In the early nineties, software companies already realized that piracy posed a major threat to their business.

Computers became more popular and millions of people broke the law by copying floppies, without the permission of copyright holders.

Don’t Copy That Floppy

This illicit activity was a thorn in the side of the Software Publishers Association. In an attempt to educate the masses, it released the “Don’t Copy That Floppy” anti-piracy campaign that’s still known to this day.

The iconic video features ME Hart, starring as “MC Double Def DP,” and two teenagers who are about to tread on the piracy path. For a variety of reasons, the video struck a nerve with an entire generation.

Today, almost thirty years later, people still refer to the campaign. The PSA has its own Wikipedia entry and became a meme by itself. It has generated millions of views on YouTube and the number is still rising.

It’s safe to say that lot has changed since “Don’t Copy That Floppy” first came out. The software industry has long abandoned floppies and nowadays most piracy takes place on the Internet. However, unauthorized copying remains a problem.

Current Anti-Piracy Focus

Despite the ‘success’ of their anti-piracy campaign three decades ago, we haven’t heard much from the Software Publishers Association recently. The industry group, currently known as the Software and Information Industry Association ( SIIA ), hasn’t taken any pirates or pirate services to court, as far as we know.

However, this doesn’t mean that SIIA is no longer concerned with copyright infringements. Instead of fighting casual users or pirate sites, it now focuses on corporate copyright infringement.

This week we stumbled upon the group’s rather generous “rewards” program. While this has been in place for a while, it is worth highlighting.

Report Piracy

The industry group has a special section on its website that’s dedicated to reporting piracy. According to SIIA, unauthorized copying results in an estimated $8 billion in lost sales. To address this issue, they ask the public for help.

“Piracy is stealing. We need your help to combat this crime. If you see something, say something. Report issues of piracy here. SIIA advocates for the industry and protects intellectual property from theft,” SIIA writes.

While not everyone likes the idea of ‘snitching’ on pirates, SIIA has an offer that many will find hard to refuse.

$1 Million Reward

“By reporting software piracy to SIIA you could earn up to $1,000,000,” they promise. At the same time, they offer strict confidentiality to whistleblowers.

Needless to say, this approach is quite different from the “Don’t Copy That Floppy” campaign. While rewards for reporting piracy are not new, $1,000,000 is a substantial sum of money that pales in comparison to the few hundred dollars or pounds theater employees can get .

That being said, when we look at SIIA’s fine print it becomes clear that one has to get very lucky to hit this jackpot.

For one, the reward only applies to situations where corporations use pirated software. If someone reports an issue at his or her employer, SIIA may choose to follow this up, which could ultimately lead to a settlement. The scale of this settlement will determine the award.

“If all the eligibility requirements are met and the settlement amount paid to SIIA is at least $10,000, the source will be considered for a reward of $500. SIIA may increase the reward to as much as $1,000,000 depending on the amount of piracy reported by the source and the settlement amount collected by SIIA.”

In other words, $500 is much more likely than $1,000,000, according to the terms and conditions.

More Caveats

There are several other caveats as well. For example, the rewards only apply to cases where SIIA reaches a settlement outside of court. If it goes to court, SIIA may still choose to “reimburse” the whistleblower for his or her time, but that’s not guaranteed.

In fact, even when all requirements are met, SIIA may still choose not to pay anything.

“The decision whether to pay a reward and the amount of that award shall be within SIIA’s sole discretion. SIIA reserves its right to deny the payment of a reward or to revoke the source reward program at any time and without notice and for any reason,” the terms read.

We reached out to SIIA to find out more about this program and how often the organization pays out rewards but after a few days we still haven’t heard back.

These settlements don’t reach the news very often but they are relatively common. Over the years there have been various reports of successes and several years ago, the group settled nearly a dozen cases on one month, recouping $1 million in lost revenue.

In the midst of all this serious business, SIIA didn’t completely ignore its roots. In 2009, it released a sequel to the “Don’t Copy That Floppy” campaign, titled: “Don’t Copy That 2.” Perhaps we’ll see the third installment of the PSA in the years to come?

