This grim outlook isn’t shared by the operators of ABS-CBN, the largest media and entertainment company in the Philippines, who filed a lawsuit against several unauthorized streaming sites at a District Court in Oregon.

The company’s complaint alleges a mixture of trademark and copyright infringement against a dozen websites including Pinoystreaming.com, Pinoytvko.biz and Pinoy-tube.com. The sites in question are operated by different people, some of whom have no apparent connection to the United States.

To stop the sites from operating as quickly as possible the media company requested a temporary restraining order. This was done under seal without the knowledge of the defendants, as ABS-CBN feared that they would otherwise switch domain names and continue operating as usual.

“Absent a temporary restraining order, Defendants will be able to completely erase the status quo by transferring the benefits of their prior illegal activities to new websites,” the company argued.

In short, ABS-CBN requested power to take the sites offline before the owners knew that they were getting sued, and without a chance to defend themselves. While that may seem a lot to ask, Judge Anna Brown granted the request.

Earlier this month the Judge signed the temporary restraining order which bars the operators from running their sites. In addition, it allows the media company to order hosting companies to take down the servers, domain registrars to seize the domain names, and search engines to remove all results linking to the sites.

“Upon Plaintiffs’ request, those with actual notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, Web hosts, domain-name registrars, and domain name registries or their administrators, shall cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites…,” the order reads.

The court also ordered the domain name registrars to point the domains to a copy of the complaint, so the website owners would know why their sites had been wiped from the Internet. Further, to prevent the defendants from passing on Google traffic to a new domain, ABS-CBN was granted permission to access the Google Webmaster Tools of the defendants.

“Plaintiffs may enter the Subject Domain Names into Google’s Webmaster Tools and cancel any redirection of the domains that have been entered there by Defendants which redirect traffic to a new domain name or website and thereby evade the provisions of this Order,” the order reads.

The above is just part of the injunction which effectively shuts down the sites in question. All websites in the suit are now redirected to a copy of the complaint. Also, several domains are no longer present in Google’s search results.

The preliminary injunction is unique in its kind, both due to its broadness and the fact that it happened without due process. This has several experts worried, including EFF’s Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry.

“It’s very worrisome that a court would issue a rapid and broad order affecting speech based on allegations, without careful consideration and an opportunity for the targets to defend themselves,” McSherry tells TorrentFreak.

In addition to the restraining order, Judge Brown also granted ABS-CBN’s request to freeze all financial assets of the defendants until further notice. The defendants were given the option to appeal both orders after they were issued, but it’s unknown whether they have done so.

This is not the first ex-parte injunction to be handed down against alleged pirate sites this month. The same happened in the Expendables 3 case, although this order wasn’t nearly as broad as the one against the Filipino streaming sites.

Whether it’s the start of a new trend has yet to be seen, but considering the broad measures judges are willing to sign off, things could get messy.

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

Championed by Hollywood and the world’s leading record labels, the Stop Online Piracy Act made headlines around the world for putting super-aggressive tools into the government’s arsenal. At the same time, however, proper consideration wasn’t given to their potential impact on innovation.

As a result, citizens and technology companies teamed up to stage the biggest protest the Internet has ever seen resulting in a back-down by the government – and Hollywood in particular – on an unprecedented scale.

The fallout became obvious in the months that followed. The usual anti-piracy rhetoric from the MPAA and RIAA was massively toned down, at times becoming non-existent. In its place emerged a new and softer approach, one aimed at making peace with the very technology companies that had stood in their way.

This week an intellectual property enforcement leader very familiar with the big studios and record labels revealed just how much damage the SOPA defeat is responsible for.

Speaking in Los Angeles at an event hosted by the Motion Picture Licensing Corp., UK MP and Prime Minister’s Intellectual Property Advisor Mike Weatherley said that it would be a very long time before anyone dared to push for new legislation in the United States.

“It’s going to be five years before anybody puts his head above the parapet again,” Weatherley told executives.

If Weatherley’s predictions are correct, that takes us beyond 2020 before any new legislation gets put in place, a comparative lifetime online and a timescale during which almost anything can happen.

