By design the BitTorrent protocol shares the location of any user in the swarm. After all, without knowing where to send the data nothing can be shared to begin with.

Despite this fairly common knowledge, even some experienced BitTorrent users can be shocked to learn that someone has been monitoring their activities, let alone that their sharing activity is being made public for the rest of the world to see.

Like it or not, this is exactly what the newly launched torrent search engine BTindex is doing.

Unlike most popular torrent sites BTindex adds new content by crawling BitTorrent’s DHT network. This is already quite unique as most other sites get their content from user uploads or other sites. However, the most controversial part without doubt is that the IP-addresses of BitTorrent users are being shared as well.

People who download a file from The Pirate Bay or any other torrent site expose their IP-addresses via the DHT network. BTindex records this information alongside the torrent metadata. The number of peers are displayed in the search results and for each file a selection of IP-addresses is made available to the public.

The image below shows a selection of peers who shared a pirated copy of the movie “Transcendence,” this week’s most downloaded film.

Perhaps even more worrying to some, the site also gives an overview of all recorded downloads per IP-address. While the database is not exhaustive there is plenty of dirt to be found on heavy BitTorrent users who have DHT enabled in their clients.

Below is an example of the files that were shared via the IP-address of a popular VPN provider.

Since all data is collected through the DHT network people can avoid being tracked by disabling this feature in their BitTorrent clients. Unfortunately, that only gives a false sense of security as there are plenty of other monitoring firms who track people by gathering IP-addresses directly from the trackers.

The idea to index and expose IP-addresses of public BitTorrent users is not entirely new. In 2011 YouHaveDownloaded did something similar. This site generated considerable interest but was shut down a few months after its launch.

If anything, these sites should act as a wake up call to people who regularly share files via BitTorrent without countermeasures. Depending on the type of files being shared, a mention on BTindex is probably the least of their worries.

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

The rightsholders bringing these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Although not many judges address this crucial issue early on, there are exceptions, such as the one raised by Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Judge Ungaro was presented with a case brought by Malibu Media, who accused IP-address “174.61.81.171″ of sharing one of their films using BitTorrent without their permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena, and asked the company to explain how they could identify the actual infringer.

Responding to this order to show cause, Malibu Media gave an overview of their data gathering techniques. Among other things they explained that geo-location software was used to pinpoint the right location, and how they made sure that it was a residential address, and not a public hotspot.

Judge Ungaro welcomed the additional details, but saw nothing that actually proves that the account holder is the person who downloaded the file.

“Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.

“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.

Even if Malibu Media can accurately show that the copyright infringer used the Internet connection of the account holder connected to IP-address 174.61.81.171, they still can’t prove who shared the file.

“Even if this IP address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” Judge Ungaro explains.

As a result, the court decided to dismiss the case for improper venue. The ruling is crucial as it’s another unique order confirming that an IP address alone is not enough to launch a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Copyright Troll watcher SJD points out that the same Judge has also issued orders to show cause in two other Malibu Media cases, which are also likely to be closed.

While not all judges may come to the same conclusion, the order definitely limits the options for copyright holders in the Southern District of Florida. Together with several similar rulings on the insufficiency of IP-address evidence, accused downloaders have yet more ammunition to fight back.

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

Inspired by these revelations the Canadian Pirate Party decided to take a look at the downloading habits of their local Government and police, against a backdrop of vigorous recent debate surrounding online piracy in Canada, and the copyright troll phenomenon in particular.

With help from the pirating anti-piracy group Canipre several movie studios are gearing up to sue thousands of Internet subscribers. Interestingly, the Pirate Party’s findings suggest that even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Government’s Industry Canada could become potential targets.

“This discovery shows that copyrighted materials have, in fact, been downloaded via the RCMP and Industry Canada networks,” states Pirate Party leader Travis McCrea.

McCrea notes, however, that like most copyright trolls, their evidence is far from rock solid and can’t be linked to individual downloaders.

“However, we cannot be sure who is responsible for downloading the material, or even if it was downloaded by employees, contractors, or a person who was using an open wireless connection. This is why this type of intellectual property enforcement doesn’t work – there is no method of reliably telling who actually engaged in the infringement of copyrighted materials.”