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Thousands of torrent sites have come and gone over the years but only a handful of large public sites have stood the test of time.

The Pirate Bay is an obvious example but in Russia and surrounding countries, RuTracker is king. This massive torrent site and tracker has endured many storms but has still managed to stay afloat for more than 16 years.

Like all torrent sites, to a great extent, RuTracker relies on its users to seed and share content, whether that’s movies and TV shows or games, music or eBooks. As long as these human parts of the ecosystem play their crucial role in distribution, content should in theory remain available forever. In reality, though, it rarely works that way for long periods of time.

To the detriment of the sites they frequent and other file-sharers, only a small number of BitTorrent users share significantly more data than they take. Fewer still seed for prolonged periods of time. This means that torrents with initially large seed and leech counts can diminish quickly and when the number of seeders on a torrent reaches zero, people hoping to obtain that content have their options severely restricted.

To mitigate this type of problem, a group on RuTracker known as ‘The Guardians / The Keepers’ have been storing huge volumes of content and seeding it to the masses, with a reported focus on older and rare content. In a community post late December, a RuTracker admin revealed that the group had been doing its work for more than 10 years, helping to distribute 1.52 million poorly-seeded torrents referencing around 2,470TB of data, to the tune of 100 to 150TB of transfers per day.

Given that court-ordered blocking is preventing the free flow of regular users into the site to replace those that inevitably leave, RuTracker said that extreme pressure is being placed on The Guardians’ resources, particularly in respect of sheer lack of hard drive space. So, in an effort to boost their output, the site launched a crowdfunding campaign hoping to buy enough new hard drives to store and seed an additional 600 and 800TB of old and rare content.

“First of all, these are distributions that are in low demand by the general public due to their age, narrow focus or volume, but are still of historical and practical value,” the admin explained .

“Specialized software, old versions of software, images of games for now redundant consoles, alternative distributions of media files, etc. If you watch movies, listen to music, download games or software that were released more than a year ago, then each of you may be faced with a situation where there is no way to download the desired distribution due to the lack of distributors. This fundraiser is intended to minimize such incidents.”

After being launched early January, the crowdfunding campaign has now reached its target. According to a report from Meduza , two million rubles (around US$26,870) was raised in just a few weeks, meaning that The Guardians will now get the hard drives they need to ensure that older, rare and historically significant torrents are kept alive.

While the site and its users will be no doubt pleased that their target has been reached quite quickly, it still took weeks to raise a fairly modest amount, something which reflects the general nature of the BitTorrent ecosystem when sharing quotas aren’t enforced.

According to SimilarWeb stats, RuTracker.org receives around 40 million visits per month, yet only a relatively small number of visitors in January contributed to the fundraiser. In the same way, millions of people regularly jump on torrents offered by dozens of trackers, yet only a tiny proportion go the extra mile to make sure content remains available.

BitTorrent is an extremely powerful protocol but without high-levels of human altruism, interventions like this will always be required if niche content isn’t to fall by the wayside.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

A few years ago I reached out to an academic researcher, asking for a copy of a paper that was just published in a prominent journal.

We regularly report on piracy-related research and many of these papers are hidden behind paywalls. Researchers are often willing to share a review copy, but not always.

Giving Up Copyrights

In this case, the author was very reluctant to share the article. While he would like to see the work covered by a news site, he feared repercussions from the publisher. Why? Because like most researchers, the author had to give up his copyrights in order to be published.

To outsiders, this may sound bizarre. Why would the person who came up with the idea, did the research, and wrote up the results, have to give up the copyrights? Welcome to the world of academic publishing.

While there may be some exceptions, the majority of the “high impact” academic journals are owned by for-profit publishers. These earn billions of dollars, in part by charging academic institutions for access. Yes, the same institutions that pay the researchers.

Paywall Barriers

To make matters worse, the paywalls prevent less fortunate academics from accessing the work of their colleagues. In some cases, researchers even find their own articles behind a paywall.

These billion-dollar companies essentially have a stranglehold on science. While copyright is supposed to “ promote the progress of science ,” the major publishers restrict access to millions of people, mostly in developing countries.