But Hollywood and the labels aren’t sitting still in this apparent ‘quiet’ period. A new strategy has been adopted, one that seeks voluntary cooperation with technology-based companies, the “six-strikes” deal with United States ISPs being a prime example.

Cooperation has also been sought from advertising companies in an attempt to strangle the revenues of so-called pirate sites, a move that has been gathering momentum in recent months. Weatherley told the meeting that existing laws might need to be “beefed up” a little, but from his overall tone those tweaks seem unlikely to provoke any SOPA-like backlash.

Also generating interest is Weatherley’s attitude towards Google. The world’s leading search engine has been under intense pressure to do something about the infringing results that appear in its listings. At times the rhetoric, especially from the music industry, has been intense, and could’ve easily spilled over into aggression if Google had decided to bite back. However, the UK Prime Minister’s IP advisor says he sees things differently.

“I know in America [Google] are considered much more of a pariah than they are perhaps in the U.K. But I have to say they are engaging with me and they recognize that something has got to be done,” Weatherley told the meeting.

But while Weatherley talks peace and cooperation and the MPAA and RIAA keep their heads down in the States, much anti-piracy work is being conducted through their proxies FACT and the BPI in the UK. Instead of tackling the world’s leading file-sharing sites from U.S. soil, the job has been transferred to the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Not only does it keep the controversy down at home, it also costs much less, with the British taxpayer footing much of the bill.

TorrentFreak has learned that only last week a new batch of letters went out to file-sharing related sites, with yet more demands for them to shut down or face the consequences. Things might appear quiet in the United States, but that doesn’t meant things aren’t happening.

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

Sparked and guided by Aaron Swartz, the end result of the movement was nothing short of ground-breaking. The unity shown on January 18, 2012, led to Congress backing down and forcing some of the world’s most powerful copyright-focused companies into retreat. SOPA was done, but an even bigger issue was just around the corner.

Revelations by Edward Snowden, that unveiled a shocking level of mass surveillance being carried out by the U.S. government and its allies, caused turmoil around the world. Their plan was to become the all-seeing all-knowing eye, spying on communications everywhere and sucking up mind-boggling quantities of electronic data both on-and-offline.

These authorities now routinely spy on the Internet, telephone calls and other communication channels used by their very own citizens, undermining the basic level of privacy people believed would be upheld by their own democratically elected governments. The mantra that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about holds no water, as entities including the NSA and GCHQ systematically spy wherever they like, whether their targets are suspected of crimes or not.

But today is a special day. Thousands of websites, this one included, will join together to demand progress towards restoring our right to privacy and the reigning in of mass surveillance. Two years after the historic SOPA protests, The Day We Fight Back has arrived.

Today’s anti-surveillance web protest, held in memory of hacktivist Aaron Swartz, is being headed up by a coalition including Demand Progress, Access, EFF, and sites such as Reddit, Mozilla and BoingBoing. It provides an unprecedented opportunity to fight back against the greatest invasion of privacy the world has ever known.

“Today the greatest threat to a free Internet, and broader free society, is the National Security Agency’s mass spying regime,” says David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress.

“If Aaron were alive he’d be on the front lines, fighting back against these practices that undermine our ability to engage with each other as genuinely free human beings.”

While Aaron is tragically no longer with us, all Internet users concerned about the activities of the NSA can step up to the front lines and fight back with a few clicks.

1. Visit TheDayWeFightBack.org
2. Sign up to indicate that you’ll participate and receive updates.
3. Install widgets on websites encouraging its visitors to fight back against surveillance.
4. Use the social media tools on the site to announce your participation.
5. Develop memes, tools, websites, and do whatever else you can to participate — and encourage others to do the same.

While a large proportion of Internet users have been blind-sided by the revelations of the past year, being monitored is something that those connected to the file-sharing scene have become aware of for a decade or more. Privacy solutions have existed for some time but it took the launch of the Pirate Party-affiliated Relakks VPN service in 2006 to really boost the awareness of encrypted communications in the file-sharing space. Today, privacy companies including Private Internet Access and BlackVPN will join the protests.

