Just over a week after becoming available online in early November 2009, Ink pushed into TorrentFreak’s chart of top 10 most pirated movies with an incredible 400,000 downloads.

Unlike the majority of Hollywood movie bosses, the creators of Ink – Jamin and Kiowa Winans – decided to embrace their new-found pirate fans after the extra publicity pushed the movie to 16th place on IMDb’s movie meter and boosted DVD and Blu-ray sales. Kiowa wrote to TorrentFreak and said that the movie ending up on BitTorrent was “absolutely” the best thing that could’ve happened to it.

Now, Lars Sobiraj from German news outlet Gulli has interviewed Kiowa to see how things have progressed a couple of months on from the initial excitement.

As previously reported, Ink has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times, so just how many of those translated into real-world sales? Kiowa says that is really hard to put an exact figure on that – they haven’t sold a DVD or Blu-ray for every download but sales have unquestionably gone up.

Money also came in from other routes too. As the movie gained popularity on BitTorrent, many Ink downloaders suggested that there should be a ‘donate’ button on the movie’s website so that fans could give money freely.

“We put that [donation link] up at the urging of some of the downloaders with the message ‘if you have watched Ink online for free and would like to contribute what you can, click here’,” Kiowa explains.

“Guess what country has been the most generous? Germany! Germans have been twice as generous as Americans so… thank you Germany. We have also shipped a lot of Deluxe Bundle fan packs to Germany so Ink seems to be a big hit there.”

Gulli asked Kiowa if she felt the movie had fallen victim to piracy, a notion she strongly denies.

“I think to say victim is to characterize piracy as an all-together awful thing. The piracy of Ink is unquestionably responsible for its popularity around the world. Sure our trailers have been out for over a year and have had plenty of views outside the US, but we think that 70% of the illegal downloads are coming from outside of the US and we do get a good number of international buyers at our online store every day,” she explained.

Before Ink was pirated, the movie’s IMDb rating was a lowly 12,991. As reported in our earlier article, it reached 16 and even moved up to the 14th position at one stage. Incredibly it has stayed as one of the top 200 movies in the world for the last two months, a feat that would have been impossible without the extra exposure.

Looking forward to future distribution models, Kiowa feels that everything will change during the next 10 years as people demand instant and simple access to media and their TVs and computers merge together into one device.

“That said, I’m not sure what the revenue model will be for films,” she notes. “Hollywood producers are quickly finding out that the instant films start circulating on DVD they will wind up on torrent sites.”

Kiowa broadly puts BitTorrent users into two camps – those who want media in an instant and those who want it for free. Noting that there are those who fall into both categories, she acknowledges the challenges that lie ahead in figuring out a way to make this situation bring revenue to the filmmakers.

“I think a reasonably-priced instant download the moment the movie becomes available would largely cure the piracy issue so we will see how it all shakes out over the next several years,” she adds.

As most observers are aware, many music and movie companies consider torrent sites as entities to be crushed and in recent years have set about a strategy to achieve that. Gulli asked Kiowa if she believes that is the correct strategy to deal with the problem.

While one could argue that non-physical digital formats such as MP3 are part of the reason that piracy has flourished in recent years, Kiowa feels that the invention of the iPod has helped to reduce piracy, largely through the existence of competition from one service – iTunes. The movie industry needs to catch up.

“Until the equivalent of the iPod is invented for film or long-format video files I think that piracy is going to be a huge battle ground, one in which I doubt Hollywood will win,” Kiowa predicts.

“There is always a smarter programmer out there that can move faster than bureaucracy. The film industry really needs to set its sights on overhauling its distribution system. Right now there are horrible things like region-coded DVDs that tie up a film’s rights in various countries and this is what has made the film business plenty of money over the years.”

The industry needs to move its thinking to encompass global distribution, says Kiowa, not concentrate on pushing movies out to dozens of separate territories.

“We are going to keep all the rights to Ink and not give them away country-by-country so that when that iPod-for-movies emerges Ink can be the first film that debuts to the whole world,” she says, adding: “That is the hope anyway.”

Looking to the future, partner Jamin is currently working on scripts for two new films, one a sci-fi psychological thriller called ‘The Frame’ and another a sci-fi fantasy called ‘Myth of Man’.

“For the time being we’re just really happy that Ink is rolling along and gaining fans around the world. How ever people come to the film, we’re just happy that they are watching it, Kiowa concludes.

“As Jamin likes to say, the battle of independent films is not piracy, it’s obscurity. Hey – at least we’re winning that one!”

The full interview conducted by Lars Sobiraj, is available here.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

He rose to fame in the wider BitTorrent community when in early 2008 a Danish court ordered the ISP Tele2 to block its customers from accessing The Pirate Bay.

In response, the Pirate Bay team created a site in his name, TheJesperBay, which contained information and code allowing Tele2 users to evade the block.

Not only did Bay have a site named after him, Copenhagen’s ‘Pirate Cinema‘ even briefly changed their name in his honor.

But after many cat and mouse games with his opponents, Jesper Bay has just announced he will quit as IFPI Denmark’s director and spokesman at the end of January.

“I’ve been here six and a half years and think that maybe it’s time to try something else,” he told Computerworld.

Although Bay’s job has been very demanding with an understandably high workload and lots of pressure, he says that’s not the reason for his departure – he just feels he’s been in the position long enough. Bay admits that at times, things have been tough.

“Sometimes it may have been frustrating to be in a role where you know you have right on your side, but it is very difficult to penetrate with the message, because there are so many other interests at stake in the ongoing debate,” he conceded.

Bay went on to criticize the media’s coverage of the battle between online pirates and the recording industry.

“We are continuing to experience relatively sensible people at relatively reasonable media outlets, writing completely what suits them. And very often very poorly researched,” he said.

Noting that the issue of piracy and copyright is a hot one at the moment, largely due to the fact that there is so much at stake for the many parties involved, he accepts that while the industry has not won the war, they have won several battles.