This system has led to a situation where academic researchers actively use ‘pirate’ sites to access research literature. For many academics, Sci-Hub has become the go-to site for unrestricted access to scientific papers.

The Sci-Hub ‘Threat’

Needless to say, the publishers are not happy. Companies such as Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Nature are taking countermeasures. US Courts have ordered Sci-Hub to pay millions of dollars in damages and publishers are actively trying to have the site blocked by ISPs.

The most recent blocking attempt is currently taking place in India. Despite the mounting pressure, Elkabyan refuses to give up what she stands for and continues to push back.

Sci-Hub Founder Highlights Publisher Problems

In a recent interview with the Indian news site The Wire , Elbakyan neatly summarizes the “exploitive” business model of the publishers.

“The careers of researchers depend on journal publications. To receive funding or secure positions at the university, a scientist must have publications in ‘high-impact’ academic journals,” she notes.

In other words, the research only ‘counts’ if it’s published in high-profile journals, which are often controlled by large corporations. Putting exactly the same paper on a university site is pointless.

The publishers essentially have a monopoly on science. A pretty healthy one as well, because all the hard work is done by people they don’t have to pay.

Publishers are Organizers, Not Creators

“Researchers do the actual work: they invent the hypothesis, do the experiments and write the articles describing the results of these experiments. Then they publish this article in an academic journal,” says Sci-Hub’s founder.

“Publishers send articles they have received to other scientists for peer-review. Reviewers give their opinion on whether the work should be accepted in a journal or not, or if some additional work must be done. Based on these reviews, the article is published or rejected.

“Both reviewers and scientists work for free. They do not earn any compensation from the academic publisher. Here, academic publishers work as organizers of the academic community, but not as creators. The work of the academic publisher is organizational and not creative.”

Progress of Science

That last comment hits the nail on the head. While there are probably many nuances, most people would agree that the researchers are the real creators here. They are the definition of the “progress of science.” Paywalls certainly aren’t.

That brings us back to the author I requested a paper from a few years ago. After repeated requests, also to the publisher, I never managed to get a copy. The paywall worked, but does that help science?

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2019, Danish citizen Anni Pape posted a cry for help on Facebook.

Like thousands of other Danes, she had received a demand for cash settlement on the basis she had downloaded and shared pornographic content online using BitTorrent.

“HELP! Are there others who are being sued for having illegally downloaded and shared pornographic films and have to pay 7,500 (US$1,226) to the law firm Njord? And maybe 15,500 (US$2,535) in legal costs!” she wrote.

Pape explained that she had been summoned to appear at the court in Lyngby because the law firm claimed that her IP address had been observed sharing the movie “Big Tits Only”. Making matters worse, she said that her daughter, who lives somewhere else, had also received a similar demand, alongside claims that she had downloaded “Amazing Girls Orgasm” and must also pay the same amount.

“We do not download illegally – and not porn movies at all,” Pape wrote, horrified at the explicit nature of these movie titles.

NJORD Law and Cyprus-Based MIRCOM Strike Again

That these two companies are involved in yet another copyright troll lawsuit in Scandinavia is no surprise. Thousands of similar demands have been delivered through the mail to Internet bill payers right across the region but after a relatively trouble-free run, the authorities are now deeply involved.

As recently reported, NJORD Law and partner lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen are now facing charges of serious fraud related to their work with both MIRCOM and Copyright Management Services (CMS), two copyright-troll middle-man companies that have targeted Internet users around Europe in similar schemes.

The prosecution of Clausen and his company is being carried out by the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK), which says that the entities fraudulently extracted 7.5 million kroner (US$1.22 million) from their targets. NJORD denies the claims but as the case against Pape shows, the campaign against Danish internet users is fundamentally flawed.

Case Thrown Out By The Court

As reported by Berlingske ( paywall ) , the court in Lyngby has now thrown out the case filed against Pape. In common with earlier rejected cases, the court found that yet again, NJORD’s client does not have the right to prosecute these cases on behalf of rightsholders.