Below are a few “hits” that were found with data provided by BitTorrent tracking outfit Scaneye, starting with the police IP-addresses. The pirated titles are not unusual and the list mostly includes popular TV-shows and movies.

Industry Canada IP-addresses have also been caught pirating movies TV-shows and games, including episodes of The Voice, Duck Dynasty and The Ultimate Fighter.

The IP-addresses that were found are pulled from peer lists which increases the possibility of false positives, which is exactly how many copyright trolls are believed to gather evidence.

In the months to come thousands of Internet subscribers may be dragged to court, with movie studios demanding thousands of dollars in compensation. The Pirate Party Canada speaks out fiercely against these trolling actions.

They point out that despite the crackdowns on individual citizens, the police and the Government can seemingly continue to pirate without repercussions.

The fact that the makers of Game of Thrones and other frequently pirated titles don’t seem to mind, makes it all the more confusing according to the Pirate Party.

“Between the difficulty of targeting individual pirates, the double standard of targeting individuals more harshly than organizations, and the fact that many content creators don’t see piracy as detrimental to their business, it’s clear that something is wrong with the way intellectual property rights are currently enforced,” the Party comments.

“If the goal of copyright enforcers – and the creators they represent – is to increase profits and protect creator rights, shouldn’t there be a better way to accomplish this than by harassing individuals who may or may not bear any responsibility for copyright infringement happening on their IP address?”

For the many future troll victims in Canada, we hope that the judges handling these cases will ask the same questions.

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

Continuing down this path we decided to take a look at what’s being shared from North Korean IP-addresses, threats aside.

With full Internet connectivity limited to a tiny minority of the population there’s not much BitTorrent sharing going on, but the results are worth reporting.

A search in the database of BitTorrent monitoring company Scaneye returned 84 titles that were shared from North Korea. These file-sharers used a variety of BitTorrent clients and several IP-addresses that are officially registered to the dictatorial regime.

One of the titles that jumps out immediately is “Net Monitor for Employees Professional,” which seamlessly fits the country’s profile. Ironically, the downloader in question did very little to cover his or her own tracks.

There are also other needs for which BitTorrent can give a helping hand, on the adult entertainment front for example. The screenshot below shows a selection of the adult clips, including the work of Japanese porn actress Marica Hase and her U.S. colleague Alice Frost.

Aside from spy tools and porn there are plenty of less controversial titles listed as well. “The Complete Home Decorating Idea Book” for example, which may have been out of stock at the local book store.

American movies and TV-shows are also hard to obtain in North Korea it seems, but the pirated editions are easily accessible online.

“The Following” for example, a TV-show about a psychotic serial killer who leads a cult of serial-killing followers. Or the horror film Death From Above, which features several pro-wrestling stars in the cast.

The above reveals a bit more about the download habits of a few North Koreans. We have to note though, that North Korean IP-ranges have been vulnerable to hijacks in the past so you’re never 100% sure who might be using them. Nevertheless, even in these instances you wouldn’t expect the hijacker to use IP-addresses for casual downloading.

All in all it’s safe to conclude that pirates can be found anywhere in the world and that American entertainment knows no borders.

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

Hundreds of thousands of Internet account holders have been targeted with so-called pay-up-or-else letters over the past few years and although there are no official figures available, settlements paid run into scores of millions of dollars.

In part this huge drive has been fueled by the law. Once a rightsholder captures an IP address and traces this back through an ISP to an Internet bill payer, that person is often considered responsible for what happens on his or her connection.

“Since 2008 the rights-owners have had the right to request the name and address of a connection holder connected to a certain IP-Address at a certain time, in case there was a copyright infringement committed from this connection,” Wilde Beuger Solmecke lawyer Otto Freiherr Grote told TorrentFreak.

With most ISPs storing user data as a matter of course, tracking connection owners has become very simple indeed. However, not all ISPs retain the data necessary to connect an IP address with an end user, so when required to hand over personal details to trolls and other rightsholders, problems arise.

“Some access providers (Vodafone for example) don’t provide this information in Germany. They often argue that they don’t save dynamic IP-addresses at all,” Grote adds.

This awkward position with some ISPs has left rightsholders with a dead end on claims and file-sharers with somewhat of a safe haven.

