Established as Group NBT in 1995, the company was renamed NetNames in 2013 and shortly after grabbed dozens of headlines after publishing a major study into online piracy.

Commissioned by NBC Universal and titled ‘Sizing the Piracy Universe‘, the study mapped piracy volumes and prevalence around the world. NetNames’ found that piracy is both “tenacious and persistent”, with a penchant for consuming increasing amounts of Internet bandwidth every year.

The report was overseen by Dr David Price, then Director of Piracy and Counterfeit Analysis at NetNames. Price also presided over the publication last month of NetNames’ latest piracy study which focused on the role played by credit card companies in the cyberlocker space.

Published exactly a year after the NBC study, ‘Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions‘ was commissioned by the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), ostensibly to protect consumers. DCA doesn’t openly reveal its sources of funding but the report has all the hallmarks of an entertainment industry-focused study.

Previously, Price was the chief of Piracy Intelligence at Envisional and the head of a study claiming to be the first to accurately estimate the amount of infringing traffic on the Internet.

Now it appears that Price’s work has received the ultimate compliment from one of the most powerful entertainment industry organizations on the planet.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI as it’s more often called, is the umbrella anti-piracy organization for the world’s leading recording labels. As of now, IFPI – probably in their UK office since that’s where Price is based – has a new employee.

According to an amendment tucked away on his Linkedin profile, Price – who has a doctorate in Criminology from the University of Cambridge – is now working for the IFPI as their Head of Anti-Piracy Research and Analysis.

In recent years Price has maintained a clear anti-piracy stance, which will obviously suit IFPI. He has participated in discussions calling for government action against piracy and regularly uses content-industry friendly terms such as “stealing” to describe unauthorized copying.

TorrentFreak contacted NetNames’ PR company for a comment on Price’s departure but at the time of publication we were yet to receive a response.

IFPI London, where the organization’s anti-piracy operations are based, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

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

Aside from the efforts of the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), one of the recurring themes is the decision by the Hollywood-backed Federation Against Copyright Theft to privately prosecute high-profile cases themselves.

The most notable case, that involving SurfTheChannel’s Anton Vickerman, resulted in a four-year jail sentence, one that’s cited in cease and desist notices regularly served on file-sharing site admins in the UK. More recently, FACT took the decision to initiate a private prosecution against Philip Danks, a West-Midlands based man known for camming and distributing Fast and Furious 6 while it was still in cinemas.

It now appears that following FACT’s lead, the BPI will also take a privately investigated and prosecuted case to criminal trial this month.

The case involves the now-defunct file-sharing forum known as Dancing Jesus. The site was taken down in 2011 following a investigation carried out by the BPI and IFPI, with assistance from the US Department of Homeland Security.

At the time two people were arrested by City of London Police – the site’s alleged administrator and an individual said to be one of the site’s top uploaders. Homeland Security assisted with the case by seizing Dancing Jesus’s server in the United States.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, the BPI confirmed that the trial is going ahead in October.

“A trial is scheduled to take place at Newcastle Crown Court this month regarding the illegal distribution of music via an internet forum site called Dancing Jesus,” a spokesperson said.

“It is a private prosecution being brought by the BPI following an initial joint investigation by BPI and the IFPI, with assistance from the US Department of Homeland Security. One defendant in the case has already pleaded guilty to illegally distributing music and will be sentenced at the end of the trial.”

While the precise details of the case will come out at trial, Dancing Jesus was perhaps best known for providing links to pre-release music content. TorrentFreak contacted the site’s former admin for comment but at the time of publication we’ve yet to receive a response.

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

However, just a month before Kino.to was dismantled, Austrian ISP ‘UPC’ was served with a preliminary injunction ordering it to block subscriber access to the site. The order had been obtained by the Hollywood-affiliated anti-piracy group VAP but it was called into doubt by the ISP. This led to the Austrian Supreme Court referring the matter to the European Court of Justice.

Earlier this year the ECJ handed down its widely publicized decision which stated that yes, in reasonable circumstances, pirate sites can indeed be blocked by European ISPs.