Many hundreds of thousands – millions – of file-sharers and other privacy conscious individuals currently and routinely encrypt their communications in order to mitigate the effects of online spying. But while that’s a good day-to-day solution, more needs to be done.

Fighting back requires people to contact politicians and lawmakers and urge them to engage on the issues of cyber surveillance and other dangers to the free Internet. But be warned. Unlike the fight against SOPA this battle won’t be over in a month or two. The Day We Fight Back will go on for much, much longer.

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

The agreement aims to create deep economic ties between a dozen countries – Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, United States, Vietnam, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand – by easing trade in goods and services, encouraging investment, and forging understandings across a wide range of policy issues.

Negotiations between the nations have been running for around two and a half years and the TPP agreement itself is now reportedly more than 1,000 pages deep. Overall the negotiations have drawn criticism for their secrecy but today Wikileaks announced that they had obtained a copy of the “most controversial chapter” from the TPP agreement which reveals the negotiation positions for all 12 countries on IP and copyright issues.

Many topics are covered in the chapter including DRM and other ‘technical measures’, extended copyright terms, increased penalties for infringement and ISP liability, the latter with a proposal for “adopting and reasonably implementing a policy that provides for termination in appropriate circumstances of the accounts of repeat infringers.”

Reception to the leaked agreement has so far been highly critical. Knowledge Ecology International notes that the TPP IPR chapter not only proposes the granting of more patents, expansion of rightsholder privileges and increased penalties for infringement, but also plans the creation of intellectual property rights on data.

“The TPP text shrinks the space for exceptions in all types of intellectual property rights. Negotiated in secret, the proposed text is bad for access to knowledge, bad for access to medicine, and profoundly bad for innovation,” KEI concludes.

Burcu Kilic, an intellectual property lawyer with Public Citizen, says that some of the proposals in the text evoke memories of the controversial SOPA legislation in the United States.

“The WikiLeaks text also features Hollywood and recording industry inspired proposals – think about the SOPA debacle – to limit Internet freedom and access to educational materials, to force Internet providers to act as copyright enforcers and to cut off people’s Internet access,” Kilic says.

Collectively the items in this version of the leaked draft reveal argument and opposition on dozens if not hundreds of points from one or several countries. In fact while there are many, many proposals, it is striking that there is a clear lack of final agreement across the board on almost all of the issues.

Kilic describes the proposals as having reached a “negotiation stalemate.” His colleague, Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s global access to medicines program, lays the blame for that at the feet of the United States.

“Given how much text remains disputed, the negotiation will be very difficult to conclude,” Maybarduk says. “Much more forward-looking proposals have been advanced by the other parties, but unless the U.S drops its out-there-alone demands, there may be no deal at all.”

The full agreement can be downloaded here (PDF).

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

For well over a decade there have been big sites, mainly hosted in Russia or Ukraine, that allow their users to download music for a fraction of the prices quoted by outlets such as iTunes. Historically the sites claimed protection under licensing from the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) but that has always been a controversial assertion. Few if any pay money to western labels.

One of the most famous, AllofMP3.com, generated dozens of news headlines around 2005 and even became a political issue when the United States suggested that Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization would be threatened by the site’s existence.

On August 22 2012 and after 19 years of waiting, Russia became the 156th member of the WTO but despite complaints from the U.S., dozens of similar sites continue to operate in Russia and across the border in Ukraine.

Although many have come under pressure from payment providers, most still seem able to take money, even from giants Visa and Mastercard. Previously sites have chosen to charge a few cents per track (around $1.00 per album) but more recently the trend is to offer unlimited music for a set price. Others allow users to charge their accounts with payments of around $25.00 each in order to spend those balances over time.

One of the sites offering this model was LegalSounds. Online since 2005 and launched with a campaign that announced “The end of peer-to-peer networks is near!”, the site offered MP3s for around $0.09 each. But while this may have worked well for a while, the party is now over.

