Spearheaded by the RIAA, several major music industry companies have filed lawsuits against some of the largest U.S. Internet providers.

The music companies accuse these providers of failing to terminate accounts of the most egregious pirates, thus ignoring millions of copyright infringement notices.

The liability lawsuits are seen as a major threat to the ISP industry, as multiple companies face hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages. This is not just a hypothetical threat, as the $1 billion verdict against Cox has shown.

In response to these lawsuits, several ISPs have submitted counterclaims, scrutinizing the copyright infringement notices. Internet provider RCN did the same and also targeted the RIAA and anti-piracy company Rightscorp in its response.

Rightscorp’s notices, which often included a settlement offer, are used as evidence in music industry lawsuits. However, RCN believes that some of these notices were fraudulent. Making matters worse, Rightscorp allegedly destroyed evidence which makes it hard to verify the claims.

Last month Rightscorp filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, stating that RCN failed to state a claim under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Last week, the ISP countered, noting that there are plenty of reasons to continue the case.

“Over the past ten years, Counterclaim Defendant Rightscorp, Inc. has made millions of accusations of copyright infringement against users of RCN’s internet service,” RCN informed the court.

“Rightscorp does this for profit — it sends notices of copyright infringement in the hopes of extracting settlements from accused infringers, and Plaintiffs pay Rightscorp to generate these notices to pressure ISPs like RCN into terminating the internet access of accused infringers.”

Sending copyright infringement notices by itself is not ‘fraudulent’ nor is it by definition ‘unfair.’ However, RNC argues that these descriptions fit the bill here, since Rightscorp destroyed the underlying evidence.

In addition, Rightscorp allegedly refused to digitally sign its emails, so RCN could verify their legitimacy. The latter is a warranted concern, as imposters have previously sent fake settlement requests.

The lack of evidence is a serious problem, RCN notes. The company believes that Rightscorp, among other things, knowingly configured its system in a way that would result in false positives. However, with all underlying evidence destroyed this can’t be checked.

As part of its defense, Rightscorp countered that RCN wasn’t ‘injured’ by the piracy notices but the ISP disagrees. It notes that it incurred substantial costs in order to handle the millions of notices the anti-piracy company sent.

It is now up to the New Jersey District Court to decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or not. Meanwhile, however, there appear to be some problems at Rightscorp’s end.

Over the past few days, we have been unable to reach the site, and the last Google cache version dates back two weeks ago. TorrentFreak reached out to Rightscorp to check if this is a temporary issue, but we have yet to hear back.

Website or no website, RCN hopes that the case will continue. Ideally, they want the court to grant an injunction that requires Rightscorp to properly sign its emails and preserve all the important evidence.

—-

A copy of Rightscorp’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf) and RCN’s reply can be found here (pdf) .

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

After the RIAA caused outraged by filing a complaint that took down the open source software YouTube-DL from Github, YouTube-ripping service Yout.com sued the music industry group .

In common with its claim against youtube-dl, the RIAA had previously asked Google to delist Yout.com’s homepage on the basis that it too circumvented YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ technology. With both Github and the EFF arguing that youtube-dl’s features amount to little more than those already available in web browsers, an emboldened Yout.com hoped to take the fight to the RIAA and have itself declared legal .

RIAA Fights Back: YouTube’s Rolling Cipher is a TPM

In a motion to dismiss filed in a Connecticut district court, the RIAA is now attempting to remove the basics underpinning the entire Yout.com action. Apparently undeterred by the controversy surrounding YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ and its characterization as being somewhat ineffective, the RIAA says that according to copyright law, the threshold for a Technological Protection Measure (TPM) is already low.

“[T]he allegation that Plaintiff or others with technical expertise have figured out how to defeat the rolling cipher does not establish that the rolling cipher is ineffective for purposes of section 1201. If Plaintiff’s position were correct, it would amount to a free pass because the statute would only apply to those TPMs that could not be defeated,” the motion reads.

“For this reason, numerous courts have rejected the same argument upon which Plaintiff bases its claim about the alleged ineffectiveness of the YouTube rolling cipher.”