On the back of this ruling, VAP subsequently wrote to several local ISPs (UPC, 3, Tele2 and A1) demanding blockades of Movie4K.to and Kinox.to, a site that took over from Kino.to. This would become the test case on which all future blockades would be built.

When this formal request for the ISPs to block the sites was rejected, in August VAP sued the providers. And now, after more than three years of wrangling, VAP have finally got their way.

In a ruling handed down yesterday by the Commercial Court of Vienna, UPC, 3, Tele2 and A1 were ordered to block Movie4K and Kinox with immediate effect. According to Der Standard, UPC and A1 placed blocks on the sites within hours, with 3 and Tele2 expected to comply with the injunction today.

But while another important hurdle has now been overcome, there is some way to go before VAP will have achieved everything they initially set out to do. At issue now is how far the ISPs will have to go in order to comply with the court order. It’s understood that VAP requires DNS and IP address blocking at a minimum, but whether the ISPs intend to comply with that standard remains to be seen.

It’s important for VAP, and other anti-piracy groups waiting in the wings, that these technical steps are workable going forward. Both VAP and the IFPI have lists of sites they would like blocked in the same way as Movie4K and Kinox have been, so it’s crucial to them that blockades aren’t easily circumvented.

Once this issue has been dealt with, in the next few months it’s likely that attention will turn to legal action being planned by the IFPI. The recording group has taken on the task of having torrent sites blocked in Austria, starting off with The Pirate Bay, isoHunt.to, 1337x.to and H33t.to.

IFPI is expected to sue several ISPs in the hope that local courts will treat torrent sites in the same way as they have streaming services. Once that’s been achieved – and at this stage it seems likely – expect long lists of additional domains to be submitted to the courts.

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

Considering the controversial reputation of its predecessor Megaupload, copyright holders have been keeping a close eye on the site. Thus far, however, the number of takedown requests received by the company has been relatively small.

Perhaps not completely unexpectedly, among the takedown requests that do come in are many that wrongfully request the takedown of perfectly legitimate files. This was illustrated earlier this week when Kim Dotcom’s official album Good Times was removed following a complaint.

The album was released by Dotcom earlier this year and he has been sharing it via his website ever since. The link in question points to Mega where people can download it for free, but a few days ago it suddenly disappeared.

To find out why the album was removed we contacted Mega for an explanation. The company informed us that music industry group IFPI requested the removal of Dotcom’s album through a takedown request sent on September 1.

Representing the major record labels, IFPI claimed that the link infringed on the copyrights of one of their artists. IFPI listed several musicians but Kim Dotcom was not one of them.

“It’s clearly an incorrect takedown request,” Mega’s Chief Compliance Officer Stephan Hall tells us.

TorrentFreak also contacted Kim Dotcom, who asked Mega to reinstate the album, which they did. All in all the album was unavailable for about a day.

While a mistake is easily made, this is not the first time that IFPI has tried to remove Dotcom’s album from Mega. A similar request was sent on August 18, this time claiming that it was a copyright infringement of Kimbra’s “The Golden Echo.”

IFPI’s actions have been sloppy, to say the least, and Mega’s Chief Compliance Officer has little faith in the accuracy of the music group’s other takedown requests.

“This is an indication that someone at the IFPI is not doing their homework and that their takedown notices in general cannot be trusted,” Hall tells TorrentFreak.

Unfortunately these kind of mistakes are not an isolated incident. For example, before Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload was shutdown early 2012 the site received many erroneous takedown notices.

“During the Megaupload days over 20% of all takedown notices were bogus,” Dotcom told us previously.

“We analyzed big samples of notices and most were automated keyword based takedowns that affected a lot of legitimate files. The abuse of the takedown system is so severe that no service provider can rely on takedown notices for a fair repeat infringer policy.”

A policy to punish copyright holders who make repeated mistakes, on the other hand, might be worth considering.

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

Opponents of this censorship route often warn that the measures inhibit free speech and risk overblocking. However, music industry group IFPI disagrees, pointing out that the rights of creators to protect their work trump these concerns.

