Even though the sale never went through, OpenBitTorrent has proved its worth recently, since the Pirate Bay tracker had been struggling to stay online. That particular battle formally ended yesterday, with the announcement it had shut down for good.

Unlike most BitTorrent trackers, OpenBitTorrent is not linked to a torrent site where users can download or search for torrents. Indeed, its involvement in the process is very much limited. The tracker is merely assisting in connecting peers with each other based on a hash value, without having any control over, or knowledge of what is being tracked. It also operates a clear DMCA-style takedown policy.

Despite this setup, the Hollywood movie studios have made the decision to try and shut it down by taking the tracker’s hosting company, Portlane, to court.

“OpenBitTorrent is used for file sharing, and we suspect that it is the Pirate Bay tracker with a new name. It is added by default on all of the torrent tracker files on Pirate Bay,” Hollywood lawyer Monique Wadsted said in a comment. She further noted that the domain of the tracker was originally registered by Fredrik Neij, one of the Pirate Bay founders.

For Portlane, this is not its first experience of a copyright holder demanding the takedown of a BitTorrent site it hosts. Earlier this year, the IFPI asked Portlane to close several BitTorrent sites, which they refused to do. This time around Portlane is not going to comply without a fight either, citing freedom of expression and freedom of information as their defense.

It is indeed questionable if OpenBitTorrent can be held responsible for any copyright infringements that may take place on BitTorrent. Aside from the alleged connection to The Pirate Bay, the site’s assistance in the downloading process is not greater than that of BitTorrent outfits Vuze and uTorrent. Indeed, it could be considered to be less.

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

Without any legal basis, Telenor refused to comply.

“This would be the same as demanding that the postal service should open all letters, and decide which ones should be delivered,” said Telenor boss Ragnar Kårhus.

The verdict in the case was due to be delivered October 30th, but was delayed until today.

IFPI has lost the case and Telenor will not have to block The Pirate Bay.

The court ruled that Telenor is not contributing to any infringements of copyright law when its subscribers use The Pirate Bay, and therefore there is no legal basis for forcing the ISP to block access to the site.

“Obviously we are pleased that the District Court has arrived at this conclusion,” said Telenor’s Ragnar Kårhus in a statement.

“At the same time it is important for us to emphasize that this case is not about being in favor of or opposed to copyright, but about whether or not it is reasonable to saddle Internet service providers with a censorship role in respect of content on the Internet,” he added.

Kårhus went on to say that the most important way for IFPI and other rights holders to maintain healthy revenue streams, is to develop business models and services that render the use of sites like The Pirate Bay less attractive to Internet users.

In making its decision, the court also had to examine the repercussions if it ruled that Telenor and other ISPs had to block access to certain websites. This, it said, is usually the responsibility of the authorities and handing this task to private companies would be “unnatural”.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

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

Without any legal basis it would be unacceptable for the ISP to comply, so it was left with no option but to refuse.

“This would be the same as demanding that the postal service should open all letters, and decide which ones should be delivered,” said Telenor’s Ragnar Kårhus.

IFPI, rarely one to make hollow threats, especially where lawsuits are concerned, made good on its word and sued Telenor.

The then-Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde felt that the lawsuit was an indication that IFPI was unhappy with the competition.

“They have had a monopoly on distribution and we’re breaking that monopoly, and in turn they sue people that allow access to our distribution method,” Sunde told TorrentFreak at the time.

The trial began on October 12th in Norway and for its part, Telenor argued that Norwegian law protects Internet service providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers. IFPI feels that the site is illegal and should therefore be blocked.

The verdict in the case was due to be delivered today, but there will be a delay.

According to Telenor’s Information Manager Atle Lessum, the judge has announced that due to illness the result will now be handed down next week.

The Pirate Bay is no stranger to blockades. From September 1st, an out of court settlement between Irish ISP Eircom and IFPI came into effect, which blocked customer access to the ‘Bay. Similar blocks are pending in Italy and The Netherlands.

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

One major site that has showed an acute aversion to saying just about anything to outsiders is Demonoid. This semi-private site has nevertheless made the news dozens of times, most recently due to its recent downtime, as reported here on TorrentFreak.

“We are experiencing power outages that have caused some ram and hard drive issues. We might have to shut down everything to fix and prevent further damage,” said Demonoid in a statement six weeks ago, warning that downtime could run to “…days maybe, until we can change the power circuit.”