In short, just because YouTube’s measures are easily bypassed, it doesn’t mean they can’t be considered effective. According to the RIAA, this is due to section 1201 of the DMCA considering the abilities of an “ordinary” or “average” consumer, not those of “an online security engineer with a background in computer science” – a reference to Mitch Stoltz of the EFF, who authored a third-party letter in the youtube-dl matter.

“[T]he letter acknowledges that a German court has concluded, among other things, that circumventing the YouTube rolling cipher is ‘beyond the capabilities of the average user,’ and that it ‘was on this basis that the court declared the code to be an effective technical measure under Germany’s analogue of Section 1201. Plaintiff’s allegations therefore allow for only one plausible inference: the YouTube rolling cipher is an effective TPM,” the RIAA adds.

RIAA: Yout’s Non Circumvention Claims Fail

Yout.com’s lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that the service does not circumvent YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ but according to the RIAA, that effort should fail. Circumvention means “to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner,” the RIAA writes, noting that Yout’s claim that it does none of these things isn’t plausible.

Referencing Yout’s complaint, the RIAA notes that the company admits that its entire purpose is to give users the ability to copy audio from YouTube in MP3 format locally, allowing that content to be consumed offline. The RIAA says that YouTube aims to prevent users from “turning certain streams into downloads” and the method used to enforce that is its ‘rolling cipher’.

“Plaintiff concedes that it ‘encounters’ the rolling cipher and then ‘reads and interprets the JavaScript program’ and ‘derives a signature value’ to access the file,” the RIAA writes.

“The only reasonable inference to draw from those vague allegations is that the Yout service enables users to avoid or bypass that technological measure—that is the very definition of circumventing a TPM under section 1201. For this straightforward reason, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege a claim for declaratory judgment under section 1201.”

RIAA: Even Improper Anti-Circumvention Notices Can’t Be Countered

As mentioned earlier, the RIAA previously sent DMCA takedown notices to Google, demanding that Yout URLs should be delisted from search results on the basis that the Yout service itself is a circumvention technology.

Yout’s lawsuit states that since it does not circumvent technical measures, the RIAA either sent the complaints without carrying out appropriate testing or already knew that the site was non-infringing. As a result, Yout is entitled to compensation due to the RIAA interfering with the relationships between Yout and its customers, partners, and potential users.

Not so, says the RIAA, as no claim is available under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) .

“Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law because the statutory text makes clear that
section 512(f) penalizes only misrepresentations regarding alleged copyright infringement , but not misrepresentations regarding alleged circumvention ,” its motion reads.

Citing the Arista Records, Inc. v. Mp3Board, Inc. case, the RIAA states that Section 512 “only penalizes copyright holders for knowingly materially misrepresenting ‘that material or activity is infringing.’ It does not provide a cause of action for knowingly materially misrepresenting [other claims].”

In other words, the RIAA believes it doesn’t matter whether the anti-circumvention notices were improper or otherwise since claims under Section 512 are limited to when there are misrepresentations of copyright infringement, not allegations of breaching technological measures.

Furthermore, even if Yout could state a claim for alleged misrepresentations, the RIAA says that the company has failed to plausibly allege that the music group knew that the Yout service did not circumvent YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’.

“Plaintiff alleges that ‘Defendants failed to determine whether Yout’s software platform would, in fact, circumvent [YouTube’s rolling cipher] by testing the platform” with protected works. But purportedly failing to perform an adequate investigation is insufficient to establish a section 512(f) claim,” the RIAA adds.

As a result of the above and other issues that rest upon them, the RIAA believes that Yout’s first amended complaint should be dismissed by the court.

The RIAA’s motion to dismiss can be found here and here (pdf)

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

In recent years the European Commission has proposed and adopted various legislative changes to help combat online piracy.

This includes the Copyright Directive which passed last year as well as the Digital Services Act , which was officially unveiled last week.

New EU Study Piracy of Sports Events

These laws aim to help copyright holders enforce their rights. However, according to a new report from the European Parliamentary Research Service, more changes are needed. Especially to protect the rights of sports event organizers.

The new study, released by the research service’s European Added Value Unit, suggests implementing new policies, including an “EU Anti-Piracy Act”. This is needed to deal with the increasing losses to copyright holders and the tax coffers of EU countries.

Relying on earlier research, the study estimates that there were 7.6 million subscriptions to illegal IPTV services in 2019. This generated €522 million in revenues and resulted in €113.5 million in missed annual VAT payments.