“We are terribly sorry, but due to recent changes in Russian Federation legislation (Anti-Piracy Law, which came into force August 1), we can’t continue offering you our service,” LegalSounds announced in a brief statement.

“Thanks for all of you, who supported legalsounds.com through these years. We hope to come back with something new.”

It’s far from clear why LegalSounds felt an urgent need to close down. Thus far no application has been made to the Russian authorities to have content removed from other MP3 sites under the new legislation (it only covers movies and TV shows) and there is currently no indication that other sites intend to follow.

In the meantime and for the customers hit by the closure, the outlook isn’t good. LegalSounds’ Facebook page appears to have been abandoned, leaving behind only furious ex-customers who seem to have lost all the money they had in their accounts. While there are threats ranging from class action to murder, few users of the site appear to have read LegalSounds’ terms and conditions.

“Only payments made from credit cards are refundable. The entire amount of transaction is subject to be refunded. Partial refunding is not allowed. Refund can’t be provided when customer used part of the balance,” the ToS on the now-dead site used to read.

Whether this closure will have a chilling effect on the cheap MP3 market remains to be seen. That will largely depend on whether other sites follow suit.

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

While it may not come as a complete surprise that nearly all communications on the Internet are being monitored and stored, the revelations have brought discussion about Internet privacy to the mainstream.

As a result, privacy-centered Internet services such as the search engine DuckDuckGo and email provider Hushmail have seen a surge in traffic. New data shows that the same is also true for VPN service providers.

Earlier this month IVPN ran a survey among 1,054 new customers, quizzing them on their motivations to sign up. The results below show that the PRISM scandal was the most mentioned reason with 28%, followed by several anti-piracy initiatives with 22% in total and the Patriot Act (11%).

Reasons to buy a VPN subscription

The mention of the anti-piracy initiatives SOPA, CISPA and ACTA is noteworthy. They all failed to pass more than a year ago, but are still widely mentioned as reasons to buy a VPN. For many, they are probably seen as a synonym for anti-piracy laws in general.

In addition to leading the survey results, IVPN says that the PRISM controversy also resulted in a new subscriber surge. The VPN provider reveals that they enjoyed a 56% increase in sign-ups during June and July. While this is a pretty significant bump, they’re not the only ones to have noticed a boom in business.

Ipredator informs TorrentFreak that they have seen a few spikes in their signups, and Private Internet Access reports a clear increase in demand that may be attributed to NSA spying.

“The PRISM reports are bringing to light the horrendous privacy issues that have existed on the internet. It is clearly the time for cypherpunks to take action,” Andrew Lee of Private Internet Access says.

Privacy.io‘s Derek Spranger tells TorrentFreak that they have noticed an increase in interest, but that a VPN certainly isn’t the holy grail when it comes to NSA-type surveillance.

“Based on emails we have received, a lot more people have been referencing the NSA, but a VPN isn’t the solution to get away from PRISM. The issue isn’t data coming from you, but where it lands.”

“I know I should be plugging the company, but in relation to this it’s not correct,” Spranger adds.

IVPN also notes that while a VPN will hide your browsing and download habits, it’s not going to prevent the NSA from reading your email messages or listening in on your Skype conversations.

“Obviously using a VPN or TOR is not going to stop the NSA from reading your Gmail inbox, so in a technical sense, using a VPN specifically to counter PRISM isn’t going to work.”

“At least the mass media coverage of PRISM appears to be pushing the idea of online surveillance into the public consciousness on a much larger scale than previous controversies,” IVPN adds.

The best solution for privacy concerned citizens who want to escape mass-monitoring is not to use the Internet at all, and throw out the phone too. However, for most people that’s not really an option anymore.

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

The proposals would see copyright holders filing lawsuits against sites carrying infringing content. Site owners would then be required to remove unauthorized content or links to the same within 72 hours. Failure to do so would result in their entire site being blocked by Internet service providers pending the outcome of a court hearing.

Last Friday, 257 lawmakers in Russia’s State Duma voted in favor of the bill during its first hearing, despite outcry from Internet giants such as Google, and Yandex, the country’s largest search engine.