Conceding in late 2008 that Denmark would not see the introduction of “3 strikes” for music file-sharers must have been one of the more bitter pills to swallow.

Bay explained that part of his job has been to refine the debate surrounding these issues, and extend it beyond combating piracy to include discussion of new business models and the way forward in a digital world.

But despite his upcoming departure, Bay says he has nothing lined up and will just take some time off to assess his future. He insists, however, that he has not received a better offer of employment from the pirates.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Peter Makepeace, prosecuting, naturally painted an extremely negative picture, labeling the Pink Palace as a place designed from the ground up as a personal money-making machine for Ellis.

“21 million downloads. 600,000-plus albums. £300,000. This was a cash cow, it was perfectly designed to profit him and it was as dishonest as the day is long,” said Makepeace.

It is common sense to come to the conclusion that Oink was dishonest, claimed the prosecution lawyer, adding that Ellis knows that it’s dishonest “to promote, encourage and facilitate criminal activity,” and accusing him of telling the jury “persistent, cunning, calculated lies.”

It would, of course, be dishonest to promote “criminal activity”, but Mr Makepeace should be very well aware that the activity engaged in by OiNK’s users is covered under civil law.

Switching momentarily from criticism to praise and then back again, Makepeace said that the OiNK website was a “wonderful machine” for sharing music but noted that while the site had a really good brand name, it was a brand synonymous with “ripping off music.”

University of London professor Birgitte Andersenok gave evidence earlier in the trial, stating that file-sharing didn’t hurt the music industry and led to more sales. Mr Makepeace trashed her evidence.

“It’s nonsense, it’s flannel, it’s verbiage, it’s garbage,” he told the Court.

For the defense, Alex Stein said that Ellis had never knowingly acted dishonestly and that in 2004 when OiNK was launched, it was a “brave new world” on the Internet.

“In many societies he’d be an innovator, a creator, a Richard Branson. His talent would be moulded, not crushed by some sort of media organization,” he said.

The media organization being referred to by Stein was the IFPI, who he said had never requested that OiNK be shut down, and had instead “sat and watched.”

Gazette Live reports that Stein went on to launch a scathing attack on the IFPI.

“They used this site. Their own members used this site to promote their own music and now they’re crushing him. Maybe he grew too big for them, maybe they’ve taken a different marketing approach. I don’t know. But it was decided that this site should be taken down.

“All of us here are being manipulated to some sort of marketing strategy by the IFPI. If anybody’s acting dishonestly it’s them,” he said.

At the end of the two week trial the jury returned a unanimous verdict (12 to 0). Alan Ellis is not guilty of Conspiracy to Defraud the music industry. He walked out of Teesside Crown Court a free man today, his name cleared.

The verdict cannot be appealed and Ellis can finally put the past behind him and move on.

Breaking story…

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

It might not come as a surprise to most people, but Bono’s wish is a little out of touch with reality. By mimicking the words of the record label bosses high up the food chain of the music industry, he fails to see where the real problem lies.

Over the last ten years the RIAA mounted the most aggressive anti-piracy campaign against file-sharers seen anywhere, collecting millions in settlements from thousands of households. The songwriters didn’t benefit much from that.

The RIAA also collected as much as $400m from settlements from the likes of Napster, KaZaA and Bolt. That money was supposed to go to the artists whose rights had been allegedly infringed upon, but the labels weren’t that keen to hand any of that over either, even when faced with the threat of lawsuits from the artists themselves.

The major labels, Warner, Sony, EMI and Universal, are currently being sued by another group of artists over sales of compilation albums featuring their music for which they haven’t been given a cent. The money they’re owed collectively is a staggering $6 billion. Looks like the ‘little guy’ is in trouble without the assistance of file-sharing.

While one set of corporates ripping off musicians doesn’t get a mention in Bono’s top 10, other supposed evil-doers do. Singing from the same sheet as his paymasters at Universal, Bono also takes aim at ISPs, claiming that their “swollen” profits “perfectly mirror” the lost revenues in the music business.

This “blaming of the messenger” will be a continuing theme in the next decade, and one which Bono dwells on for a moment, noting that if it’s possible to crack down on online child pornography in the US, and China has the ability to suppress online dissent, then it’s also perfectly possible to track downloads of copyrighted music.

Well, yes, of course it is. That’s been perfectly possible for the last decade, but what good does it do? The RIAA has largely given up suing individuals and even when countries like France pass fairly draconian legislation to have people removed from the Internet for sharing content, there are plenty of ways around it.

“The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files,” says Bono. “The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.”

While it’s true that we are only a couple of years away from being to download huge amounts of data in just a few seconds and that will have an impact on the volumes of movie and TV show downloading, we can’t actually watch a full season of “24″ in 24 seconds. Real-time will suffice, though.

Right at this moment via sites like Watch-Movies-Online, it’s possible to view the very latest movies instantaneously. With the new streaming functionality available in the latest beta of uTorrent, the same can be achieved via torrent swarms.

Bono, the future is now. Suing Internet users does not work and blaming the ISPs will only prove counter-productive. Monitoring the Internet will prove futile. The only way to deal with piracy is to compete with it.

As we pointed out in our article covering the most downloaded TV shows of 2009, there is huge interest in on-demand TV and there are millions of viewers that can potentially bring in millions of dollars in revenue.

The growth in unauthorized downloading of TV shows and other media is a sign that consumers want something currently unavailable through the official channels, and while price is a factor, it is not necessarily all about ‘free’.

Serving the insatiable demand during the next decade at a reasonable price should be the main aim of the media industry, as locking down the Internet will not only suffocate their customers, but also their own business. That definitely won’t help the songwriters.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Dozens of notable BitTorrent sites have emerged since things really began to take off in 2002/2003, and literally thousands of lesser known private communities have flourished. But in terms of sheer volume of torrents, users and mainstream awareness, a trio of sites have stood head and shoulders above the rest.