However, TorrentFreak has received possibly conflicting information from Demonoid’s host, Colocall in Ukraine, who said in a statement: “There were no problems with power supply at the location where Demonoid servers are hosted.”

While information about Demonoid is always scarce, information coming out of Colocall is a rarity too, since the company has previously refused to speak with journalists about their most infamous customer. That’s why it was of great interest when Ukrainian blogger Pavel Golubovskiy contacted TorrentFreak to say he had netted an interview with Colocall. Here is a translation of the questions related to Demonoid;

Why did you choose to host Demonoid?

The customer came to us and ordered a particular service. For us it wasn’t a political decision, Demonoid is an ordinary client for us.

What exactly do you host, the inferno.demonoid.com tracker?

They brought their servers, which are now located in our data center. We don’t know what information is stored there – we do not have access to this information. These servers are supported remotely by Demonoid technical staff.

Is there a way to contact the Demonoid admins?

They will not answer you. Many people want to contact them – journalists, fans, police, local authorities from different countries. But the Demonoid admins have a very selective approach to e-mail correspondence. When the police wanted to contact them, I specifically warned the admins that they had to respond to this request.

So the police already inquired about Demonoid?

Well, our local authorities are interested in Demonoid all the time. Rightholders associations are constantly trying to put pressure on us, including pressure with the help of Ukrainian authorities. We redirect them to the admins, but do not interfere or try to negotiate.

Are they putting any serious pressure on you?

It sounds strange, but Ukraine is still a jural state. Therefore IFPI’s personal opinion is just that, their personal opinion, despite the fact that the budgets of the IFPI participants are comparable to the budget of the Ukraine.

Aren’t you afraid that there can be a similar situation with Demonoid’s servers as there was with Infostore.org site? [famous Ukrainian file-sharing site, its servers were confiscated by police about a year ago]

As a hosting-provider we take such risks into account. This can happen not only with Demonoid, but with any client. We do not control what information is stored on servers, anybody can buy our hosting service.

Anti-pirates and the media-lobby are now trying to shift all the responsibility for file-sharing onto Internet providers, so that providers will have to monitor user activities. Will this affect hosting providers too?

We have such laws in draft in our parliament periodically. But the Ukrainian law “On communication” is clear about this: providers are not responsible for what their customers do. And the fact that rights holders want to change that is their personal opinion, they are not legislative bodies. Let them buy a parliament member and lobby for such law, then we will observe this law. But until then they are nobody to us, and we are nobody for them too.

About a month ago Demonoid reported technical problems. Due to those problems all data for the last several months has vanished. In an attempt to recover from these problems the site went offline. Do you know what happened?

Some time ago several of their hard-drives crashed. But that was several months ago and we don’t know what was the reason of recent problems.

According to their admins, the man who can restore the tracker is not available. Are they speaking about some Colocall programmer?

No, all the technical support of servers is performed remotely. They aren’t speaking about one of our specialists.

Torrentfreak wrote about the president of Lithuanian antipirates, who demanded the closure of access to Demonoid. He said that it is very hard to even make contact with you. Have you spoken with him?

Yes, someone called us. We just could not speak with him: from the start of the conversation he immediately began to threaten us, he was absolutely non-constructive. We sent him to the court and have said that if he brings the court’s decision, we will be happy to execute it, because we observe all Ukrainian laws. Until then we are not going to speak with him.

Access to Demonoid is blocked for several countries including Ukraine. Is this your initiative or the tracker’s decision?

It is the tracker’s policy, not our initiative. I think this is due to DDoS-attacks.

Are there any DDoS-attacks aiming at Demonoid?

Yes, there are many large and serious DDoS-attacks. But they are always the problem of every hosting provider. We have learned how to neutralize them, so such attacks have almost no effect on Demonoid’s operations. And, incidentally, Demonoid isn’t the only site to be attacked: during the last election we hosted the server of the central election commission committee, it was constantly under DDoS-attacks.

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

Now Di.se reports that music group IFPI has completed new research which it says reveals the extent of file-sharing penetration in this Scandinavian country of 9.2 million citizens.

The IFPI survey claims that some 40 percent of Swedes aged between 15 and 74 engage in illicit file-sharing every day, a statistic which IFPI chairman Louis Werner says is “a very high figure” but one which does not surprise him.

The 40 percent of this group equates to around 2.8 million people. The figure would be even higher, says IFPI, if it had also counted the under 15 year olds who regularly share files.

The higher-than-expected results are being put down to the method employed by IFPI to collect the data. It says that traditionally such surveys are carried out using the telephone, but this time the data was gathered via the web.