In an EU opinion published last December, MIRCOM was described as a classic copyright-troll outfit, with a recommendation that entities like it should not gain access to Internet subscriber information.

The problem, according to the opinion, is that while MIRCOM claims to have obtained licenses to communicate certain copyright works on P2P networks, MIRCOM does not exploit those licenses in a way that a regular rightsholder usually does. Indeed, MIRCOM is not a copyright holder at all so this type of behavior falls under the definition of an abuse of rights, something prohibited under EU law.

Case Backfires, Pape’s Lawyer Contacts SØIK

The above points were also highlighted by Anni Pape’s lawyer, Henrik Hein, who has reported the decision to throw out the case against his client to SØIK. In comments to Berlingske, he also mentions another interesting finding. The piracy allegedly carried out by Pape took place on the very same day that “Big Tits Only” was published and in advance of being registered for copyright purposes in the United States.

Also of interest is that while other MIRCOM cases were withdrawn by NJORD, the case against Pape was not. According to Pape, this was done in an “act of revenge” for making the case public.

“I think it was a sheer punishment because I made the case play out in public. The punishment for that was they then got a sentence that was worse than anything they could have expected. Their entire business model is buried and declared illegal. I see it as a double victory,” she told the publication.

Finally, comments from lawyer Henrik Hein indicate that the authorities are on the right track by taking an interest in the business model underpinning these cases. He has dealt with around 90 of these cases and according to him, several of his clients were nursing home residents “who have never had computers and where the IP address was only used to connect the TV.”

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Over the past three years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in US federal courts.

These lawsuits target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

While many of these cases resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 has also experienced some setbacks in court. For example, not all judges are convinced that an IP-address is sufficient evidence for a viable case.

The Court as an ATM

Others are even more outspoken. A few years ago, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused Strike 3 of being a known “copyright troll” that was using his court “ as an ATM .” The company flooded the court with lawsuits “smacking of extortion”, he added.

Strike 3 Holdings sees things differently. And while a few judges are clearly upset with these targets, there are many who still play along. This allowed the company to collect millions of dollars in settlements over the years.

Even judges in the same District Court can handle these cases differently, which brings us to the topic at hand today.

The Southern District of Florida is one of the courts where Strike 3 is active. Over the last year, it filed roughly a dozen cases, and most judges signed off on a subpoena request. This is crucial, as it allows the company to ask ISPs for the personal information of subscribers.

Geolocation and IP-address Doubts

Not all judges are easy to convince though. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro is particularly critical. Simply put, she doesn’t believe that the geolocation tools, which link IP-addresses to her district, are 100% accurate.

“Plaintiff’s assertions as to Defendant’s residency therefore seem to be in large part based upon the assumption that the geographic data results of IP address geolocation are valid and accurate,” she writes in a recent order.

“This strikes the Court as possibly problematic after reviewing technical literature which suggests otherwise,” Judge Ungaro adds.

The Internet doesn’t have an inherent mechanism to link IP-addresses to specific locations, the order adds, linking to research and various articles on the topic.

An IP-address Isn’t Enough

If Strike 3 wants to continues its case, it will have to come up with more conclusive evidence to show that the IP-address is linked to the Florida district. Not just that, but Strike 3 also has to provide evidence that shows that this IP-address is linked to a specific person

“Additionally, this Court recognizes that IP addresses are assigned to nodes connected to the Internet, but are not necessarily representative of individual end-node/end-system devices, and especially are not representative of individual people,” Judge Ungaro notes.

“This Court therefore requires that Plaintiff show that due diligence, as well as due care, have been employed in ascertaining that the IP address associated with the alleged tortfeasor is or was assigned to a system or node that can be used to reasonably calculate the identity of the alleged infringing party.”

Rinse and Repeat

Regular readers may recall that the “IP-address is not a person” argument has been brought up in the past. In fact, Judge Ungaro highlighted this last year in a similar order, also directed at Strike 3 Holdings.

While this may seem like a major stumbling block for the adult content producer, the reality is a bit different. When Judge Ursula issued her motion last year, Strike 3 simply dropped the case and moved on to the next . It wouldn’t be a surprise if we see that happening here as well.