“Despite misrepresentation by some anti-copyright campaigners, courts have consistently found that the blocking of sites providing illegal content achieves an appropriate balance of fundamental rights,” IFPI writes in its latest Digital Music Report.

IFPI points out that the ISP blockades in several European countries are having effect. Drawing on information supplied by data intelligence firms comScore and Nielsen, they report that “BitTorrent usage” decreased 11 percent in countries where pirate sites are censored, while it increased elsewhere.

“Website blocking measures implemented by ISPs have been effective. Between January 2012 and July 2013, European countries where blocking orders are in place saw BitTorrent use decline by 11 per cent, while European countries without such orders saw BitTorrent use increase by 15 per cent.”

The data further shows that this blockade effect is most pronounced in Italy and the UK, where the most torrent sites are blocked. In Italy BitTorrent traffic dropped 13 percent and in the UK the decline was even larger, 20 percent.

The report doesn’t make it clear whether actual BitTorrent traffic was measured, or only page views at popular torrent sites. Regardless, IFPI notes that there’s still plenty of work to be done.

The blockades are currently limited to fixed lines, for example, and should be expanded to mobile networks as well. In addition, IFPI says that the blockades should be expanded to other countries worldwide.

“The industry believes that website blocking is an effective tool to help tackle digital piracy and should be available in more countries worldwide. It also needs to be extended to cover mobile networks,” IFPI reports.

The music industry group doesn’t name any countries, but perhaps they are hinting at the RIAA to push for “voluntary” blockades in the United States. In any case, if it’s up to IFPI the number of ISP blockades around the world will continue to increase.

The results reported by IFPI run contrary to a decision from the Dutch Court of Appeals earlier this year, which concluded that the Pirate Bay blockade was “disproportionate and ineffective.” As a result, Dutch ISPs were allowed to lift the access restrictions.

Photo: Michael Theis

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

The music groups sent their 100 millionth takedown request to the search giant this week, and used this dubious milestone to lay out their demands to Google once more. According to the RIAA’s Cary Sherman, Google must have a way to better deal with piracy.

“Surely there must be a better way for users to be directed to legitimate sources of the music they seek instead of illegal ones,” Sherman notes.

The RIAA points out that Google has taken some steps to address the piracy issue, such as the promise to give “pirate” sites a lower ranking in their search results. However, the music group believes that this strategy has failed thus far.

“We’ve seen no demonstrable demotion of sites that receive a high volume of piracy notices,” Sherman writes.

“In fact, when a user searches for virtually any prominent artist and song and ‘mp3,’ the first result served up by Google’s own auto-complete function is usually mp3skull.com — a site that’s received more than two million music piracy notices and is among the top offenders on Google’s own public listing of sites receiving the most piracy notices,” he adds.

The RIAA previously found that for 98% of the music related searches they performed, “pirate sites” were listed on the first page of the search results. According to the music group, this is an indication that more proactive measures are required, in the interests of both Google and the labels.

“So the enforcement system we operate under requires us to send a staggering number of piracy notices – 100 million and counting to Google alone—and an equally staggering number of takedowns Google must process. And yet pirated copies continue to proliferate and users are bombarded with search results to illegal sources over legal sources for the music they love,” Sherman notes.

Together with IFPI, who released a press release on the same topic yesterday, RIAA is calling for voluntary anti-piracy ‘best practices’ to deal with the problem at hand. The groups note that payment providers and advertisers previously agreed on similar policies in a bid to help copyright holders.

To make facilitate such an agreement, the music group has drafted a “simple, straightforward and readily achievable” five-point plan for Google and other search engines to fight piracy. Their suggestions are as follows.

1. Fulfill the admirable promise to demote sites receiving extensive numbers of piracy notices
2. Make sure that the “take down” of a song is meaningful – not repopulated online two seconds later
3. Educate users by identifying authorized sites with a consumer-friendly “icon”
4. Stop leading users to illegal sites through autocomplete
5. Give your repeat offender policies some teeth

Looking at the list we see that Google has already started on point 1 and 4, but not to the satisfaction of the music groups. Point 2 is interesting as it suggests some form of hash blocking to ensure that content is not re-indexed, for as far as that is possible for search results.