The results come nowhere near those revealed by the earlier research carried out by SIFO on behalf of TV operator Viasat – their conclusion was that only 11% of Swedes download copyright works using the Internet.

Currently Sweden had around 7.3 million Internet users in a population of over 9.2 million, a penetration of around 81%.

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

The ISP had little choice but to comply or face large fines, but TPB was quick to react and quickly partnered with a new host.

That short honeymoon was quickly over.

“It took just 20 minutes before the Hollywood companies telephoned the new host who took over operation of The Pirate Bay,” commented Patrik from the ISP which had been indirectly supplying bandwidth to TPB.

Despite initially putting on a brave face and standing strong, Patrik’s company continued to feel the heat. It is not a large outfit and doesn’t have the resources to fight the entertainment industry and its threats.

Last night, Patrik could hold off no longer after receiving mounting threats from the entertainment industries, which culminated in threats of a court summons. Having come this far, there is little doubt that IFPI and the MPAA would litigate if necessary.

“I was threatened by the movie and music companies,” Patrik said today. He had no choice but to stop servicing TPB. His company cut off the site’s bandwidth last night but The Pirate Bay is fully operational, so they must’ve found another host. It’s likely that they already had one prepared.

With Sweden seemingly out of bounds, the site needed to move overseas. The Netherlands is not really an option anymore and the same goes for most of Western Europe – the solution lies in the east.

On the heels of several rumors today, Patrik said he could confirm news of the move, saying that he believes The Pirate Bay is now hosted in Ukraine.

There have been signs that this Eastern European nation is becoming an attractive location for torrent site hosting, with several large sites and services showing interest.

However, as illustrated by the on-going problems at Demonoid, TorrentFreak is told that the reliability can leave a lot to be desired, with sites having to take measures to ensure that when their Ukrainian hosting becomes unavailable, backup resources kick in.

The standard of Pirate Bay’s new home (if it is indeed in Ukraine) isn’t likely to reflect the comparative luxury of Sweden, but that door seems to be all but closed now. Whether the site stays in Ukraine is another question, but that aside, a simple one remains;

Would you host The Pirate Bay in Sweden? The answer will likely match the response to “Do you like lawsuits?”

Maybe the Swedish government’s nightmare is finally over.

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

Last week music industry body IFPI requested Niemelä to be taken off the case, since he is connected to the music streaming application Spotify which is partly owned by the major record labels. This request was soon backed by movie industry lawyer Monique Wadsted. “There should not be any doubt in this case,” she said in a response.

The Court today agreed with this assessment and disqualified Niemelä because he holds stock options in Spotify. This despite the fact that Niemelä himself denied a conflict of interest. The decision by the Appeal Court is unanimous and can not be appealed.

The question remains why the music industry was so eager to have this lay judge removed, since they usually keep quiet when the person in question supports their case. However, as we’ve pointed out before, there could be more to this lay judge issue than initially meets the eye.

Niemelä’s involvement with Spotify was limited to the technical side. In fact, he is a tech savvy programmer who co-owns a streaming technology patent along with the original developer of uTorrent and knows the ins and outs of BitTorrent.

Instead of having a bias towards the music industry, as IFPI wanted the Appeal Court to believe, he might actually be one of the rare candidates who knows how BitTorrent really works. Judging from the plaintiff’s discrediting of other tech experts in the previous trial, it might be that IFPI’s true motivation to remove Niemelä was not that humble.

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

A few weeks ago the Court announced that it has two weeks set aside for the Pirate Bay appeal, starting in November. The appeal will be handled by three judges, and according to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, two of them could be susceptible to bias.

“It is profoundly inappropriate that even in the court of appeal we have judges who are or have been members of organizations closely related to the copyright industry,” Samuelson wrote, objecting to the appointment of two of the three judges.

The appeal will be handled by judge Ulrika Ihrfelt who was previously removed from the bias investigation of Pirate Bay judge Tomas Norström, because she was linked to pro-copyright groups herself. Now she is facing the same allegations together with judge Christina Boutz.

Ihrfelt has been a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU) and Boutz is a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

It is doubtful whether the objection will have an effect. After the initial trial Pirate Bay judge Tomas Norström’s objectivity was called into doubt by the defense lawyers because of his ties to national and international pro-copyright lobby groups, but the Appeal Court later ruled that this had not influenced the verdict.