It was hoped that amendments proposed by the tech giants aimed at making the legislation less punishing on innovation could be introduced before the bill’s second and third readings. Today those hopes were dashed when lawmakers fast-tracked the bill and had both readings in one day.

The result is a law that allows copyright holders to complain directly to the courts if infringing material is found, even without first contacting the website in question. If the rightsholder wins his case and the content remains, the site’s IP address will be blacklisted by Russian ISPs.

The blocking of IP addresses, which can be shared by many sites, is terrifying web companies.

“This approach is technically illiterate and endangers the very existence of search engines, and any other Internet resources. This version of the bill is directed against the logic of the functioning of the Internet and will hit everyone – not just internet users and website owners, but also the rightsholders,” a spokesman for Yandex said in a statement.

“It’s like forever closing the highway, on which there was only one accident.”

Controversially, the original version of the draft bill proposed that all copyrighted content would be covered, but due to last minute negotiations only movies and TV shows will be included for protection. However, further negotiations are expected in the summer to expand the law’s reach to a wider range of content.

The law is expected to come into effect August 1, following upper house and presidential approval.

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

Unauthorized websites offering all types of media are perceived as operating with impunity which has led to the country being chastised by foreign rightsholders, particularly those from the United States.

In response, Russia has delivered a draft bill detailing the most draconian anti-piracy legislation seen since the demise of the Stop Online Piracy Act. The proposed law is so tough it’s no surprise that critics are labeling it Russia’s SOPA.

One of the main concerns is how the law places site owners in a vulnerable position should copyright-infringing material be found on their services.

The draft envisions copyright holders filing lawsuits against sites carrying infringing content. Site owners are then expected to remove unauthorized content or links to the same within 72 hours. Failure to do so would result in the entire site being blocked by Internet service providers pending the outcome of a court hearing.

“The greatest harm to the Internet – and to hosts, site owners, advertisers and a huge number of legal resources – can be brought about by IP address blocking as it is currently incorporated in the bill,” said Google Russia’s Communication Director Marina Zhunich.

Yandex, Russia’s largest search engine, is also worried by the bill. The company said that only infringing content should be targeted and whole-site blocking should be kept as a last resort should site operators refuse to comply.

Adding to the problems is the language employed by the bill in respect of takedowns.

Under the DMCA a site or service has to remove content once a rightsholder sends a notice containing a precise URL of the infringing content. Under the proposed Russian law no such clarity is required – the name of the artist/creator and the content’s name will suffice, meaning that it is down to service providers to discover the locations for themselves.

“A situation in which an information intermediary is obliged to search his resource for an illegal object among the vast array of data being uploaded every minute is fraught with paralysis of the resource and, as a consequence, can hurt those owners who use this site to earn,” Zhunich said.

The bill, which required 226 votes for approval, received the backing of 257 lawmakers in the State Duma on Friday. Two more readings are required for it to move on. Many tech companies, Google included, hope that amendments can be introduced before it does.

“Google has shared the concerns voiced by other members of the industry, and presented its amendments to the bill. We are convinced that a compromise of the law will benefit all participants, the Internet industry and the content industry, as well as honest users,” Zhunich concludes.

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

What started as a small protest movement by activist groups developed into mainstream news when tech giants such as Google and Wikipedia joined in. Exactly a year ago following months of scattered protests there was a massive Internet blackout campaign.

As a result the balance of power tipped, and Hollywood and the music industry were forced into retreat. Soon after both bills were declared dead but that doesn’t mean that the Internet is more free than it was before.

The irony is that many of the things that were so bad about SOPA are now pretty much common practice, without any new laws being passed. Let’s take a look at three key SOPA provisions:

1. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking payment providers to stop doing business with rogue websites.

2. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking advertising networks to stop doing business with rogue websites.

3. SOPA would make it easier for copyright holders to request a court order asking search engines to stop linking to rogue websites.