By scale and exposure, The Pirate Bay, Mininova and isoHunt became the three most prominent BitTorrent sites in the latter half of the decade, serving billions of torrents to multiple millions of BitTorrent users.

Due to this massive and unprecedented level of interest, it became increasingly clear – the movie and music industries, just as they did with dozens of sites and services before them, would move to crush or suffocate them into submission. 2009 became a painful year for all three of them.

The Pirate Bay

On April 17th 2009, after being hounded continuously by the combined might of the movie and music industries, the four defendants in The Pirate Bay trial were eventually found guilty.

While the court said that it was the users of The Pirate Bay that committed the first infringements by sharing copyright files, it went on to dismiss most of the technical details, and judged the case on intent. It was declared that the intention of the defendants was to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted works.

Categorizing the infringements as ’severe’, the court said the team of four were well aware that copyrighted material was being shared using The Pirate Bay and that they made it easy for the users and assisted the infringements. The lack of a ‘notice and takedown’ certainly did not help the defense.

The four defendants were sentenced to one year in prison and a fines of $905,000 each. The case will be appealed.

The crushing verdict did not close the site, however, despite further legal attacks on its bandwidth infrastructure and bans forbidding the founders from operating the site.

Indeed, with adaptation, the site remains alive and fully operational today, proving that in The Pirate Bay’s case, suffering pain is not a terminal condition.

Mininova

After operating for almost five full years, the BitTorrent giant Mininova also succumbed to relentless entertainment industry in 2009, deleting over a million torrent files and shutting down the majority of its website.

Mininova was left with little choice, being forced into these drastic measures following a negative verdict in their court battle with the local anti-piracy outfit BREIN in the summer.

The Dutch court told Mininova that it must remove all infringing torrent files from its index on pain of huge fines, but as this proved technically unfeasible, the site’s owners took the decision to remove all torrents uploaded by regular users, many of which were not infringing any copyrights at all. This proved disastrous to the site. As a force to be reckoned with, Mininova has been taken back to the stone age.

isoHunt

In 2006, several Hollywood studios filed a complaint about then US-based site, isoHunt. In common with claims against The Pirate Bay and Mininova, the studios stated that the site’s owner was guilty of profiting from, and inducing, copyright infringement.

Just 8 days ago, on December 21st 2009, a US federal court in California ruled that isoHunt was indeed guilty of inducing copyright infringement, stating that the site’s operators had engaged in “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, aimed at promoting infringing uses of the websites.”

Since the circumstances of the case were so similar to earlier ones involving Napster and Grokster, the judge decided there was no need to have a full trial and instead granted a summary judgment against isoHunt.

No damages awards against the site have yet been announced and isoHunt remains fully operational at the moment, pending an appeal. In common with The Pirate Bay, isoHunt has not yet succumbed to the pain of its court defeat, despite overwhelming odds.

Lessons to be learned and the future of torrent sites

While Mininova is almost certainly out for good, The Pirate Bay and isoHunt remain active, despite their losses. Nevertheless, there are plenty of lessons to be learned from the court defeats of all three sites. Although some may believe that the negative verdicts point to the illegality of torrent sites, that is not the full picture.

In all three court defeats – notably in three distinct jurisdictions (Sweden, The Netherlands and United States) – indexed content aside, none of them stated that torrent sites are illegal. However, fingers were pointed firmly at the operators and their conduct when running their sites.

Being prepared to filter out fakes and malware from sites but not having a ‘notice and takedown’ system for copyright holders can prove fatal. But in the cases of Mininova and isoHunt, who both operated such systems and even co-operated with copyright owners, participating in discussions about copyright infringement on their forums can undo all the hard work.

In future, if site owners are to reduce liability, they will have to remain a lot more detached from their operations than they have been previously. The lessons to be learned are many, a few of which are detailed here.

Already TorrentFreak is informed that next-generation torrent sites are in development, meaning that 2010 will prove yet another interesting year.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The reasons for this are fairly straightforward. When the police get involved with file-sharers they are usually interested in very large-scale cases of copyright infringement. While BitTorrent users may indeed be sharing many items at once, it’s not simply a case of browsing that user’s shared folder to see what else is on offer – BitTorrent has no ’shared-folder’-type setup.

Direct Connect, however, does have such a setup and its users are likely to share their whole music collections at once in an easily identifiable way. Although Direct Connect hubs are more difficult to access than a regular torrent site, once in, investigators find gathering evidence trivial if the sharers make no effort to mask their identities.

While details are scarce at the moment and the use of Direct Connect has not yet been confirmed, it appears that another large-scale file-sharer has fallen foul of the law.

Acting on a tipoff, Swedish police carried out a raid in the Uppvidinge Municipality yesterday.

After a search on the home of a 25 year-old man, he was arrested on suspicion of copyright infringement and his computer was seized.

According to the police, during questioning the man later admitted to sharing 12,000 songs on the Internet, although they probably mean ‘making available’ – a subtle but important difference. He was later released.

Police said the investigation was led by the prosecutors office in Stockholm, who were acting on a tip from what they describe as a “music interests organization.” Although unconfirmed at the moment, this type of tip and raid bears all the hallmarks of IFPI.

Just over a week ago, IFPI submitted a request to the Stockholm District Court to force an ISP to hand over the personal details of another alleged large-scale file-sharer, confirmed to have used Direct Connect. The action marked the first time a request had been made by the organization under the IPRED legislation introduced in April.

It is unclear why yesterday’s arrest of an alleged 12,000 track file-sharer means that his case will be dealt with in a criminal court, yet the other detailed above involving a 10,000 track sharer is destined for IFPI civil action.

At the time of writing, TorrentFreak’s requests for more information from the Stockholm police remain unanswered.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

One of the options for the government is to criminalize unauthorized downloading by making it punishable by law. The entertainment industry, represented by Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN among others, have lobbied extensively for such a change. Consumers, on the other hand, prefer to keep things the way they are right now.

Backing interests of the general public, Dutch consumer rights organization Consumentenbond has started a campaign where they defend the public’s right to download copyrighted material without repercussions.