Earlier this week we reported that one of the planned lay judges in the appeal could also be disqualified from participation, since he is an employee of Swedish music outfit Spotify – a company partly owned by the plaintiffs. However, there could be more to this lay judge issue than initially meets the eye.

TorrentFreak has been informed that the man in question is a bright programmer who co-owns a streaming technology patent along with the original developer of uTorrent, so there can be little doubt that he is somewhat of a BitTorrent expert. So far the defendants haven’t objected to him but there is speculation in Sweden that IFPI could be more afraid of this lay judge than their opposition is, partly since his background is at a technical university where support for Pirate Party values is strong.

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

On April 1st the new law became active and immediately there was a dramatic drop in Internet traffic, which many observers put down to file-sharers retreating based on a fear of becoming identified.

Indeed, Henrik Pontén from Antipiratbyrån – the Swedish anti-piracy office – said he was convinced. “The majority of all Internet traffic is file-sharing. Because of that, there’s no other explanation for the decrease in traffic than the IPRED law,” he stated.

Then at the end of April, two ISPs – Bahnhof and Tele2 – both announced they would stop logging Internet activity which would seriously hamper the effects of IPRED on their customers.

But despite the massive opposition to the legislation, despite the fear, the huge drop in Internet traffic, the action of ISPs to limit its effects (and The Pirate Bay team releasing iPredator to neutralize it), so far in the battle against music file-sharers, IPRED is a sleeping beast.

Although the music industry promised to use IPRED to go after pirates, it has been a full 6 months since the legislation was introduced and so far, not a single complaint has been made against a file-sharer.

So does this mean that the feared music industry onslaught against P2P users will amount to nothing? Unfortunately, almost certainly not – they are sitting patiently for the wheels to turn in another case.

Previously five book publishers handed a request to a local court demanding information about the owner of an FTP-server where audio books were stored. Although it was a private FTP and the books couldn’t have been made available to the public, the court ordered the ISP Ephone to hand over the personal details of the individual behind the IP-address. Ephone refused, with their CEO describing the evidence submitted as insufficient. The case is under appeal.

Yesterday IFPI chief executive Lars Gustafsson told DN.se that they are simply biding their time to see the outcome of this earlier IPRED action by the publishing industry before going after music sharers, and offered assurances that IFPI cases will come in the fall.

Although there will probably not be the one hundred case promised earlier, Gustafsson still refused to be pinned down on the exact number, instead promising that the complaints will be issued “on a broad front.”

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

However, despite the fact that the site is set to be sold later this week, the Pirate Bay team worked around the clock to serve their users in these final hours.

A mere three hours after it went offline the site reappeared from a different location, but because of technical issues at the new ISP a full comeback took almost a day. The site is back online and the tracker is expected to follow soon.

The Pirate Bay team has always anticipated an unwanted disconnection of the site. After their servers were raided in 2006 several measures were taken to ensure that the site could simply come back online from a new location in a few hours, and this is the first time that this backup plan had been executed.

With its reemergence the people behind the site hope to show the authorities and the entertainment industry that the war is not over just yet. Perhaps it’s only the beginning of a battle on a different front. The future will tell.

A few minutes ago, the Pirate Bay team released the following statement, adapted from Churchill’s famous “We Shall Fight On the Beaches” speech. Make of it what you will.

We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the /. and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Signed;

The Pirate Bay Crew – Now until needed.

Update: Users of the anti-virus program Avast report that TPB has been blacklisted as a malicious site after the site returned.

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

Thus far, they have booked minor successes in Denmark and The Netherlands. But they show no sign of stopping and now they are moving on to Irish and Norwegian ISPs.

This week the music industry sent an email to several Internet providers in Ireland, asking the companies to block their users’ access to The Pirate Bay or face legal action. In a response to this request, Eircom said it would agree and the ISP will block customers access to the Pirate Bay starting September 1st.

Thus far Eircom is the only ISP that has caved in to the threatening letter. UPC and BT Ireland – two other local ISPs – explicitly denied the request from the music industry and said they would rather fight the issue out in court.

“UPC has informed the rights holders that there is no basis under Irish law requiring an ISP to block access to certain websites and that it will not agree to a request that goes beyond what is currently provided for under Irish law,” UPC said in a statement.

“Should the rights holders proceed with their threat of legal action if UPC fails to block access to Pirate Bay, UPC has every intention of vigorously defending its position in Court,” they add. BT Ireland sides with UPC and said that there is no legal basis for the request to block The Pirate Bay.

