The website is entirely dedicated to promoting the work of independent musicians, filmmakers and other content creators. They get to showcase their work to an audience of hundreds and thousands of people at no cost.

Initially, the promos were submitted through The Pirate Bay’s website but when the project grew too big it was outsourced to Aussie entrepreneur Will Dayble. He will now be in charge of sifting through the thousands of submissions and picking the best ones to feature on the Pirate Bay site.

However, if something doesn’t change, those submissions won’t include those from the many thousands of UK artists who might want to benefit from this unique opportunity.

It turns out that the Promo Bay website is being blocked be several Internet providers, showing a similar message people get when they try to access the Pirate Bay site. TorrentFreak was able to confirm the blocks for BT, Virgin Media and BE, but it’s possible that more providers are also blocking the Promo Bay.

The most plausible explanation is that the Promo Bay domain is listed on the same blocklist that’s used to enforce the Pirate Bay blockade.

In April, the UK High Court ruled that several of the country’s leading ISPs must censor The Pirate Bay since the site and its users breach copyright on a grand scale. Soon after, Virgin Media, BT, Everything Everywhere, Sky Broadband, TalkTalk, BE and O2 all blocked access to the world’s largest BitTorrent site. Several of the site’s IP-addresses and domain names were rendered inaccessible.

Promo Bay’s Will Dayble believes his site has ended up on some of the ISPs’ blocklists “by accident”.

“These providers are pretty monolithic and old school, I’d imagine it’s just a broad-scale block against a bunch of Pirate Bay properties and we fell under the net. I doubt it’s a pointed move against the Promo Bay in particular,” Dayble tells TorrentFreak.

If that’s the case then the ISPs in question may reconsider their blockade as the Promo Bay is helping, not hurting content creators. Also, the website is hosted on separate servers that have never been controlled by the Pirate Bay crew.

Whatever the reason, Dayble hopes that BT, Virgin, BE and others will correct their mistakes so that UK artists can submit their work as well. “Here’s hoping some clever tech in their ranks does something about it,” Dayble says.

Time will tell whether the ISPs in question will pick up the hint. Otherwise the Promo Bay may need a proxy of its own.

Update: The Promo Bay started a petition to get their site unblocked.

Update: As mentioned by Craig McLeod in the comments, on BT promobay.org is blocked but www.promobay.org isn’t. This is different from the other blocked domains, and suggests it was added later.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In addition to blocking domain names such as thepiratebay.se and thepiratebay.org, BT went further than expected. In response to earlier censorship attempts Pirate Bay added two new IP-addresses – 194.71.107.80 and 194.71.107.81 – but those are now also included in BT’s filter.

BT subscribers who try to access Pirate Bay through the addresses above get an “Error – site blocked” message.

However, The Pirate Bay is not giving up so easily. In an immediate response the site has enabled two new IP-addresses (.82 and .83) which kicked in just minutes after BT’s block was implemented. And so the whack-a-mole continues.

A Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that they can continue adding new addresses for years to come. For them, it’s more a statement than anything else as there are already dozens of proxy sites that allow users to access The Pirate Bay just fine.

The most frequently visited proxy in the UK, operated by the local Pirate party, is already among the top 600 sites in the UK. With the new block by BT it is expected to attract even more visitors. In addition, the Pirate Party is picking up a few new members in the process.

The above shows once again that while these blockades may stop some people from accessing a site, the really determined have plenty of options. Also, of those who simply give up on accessing The Pirate Bay, many will simply switch to other torrent sites.

The futility of these censorship efforts is an issue also being raised by Pirate Bay’s domain registrar. The .SE registrar states in a blog post that it would not seize the domain without a court order, adding that even if one was granted the site would simply switch to a new domain.

The various anti-piracy groups, however, believe that censoring sites such as The Pirate Bay is better than doing nothing at all.

“These developments are good for content creators, workers in the creative industries, and, ultimately, for consumers. As courts throughout Europe move to shut avenues of illicit content, they are helping to ensure that consumers will continue to have access to the compelling, legitimate, and virus-free content they want,” MPAA commented earlier.

Interestingly, the MPAA and other copyright holders have yet to demand similar measures from US Internet providers. But maybe that’s coming up next.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In April the High Court’s Justice Kenneth Parker sided with the government and “upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material.”

In October, BT and TalkTalk were given permission to appeal, with Lord Justice Lewison stating that the ISPs should be allowed to argue that the Act “was enacted without following proper procedures and that it may breach the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, Data Protection Directive, Authorization Directive.”