Pragmatically speaking, it’s easier for the company to drop the case and file a new one, hoping for a ‘friendlier’ judge. That paid off after Judge Ungaro’s order last year, and it will likely work again. Rinse and repeat.

Or other words, if the ATM is not working, just try the one next door.

—

The motion to show cause, issued by Judge Ursula Ungaro, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) placed Bulgaria on the ‘Special 301 Watch List’ between 2013 until 2017, because its copyright policies and enforcement were reportedly lagging behind.

The USTR uses this annual report to motivate foreign countries to take action, which can often pay off.

This also appears to be the case in Bulgaria, where law enforcement agencies have actively pursued various piracy cases in recent years. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by the USTR, which removed Bulgaria from its watch list in 2018, leading to both countries sharing their progress and goals ever since.

For example, last year Bulgaria mentioned that it planned to criminally prosecute torrent tracker Zamunda.net , the country’s most-visited pirate site. In addition, criminal prosecutions of other high-profile torrent sites such as ArenaBG.com, Zelka.org and RARBG.to were in the works as well.

When we highlighted these developments last year they were still in the planning phase. However, a new report sent by Bulgarian authorities to the USTR this week shows that progress has been made.

The report notes that the various recommendations from the US Government are being taken very seriously. This includes the explicit request to fight online piracy and take local torrent trackers offline.

Bulgaria writes that, last summer, Sofia Regional Prosecutor’s Office started four separate pre-trial proceedings against Zamunda.net, ArenaBG.com, Zelka.org and RARBG.to. All sites stand accused of criminal copyright infringement.

Last November the matter was discussed on the highest diplomatic level. In a telephone call, a high-level representative from the US State Department informed Bulgaria’s Ambassador to the United States that prosecuting Zamunda.net and Arenabg remains a key issue.

In the progress report, Bulgaria stresses that it takes these concerns very seriously. It mentions the pre-trial proceedings that were launched, and highlights several steps that have been taken thus far.

“Numerous investigative actions were carried out – interrogation of witnesses, website inspections, preparing and sending requests for legal aid to the competent authorities in the USA, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a request for information and termination of users’ access to the specified sites,” the report reads.

Despite these actions, Zamunda, ArenaBG, and the other torrent sites remain online today. However, law enforcement hasn’t given up.

In a separate message, Bulgaria’s Government notes that US law enforcement also has a role to play. Apparently, Zamunda.net has servers located in the US, and the Department of Justice was recently asked to help shut these down.

“[A]n important event we need to highlight is the submission on January 27th, 2021, of a Request for Mutual Legal Assistance from the Bulgarian Supreme Prosecutor Office to the DOJ for the seizure of illicit servers hosting vast amounts of entertainment and software content with breached IP on US territory, operated by the Bulgarian piracy torrent tracker entity Zamunda.

“The act follows the execution of a mutually agreed Action plan for the improvement of IP enforcement on Bulgarian territory presented by our partners at the USTR,” a representative from the Bulgarian Government adds.

While it’s uncertain if the prosecutions will turn out to be successful, Bulgaria hopes that these efforts will prove sufficient to keep the country off the ‘Special 301 Watch List’ in the coming year.

All in all, it is fascinating to see how these law enforcement actions are orchestrated at the highest political levels. This is not new by any means, however. We previously uncovered how similar tactics triggered Sweden’s criminal prosecution of The Pirate Bay.

—

A copy of the status report the Government of Bulgaria sent to the US Trade Representative is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

When the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Motion Picture Association teamed up in 2004 to create a new anti-piracy advert, neither could’ve believed it would still be getting press coverage close to two decades later.

Even today, the phrases “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” and “Piracy. It’s a Crime” remain familiar to millions, largely because the ad’s original tone has spawned parody after hilarious parody .

Given that the original ad set the stage by coming across as a parody in itself, poking fun at it has never been difficult. Nevertheless, these little boosts have helped establish “You Wouldn’t Steal” as an enduring part of anti-piracy history that no other campaign has come close to matching. And the fun-poking isn’t over yet either.