“Sometimes I buy, sometimes I download, but I am not a criminal..,” is the message the consumer organization is trying to put across in the newly launched campaign.

The rationale behind the campaign is that the the entertainment industry has failed to provide sufficient legal alternatives to online piracy, leaving consumers no other choice than to consume online media through file-sharing sites.

“At the moment, paid downloads don’t offer any added value compared to unauthorized downloads,” Bart Combée, Director of the Consumer Rights Organization said . “Before criminalizing consumers, the industry has to make sure that they offer a decent amount of content. Once that improves, I think consumers are willing to pay,” he added.

Previously, the consumer rights organization also stood up for users of The Pirate Bay, after the Amsterdam court ruled that the site should block Dutch users without reviewing the evidence carefully.

The present campaign reiterates what many others have said before. There has to be a fair balance between the interests of multi-billion dollar companies and the individual rights of consumers. And since a report commissioned by the Dutch government recently concluded that file-sharing actually has a positive effect on the economy, it might be best to keep things the way they are for now.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Lord Mandelson, or ‘Mandy’ to those speaking of him affectionately, has truly set the cat among the pigeons with his Digital Economy Bill, pleasing almost no-one apart from Big Music and Big Movies, and alienating everyone from most of the ISPs in the country through to millions of Internet users.

In protest, ISP TalkTalk is running the Don’t Disconnect Us campaign, which is gathering great momentum after being endorsed by Stephen Fry earlier this week, and hopefully will receive yet another boost with the help of some catchy music and cutting lyrics.

Yes, just when you thought it was safe after ‘Dear Lily’ – musician Dan Bull is back, this time with a new track – ‘Dear Mandy’.

“I’ve just recorded and uploaded a new video, aimed at Peter Mandelson, and getting people to sign the petition against his three strikes bill,” Dan told TorrentFreak.

“The most worrying part of the Bill is that Mandy has given himself the power to create new legislation as he pleases, meaning he can pretty much do whatever he wants to people he suspects of copyright infringement,” added Dan, echoing the autocracy fears outlined by the Liberal Democrats last week.

“This is one of the most serious threats to privacy and presumption of innocence in the UK for a long time. I would urge people who are concerned about this to contact their MPs, and sign the petition, Dan concluded.

Here is Dan’s great new track – ‘Dear Mandy’ – and UK citizens, don’t forget to sign the petition!

Readers interested in hearing more about Dan can jump over to our side-blog over at FreakBits where we have published an interview.

Dan’s MySpace page can be found here and his album ‘Safe’ is available from FreshNut but can also be downloaded digitally from iTunes, Amazon, Napster and all good file-sharing networks.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The latter group has not been very successful in convincing the big labels to change their anti-piracy strategies, but when MC Hammer says STOP they will have to listen.

In a recent interview Hammer commented on the industry’s struggle with piracy and the future of music in the digital age. In Hammer’s view, the RIAA’s legal battles against file-sharers have only alienated buying customers. ”The approach that the music industry took to fight piracy was the wrong strategy,” he said.

Aside from going after individuals, the entertainment industries have also targeted ISPs, for enabling their customers to pirate. The most prominent case at the moment is that of AFACT against iiNet, where the anti-piracy group wants the Aussie ISP to disconnect repeat infringers.

Using a murder and gun analogy to appeal to his fellow rappers, Hammer argues that AFACT is going after the wrong party by targeting the ISP.

”When there is a murder done with the gun, do they go back to the guy who sold the gun at the store and arrest him? No they don’t. They arrest the person who did it. So in this particular case, somebody is stealing content using the freeway. You can’t go back and sue the construction men,” Hammer said.

In addition to calling for a stop to the legal battles, Hammer thinks the music labels should focus more on digital content instead of trying to sell plastic to a generation of people that have never even owned a standalone CD player.

‘Digital files are no doubt not just the future, but the present. I think that it’s [the CD format] on its last legs, it’s on an artificial respirator,” Hammer commented.

“I don’t know what would turn them on about having to go through that terrible exercise of trying to open the packaging – it’s unbelievable when you’re trying to open a CD, right? You need a box cutter … it’s a tough deal to get it open. And once you get it open … you go and upload it to your computer,” Hammer added.

Hammer has a fair point there. Digital sales are breaking records year after year in terms of revenue generated, while the decline in physical CD sales is more likely to be a sign of the times rather than a side-effect of music piracy.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The case continued Wednesday in the Federal Court, with iiNet CEO Michael Malone taking the stand for the third consecutive day.

Again AFACT barrister Tony Bannon tried to portray iiNet as an encourager of copyright infringement on its network, by referring to iiNet marketing where the ISP measures bandwidth in terms of how much music or TV episodes people can download. Malone said the company did this simply to give a customer an easier barometer by which to measure their consumption.

When questioned on the music aspect, Malone said the company referred to legal downloads, such as those from iTunes. Bannon countered by saying this could not be the case, since iiNet did not count downloads from iTunes towards a customer’s bandwidth quota.

According to iTWire, a welcome email from iiNet to new customers ended with, “Thanks for choosing iiNet. Happy downloading.”

By drawing attention to the above ponts, AFACT hopes to show that iiNet encouraged infringements, thereby losing its safe habor protection as a carrier.

CW reports that AFACT presented press articles regarding the levels of BitTorrent transfers on the Internet, in the context of actions taken by ISPs in order to limit P2P traffic.

In one article, Malone had said that BitTorrent transfers accounted for around 50% of all Internet traffic and admitted in court that BitTorrent had been used on iiNet’s network since it became available. He went on to agree that while much of this traffic involved the transfer of movies and TV shows, he didn’t feel that “..every young person in Australia is downloading illegally using BitTorrent.”

One exchange apparently raised a laugh in the courtroom when Bannon accused Malone of attracting heavy-usage customers in order to boost iiNet profits.

“I would prefer [those customers] go to someone else and let someone else be sued,” said Malone.