Eircom’s decision to agree to the demands from the music industry doesn’t come as a big surprise. Earlier this year they already reached an agreement in which they promised to warn alleged pirates, and disconnect those who are caught repeatedly.

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

Details of the arrangement have been fairly limited but now an apparently leaked document gives a unique insight into the private deal put into place to allow Eircom to avoid further expensive legal action at the hands of the music industry.

The document passed to TorrentFreak, titled ‘Briefing Note on Arrangement Between Eircom and Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) with regard to Copyright Infringement March 2009′ begins by giving some background to the deal and why it was implemented.

Listing ‘Key Points of the Draft Protocol’ the document promises that Eircom will not monitor its customer activities or install equipment to achieve the same, and will not provide any customer details to any 3rd party “including the record companies” while adhering closely to laws concerning data protection.

The Evidence

The document explains that IRMA will supply Eircom with IP addresses and evidence to prove infringements. The document specifically lists not just uploading infringements on peer to peer networks but strangely, downloading too. Quite how downloading will be proven will remain to be seen.

Under the agreement, IRMA will supply the following information in their infringement notifications:

1. Details of copyright holder (name and address)
2. Why the notification is being sent (i.e. setting out the breach of copyright)
3. Details of the actual copyright work infringed (artist, song, title and album title)
4. The IP address along with a time stamp to show when the investigation was initiated
5. A time stamp to indicate when the investigation was completed
6. Details of the P2P application used by the alleged infringer
7. The hash value of the infringed copyright work

The document says that the information provided by the record companies “will be of the same type as that used in the three previous disclosure actions in the Irish High Court involving the parties,” noting that Eircom will not act on a notification which does not carry the information listed above.

Additionally, Eircom has requested that IRMA provides independent certification to show that notifications have been lawfully obtained, including “reputable annual independent certification that the necessary legal, I.T., entity level and regulatory controls relating to the obtaining, generating and processing of data by Dtecnet [the anti-piracy tracking company tasked with monitoring infringers] (or any other supplier engaged by the record companies) have been complied with.”

Handling the ‘Graduated Response’

On the first strike, Eircom will inform its customer there has been an accusation of copyright infringement. On the second accusation the customer is warned that he risks being disconnected if there are further allegations. The final step is detailed in the document as follows;

On a third occasion of being detected as infringing copyright, and having reviewed the position, the subscriber will be served by Eircom with a termination notice and, subject to extenuating circumstances arising, will be disconnected thereafter.

So what measures are there to safeguard Eircom’s customers from errors, unfounded disconnections or other mitigating circumstances?

According to the document, at all stages in the process Eircom’s customers will have the right to complain if they feel they have been “inappropriately or incorrectly identified as infringing copyright,” and will be dealt with using the ISP’s existing broadband support systems. Additionally, this section seem to provide a little room for maneuver in certain circumstances;

Eircom has also reserved the right to remove a customer from a particular level or not to effect a disconnection where Eircom has received representations or complaints and believes that the infringement as alleged has not taken place or where there are particular extenuating circumstances which would make the disconnection of the customer unjustified.

Eircom will engage with that person at all times to ensure that there is a full understanding of the issues and that any accidental or unintentional infringement can be identified and remedied.

Dealing with the ultimate sanction – disconnection.

Disconnections will only be carried out when Eircom is “totally satisfied that there is clear evidence of sustained copyright infringement, that the alleged infringing person has had sufficient opportunity to explain its circumstances and that all possibilities that the person was a victim of accidental infringement have been eliminated.”

If the main conditions are met, Eircom will then disconnect its customer based on two elements – a TOS violation (copyright infringement is not allowed on Eircom accounts) and the ISPs legal obligation to disable access to infringing content on ts network, once it has been made aware of it.

Blocking Websites

There had been rumors that Eircom had agreed to block some websites i.e The Pirate Bay, but according to the document, Eircom has not agreed to implement a website filter – on copyright grounds at least. However, as part of the settlement it was agreed that Eircom would not oppose a court application by IRMA to force it to block The Pirate Bay specifically but no other sites are mentioned.

Time will tell if the details above constitute the final agreement, but the framework seems entirely consistent with the way the music industry wants ISPs to handle infringement. This deal with Eircom will be one to watch closely.

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

Together with open tracker initiatives like OpenBitTorrent, torrent storage services such as Torrage could provide the building blocks for many new torrent index sites. This week the idea became reality with the launch of Torrage, which is already in use by some of BitTorrent’s most reputable sources.