Point 5, regarding “repeat offender” policies, is most vague. It seems to suggest that the RIAA and IFPI want Google to take action against sites that repeatedly receive takedown notices, but that would be the same as point 1.

This is not the first time that copyright holders have shared their anti-piracy wish lists with Google. In 2012 a behind-closed-doors meeting revealed that the copyright industry wanted the search engine to implement several anti-piracy measures.

Whether Google intends to take up the new five-point plan remains to be seen. One thing’s for certain though – pressure from the RIAA and other anti-piracy groups will only increase during the coming years.

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

Sergei Burlakov of Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said that following a request from Interpol, Ukrainian government investigators had arrived at Demonoid’s hosting provider ColoCall and had the site taken offline. ColoCall said that ultimately the decision to remove the site had been theirs.

Until now, information on the raid has only come from Ukraine, prompting some to question why the music and movie industries have remained silent on such a prominent takedown. The wait for that is now over. The IFPI said their complaints have finally delivered results.

“Demonoid was a leading global player in digital music piracy which acted as unfair competition to the more than 500 licensed digital music services that offer great value music to consumers while respecting the rights of artists, songwriters and record companies,” the IFPI’s anti-piracy director Jeremy Banks said in a statement.

“The operation to close Demonoid was a great example of international cooperation to tackle a service that was facilitating the illegal distribution of music on a vast scale. I would like to thank all those officers involved in this operation to close a business that was built on the abuse of other people’s rights.”

As detailed in our article last evening, there have been clear links to Mexico at several stages of the operation to take down Demonoid. Today those links have only been further underlined.

We already knew that Mexican authorities had launched a criminal investigation into the owners of Demonoid and that the Attorney General of Mexico had become involved in the case last year, but today it was confirmed that there have been a number of arrests and asset seizures in the country.

John Newton head of INTERPOL’s Trafficking in Illicit Goods Sub-Directorate said that international cooperation is key to ensuring that “organized criminals” are stopped.

“In this instance police forces on different sides of the world worked together with INTERPOL and the music industry to successfully disrupt the distribution chain for illicit digital music products,” he said.

Since many Demonoid members are worried that they may be at risk TorrentFreak asked IFPI whether any users are or will be targeted. However, the group told us that they can’t comment any further on an ongoing investigation.

In the meantime and in retaliation for the raids on Demonoid, elements of the Anonymous collective have launched a number of DDoS attacks on websites operated by the Ukrainian authorities. But a member of the group said that they may go much further, if they can get their hands on the site’s code.

“By getting the .torrent files and website [we would be able to reinforce] Demonoid’s mark on history with a permanent mirror arrangement,” he told TorrentFreak.

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

Online release groups and other leakers have always been resourceful when it comes to getting the latest tunes, whether from light-fingered employees at CD packing plants or friendly music-reviewing sources with access to fresh promos.

“Web piracy is similar to organized crime, there is a hierarchy, our goal is to identify those at the top,” Mo Ali, Head of Internet Anti-Piracy Operations at IFPI explained during his April 2012 presentation.

IFPI’s investigative aims are to:

1. Identify the source site of the leak
2. Identify the original uploader
3. Gather intelligence and evidence about the user.
4. Work with the record label to prevent further leaks.
5. Determine if there is a criminal case.

Ali adds that through their investigations, IFPI have been able to reduce the number of leaks. One such investigation, against the music release group “DOH”, is detailed in the slide below.

Another slide details how a South American blogger called “ALEKO” had been spotted posting pre-release music online. IFPI say that through various online profiles he was identified as a music journalist. IFPI sent a local investigator to speak to ALEKO and he confessed that he had tried to get music by blackmailing producers. Initially though, ALEKO said he’d been obtaining music from hackers.

The hacking phenomenon is detailed by IFPI in the remaining slides. The music group reports that producers very often send tracks via email, so hackers try to gain access to their accounts in order to get music, even before it gets into promo form.