“And you’re happy to take their money in the meantime?” Bannon asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

Yet again, Bannon raised the issue of iiNet’s failure to forward AFACT copyright infringement allegations to its customers. However, an email presented from the Internet Industry Association’s Peter Coroneos, indicated that he was concerned that doing so could lead to an assumption that ISPs are responsible for the actions of their customers.

In the email exchange with Malone, Coroneos said it would be preferable and advantageous for all involved if the content owners could provide some legal alternatives.

After Bannon showed the court documentation showing policies in place at rival ISPs to deal with allegations of copyright infringement, Malone again confirmed that iiNet has no formal policy on how to deal with these type of allegations, noting that the company had yet to be presented with evidence of what he described as a “repeat infringer”.

Earlier in the case, Malone had defined a repeat infringer as one who had been proven as such by a court, but Bannon mocked Malone, asking if the iiNet CEO had just heard what he’d said and would he like to think about the question again for a moment.

Malone said he didn’t and Bannon accused him of treating the proceedings as a game.

The case continues tomorrow.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Opposition to such plans are widespread, but until recently, public opinion hadn’t been tested in a measurable way. Today we have a much clearer idea, as results from a YouGov poll commissioned by the Open Rights Group have been released.

A significant 68% of those surveyed felt that individuals accused of illicit file-sharing should have the right to a fair trial before their accounts were disconnected or otherwise interfered with as punishment.

Just 16% of respondents said they would be happy for Internet users to have their accounts automatically suspended once their ISP had received “a number of accusations.”

While 44% said the proposals would not influence their vote, just under a third of respondents (31%) said they would be “much less likely” to vote for a political party that endorsed disconnection from the Internet without a trial. Just 7% said they were more likely to support a party bringing in such sanctions.

In this digital age, Internet connectivity is becoming more and more important for us to carry out everyday tasks, and as time presses on we all becoming more and more reliant on our gateway to the online world. So just how would disconnection affect the respondents ability to carry out various tasks?

19% of respondents said their ability to work and conduct their education would be completely disrupted following disconnection, with 23% labeling the disruption as “fair”.

When the focus is placed on processes such as online shopping or home banking, 30% said disconnection would completely disrupt their activities, with an additional 43% calling the problem caused as “fair”.

Jim Killock, executive director at the Open Rights Group, feels that the government is out of step.

“Our conclusion must be that this is a politically unwise move, that will be unpopular and a vote loser for its architects,” he said, noting that such measures will fail to meet their objectives. “[They] won’t make a single penny for artists, or help online music businesses get off the ground,” he added.

While the Open Rights Group is aware why the government has gone down this “disastrous” route, Killock says they are not prepared to watch the rights of the people being taken away.

“The right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty: and for proportionate punishments, these are basic principles on which democratic societies are built,” he said.

Finally Killock is calling for citizens to write to their MPs to support Tom Watson’s cross-party Early Day Motion on file sharing, which was featured here last week on TorrentFreak.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Considering the aggressiveness shown by some elements of the aforementioned groups – who would have infringers permanently kicked off the Internet if they could have their way – it is very rare indeed for influential people traditionally placed in the pro-copyright camp to make statements that are in harmony with their supposed opposition. Tomorrow, therefore, should prove a very interesting day.

After moving on from her position as Vice President of Digital Content for BBC Worldwide, Alice Taylor became Commissioning Editor for Education at the UK’s Channel 4. She is also the significant other of copyfighter, journalist, sci-fi writer and Boing Boing editor, Cory Doctorow.

Taylor will publish an essay tomorrow, commissioned by Perspectives, a government-funded website created to engage with Scotland’s creative industries. If the taster published today is anything to go by, it should prove explosive.

The Digital Britain report along with proposals for disconnecting Internet users for copyright infringements is quite the hot topic at the moment, but Taylor isn’t having any of it, and is scathing of those pushing for such action.

“We must not let these dying behemoths take away someone’s internet access – and connection to the world – for some accusatory, unprovable ‘piracy’ claim, ever,” she will write, probably accompanied by the unified rapturous applause of the entire online community.

Taylor will also take on Feargal Sharkey’s UK Music, calling them “copyright maximalists” and criticizing them for asking consumers to “respect copyright.”

In a further display of downright common sense, Taylor notes that piracy is “simply demand where supply does not exist,” and that the use of “pointless protection mechanisms” simply “restricts a person’s ability, as a creator, to be discovered.”

It’s been said a million times before, but the entertainment industries simply must find a way to compete with free. Services like Spotify are a step in the right direction, but their over-protective structures have the turning circle of a supertanker and unfortunately for them, something needs to be done right now. That “something” is not new legislation either.

With pragmatic individuals like Alice Taylor speaking up for common sense and telling it how it is without all the usual corporate waffle, hopefully we can get there sooner rather than later.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

One major site having serious technical issues at the moment is Demonoid. At the beginning of September, TorrrentFreak reported that the Ukranian-based site would go down for possibly-extended downtime due to some hardware problems.

“We are experiencing power outages that have caused some ram and hard drive issues,” site staff sad in a statement. “We might have to shut down everything to fix and prevent further damage,” they added, while warning that the site could disappear for days while the site’s power circuit received maintenance.

Since we receive questions daily from worried users on the situation at Demonoid, an update seems in order. Unfortunately, at this stage it doesn’t seem like good news.

Although staff at the site say they hope Demonoid will return as soon as possible, they have confirmed that the hardware issues have caused severe data loss. This problem is compounded by the fact that the person who can get the data back is unavailable to assist at the moment.

“A loss of a some months worth of activity including registered users and torrent submissions is to be expected because the backup we are hoping to get back is not up to date, so please be prepared for it,” Demonoid staff said in a statement.