As long as certain conditions are met, under EU law Internet service providers are not liable for the data carried over their networks, a situation known as the “mere conduit” defense. But today it’s being claimed that staff from both BT and TalkTalk gave advice to customers that they knew had intentions of breaching copyright.

According to a ThisIsMoney report, ‘mystery shoppers’ were asked to call ISPs asking questions about using file-sharing sites.

Perhaps conveniently considering developments due in court today, the allegations focus on advice given by BT and TalkTalk staff. However, based on the information given in the article, first impressions suggest that only one call is worthy of immediate attention and the rest seem potentially overblown.

During that call, made to BT, the ‘customer’ says they want to use Pirate Bay or isoHunt to download movies such as Harry Potter or Cars 2. The BT staff member allegedly noted that the films could be downloaded from those sites “in less time than it would take to watch the film”.

In another call to TalkTalk, the investigators claim that the customer services operator admits to using BitTorrent himself and says that The Pirate Bay would perform best with an ‘unlimited’ broadband package. But there are millions of items on The Pirate Bay, plenty of them legal, and the advice is good, piracy hasn’t been condoned and certainly no laws have been broken.

The report goes on to state that “a string of similar calls elicited no warnings about the potential illegality of such activity” and in every call “the use of such sites is mentioned clearly by the caller as a reason for signing up to a faster broadband package.”

While the initial item which references specific copyright works might be problematic, it is not up to an ISP to attempt to police customer activity or predict which content someone might access on The Pirate Bay. It is certainly not up to telesales operators to try and understand the intricacies of copyright law and then give impromptu advice in response to casual comments by ‘customers’.

Both BT and TalkTalk say that they only want customers to use the Internet for legal activities but Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI who have been critical of the ISPs’ opposition to the Digital Economy Act, says what has happened is unacceptable.

“It is shocking if broadband providers have been boosting their revenues selling broadband to customers who make it clear they intend to break the law,” he said. “This is not the behavior we should expect from responsible companies.”

As highlighted earlier, the information provided in the report is not exactly detailed, so it will be interesting to read the full transcripts of the calls – we’ve asked for copies from the editor and we’ll report back should we received them.

Later today, appeal judges Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Patten will give their decision on the future of the Digital Economy Act and announce whether BT and TalkTalk have been successful.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

A coalition of the willing, headed up by the BPI and including the major Hollywood studios, approached BT, the UK’s leading ISP, with a demand – block The Pirate Bay voluntarily or consent to a court order.

The self-styled “world’s most resilient torrent site” is no stranger to censorship. It is already blocked by ISPs in Ireland, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Belgium but the quest to put it completely out of business continues.

“The Pirate Bay is no more than a huge scam on the global creative sector. It defrauds musicians and other creators of their wages, and it destroys UK jobs,” said Geoff Taylor, BPI Chief Executive.

“Unlike legal music download sites, it exposes consumers to the risk of viruses, theft of personal information and inappropriate content. We would not tolerate Counterfeits ‘R’ Us on the High Street – if we want economic growth, we cannot accept illegal rip-off sites on the internet either. We hope that BT will do the right thing and block The Pirate Bay.”

But at this stage PaidContent is reporting that BT will not simply roll over and comply with the demand for The Pirate Bay to be blocked voluntarily.

“BT cannot block web sites willy nilly,” said the BT source.

Voluntary action aside, BT has reportedly been given the chance to consent to a court order. If the ISP refuses it seems likely that the parties will end up in court for a mirrored re-run of the arguments in the Newzbin2 case. If there are no surprises the High Court could order a blockade of The Pirate Bay in the first half of 2012.

After a lengthy legal process the censoring of Newzbin2 finally kicked in earlier this week, but users of the site are reportedly bypassing the block by various means including the use of Newzbin2′s very own anti-blocking software.

A feature to unblock The Pirate Bay in the event that it too became blocked was already added to the client several weeks ago.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, a Pirate Bay insider laughed off the efforts to slow down the site and said that every time there are attempts at censorship the resulting publicity only gives them a boost.

“Thanks yet again for the free advertising,” they conclude.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Although BT had already lost their case opposing the action, there was a last-minute development when a Newzbin2 and BT user stepped up to intervene in the proceedings.

The individual, known only as “DM”, had already come under pressure from the MPA who, according to Newzbin2′s Mr White, had sent him a bill for “$10,000 in costs” along with a warning that the proceedings could bankrupt him.

Despite these efforts, DM’s application was heard yesterday. TorrentFreak understands that he asked that the full block on Newzbin2 should be avoided, and the MPA should specifically identify which URLs point to infringing material and have those removed instead.