“It’s as good as impossible for the rights-owners to sue any file-sharing clients of these providers,” Grote notes.

In response a film company, an anti-piracy company and an adult film producer took Vodafone to court to force the ISP to store data on file-sharers in order for it to be handed over at a later date. They were met with success, with the regional court in Düsseldorf ruling that Vodafone must retain the data.

But following a successful appeal, the earlier setback for the ISPs and their subscribers proved only temporary.

“The Higher regional Court has now annulled these decisions,” Grote explains. “The Court constitutes that there is no obligation to save the data.”

The OLG Düsseldorf ruled that ISPs do have to provide data to rightsholders, but only if they stored it in the first instance.

The question now is whether in the light of the ruling ISPs will reconsider their logging policies. Troll lawsuits are proving a plague on Internet account holders in Germany and the possibility of never becoming the subject of one will be an attractive proposition for those looking to switch ISPs in the future.

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

The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena which allows them to request the personal details of the alleged offenders from their Internet providers.

The plaintiffs in these cases, often described as copyright trolls, are mostly adult movie studios. Malibu Media is one of the most active studios, and this year alone they have filed 349 mass lawsuits, targeting thousands of alleged downloaders across the U.S.

This strategy has earned the adult studio millions of dollars in settlements, without going to trial once. However, this is going to change soon thanks to Pennsylvania District Court Judge Michael Baylson who delivered a landmark ruling late last week.

In a memorandum covering three mass-lawsuits, the Judge reviewed the motions of five anonymous defendants who protested the subpoena which ordered their Internet providers to reveal their identities. Judge Baylson summarizes one of the Doe defendant’s motions as follows.

“Among other things, the declaration asserts that Plaintiff has brought suit against numerous unnamed defendants simply to extort settlements, that the BitTorrent software does not work in the manner Plaintiff alleges, and that a mere subscriber to an ISP is not necessarily a copyright infringer, with explanations as to how computer-based technology would allow non-subscribers to access a particular IP address,” Baylson writes.

“In other words, according to the declaration, there is no reason to assume an ISP subscriber is the same person who may be using BitTorrent to download the alleged copyrighted material. Similar assertions are made in memoranda filed in support of the other motions.”

However, the Judge also notes that the copyright holder’s rights can’t be ignored. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants present their own version of the truth and Judge Baylson believes that a trial is needed to decide who’s right.

“The Court cannot decide substantive issues on these conflicting documents. Discovery and, ultimately, a trial are necessary to find the truth,” he writes.

For this reason Baylson has ordered a Bellwether trial, which often take place when many plaintiffs file proceedings under the same theory swamping courts with an enormous caseload. The five defendants who filed a motion will now go to trial, and the verdicts will be used to rule on similar proceedings in the future.

The Judge notes that the five defendants can enter into a joint defense agreement, and ask for other interested parties to join them. He also calls for a speedy trial to resolve the matter in a few months.

“In this case, the Court will require that the pleadings be completed promptly and will enter an order which provides for discovery to start without delay and be completed expeditiously so the case can proceed to final disposition on the merits, within six months,” Baylson writes.

The Bellwether trial will be the first time that actual evidence against alleged BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn’t identify a person but merely a connection.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques of other file-sharing services “as factually erroneous”, “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

Sophisticated Jane Doe, a critic of the copyright troll cases, is optimistic that the defendants will emerge as winners of the trial.

“The beauty of a Bellwether trial design is both in its pace and in its binding power: finally, trolls’ evidence (or lack thereof) will be tested. You won’t be surprised to learn that I really doubt that trolls will present enough evidence to declare victory; that’s why I’m excited and full of expectations,” she writes.

Considering what’s at stake, it would be no surprise if parties such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are willing to join in. They are known to get involved in crucial copyright troll cases, siding with the defendants. We asked the group for a comment, but have yet to receive a response.

On the other side, Malibu Media may get help from other copyright holders who are engaged in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. A ruling against the copyright holder may severely obstruct the thus far lucrative settlement business model, meaning that millions of dollars are at stake for these companies.

Without a doubt, the trial is expected to set an important precedent for the future of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. One to watch for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, for how long will this remain the case, especially considering SOPA author Lamar Smith’s introduction of a new bill last year. Under his Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act, ISPs will be required to keep IP-address logs for a minimum of a year.

