright monopoly. To begin with, you have two commercial monopolies, those on duplication on fixation of a work and of performance/broadcast of a work. Sadly, these two are treated quite differently in law, but are indistinguishable with the advent of the internet – which is why you see stupid legal constructs that try to assert that there is some kind of server-side difference between streaming media and downloaded media. (Hint: there isn’t.)

Going out on a limb and assuming that these two monopolies can be reconciled into a general commercial “remote duplication” monopoly, is it necessary, effective, and proportionate?

Whether it is necessary depends on your point of view – and above all, what problem you are trying to solve by writing the copyright monopoly into law (or keeping it there). You will hear as many justifications for the copyright monopoly as you hear copyright monopoly advocates. Originally, it was enacted on May 4, 1557 in order to stifle political dissent, when Queen “Bloody” Mary persecuted Protestants and wanted control of subversive pamphlets. That justification would hardly fly today.

Would such a unified commercial monopoly be effective, then? Well, that again depends on your original justification. If the idea is to allow artists to make money – well, 99.98% of artists never see a cent in royalty under the current copyright monopoly system, so the effectiveness can be… disputed, to express ourselves with a slight understatement. On the other hand, if the idea is to legislatively lock in a market for obsolete middlemen, then it is most certainly effective.

But where the commercial unified and imagined “remote duplication” monopoly falls is on proportionality. Any digital channel that can be (and is) used for private communications can also be used to transfer works that are under the copyright monopoly. Therefore, enforcement of the monopoly needs abolishment of the postal secret: you can’t sort legal from illegal without looking at it first, which breaks the postal secret.

A commercial monopoly that breaks the postal secret, a fundamental right and a fundamental liberty, is clearly disproportional.

So let’s take a look at the two other monopolies in the copyright monopoly umbrella – the so-called moral rights.

The first moral right is the right for an artist to prevent a performance of the work that violates the integrity of the artist or the work. I fail to see what problem this law tries to solve. Surely an artist could object to a development of his or her work – but that’s what art is: its beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not in the pen of the artist. No artist gets to own the perception of his or her art after it has been released. What problem, what real problem, is this law – this monopoly – trying to solve?

The second moral right is the right for artists to be associated with his or her work. This right carries significant social support – so much support, in fact, that the social penalties for violating this association are severe, and significantly harsher than any laws upholding this monopoly.

After all, if you plagiarise part of a thesis in academia, you get fired from the profession for life. A €100 fine is hardly going to make a difference in that context. Thus, while the norm carries public support, adding a €100 fine to the social penalty does absolutely nothing and is unnecessary.

In summarizing, the copyright monopoly rates abysmally in terms of legislative quality. It has no place in our laws if quality is a virtue for legislators, and it should be – for legislators as for every craft – but the monopoly needs to be dismantled gradually due to its infiltration everywhere.

About The Author

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

Book Falkvinge as speaker?

Source: Is There ANY Part Of The Copyright Monopoly That Meets Legislative Quality Bars?

Demonoid Domains Go Up For Sale

Posted: 12 Aug 2012 06:04 AM PDT

With an army of passionate fans, Demonoid was spoken about fondly by many in the torrent community. Just two weeks ago it was one of the world’s largest and most thriving torrent sites but a DDoS and hacker attack followed by a police raid brought it to its knees.

After days of silence, last Thursday the IFPI took credit for the complaint behind the takedown.

"The operation to close Demonoid was a great example of international cooperation to tackle a service that was facilitating the illegal distribution of music on a vast scale. I would like to thank all those officers involved in this operation to close a business that was built on the abuse of other people's rights,” said the IFPI's anti-piracy director Jeremy Banks.

Last week a source at ColoCall, Demonoid’s former webhost, said he believed that the site’s management was based in Mexico. It was later confirmed that a criminal investigation is underway in the country and that a number of arrests and asset seizures had already taken place.

However, in the middle of all the chaos and arrests TorrentFreak maintained contact with the site’s technical admin who still has control of the site’s domains. Due to his presumed position of freedom hope remained that one day the site would return, but today that seems more unlikely than ever.

The three key Demonoid domains – Demonoid.me, Demonoid.com and Demonoid.ph – are now all up for sale on Sedo, a popular domain name and website marketplace.

DemonoidSale

Selling the domains now while traffic to Demonoid remains high should ensure a good price for the vendor, but it seems unlikely that any buyer would look to relaunch as a torrent site.

Of course, “up for sale” doesn’t mean “sold”, but at this stage hopes that the site might one day return appear to be dwindling faster than ever.

Later today we hope to obtain a comment from Demonoid on this latest development and will update this post accordingly.

Source: Demonoid Domains Go Up For Sale

Sunday, 12 August 2012

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


uTorrent Becomes Ad-Supported to Rake in Millions

Posted: 11 Aug 2012 02:34 PM PDT

utorrentuTorrent for Windows saw its first public release in September 2005 and soon became the most widely used BitTorrent application. Today over 125 million users worldwide use the client regularly and this number continues to rise.

After BitTorrent Inc. bought the software in 2006 it evolved heavily. What began as a minimalist and no-nonsense client targeted at a BitTorrent-savvy crowd, is now an application that does far more than downloading alone.

As always, some love the changes and added features while others complain bitterly after every bug fix. However, the announcement that uTorrent will become ad-supported is expected to meet wider resistance among a certain crowd.

The change was quietly made public in a forum post yesterday where it is framed as “a fresh approach to creating a no-nonsense and free torrenting experience.”

After nearly seven years this is the first time that advertisers will be able to reach millions of uTorrent users directly from within the client itself.

Until now nearly all revenue came from the toolbar which users can install optionally when uTorrent is first downloaded. However, BitTorrent Inc. sees the need to experiment with other revenue sources with “sponsored torrents” being added for all users in an upcoming release.

“You are all very familiar with how we have paid the bills so far. These new changes mark our next step towards finding that difficult balance between keeping our lights on and providing a positive user experience,” they explain.

The sponsored torrents will appear in a highly visible spot on top of the list of downloads and will be used to promote content from advertisers. They can’t be “turned off,” but users have the option to click away individual ads.

“This new build will display a featured torrent at the top of your torrent list. This featured torrent space will be used to offer a variety of different types of content. We are working towards bringing you offers that are relevant to you.”

“This means films, games, music, software…basically anything that you will find interesting. We may not get it right on the first try but we will continue to improve our efforts based on your feedback,” BitTorrent Inc. adds.

The company explains that aside from ads the sponsored torrents will also be used to inform users about important updates and to promote artists.

BitTorrent previously informed TorrentFreak that people in different geographical locations will see different content. This means that uTorrent will use your IP-address to lookup where you are. Other than that, the company says that users’ privacy is guaranteed.

For BitTorrent Inc. the main motivation to add sponsored torrents is to generate extra revenue. The company added dozens of employees to its payroll in recent years, and these all have to be compensated.

However, a person close to the company told TorrentFreak that even without the uTorrent ads the company is doing very well. Current annual revenue is estimated at somewhere between $15 and $20 million and the company is backed by millions in venture capital.

With “sponsored torrents” BitTorrent Inc could possibly bring in millions of added revenue and grow even further.

The uTorrent team closed their announcement with a request for feedback, and we would like to do the same. What do you think of uTorrent’s move to add sponsored torrents? Does it put you off or is it no problem in exchange for a free client and service? Let us know in the comment section below.

Source: uTorrent Becomes Ad-Supported to Rake in Millions