Copyright groups took a lesson from the public’s revolt against SOPA and seem to be putting in more effort applying pressure behind the scenes now. Over the past 12 months we’ve seen more anti-piracy efforts than ever before involving payment processors, advertising networks and major search engines.

PayPal for example has stopped providing services to dozens of cloud hosting and Usenet companies. Copyright holders also have private agreements in place with VISA, MasterCard, CTIA, Monitise, PaySafeCard and PhonePayPlus to strangle finances to “unauthorized sites.”

When services clearly promote copyright infringement these actions may be warranted, but this is not always the case.

The same also applies to advertising networks. Various copyright groups have lobbied for a more strict policy against infringing sites, and this has now paid off through private agreements.

Similarly, copyright holders continue to put pressure on Google asking the search engine to do something about the piracy problem. Google is listening, but copyright holders themselves also upped the ante by asking Google to delete more than 50 million web pages from its search engine.

As we can see, these three examples show how copyright holders are successfully pursuing some of the SOPA provisions without any court getting involved. Again, in most cases these actions are most likely warranted, but it also affects legitimate businesses and free speech.

While it’s certainly worth remembering the defeat of SOPA and PIPA, Internet Freedom Day should mostly be a reminder of the threats that still remain. Those who want to take action against some of the current threats are welcome to take a look at the official campaign page.

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

The Democrat party is, more often, the party of Hollywood, and so it’s no surprise to see them enacting holly-wood favorable legislation. President Obama is also a big music fan, and has drawn many big names in that industry as supporters too. As such, what can we expect from the 113^th Congress?

First, let’s take a quick look at SOPA. Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tx21) in 2011.

SOPA may come around again, as the 64yo keeps his seat with 60.6% of the vote. Nor is it the only internet law proposed by him in this last Congress. He also authored the heavily criticized “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act” requiring ISPs to retain more information on subscribers, for any use by government.

Of the initial SOPA 12 co-sponsors most kept their seats, with three exceptions, all in California. Elton Gallegly did not stand for re-election. Meanwhile two names regular readers are sure to recognize are on the chopping block as well.

First Mary Bono-Mack (R-Ca36), Sonny Bono’s widow who inherited his seat. She pushed strongly for the Sonny Bono Copyright term extinction in 98, adding another 20 years to its length. In a close election, she appears to have lost, provisionally, getting 48.6% to her Democratic challengers 51.4%.

However, the big news is the Howard Berman is out. Often referred to as ‘The Gentleman from Hollywood’, he was pitted against fellow democrat and SOPA sponsor Brad Sherman in California’s 30^th district. Sherman won with 60.5% to Berman’s 39.5%. Berman was also a major driving force behind ACTA and the earlier P2P Piracy Protection Act of 2002 (with Rep. Smith), and other similar legislation.

Of the additional 19 sponsors the bill picked up, another 3 are not coming back in January. Rep. Joe Baca lost the 35^th district of California to another democrat, while Tim Holden [D-Pa17) and Benjamin Quayle (R-Az3) lost in their primaries; both also withdrew their sponsorship in Mid-January.

On the PIPA side, there’s less change, mainly because Senate terms are 6 years, with only 33% being elected each time. Out of Bill sponsor Patrick Lehy (D-Vt) and the 32 co-sponsors, 21(including Leahy), were not up for election.

Of the remaining 14, three did not run for election – Bingaman (D-Nm), Kohl (D-Wi), Lieberman (I-Ct) – while the other 9 retained their seats. However, it was not east for some, including Sherrod Brown (D-Oh) with only 50.3% and Bob Casey, Jr (D-Pa) with 53.6%. Many more stunts like this could see them lose their seats in another 6 years.

So, will there be another SOPA/PIPA? Possibly. The Hollywood reporter suggests that it will be one of the first items on Hollywood’s agenda, and was foiled mainly due to Silicon Valley. Completely ignoring the fact that co-sponsors of both bills withdrew over public sentiment.

If the US Congress does decide to undertake another monumentally stupid act though, you’ll hear about it here, on TorrentFreak.

Note: All results are still provisional, until the results are certified by the appropriate authorities

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