“If the same number of subscriptions were made legally, legal broadcasters’ revenues could increase by €3.4 billion each year,” the study estimates

“In addition to these revenue losses, legal broadcasters also suffer impacts on employment due to online piracy. The most cautious estimate suggests that each year up to 16,000 potential new jobs are lost as a result of online piracy of broadcasts of sports events.”

Policy Changes are Required

The EU study proposes several changes that could help to better tackle the streaming piracy problem. This is needed, it argues, because current enforcement tools are inefficient and differ from country to country.

One policy option could be to provide a new neighboring right over sports events. An even better option, according to the study, would be to grant a right of communication to the public to the producers of audiovisual works, including sports events.

The ‘communication to the public right,’ paired with the right of sports organizers to sue ‘infringers’ without the involvement of licensees, would be most effective.

EU-wide Blocking Injunctions

On top of this proposal, the study also suggests making dynamic blocking injunctions available in all EU countries and to allow rightsholders to instantly disrupt piracy when needed.

“A possible solution would be to implement a system of fast, dynamic and live blocking orders, harmonized at EU level through the use of ‘dynamic blocking orders’ and ‘live injunctions’.

“Along with the latter, it is necessary to adopt a legal provision granting sports events organizers (and any other producers of ‘premium’ content) the right to remove illicit content directly – through technological means – from any streaming server used by pirates.”

From Voluntary Agreements to a New Anti-Piracy Act

While there is no shortage of enforcement options and proposals, implementing these can be a challenge. The researchers have thought about this as well and give four future scenarios.

One could be to do nothing and rely on existing legal tools. However, the study concludes that this isn’t really an option, as piracy will remain a massive problem.

The first real option, according to the report, is to tackle the problems with voluntary agreements and private partnerships. For example, hosting providers could agree to shut down pirated content when asked, and ISPs could help to block sites and services.

“This solution, indeed, would have a high impact on the system, allowing a coordinated real-time take-down of pirated content, without causing further burden to courts and administrative authorities and alleviating costs and timing of public enforcement.

“The chances, however, to develop a network of code of conducts harmonized and available throughout the entire EU territory does not seem to be significant.”

The second option would be to update current laws, such as the E-Commerce Directive and the InfoSoc Directive, to ensure that the much-needed extra enforcement options can be implemented.

These changes are possible, the study notes, but the implementation into local laws may result in fragmentation and differences between EU Member States, something the researchers want to rule out.

New Anti-Piracy Act Most Efficient

The preferred option, therefore, is to adopt a new EU Anti-Piracy Act that includes all proposed changes.

“The most impacting proposition – Option 3 – would consist in the adoption of an ‘EU Antipiracy Act’, in the form of a newly adopted EU Regulation, providing for all those legal tools necessary to deploy an efficient digital enforcement against piracy,” the study concludes.

This new law wouldn’t change existing legislation but would be tailored specifically to piracy of sports events and other premium copyrighted content. That also includes music, films, and games.

The proposals are far-reaching and will be welcomed by copyright holders. However, the study also stresses that the feasibility is low, as implementing new EU legislation isn’t straightforward.

For now, this means that the EU Anti-Piracy Act is just another idea.

—

A copy of the European Parliamentary Research Service study titled “Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment” is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

It is a busy week for copyright proposals in the United States, one that will resound far into the year ahead.

A few hours after the ‘CASE Act’ and the ‘Protecting Lawful Streaming Act’ were approved as part of the spending bill , a discussion draft for a new and improved version of the DMCA was revealed.

The draft (pdf) was published by Senator Thom Tillis, who started a thorough review of the copyright law last year. After hearing dozens of experts and stakeholders, the Senator released what he considers to be a more modern version of the 20-year old DMCA.

“The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in 1998, and while it was revolutionary at the time, the law simply hasn’t kept pace with changes in technology. The DMCA is now antiquated and is past-due for modernization,” Senator Tillis said.

“This discussion draft is the result of a year-long series of hearings and months of feedback from creators, user groups, and technology companies.”

Titled the “Digital Copyright Act of 2021,” the proposal suggests various updates and changes that have ignited instant opposition from digital rights groups. We will provide a summary of some key proposals but there will be more to unpack in the future.