The site, which also allows individual users to store torrents online, is hosting hundreds of thousands of torrents already. It is currently in use by Suprnova and the new and improved EZTV site. To get started, Torrage has an API and some example code available for torrent sites owners.

Once the torrent files are uploaded they can be accessed through a url that is based on the info_hash value of the torrent. “You can not search or list torrent files that are stored here, you can only access them if you already know the info_hash value of the torrent you want to download,” the Torrage site explains.

TorrentFreak spoke to several torrent site owners who all agreed that it is a welcome addition to the range of tools they have available now, and we can expect to see more sites with Torrage powered download links in the near future.

Without having to operate a tracker and store the .torrent files, maintaining a torrent site will be less complicated and much cheaper. This aside, some might argue that this decentralized setup will reduce the legal liability for site owners since their part in the BitTorrent chain has been significantly reduced.

Whether the various copyright holders and anti-piracy watchdogs such as BREIN, IFPI and the MPAA will agree with this assessment remains to be seen. Regardless of what they think, Torrage is a service that has the potential to help out many torrent sites, old and new.

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

At the Amsterdam court BREIN’s lawyer demanded that the operators of the site block access to all Dutch visitors. The lawyer claimed that The Pirate Bay is assisting in copyright infringement by allowing millions of visitors a day to download copyrighted content. Interestingly, Global Gaming Factory – the Swedish company likely to take over the site in a few weeks – was also added to the lawsuit.

The relevance of this case remains to be seen. The defendants, who were summoned to court through Twitter and FaceBook, were not present at the hearing and it’s certainly possible that they remain unaware of the proceedings. That aside, the site itself is currently scheduled to change ownership at the end of the month, and go legal, so that will render the case useless.

The Pirate Bay is no stranger to having visitors blocked access to the site. IFPI took legal action in Denmark and more recently in Norway to accomplish a similar block in those countries. However, in these cases, legal action was taken against ISPs and not the operators of the site itself.

Whether or not this Dutch strategy is going to work out is unclear. Meanwhile, BREIN’s website is still suffering from the alleged DDoS attacks that started after the outfit announced its legal proceedings against The Pirate Bay. The judges will now review BREIN’s demands – the verdict is due on July 30th.

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

IFPI and representatives from the movie industry argue that Telenor is willingly infringing copyright by allowing its customers to access the prominent BitTorrent tracker, but Telenor disagrees with this assessment. In a public announcement today Telenor explains why.

“If Telenor were considered complicit in any illegal activities online, we would have to block access to websites and customers on any suspicion of illegal activity. Telenor would then act as some sort of private police or private censorship authority, which would be very worrisome in light of important issues such as freedom of speech,” Telenor writes.

Blocking websites upon request from the entertainment industry is “unacceptable” according to Telenor. The ISP agrees that piracy is a problem and they don’t support customers who engage in these activities, but they are refusing to censor the Internet without a court order.

“Instead of demanding that Internet providers censor the Internet and monitor the content that’s transferred, Telenor believes that the best way to decrease illegal file sharing is to put more effort into making legally downloadable content available.”

The entertainment industries should find ways to monetize legal content in a way that satisfies both the copyright holders and customer. Blocking access to websites instead would “violate principles which constitute important prerequisites for any democracy”.

It is good to see that an ISP like Telenor is willing to go to court to protect their rights and those of their customers, instead of taking the easy route and giving to the wishes of the copyright lobby. Telenor rightfully emphasizes that the entertainment industry should focus on the source of the problem by developing legal alternatives that satisfy the need of their customers, a position also held by EU Commissioner Viviane Reding.

Even if IFPI wins in court, blocking The Pirate Bay is not going to be very effective. There are several ways to get around it and thousands of other BitTorrent sites. On top of that, the new owners of the site plan to get rid of all the copyrighted content indexed by the site.

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

Hinting at The Pirate Bay, BREIN also suggested that Mininova should ban torrents using trackers that are known to track a variety copyright infringing content. However, in an attempt to solve this issue more directly, the anti-piracy outfit is suing the operators of the site, demanding that they block access to Dutch visitors.

Claiming that the founders of the site are untraceable by the Swedish authorities, head of BREIN Tim Kuik hopes to get a hold of them via the Internet. “You can find the defendants on Facebook and Twitter. Internet works for enforcers as well as infringers. Now they know about the court case in The Netherlands,” Kuik said.

BREIN’s methods are a little unusual to say the least. Instead of ordering ISPs to block the site like IFPI did in Denmark and more recently in Norway, they sue the founders of the tracker instead. Not to mention the idea of serving The Pirate Bay team using Twitter and Facebook.