When ‘the backup guy’ has worked his magic the site will return. In the meantime, anyone getting public BitTorrent site withdrawal symptoms can check out our alternatives list.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In 2002 he launched TuckerMax.com, a site where millions read about his real-life drunken and sexual antics, including one article about his earlier relationship with Katy Johnson, Miss Vermont 1999, which led to a lawsuit which fortunately for him, was later withdrawn.

Of course, Tucker Max had plenty more outrageous alcohol-fueled exploits to blog about, in fact so much so that in 2006 he released his book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell which became a NY Times Bestseller in the same year.

Tomorrow, Max will bring his unique blend of entertainment to the big screen with the movie release of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. It will be a ‘limited’ release, which means that initially the movie will be available on a small number of screens then increasing as (hopefully) the movie grows in popularity.

However, at the moment the movie will only be available in the US, and initially only in Chicago. A Canadian release will take place in two weeks, which Max described as “stupid” while stressing that he has zero control over foreign distribution, “In ANY country.”

So what if you’d like to see the movie and it’s not available in your country?

Pirate it on the Internet.

“If you live outside the US and are desperate to see the movie and can’t find the release date in your country, then just pirate the movie and watch it online. I am serious. I have no issue with that,” says Max on the movie’s website. He also says the way to market a great movie is through word of mouth.

“Put it in front of people, let them see it, and have them tell their friends how much they liked it. That’s why we did the premiere tour. There is no better way to market quality, and by starting with a smaller release, it allows word of mouth to build and develop. This strategy has worked great with movies like ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ and ‘Juno’,” says Max.

Of course, there’s no reason why the same can’t be true with BitTorrent. But there are plenty of other movies around, why watch this one?

“Go see this movie,” says Max. “At the very least, you will laugh a lot and you will definitely see the most epic shit scene in movie history.”

I’m there.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

These are the words of singer songwriter James Blunt in The Times today, in response to the opinions of Lily Allen published and republished a thousand times last week. Allen had taken a swipe at Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien and Nick Mason, the Pink Floyd drummer, after they came out and said that file-sharing is beneficial for artists.

Both O’Brien and Mason are members of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which opposes plans by Peter Mandelson to disconnect persistent file-sharers, but they are becoming quite a problem for the rest of the industry.

The major labels, who hold the opposite opinion on the issue of unauthorized downloading, have been in intensive talks with FAC over the last week, trying to reach some sort of consensus on the way ahead. Somehow the music industry needs to show a united front to the government, but at the moment that seems very unlikely. Yesterday FAC said that so far they have failed to find a way forward with the rest of the industry.

“[The] power to demand suspensions of accounts is only achievable through a wide-scale invasion of personal privacy which we believe would result in a dangerous reduction in the rights to protection of the individual. Putting this power in place would reduce the civil liberties of every one of us in the country in order to afford a disincentive threat to a small minority of ‘egregious offenders’. We believe this would be both disproportionate and unenforceable,” said FAC in a statement.

FAC said that while it negotiated with the labels all last week, they cannot be moved from their insistence that file-sharers should be disconnected from the Internet. FAC says it is steadfast in its opposition to this route.

In an attempt to soften their edges and appear less aggressive, UK Music, yet another music industry umbrella organization, has removed the actual word “disconnection” from its press releases and statements. However, even a cursory glance at their current wording shows that this omission is purely cosmetic, instead stating: “…..Ofcom should be granted appropriate and proportionate powers as directed by the secretary of state.” Of course, Ofcom are the people that are being proposed to have the power to disconnect file-sharers.

So as FAC and the British public stand on one side, Peter Mandelson, the record labels and the likes of Lily Allen and now James Blunt stand on the other.

“At long last the Government is looking to legislate to protect the industry,” writes Blunt, while completely forgetting that the UK has some perfectly good copyright laws to deal with, surprisingly, copyright infringement.

“Peter Mandelson is looking to engage the internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility,” Blunt continues, while forgetting that as a carrier, under the law ISPs have no responsibility for the traffic they carry or the actions of their subscribers.

“How this legislation pans out, and if it goes through at all, is critical to the survival of the British music business; critical to thousands of jobs; and critical to our ability to nurture and develop great musicians and the songs and albums that we would hope to listen to in the future,” Blunt concludes.

Bringing in draconian laws to scare the public into buying music is not the answer. Taking away people’s Internet is definitely not the solution. The labels need to realize this and instead provide some high quality all-you-can-eat music services at a price that everyone can afford.

And as UK ISP Virgin Media sends its message to the government that a “heavy-handed, punitive regime will simply alienate consumers” and that “persuasion not coercion” is the key to solving this illicit file-sharing ‘problem’, I’ll end with a few lines from martial artist and best-selling author Geoff Thompson’s book Watch My Back, as he writes about a gang trying to impose their will on others;

This crew had gained respect in the city, but it was respect born through fear; stolen not given. Respect is worthless unless it’s earned. Any half-wit can point a loaded gun and demand respect but it brings hate with it. Real respect encourages co-operation and understanding

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Those uncertainties seemed to fade a little recently when the company’s shareholders agreed on the deal two weeks ago. However, some of the shareholders decided to pay the money needed to make the sale from their own pockets after several investors walked away, and thus far nothing has been paid.

Because the company failed to provide evidence that the funds were in place, trading in GGF stock was stopped by equity marketplace ‘Aktietorget’ in August, which caused a problem with the acquisition since half of the payment for The Pirate Bay is set to be made in shares.

GGF CEO Hans Pandeya said at the time he was confident that trading would resume soon since it was all one big misunderstanding. However, today news broke indicating it won’t resume, as Aktietorget has decided to kick GGF off the Swedish stock market.

“The alleged infringements have been serious. They give a systematic impression of a lack of accountability and of an almost casual and unsuspecting approach to the disclosure requirements,” AktieTorget commented on their decision to remove the company from the stock exchange.

“The Aktietorget board regrets that the company has misled the market through its lack of disclosure, which prompted a number of investors to do business they probably would not have done if they were properly informed,” they add.