In order to protect their members from such attacks (and this is good advice for anyone operating an email account), IFPI warns against phishing emails which claim to be from well-known file-storage sites but are really there to obtain email log-in details.

IFPI suggests a number of techniques for identifying bogus emails but then goes a step further by giving instructions on how to set up honey-traps to capture would-be music hackers.

IFPI say this method has already ensnared a number of individuals. Interestingly, one slide appears to shine light on a big pre-release raid earlier this year. The screenshot in the presentation slide below shows the RnBXclusive release blog site after it had been raided by the UK’s Serious Organized Crime Agency.

At the time, no-one could understand why the organized crime division of the police would be interested in a lowly music blog. But the inclusion of the site’s seized homepage in this report and the message that “The majority of music files that were available via this site were stolen from the artists” seem to point in a particular direction, at least as far as IFPI are concerned.

Finally, it seems appropriate that we should augment this anti-leaking advice from IFPI with some security guidance of our own.

In order to prevent reports on global anti-piracy strategy, offline vs online swapping, and another on the ineffectiveness of SOPA leaking out in public, please ensure that your Intranet doesn’t have a public-facing Internet webpage, even if it is only for a few minutes.

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

This meant that the previously determined sentences handed out to Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström will stand.

Part of the sentence are damages that have to be paid to various entertainment industry companies. EMI Music, Universal Music, Sony Music and other labels, for example, were awarded around €550,000 to compensate artists and rightsholders for the losses they suffered.

During the trial the court carefully weighed all the individual albums that were brought in as evidence. The resulting damages were eventually based on the fees The Pirate Bay would have paid if they had bought licenses for that content.

The music labels were satisfied with this outcome, but have since had trouble collecting the damages. TorrentFreak got a peek at an unpublished document from the legal department of anti-piracy outfit IFPI, which documents the issue in more detail.

“We have filed applications with Sweden’s Enforcement Agency to secure assets to satisfy these funds. So far very little has been recovered as the individuals have no traceable assets in Sweden and the Enforcement Agency has no powers to investigate outside Sweden. There seems little realistic prospect of recovering funds,” the document reads.

While it may come as no surprise that the music industry has a hard time getting money from The Pirate Bay defendants, what comes next may raise a few eyebrows.

“There is an agreement that any recovered funds will be paid to IFPI Sweden and IFPI London for use in future anti-piracy activities,” IFPI writes.

In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all. Instead, the labels will simply hand it over to IFPI for their ongoing anti-piracy efforts, which we documented in detail earlier this week.

According to former Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde, one of the people convicted in the case, this shows who the real “thieves” are.

“Regarding the issue that they’ve already divvied up the loot, it’s always fun to see that they call it ‘recovered money’ (i.e. money they’ve lost) but that they’re not going to give the artists in question any of it,” Sunde told TorrentFreak.

“They say that people who download give money to thieves – but if someone actually ends up paying (in this case: three individuals) then it’s been paid for. So who’s the thief when they don’t give the money to the artists?”

According to Sunde the news doesn’t come as a surprise.

“As far as I know, no money ever won in a lawsuit by IFPI or the RIAA has even gone to any actual artist,” Sunde says. “It’s more likely the money will be spent on cocaine than the artists that they’re ‘defending’.”

This is not the first time that artists have been left out when damages have been awarded in a copyright infringement case.

The RIAA previously told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” we heard.

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

The 30-page report presents a global view of IFPI’s “problems”, “current and future threats” and the industry’s responses to them.

IFPI says it has five possible reactions to a threat: Take down, Disruption, Investigation, Lobbying and Litigation.

The Threats: P2P

Initially IFPI splits illicit content availability into two sections. The first they classify as “content held on users’ computers” and distributed via P2P networks such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, DirectConnect, eDonkey and Ares.

It says it has taken “strategic action” against The Pirate Bay (BitTorrent), LimeWire (Gnutella) and also the semi-private tracker Demonoid (BitTorrent). IFPI doesn’t elaborate on action against the latter, but it was rumored that a member of the site’s staff was targeted a while back.