In a move designed to deter people from meeting up illegally in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, the UK government has released a public service announcement of its own, one that is a clear parody of “You Wouldn’t Steal”.

It was shared by the Home Office on Twitter, with the now-familiar message of “Stay Home. Protect The NHS. Save Lives.” The PSA consists of real video captured by police during raids on various locations recently including makeshift pubs , baby showers, and other illegal gatherings.

All gatherings are currently against the law.

Stay Home. Protect The NHS. Save Lives. pic.twitter.com/Bg7wyN7chF

— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) February 17, 2021

Not generally known (at least publicly) for its sense of humor, FACT weighed in on Twitter, congratulating the Home Office on its video message and then suggesting that it might like to use one of FACT’s other videos as inspiration for its next campaign.

As seen below, this anti-piracy PSA suggested by FACT is even more ridiculous than “You Wouldn’t Steal..” and we have a sneaking suspicion that they know that. But the unintentional comedy was only just warming up.

As highlighted by users on Twitter, the anti-piracy PSA shared by FACT with the Home Office was uploaded to YouTube by a random user, not the anti-piracy group itself. That effectively makes it a pirated copy of a video that was originally designed to stop people from pirating – shared by the people who originally made it, to prevent people from pirating.

Of course, that can only lead to one conclusion and a final message to pirates for which there can be no adequate comeback….

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL YOUR OWN ADVERT

— danny (@dannydarkspace_) February 18, 2021

Bravo…Bravo…

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2019, a U.S. District Court in Minnesota sentenced Paul Hansmeier to 14 years in prison , to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Hansmeier was a key player at the Prenda Law firm, which pursued cases against people who were suspected of downloading pirated porn videos via BitTorrent.

While suing alleged pirates is not illegal, Prenda Law went much further. Over the years the firm faced negative court rulings over identity theft, misrepresentation, and even deception.

The Original Prenda Honeypot

Most controversial were the shocking revelations that Prenda itself produced adult videos and uploaded its own torrents to The Pirate Bay . In doing so, the company created a honeypot for the people they later sued over pirate downloads.

The allegations were serious enough to appear on the radar of US law enforcement agencies which launched a criminal investigation, culminating in prison sentences for the two key players.

Today, Paul Hansmeier and his former colleague John Steele are both in prison. While the latter received a reduced sentence for his cooperative stance, Hansmeier continues to appeal his sentence to this day. To make a point, the lawyer even restarted his honeypot scheme from prison.

Hansmeier Doesn’t Want to Pay $1.5 Million

In addition to challenging his conviction, Hansmeier also appealed the $1,541,527.37 in restitution that he’s required to pay to victims. According to the former lawyer, this figure is too high because it also includes ‘legal’ settlements.

This case ended up at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Government opposed Hansmeier’s claim, arguing that the convicted lawyer waived his right to appeal by signing a plea agreement.

After a careful review, the Court of Appeal judges ruled that Hansmeier has the right to appeal the restitution amount. However, that doesn’t help the former lawyer much, as the judges also concluded that the district court correctly awarded $1,541,527.37 in restitution.

Evidence Shows that $1.5 Million is Correct

According to the Court of Appeal, the Government provided sufficient evidence to show that the restitution amount “was attributable solely to settlement payments from the fraud scheme.”

This evidence was collected by FBI agent Jared Kary who went over all settlement payments that came in from April 2011, which was when the Prenda lawyers started to upload their own movies to The Pirate Bay.

“Agent Kary further attempted to narrow his calculation to payments from fraud victims by excluding any payments that came in over this period that he could not tie to a specific person,” the Court adds, suggesting that the actual figure might be higher.

However, the most compelling statement may come from none other than Paul Hansmeier himself , who pretty much confirmed the amount in the plea agreement .

“Finally, Hansmeier himself acknowledged in his plea agreement that, between 2011 and 2014, he and Steele ‘received more than $3,000,000 in fraudulent proceeds’ from their lawsuits,” the Court writes.