“Congratulations to our user ‘DM’ for having the big clanging balls of steel to intervene on behalf of the users of Newzbin2. He did so in the teeth of desperate ferocious opposition by the MPA and wasn’t fazed by their spineless attempts at personal intimidation,” said Newzbin2′s Mr White in an email to TorrentFreak.

“The MPA were happy to line up their own lackey Copyright Dinosaurs organizations to support their the claim: the BPI, IFPI, Publishers Association and the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment lined up sycophantically and obediently behind the MPA. The MPA hypocrites didn’t feel that it was appropriate for anyone opposing their wishes to be heard.”

Nevertheless, the judge felt that DM’s submission should be aired and he allowed that to go ahead. Whether it has made any difference is yet to be seen.

“The court case concluded but the judge has ‘reserved judgment’ which I’m told means he will deliver his blocking order in an unknown form in a few weeks or so,” says Mr White. “Obviously we are nervous on behalf of our UK users and hope for the best.”

But for ‘DM’ the news on his predicted bankruptcy appears to be good. Because he won his submission he won’t have to pay the costs of the MPA opposing him.

“Of course, £7,500 wouldn’t be enough to buy the MPA any politicians so they probably aren’t that upset. Shame,” Mr White concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Last Wednesday, TeamRDogs – the group behind the site – released Newzbin Client 1.0.0.127, their first software release designed to circumvent BT’s Cleanfeed online censorship system. Our tests revealed that encryption is one of the main tools being used to circumvent the system.

Following the release, TorrentFreak caught up with Mr White from TeamRDogs, a character far more colorful than his monochromatic name might suggest. He told us that being forced to create this software was not only a waste of their time, but a sad testament to the state of the open Internet dream.

“Having to write a client program like this is an admission that the open web is in the process of failing. The ability of vested interests to choke the Internet with a vinculum woven from malevolent law and technology is very depressing,” Mr White told us.

“TeamRDogs would rather spend its time in titty bars drinking whisky and snorting lines than hacking the MAFIAA’s Client of Doom (hmmm, CoD – we may call it that), but they’ve made it necessary.”

The Newzbin2 anti-blocking software, which was updated with a new release just before the weekend followed by a brand new OSX version this week, is said to include ‘Agility Technology’. But what does that mean?

“This is simply a mechanism that will allow the application and its configuration to be modified to adapt to the new web censorship techniques that we can envisage arising,” Mr White explains. “The App can also ‘Phone Home’ for a friendly message if Newzbin2′s Intarwebs is cut off.”

While Newzbin2 could indeed become the first victim of the pro-copyright web-blocking movement in the West, if the lobbyists get their way it certainly won’t be the last. But by picking on a site like Newzbin2, which has already shown it is prepared to fight technology with technology (a route to failure in itself), the prospect of successful future web blocks has already been reduced.

Mr White told TorrentFreak that rather than keep their toys to themselves, in the spirit of sharing Newzbin2 could adjust their code to assist other victims of web-blocking.

“We could adapt it to help out other websites so if, for example, the MAFIAA start to go after NZBMatrix [another Usenet indexing site] or torrent sites we’d be happy to help them out.”

However, it’s not all plain sailing. We’ve already had pessimists point out that since TeamRDogs obtained the original Newzbin database by unconventional means, their software should be viewed with caution. But that notion is dismissed by Mr White.

“Some people will worry that [the client] will have adware/malware etc: given the heuristic examination that it will inevitably be subject to that would be dumb on a Sony scale,” says Mr White referencing the Sony CD rootkit fiasco. “It’s clean, we swear this on Ron Jeremy’s manhood.”

Mr White says that in addition to the new client, TeamRDogs also recommends tools offered by 3rd parties.

“Despite the App we reckon that MAFIAAFire will also be a good bet for most for now but we believe in having options,” he concludes. “And doubles all round.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Although the blocking measures aren’t expected to be put in place until after mid-October, a breakdown in one of Newzbin2′s DNS servers during the last few days led to fears that it had been implemented early.

The fault was quickly fixed, and Newzbin2′s operators said the problem encouraged them to work harder on their promised anti-blocking solutions.

Today, TeamRDogs – the group behind the site – released Newzbin Client 1.0.0.127, the first public piece of software designed to circumvent BT’s Cleanfeed online censorship system, the tool which the MPA hopes can neutralize Newzbin2 in the UK.

“We are pleased to announce the first Newzbin2 client software,” said Newzbin2′s Mr White.

“This is targeted at UK users who are likely to get blocked in October. This first version is a bit rushed and so not very polished. As time goes by we shall improve it and add features.”