There are no public mentions of the summoning in any of the public profiles of the Pirate Bay Founders so we assume that they did so via direct messages. Meanwhile, BREIN’s official site seems to be suffering from a DDoS attack, but this is of course totally unrelated to the announcement of the anti-piracy outfit.

Developing story…

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

The Danish case is not over yet as it’s currently under appeal at the Supreme Court. However, IFPI is already widening its territory in an attempt to score a similar victory in other countries.

This March, IFPI set course for Norway and gave the country’s largest Internet provider ‘Telenor’ an ultimatum. IFPI demanded that the ISP block access to The Pirate Bay within 14 days – or get taken to court.

“This would be the same as demanding that the postal service should open all letters, and decide which ones should be delivered,” was the response of Telenor’s Ragnar Kårhus at the time, while he stressed that they follow the law and not the demands of the music industry.

Telenor thus refused to give into the demands of the music industry, and invited IFPI to file a lawsuit if they deem it necessary. True to form and together with several movie studios, IFPI has now filed a lawsuit against Telenor.

Sveinung Golimo, a representative for Norwegian film makers said: “We want to highlight this problem. We do not wish to censor the Internet but we do want the possibility to make a living on what we create.” Apparently, the music and movie industries can’t make a living when Norwegians have access to The Pirate Bay.

The Pirate Bay team has always spoken out against IFPI’s witch-hunt, and provided its users with several tutorials on how to circumvent the blockade. Going even further, earlier this year Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak that they are seriously considering suing the IFPI for unfair competition.

“They have had a monopoly on distribution and we’re breaking that monopoly, and in turn they sue people that allow access to our distribution method,” Sunde told us.

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

In a letter sent out to several web hosts IFPI argued that the site(s) hosted by the providers make “a large number of” copyright works available to the public, and that the users of the sites are infringing the copyrights of IFPI members. IFPI ended the letter by asking the web host to take necessary actions to make sure that this activity stops, or else “IFPI intends to take necessary measures.”

This tactic seemed to work, as many torrent sites operated by Swedes closed their doors or were shut out by their host. However, the Swedish provider Portlane is not planning to cave in to IFPI’s threats and have filed a complaint at the Swedish Market Court.

“My client feels IFPI’s letter is one sided, lacking in nuance and very threatening. Portlane does not believe it should be forced to break a contract with a client because of hearsay,” Portlane’s lawyer Jonas Forzelius told Dagens Nyheter.

Forzelius argues that IFPI is breaking the law because they send out the warning letters for financial gain, something not allowed under Sweden’s marketing law, regardless of the copyright issues that are at stake here.

“What IFPI says is ‘close these sites’, and what is the purpose of that? Of course scaring as many ISPs as possible to stop providing these services in order for IFPI to increase their own sales. Not everyone can afford to process against IFPI with its financial resources, even if they feel IFPI’s claims are wrong.”

In several earlier cases, the Market Court has made it clear that these warning letters must be written in a way that corresponds with marketing ethics. Since IFPI always claims that they are losing millions of dollars (or kroner) thanks to piracy, their warning letters would be unlawful.

Thus far, the Commercial Marketing Court had tried seven cases of warning letters, not related to file-sharing. In all cases except one they were found unlawful and the judges banned the letters with fines of half a million crowns if they were sent again. IFPI await the same fate, meaning that the threats will stop.

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

Despite the fact that the Pirate Bay verdict is to be appealed, the decision is still being used as ammunition by the various anti-piracy outfits, and they have already taken out several trackers across Sweden. More recently, IFPI has discovered a new, more convenient and possibly more effective way to (try to) shut down the remaining torrent sites.

Instead of targeting the tracker owners, IFPI is going directly to the hosting providers with a request to take the sites offline. One of the providers that has received a letter from IFPI is DCP Networks, who rent servers to TorrentBytes – one of the larger BitTorrent trackers.

In their letter IFPI argues that the tracker they host is making “a large number of” copyright works available to the public, and that the users of the site are infringing the copyright of IFPI members. IFPI ends the letter by asking DCP Networks to take necessary actions to make sure that this activity stops, or else “IFPI intends to take necessary measures.”

IFPI lawyer Magnus Mårtensson told DN.se that the letter received by DCP Networks is not something strange or unusual. IFPI has contacted several other hosting providers and site owners Mårtensson said. What they aim to do here is extend the (yet to be appealed) verdict of “assisting copyright infringement” and apply it to hosting providers as well.