More Setbacks for Hansmeier

The Court’s ruling also provides a detailed description of all the criminal wrongdoings. In a separate argument, Hansmeier also claimed that the district court incorrectly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. However, the Court of Appeal disagrees with this as well.

“Because the facts in the indictment, accepted as true, describe a fraudulent scheme prohibited by federal law, Hansmeier cannot succeed in his claim that it is facially insufficient,” the Court notes.

While the order will certainly come as a setback for Hansmeier, the former attorney will likely continue to challenge his prison sentence. Among other things, the dispute about whether or not he can operate a piracy honeypot from prison remains ongoing.

—

A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Despite being branded ‘The Pirate Bay of Science’ for offering free access to millions of otherwise paywalled research papers, Sci-Hub is somewhat of an outlier in the piracy scene.

While sites like The Pirate Bay receive almost universal condemnation outside of piracy circles, Sci-Hub regularly receives praise from academics. Since the ultimate goal is to further knowledge and education, including among those who can least afford it, Sci-Hub is often considered to be doing valuable work.

Courts, on the other hand, have yet to rule in the site’s favor so publishers including Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley have been pursuing relentless legal action against Sci-Hub and founder Alexandra Elbakyan in an effort to bring the platform to its knees.

Site-Blocking Emerges As Major Strategy

Pioneered by the music and movies industries, site-blocking is seen by copyright holders as an effective tool to reduce traffic to pirate platforms of all types, Sci-Hub included.

The practice commonly involves heading off to a local court in an effort to persuade a judge that Sci-Hub’s behavior represents a breach of copyright law. When a consensus is reached, the court issues an injunction compelling local ISPs to block various domains and/or IP addresses so that subscribers cannot reach them by regular means.

Several publishers have been involved in numerous similar actions against Sci-Hub in a number of countries ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ), usually with quite a lot of fanfare before injunctions are handed down. However, it appears that another process in the UK has been flying under the radar.

UK ISP TalkTalk Quietly Announces New Injunction

TorrentFreak routinely monitors for new site-blocking activity in numerous countries but we were surprised to learn yesterday that Elsevier and Springer Nature have apparently teamed up to obtain an injunction in the UK, something that we believe is yet to become public knowledge.

At this stage, the news isn’t supported by lots of supporting detail but we have learned that UK ISP TalkTalk intends to block (or is perhaps already blocking) access to the Sci-Hub domain ‘sci-hub.se’. Additional information indicates that this was the result of an injunction handed down by a UK court on February 15, 2021.

Three Most Recent UK Blocking Orders as Per TalkTalk

The name of the court is not provided but if the pattern established over the past decade is maintained, the order will have been handed down by a judge at the High Court in London.

TorrentFreak contacted TalkTalk’s press office during Wednesday for additional information but, at the time of writing, we have yet to receive a response. Records on the UK’s BAILII system do not reveal a judgment either, so we are expecting that in due course.

TalkTalk Will Not Be The Only ISP Targeted

At the time of writing, TalkTalk’s rival ISPs including Virgin Media, BT, Sky, EE and O2 are not reporting the existence of a blocking order but it seems extremely unlikely that they won’t be required to act against Sci-Hub under the same order.

Again, the exact details of the injunction are not yet publicly available but if a similar format is maintained by the High Court, it seems probable that all of Sci-Hub’s current domains will be subjected to blocking, not just the one listed by TalkTalk.

Indeed, if the trend of so-called ‘dynamic injunctions’ is maintained in this case, any new domains deployed by Sci-Hub in an attempt to circumvent blocking will be targeted too.

When we have access to the full decision we’ll report the specifics in detail but in the meantime, Sci-Hub has its hands full elsewhere too.

Publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society are currently trying to have Sci-Hub blocked by ISPs in India. In that matter, the judge has agreed to accept interventions from interested parties who believe that any blocking of Sci-Hub would not be in the public interest.

Finally, Sci-Hub was banned from Twitter last month, something Alexandra Elbakyan believes was related to the widespread support the site received from Indian users, including scientists. Twitter informed TorrentFreak that Sci-Hub’s account was suspended for violating the counterfeit policy and it had nothing else to add.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.