Without shares to trade the company suddenly has to raise twice as much money, which seems to be an impossible task without any outside investors and with the company’s CEO in personal financial trouble. All this makes the sale of The Pirate Bay yet more uncertain.

GGF CEO Hans Pandeya was not available for comment and representatives of The Pirate Bay could not be reached. If we receive a response from either of them we will update the article accordingly.

Update: Pandeya responded to the news and says the deal is still on.

“GGFs managed to get enough investors to pay the entire amount in cash, i.e. 60m Swedish kroner and the seller faxed confirmation of acceptance to Aktietorget. We even had a clause that if investors dropped out, I would put the balance and if I could not, I have pledged my GGF shares as security. The transaction is guaranteed, It cannot be stopped,” Pandeya explained.

“I liked the stunt with the MC, car and boat. Gives the impression I am broke. Well, I provided security worth three times the amount to the debt agency – and they agreed. However, they were keen to take the stuff that makes spectacular pics to entertaining stories and stole my boat after our agreement,” he added.

“we will be closing the deal within the next two weeks,” Pandeya concluded.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

A tow truck took away Pandeya’s car, which we can now reveal was a rather nice BMW 745iA, and his Harley Davidson. The tax authorities valued the car at 150,000 kronor ($20,800) and the motorcycle at 40,000 kronor ($5,550) so his tax debt still wasn’t cleared, not by a long way.

The bailiffs needed to find more funds but it was reported in the Swedish media that they were unable to find any bank accounts. But the trail didn’t go cold.

Following an anonymous tip-off, bailiffs homed in on the Royal Motorboat Club in Stockholm and there they found it – not a torrent galleon with cannons either side, a huge sail and overflowing with pirates, but Hans Pandeya’s luxury boat.

According to the bayliffs who spoke with Realtid.se, unless Pandeya comes up with the money, the authorities will sell the cruiser at auction within the next two months. At the moment they say it’s worth around 450,000 kronor ($62,400), although that figure could be revised. Have a look round, you might like to offer more;

That still leaves a 142,000 kronor tax debt, so who knows what the authorities will seize next.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Just a few short months ago, Ernesto and I were toiling for hours and hours every day, neglecting our regular jobs (yes, we’re only part-timers on TorrentFreak and FreakBits) to ensure that our readers had every conceivable detail of the Spectrial, every nugget of information from every source we could find.

No translation was too much trouble, no mountain of RSS too time consuming and no live feed in a foreign language too daunting to decrypt, in order for us to bring the facts of this important case to the world.

On the whole, people were happy that we did so. But things have changed.

The outcome of the Spectrial was open – the defendants could’ve walked away free men, or, as we were all soon to learn, be punished far beyond what any of us expected. Nevertheless, throughout there was hope for a victory – a triumph for the file-sharing masses, a beacon of encouragement for the millions of BitTorrent users.

Because of these hopes and optimism, no-one minded the wall to wall blanket coverage and few complained that every movement of the trial was relayed in high detail.

But now I sense that even amongst the faithful, the hope has gone. People are resigned to the likely reality that rather than the proposed purchase by Global Gaming Factory signaling a new dawn for the site, it really signals the end of The Pirate Bay. Why would anyone from the community enthusiastically read about that?

Rather than being greeted as the savior of the world’s largest tracker, GGF are increasingly seen as an irrelevance. If you believe all the hype, they will soon buy and “legalize” the site, part the oceans, turn lead into gold, feed the users and the music and movie industries, and line their shareholders’ pockets, all with the BitTorrent equivalent of five loaves and two fishes.

Unfortunately for GGF, on the whole the BitTorrent community either doesn’t believe them or in increasingly large numbers, simply couldn’t give a damn.

Whatever GGF does with The Pirate Bay is open to speculation (god, please, no more you say…) but let’s face it – it aint gonna be The Pirate Bay that we know any longer. If anything it will be a largely unrecognizable site whose owners are in bed with the entertainment industries – the very people that have been trying to kill the site for all these years. The same opposition that, on the whole, has united the masses in support for The Pirate Bay.

No longer will people be able to go to the GGF Bay to download yesterday’s TV show or the latest cam of a Hollywood movie. No more will people be able to download the frankly mind-boggling array of other media indexed by the world’s largest tracker or just about any song they fancy – i’ll stake my (ever dwindling) pension on it. Things will have to change, drastically, and that’s the last thing the current users want.

And this is why I believe people have lost interest. Whatever GGF have up their wizard’s sleeve and no matter the magic promised to spurt forth from Hans Pandeya’s wand after the 27th, we aren’t talking about The Pirate Bay any more, merely its domain name. We certainly aren’t talking about The Pirate Bay mentality and definitely not its spirit.

No Gottfrid, no Fredrik, no Peter. No fun publicity stunts.

No flipping the bird to the **AAs – everyone has to be on their best behavior now. Forget anarchy – stand in line nicely and do as you’re told, a lot of money rests on the success of this project and there must be order for the shareholders. Things have to make financial sense now, with all the fun that entails.

The only thing that will remain are the legal threats, and I can’t imagine GGF handling those in the traditional Pirate Bay way – can you?

But yesterday, when I started writing this little opinion piece, something happened. Yet another Pirate Bay story broke – the Swedish authorities had effectively shut down the site. And guess what? Interest in The Pirate Bay peaked again, many of the reader comments expressed those familiar warm feelings towards the site and indeed, towards news about the site.

Momentarily the proposed sale to GGF was forgotten, with the majority of onlookers as enthusiastic as ever. Once again there was unity. But sadly, it’s unlikely to last, because its highly probable that the next piece we write about The Pirate Bay will be about the sale and as explained, most people don’t want to know about it.

So, when the inevitable happens and, as TorrentFreak, we have little choice but to grit our teeth and cover what is happening with the sale, spare a thought for us. We read dozens of these articles every day so that you don’t have to.

Normal service will be resumed around here as soon as possible – just don’t expect anything like normality if GGF acquires The Pirate Bay.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

At the moment it is only possible to discover the identities of alleged file-sharers through legal action or via the police, therefore implementing the system would require amendments to Finland’s data protection laws.