At the moment TorrentBytes seems to be (back) online, indicating that the hosting provider may have not yet given in to IFPI’s demands. Although the Pirate Bay verdict doesn’t apply to anyone but the convicted and their unique circumstances, it is likely that some hosting providers will agree to IFPI’s request, fearful of a costly legal procedure.

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

The apparent strategy:

1. Outlaw file sharing
2. Outlaw personal encryption and anonymization services
3. Set up a global, privately-run Internet surveillance program to spy on everybody all the time without a warrant — run by ISPs and paid for by the taxpayers
4. And finally, get the authority to block anyone from the Internet entirely, without the involvement of police, courts or any verifiable trail of evidence

We can not let this happen.

“It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.” – Bruce Schneier

One of the main reasons why the recording industry are currently succeeding in this hostile takeover of the Internet, is that most people simply don’t understand what file sharing is, or why it matters to them in the first place. Whenever civil liberties are sacrificed, it is always on the bonfire of ignorance. We need to educate the world – neighbors, parents, judges and lawmakers – as to why the Internet must remain free, neutral, and uncensored.

It sometimes helps to explain that a file sharing technology like Bittorrent is the digital society’s equivalent of the wheel. It allows fast and easy transportation of data between users and businesses alike. But like the wheel, file sharing needs a stable, flat surface to perform at its best. In this analogy, The Pirate Bay is nothing short of the largest, best maintained, and most stable network of such ‘digital roads’ in the world. And it’s free to use for anyone, at any time, for any purpose.

Naturally, as is always the case where people congregate in a free society, some of the people who drive their wheeled carts on this network of roads will be carrying things in their carts of questionable quality, purpose or origin. In any system or society that is based on freedom rather than censorship or distrust, there is no question that individual transgressions can take place. This is the most basic cost of liberty.

As a digital society in its teens, we have yet to realize the enormous potential of file sharing in culture, education, knowledge sharing, and business. But already, we are seeing massive opposition against it from the likes of IFPI, the RIAA and the MPAA. This opposition, of course, stems from some of the aforementioned wheeled carts transporting ‘questionable goods’, in the form of copyrighted material.

The ensuing battle has been disguised as a legal matter concerning rights holders and ‘pirates’, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. It is true that the recording industry wants to stop criminals, but they are attempting to prohibit the wheel and all building of roads to pull it off. These lawyers are prepared to sacrifice our liberties, our privacy and our digital freedom in order to reach their goal. It is a grossly disproportionate and misdirected attack, and it has already begun: Once the verdict of the Spectrial was in, the Swedish anti-piracy office immediately began issuing legal threats against other file sharing networks. They are bulldozing every street and burning every car to prevent any possible (mis)use of the wheel. And worse yet – we are letting it happen.

The case of The Pirate Bay was not a case of artists vs. freeloaders, or even the recording industry vs. pirates. There were no artists on the accusing side, nor were there any pirates on the defending side. It was, and is, a case of misguided frustration by industry executives and lawyers, directed not against the actual violators of copyright law, but against the most outspoken proponents and enablers of a fundmental digital technology. A technology that allows fast and easy transportation af data – all data – between users and businesses alike.

We must never blame the network for the actions of individuals. Both rights holders and lawmakers must respect the fundamental principle of personal, individual responsibility. Let each peer be responsible for his own actions, just as every driver is liable for his own car.

The Pirate Bay is not illegal. File sharing is not illegal. Using file sharing for illegal purposes is illegal. The difference may be subtle to a layman, but in legal terms, the distinction is clear as day. The fact that the judges in the Pirate Bay case failed to recognize this, is a judicial travesty bordering on flat out corruption.

It cannot be stressed enough: this is not a question of copyright, of music, or of piracy. This is a question of a private organization now aiming to subvert several of the most important digital inventions since the World Wide Web, and our judges and politicians turning a blind eye in a staggering display of ignorance and corruption. This fight is about much more than The Pirate Bay. When our liberties are taken from us, we must rise, united in one voice, and fight for them.

It is a fight for basic digital liberties. It is a fight for our right to privacy. It is a fight for net neutrality. There is no getting around it. This is the fight of our generation, and it is too important to lose.

This is a guest post by Jens Roland. Jens is a computer scientist by training, but a technology forecaster by trade. He has worked at international think tanks as a consultant and researcher in emerging technologies and has written more than 300 articles and a book on the subject.

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