For now, however, no logs are required by law.

Earlier this week the CEO of Sonic called on fellow ISPs to protect the privacy of subscribers and purge logs after two weeks like his company does. One of the reasons cited was the massive amount of civil subpoenas that are, ironically enough, often sent by “Internet pornographers” in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits.

A refreshing stance, and one that makes users of other providers curious about the logging practices of their ISPs. Unfortunately, nearly all providers are very secretive about their data retention policies. Unlike VPN providers, all admit to logging IP-addresses, but how long they retain them remains a mystery.

In an attempt to find out more, TorrentFreak contacted several large ISPs with the seemingly simple question; How long does “company X” store IP-address assignment logs? Our findings are detailed below.

Those who value their privacy and hide their IP-address can of course always sign up with a VPN provider, one that doesn’t keep logs.

—

Time Warner Cable

Time Warner informed us that they store IP-address logs for up to 6 months.

Interestingly, the company is the only ISP we contacted that also posts information regarding its data retention on its website.

Comcast

Comcast did not respond to our inquiries but has mentioned a 180 day retention policy for IP-addresses in BitTorrent-related court documents. On some occasions cases have been dismissed because logs were no longer available, meaning that alleged infringers could not be identified.

The 180 day policy is also mentioned in the Comcast Law Enforcement Handbook that leaked in 2007.

Verizon

Verizon’s Privacy Office informed TorrentFreak by email that information about IP address assignments is retained for 18 months, the longest of all ISPs who responded to our request.

Qwest/Century

The Qwest/CenturyLink Law Enforcement Support Group informed us that IP-address logs are kept for approximately 1 year. As is also the case with other Internet Providers, Qwest/Century noted that personal details are only disclosed when the company receives a subpoena.

Cox

Cox failed to reply to our inquiry, but previously it has mentioned a 6 month retention policy for IP-address assignments in the press. In Cox’s “Lawful Intercept Worksheet” the company also mentions that logs are kept for “up to 6 months.”

AT&T

AT&T’s IP-address logging practices are not public. Initially the company did not reply to out inquiry, but upon publishing AT&T’s Privacy Policy Team promised to get back to us as soon as they find out how long logs are kept. We will update this article as soon as their response arrives.

Update (2014): AT&T has never responded but this document posted by ACLU suggest that they retain data for about a year.

Charter

Charter lists no information about their IP-address retention in its privacy policy. However, a reader alerted us to an answer on Charter’s website where it states that residential IP-addresses are retained for one year.

—

The ISPs below were added after publication.

- DSL Extreme says they retain radius IP logs for two weeks on their DSL service.
- Teksavvy (Canada) keeps IP-assignment logs for two years 90 days.
- Eastlink (Canada) keeps IP-assignment logs for one year

—

As far as we are aware, this is the first overview of IP-logging practices of the largest U.S. ISPs. However, we need help to make the list more complete as not all the providers we contacted replied.

We encourage all readers to tweet, mail or phone their Internet providers to get a more complete overview, including ISPs not listed above. This is not limited to providers in the U.S. Feel free to forward us the answers so we can expand this article.

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

Copyright holders generally sue dozens, hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people at once, hoping to extract cash settlements from the alleged downloaders. The evidence they present to the court is usually an IP-address and a timestamp marking when the alleged infringement took place.

Early 2010, when these mass-lawsuits began, copyright holders targeted IP-addresses from all across the US in single lawsuits. This led some judges to dismiss cases because their courts have no jurisdiction over people who live elsewhere.

As a result, copyright holders switched to a new tactic. Before filing a suit they ran their database of infringing IP-addresses through so-called “geolocation” services so they could argue that the defendants most likely reside in the district where they were being sued.

This worked well for a while, but a new ruling by California District Court Judge Dean Pregerson puts an end to this new approach, killing 15 lawsuits in the process.

According to Pregerson, alleged BitTorrent pirates are protected by the First Amendment as they are “engaging in the exercise of speech, albeit to a limited extent.” Therefore, the copyright holder’s request to identify anonymous internet users has to meet certain criteria.