As reported on our sister-site FreakBits, Finland’s brand new Pirate Party was officially registered this week, so we took the opportunity to catch up with party spokesman Kaj Sotala for his thoughts on these proposals.

Kaj told us that the original memo (.pdf, Finnish) actually constitutes a blow against the copyright lobby.

“In the introduction/summary, it is stated that the currently existing legislation is sufficient, and already makes it possible to act against unauthorized file-sharing. While they do suggest a new procedure, whereby ISPs would begin issuing warnings to people participating in file-sharing, they are not certain if this is actually necessary. They emphasize that anything along those lines would require careful consideration as well as a balancing between the interests of copyright, privacy, and secrecy of correspondence,” he explained.

Like most countries, Finland currently has plenty of legislation which rights holders can call upon in the case of copyright disputes and, if they approach the court with evidence of breaches of a “considerable degree”, they can get an order for ISPs to hand over the alleged infringer’s identity.

Rights holders then have several options – offer up charges, settle out of court (pay up or else) or report the alleged offenses to the police. If the rights owner goes down the civil route, the court can threaten to fine an individual if he fails to stop his activity.

“The court may also order the defendant’s ISP to block the sharing of the illicit material, by whatever means the ISP finds appropriate,” Kaj explains. “This usually requires that the defendant has failed to obey a request to stop sharing, but can also be done immediately and without hearing the defendant, if the court deems that severe economic damage will result otherwise.”

If the rights holder goes down the criminal route, it is up to the police to decide if the offenses are serious enough to pursue. If they are, the police can order an ISP to hand over customer details. The potential for punishment under current laws could be a fine or a jail sentence of up to two years.

“There is also a DMCA-like procedure by which the rights holder can request a website host to take down infringing content. However, it’s more restricted than the DMCA, as the rights holder is required to first contact the person who put up the content and request him to voluntarily take it down. The website host can only be contacted if the infringer does not comply, or if they cannot be identified,” Kaj told TorrentFreak.

In 2008, rights holders made use of current legislation by successfully persuading courts to force ISPs to hand over the personal information of fifty alleged file-sharers. The memo indicated that more strict measures aren’t really necessary as the current ones are sufficient, although Kaj explained that there was an emphasis to follow developments closely.

The suggestion that warnings could be flashed up on the screens of alleged file-sharers is considered to be a milder alternative to legal action, and Kaj explained to us how it might work.

First off the rights holder would send a warning to the ISP, which it would then pass to the alleged infringer, but already there is a problem – there would be a need for changes in the law to operate such a system.

“Currently existing laws concerning secrecy of correspondence do not allow an ISP to connect messages sent over their networks with individual users for this purpose,” Kaj explained.

According to the proposal, rights holders would be required to pay for the system – Kaj told TorrentFreak that it is hoped that this would help reduce the number of frivolous warnings and notes that the memo speculates that this “could be combined into a gradual process, where file-sharers are initially warned to cease sharing, and only brought to court if they fail to adhere to the warnings.”

The memo concludes by noting no changes to the current system are needed at this time, saying it is premature to consider such a warning system, or any changes in the law to accommodate it.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

For now the verdict has been put on hold by BREIN, allowing the three defendants to appeal. Nevertheless, because of the legal issues between the two parties, an encounter between the head of BREIN, Tim Kuik and Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm that took place at Hacking at Random (HAR) this Friday was a rather interesting one.

Tim Kuik participated in a panel discussion on copyright laws and the future of media distribution at HAR, and halfway through he was standing face to face with Gottfrid Svartholm, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay. Svartholm, who had been following the discussion in the audience, took the opportunity to confront Kuik with some of the allegations he made.

Svartholm started by asking if BREIN actually has any evidence that The Pirate Bay is making ‘a lot’ of money from distributing copyrighted works, as they claim. “Can you please tell me where that profit is, because i’d like some of it,” he asked, which resulted in applause and cheers from the audience.

“You tell me, you’re here, somebody paid for your trip,” Kuik quickly replied in an attempt to turn things around, implying that Svartholm must have used Pirate Bay revenue to make his way over to The Netherlands.

Svartholm, who currently works as a software programmer in Asia where he earns his living, then replied, “I paid for this trip by developing computer software for my customers,” which was again followed by applause from the audience.

Kuik found his argument crushed so reverted back to the earlier question about profits. “Everybody knows, including yourself, that you’re selling advertising space on your website, and people pay you for that,” he said.

Kuik went on to say that a Swedish investigative journalist found that The Pirate Bay made hundreds of thousands of kroner every year. To some this may sound like an impressive figure, but 300,000 kroner ($40,000) may not even be enough to cover the hardware and bandwidth costs, so it doesn’t prove that there’s any profit.

From Kuik’s responses it seems that BREIN has no evidence at all that The Pirate Bay is as profitable as they claim it is, so Svartholm went on to ask Kuik about the defamation lawsuit that the former Pirate Bay founders started against him and his organization.

The head of BREIN is being sued by TPB in Sweden for defamation, after Kuik claimed that the Pirate Bay founders were responsible for an alleged DDoS attack on BREIN’s website. In Sweden, Kuik is now facing up to two years in prison, and Svartholm wanted to know if he plans to show up.

In his reply, Kuik denied that he ever attributed the DDoS attacks to the people behind the Pirate Bay, but he said that it was a coincidence that their website was hit right after the case against TPB was announced to the press. Svartholm of course questioned Kuik’s denial, but he never saw his original question answered.

In the end, Kuik never answered any of the questions posed by Svartholm, but the face to face standoff between two people at the extreme ends of the copyright debate was an interesting one nonetheless. After the panel discussion, Tim Kuik and Gottfrid Svartholm set their differences aside for a brief moment, as they posed for the cameras.

The video of the HAR panel discussion is available in OGG and on Vimeo (Gottfrid at 30:20).

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.