The software provides a basic web interface for the Newzbin2 site but while OSX and Linux versions are planned for the future, the client (which downloads in a 2.4mb installer) is currently only available for Windows users. So how does it work?

“We can’t say how our client application works but it uses a number of techniques to utterly defeat Cleanfeed,” said Mr White in an email.

“The application also has Agility Technology to break any updated web censorship methods or anti freedom countermeasures.”

Using network protocol analysis software, TorrentFreak ran some basic tests on the Newzbin2 client today which revealed that it does indeed defeat known features of Cleanfeed in a number of ways.

Initially the client tries to resolve the site’s domain name to an IP in the usual manner via DNS, but from there, and without going into too many details, an encrypted session is initiated between the client and the Newzbin2 site in a way that Cleanfeed won’t like, rendering blocking impractical and snooping more or less impossible.

As can be seen from the screenshot above, the client also provides some other features such as accessing the Newzbin2 website via the TOR anonymity network. Other useful links to online resources such as IMDb and common search engines are also provided.

The client is in the early stages of development and will need a few features updating if it wants to be near bulletproof. We’re sure Newzbin2′s Mr Violet, the guy who put in much of the work, has all that covered – and more.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Under the banner of the MPA, the leading Hollywood studios successfully argued that by letting the site continue uncensored their business in the UK would be severely damaged.

As previously noted, Newzbin2 weren’t party to the hearings but now they want to try and influence the outcome through BT’s customers.

“We’d be interested to hear if any of our UK British Telecom users would be interested in challenging the imminent web blocking to be imposed by the court at the behest of the MPA,” says Newzbin2′s Mr White in an announcement.

“We’ve have had interesting discussions with our lawyers who have advised us not to intervene in this action but they also say that there is nothing to stop our UK BT users from doing so on their own behalf (however you’ll need to be a BT user or use an ISP affected by the Cleanfeed censorship system).”

Although the court order is more than a month old, no blocking of Newzbin2 has yet been carried out.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Both ISPs accused the former government of pushing through the legislation without due process and questioned whether the Act is enforceable under current EU legislation. They also challenged the statutory order, currently in draft, designed to apportion the costs of meeting the requirements of the DEA.

Under the law, service providers are required to take action against subscribers flagged as illicit file-sharers and could be required to block domains associated with infringement.

Just under an hour ago, that decision arrived.

“The High Court today ruled in favour of the Government in a judicial review of measures to tackle online copyright infringement in the Digital Economy Act,” said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in an announcement.

“Mr Justice Kenneth Parker upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material. BT and TalkTalk had brought the judicial review, claiming that the measures in the Act were not compliant with EU law and were not proportionate. The judge rejected the challenge.”

On the statutory order dealing with the costs of implementing the DEA, the government indicated that the ISPs could avoid some, but not all costs.

“The judicial review also considered the statutory instrument that splits the cost of the Act’s mass notification system between rights holders and internet service providers.

“The judge ruled ISPs could be made to pay a share of the cost of operating the system and the appeals process but not Ofcom’s costs from setting up, monitoring and enforcing it. The Government will now consider changes to the statutory instrument.”

In a statement responding to the judgement, a DCMS spokesperson said the government is pleased that the court has decided in favor of the DEA.

“We are pleased that the Court has recognised these measures as both lawful and proportionate. The Government remains committed to tackling online piracy and so will set out the next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act shortly.”

Both BT and TalkTalk say they are “disappointed” with the outcome and are considering their options. They could include going to the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice.

Regulatory body OFCOM is currently considering if site blocking under the DEA is a workable practice. They will report to government shortly.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Lawyers Gallant Macmillan hoped that the Court would order the ISPs to hand over the identities of hundreds of alleged filesharers so that Ministry of Sound can prise a cash settlement out of them.

However, in contrast to their earlier stances, BT and and their subsidiary Plusnet refused to cooperate. Their concerns stemmed from the catastrophric data security breach at lawyers ACS:Law last month.

Chief Master Winegarten, who hears most if not all of these types of cases in the UK, granted BT’s request for an adjournment of the hearing.

In a statement, Plusnet’s COO Richard Fletcher wrote: “The incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people’s confidence in the current process.

“We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future.

“We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS:Law prompted us to take further action today.”

Fletcher’s statement, which echoed that from parent company BT, added that the companies were also seeking a moratorium on outstanding applications and orders. This could potentially be good news for those subscribers whose identities have already been handed over to lawyers in the UK, but are yet to receive letters.

The hearing will continue on January 12th 2011. At this stage it seems unlikely that any more court orders of this type will be granted in the meantime, bringing a temporary halt to the ‘Speculative Invoicing’ of alleged file-sharers in the UK.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.