Central hosting/cyberlockers

The second category is content held on central servers, including file-hosts and cyberlockers. Interestingly, the IFPI diagram below shows that when the group examined allegedly infringing URLs on the world’s major cyberlockers, Megaupload’s stats paled into insignificance when compared to the others.

IFPI is clear on their requirements for cyberlockers to operate to their liking. Their number one desire is that they “proactively filter for infringing content” but if they don’t they must “operate an effective and efficient notice and take down system.” Failure to implement either means sites will be required to “shut down”.

Hacking and phishing attacks

One of the other threats detailed by IFPI include hacking and phishing attacks against email accounts of artists and their management. Through these techniques individuals are apparently obtaining unauthorized access to pre-release music.

IFPI say a number of techniques are being used, from bogus emails claiming to be from social networking, email, or cyberlocker sites, to the compromising of password reset features. Once accessed, mail is forwarded to other accounts, either with the music attached or with valuable information which allows other systems to be accessed.

The rise of mobile data and applications

IFPI is also keeping a close eye on the downloading and sharing of content across mobile data and other wireless networks. IFPI worries that these networks are providing here-and-now streaming of content via all-you-can-eat plans. Making matters worse is that IFPI reports “challenges” when it comes to matching an IP address to a subscriber.

The recording group also reports that Apple and Android architectures are encouraging the creation of 3rd party music apps. IFPI say they are crawling both the App Store and Google Marketplace and are focusing on “quick take down agreements” with Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia and Palm to remove apps they don’t like. They are also mulling an expansion of their “payment provider program” to target “rogue” Android app developers.

Unauthorized pay MP3 sites

IFPI say they have identified in excess of 50 Russian and Ukrainian pay MP3 download sites. The group reports that law enforcement authorities have “secured evidence that the illegal sites are annually stealing hundreds of millions of dollars” which is creating opportunities for money laundering and tax evasion investigations. IFPI say their next steps will include strangling the sites’ finances with the help of payment processors, recovering proceeds of crime, and developing asset confiscation.

Advertisers and payment processors

IFPI’s advertiser strategy is based around the “disruption of revenue streams” to unauthorized sites by several methods. In the report they speak of a “structured notice and take down programme targeting Google’s AdSense and DoubleClick advertising networks,” plus “out reach” to IASH and IAB to implement “comprehensive infringing block lists.” IFPI says it also initiates direct contact with advertisers to flag when their ads appear on infringing sites.

Agreements are said to be in place with VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, CTIA, Monitise, PaySafeCard and PhonePayPlus to strangle finances to unauthorized sites.

Dealing with Internet service providers

In common with cyberlockers, IFPI have a set of rules they’d like to impose on Internet service providers. According to the industry group, ISPs should not provide Internet access to infringing sites, services or even unidentified customers. Furthermore, ISPs are required to “Implement a system of graduated response for infringing P2P users including warnings to an effective deterrent sanction.”

Site Blocking

ISPs are also required by IFPI to block access to infringing sites and services “located outside the local jurisdiction.” The chart below shows where blocking orders have been obtained (prior to April 2012) and how they are carried out.

Surprisingly, despite reports mounting to the contrary, IFPI seems to think that site blocking is an almost perfect solution to counter infringement.

“The effectiveness of such a ‘block’ will depend on the determination of the ISP subscriber
and the content/website provider to maintain access to each other and to use circumvention techniques to bypass blocking techniques,” they write.

“There is evidence to suggest that there is limited (between 3% and 5%) adoption of these circumvention techniques although subscribers with more technical knowledge could look to circumvent ISP controls using virtual private networks (VPN) or anonymous proxies.”

Conclusions

IFPI finishes up by stressing the importance of “co-operation, partnerships and information exchange” and the building of relationships with law enforcement, judges and legal bodies in order to “provide training built around ‘real world’ experiences and challenges rather than focusing on theory.”

Amendments to relevant laws need to be planned for the future, but in the short term IFPI should “consider ‘quick, curve ball’ solutions to impact more complex operations as
complement to long term investigations,” the group concludes.

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