One of the requirements is that it’s absolutely clear that the accused are residents of the region where the court has jurisdiction, but according to Judge Pregerson it is not sufficient to use the results from a “geolocation” tool to prove it.

In a previous order the copyright holder – movie company Celestial Inc. – was asked to convince the court of the accuracy of these tools. In a reply Celestial referred to a website which contained some general claims as well as a quote from the company that collected the evidence, but it wasn’t enough.

“Based on Plaintiff’s own reliability claims, there may still be a 20 to 50 percent chance that this court lacks jurisdiction,” Judge Pregerson writes in his order.

The Judge adds that even if there is a slight chance that these tools are wrong, he simply can’t sign off on the subpoena request.

“Even if the most advanced geolocation tools were simply too unreliable to adequately establish jurisdiction, the court could not set aside constitutional concerns in favor of Plaintiff’s desire to subpoena the Doe Defendants’ identifying information.”

“Again, it is the First Amendment that requires courts to ensure complaints like this one would at least survive a motion to dismiss, before the court authorizes early discovery to identify anonymous internet users.”

The IP-address lookups and additional information provided by Celestial Inc. can’t guarantee that the defendants do indeed reside in California, and Judge Pregerson therefore dismissed the 15 mass-BitTorrent lawsuits the company filed at his court.

It also means the end of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the Californian court, as no geolocation tool is 100% accurate.

While the ruling doesn’t mean the end of all mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US just yet, it appears that there’s a growing opposition from judges against these practices.

For example, two weeks ago we reported on a related ruling in which a Florida judge dismissed several cases because an IP-address doesn’t identify a person. In other words, even when a court has jurisdiction, the copyright holder can not prove that the account holder connected to the IP-address is the person who shared the copyrighted file.

If other judges adopt either of the rulings above, it means the end of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits as we know them.

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

After spending years on various educational campaigns, none of which worked, a new plan was put into motion. It involved monitoring P2P networks for infringements, unmasking the perpetrators, and then threatening to sue unless a large ‘fine’ or settlement was paid.

Although the RIAA stopped its settlement actions against US citizens some time ago, the fallout from the campaign is still felt today, with cases ongoing against Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum. However, while those Stateside are no longer targets for the RIAA’s so-called “sue-em-all” campaign, the same cannot be said of citizens in Europe.

In common with their counterparts in the gaming industry, the major labels – Universal, Sony, EMI and Warner – are all actively sending out cash settlement demands to alleged file-sharers.

For the past several years, 2011 included, the labels have been pursuing cash settlements from German Internet users for the alleged sharing of music from dozens of major stars artists. A small sample is shown below:

Universal

Amy Winehouse, Blink 182, Bon Jovi, Eminem, Florence And The Machine, Jamiroquai, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Take That, The Black Eyed Peas, The Rolling Stones.

Settlement amount demanded: 1,200 euros

Sony

AC/DC, Alexandra Burke, Alica Keys, Avril Lavigne, Backstreet Boys, Beyonce, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Foo Fighters, Kasabian, Kesha, Kings of Leon, Leona Lewis, Michael Jackson, Ozzy Osbourne, Pink, Pitbull, R. Kelly, Shakira, The Strokes.

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 950 euros

EMI

Bryan Ferry, Coldplay, David Guetta, Depeche Mode, Good Charlotte, Gorillaz, Katy Perry, Snoop Dogg, U2

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 1,200 euros

Warner

Of the four labels, Warner appears to be least active, particularly when chasing settlements on behalf of major acts. Warner’s activities appear to be limited to local artists of limited international appeal.

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 1,200 euros

Although these labels are playing a major part in the settlement business, they are not doing so in isolation. Dozens of other labels are acting in their own right including RoadRunner Records, Ministry of Sound and Pink Floyd Music.

As previously reported, getting payments from Internet users in Germany is trivial since the law there requires the accused to prove their innocence (rather than rightsholders prove guilt) and holds account holders responsible for the actions of others.

So, despite their recent protestations in response to findings from YouHaveDownloaded, the RIAA would be found liable had they been judged by German standards.

Although hundreds of thousands of people are currently being targeted for settlements in the United States for sharing adult titles, currently the major labels and movie studios there aren’t pursuing the strategy locally. That, however, could all change at the flick of a switch.

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