Notice and Staydown

The current DMCA requires online services to remove copyright-infringing links or files when they are alerted by copyright holders. This won’t change in the new proposal but simply taking down content is no longer sufficient.

When copyright holders inform services that ‘complete or near complete’ copies of their works are being shared online without permission, these platforms have to ensure that this content stays offline.

While the draft doesn’t mention filters specifically, the ‘staydown’ language indirectly requires online sites and services to monitor and filter uploaded content. This would be similar to Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive.

Copyright holders have argued in favor of a staydown requirement for years. They argue that this is essential to end the piracy ‘whack-a-mole’ where they have to send hundreds of takedown requests for the same content.

Disconnecting Repeat Infringers?

The existing DMCA already requires ISPs to disconnect repeat infringers, but it’s not clear when this should happen, and if notifications from rightsholders are sufficient as evidence.

This ambiguity has led to a series of lawsuits where ISPs are accused of failing to adhere to the DMCA. The new Digital Copyright Act should bring an end to this uncertainty.

The discussion draft proposes to get rid of the “repeat infringer” and replace it with “persons that, on multiple occasions, were the subject of notifications (…) that were not successfully challenged.”

More importantly, it requires the Copyright Office, together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to develop a policy model that specifies what a frequent offender is and how these persons should be handled.

This suggestion is in line with the Copyright Office’s own assessment from earlier this year, which called on Congress to clarify when a user’s account should be terminated .

Small Claims, Copyright Abuse, and More

The discussion draft also proposes using a small claims tribunal for smaller copyright offenses. This pretty much means incorporating the CASE Act in the new law but that seems unnecessary now that the proposal has already been passed.

A more novel suggestion in the ‘DMCA 2.0’ is to keep a list of companies and copyright holders that repeatedly send false takedown notices. These ‘flagged’ abusers are placed on a list maintained by the Copyright Office.

When online services receive takedown notices from blacklisted senders they are not required to act. In other words, they can ignore these takedowns without losing their safe harbor.

Praise and Outrage

As mentioned earlier, the above is just an initial rundown of the proposal, which by itself is merely a discussion draft. And based on the early responses, there is plenty to discuss, or not.

“There’s nothing to discuss,” The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes in an early response adding that “the bill, if passed, would absolutely devastate the Internet.”

Re:Create is equally offended by the draft stating that the proposed Digital Copyright Act “would fundamentally end online creativity as we know it.”

Public Knowledge, meanwhile , notes that the draft text “would significantly curtail online speech, subjecting every upload to mandatory content filtering while effectively eliminating fair use on the internet.”

As is often the case with copyright law proposals, the responses are mixed. Rightsholders are pleased with most of the suggestions, which is reflected in an early response from 22 music groups .

“Through a thoughtful, deliberative process, Senator Tillis has developed an important proposal. By digging deep into the substance, engaging a broad universe of stakeholders and experts, and confronting the issues, Senator Tillis and his team have started an important discussion about how best to provide incentives for success,” they say.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider and Virgin Islands-based Pirate Monitor Ltd teamed up in the summer to file a class-action lawsuit against YouTube.

In an effort to gain access to YouTube’s Content ID system, the complaint stated that YouTube has an allegedly lax attitude to takedown notices and repeat infringers, and discriminates against smaller creators.

Schneider told the court that a number of her songs had been posted to YouTube without her permission. Pirate Monitor Ltd argued similarly, stating that pirated copies of its works had been uploaded to the site. Both further said they had been denied access to Content ID.

In its response, YouTube focused on Pirate Monitor, alleging that the company or its agents uploaded the ‘pirate’ movies and then claimed mass infringement, something which disqualified them from accessing Content ID.

“YouTube Failed to Provide Evidence”

In a motion to dismiss filed in November, Pirate Monitor said YouTube had provided no “hard evidence” to back up these damaging claims, demanding that the court disregard the allegations and reject calls for the right to an injunction to prevent Pirate Monitor from submitting wrongful DMCA notices in the future.

At the time we noted that it was unlikely that YouTube had simply pulled its claims out of thin air and in an opposition to dismiss Pirate Monitor’s counterclaims, YouTube now provides a taster of some of the supporting evidence it has on file.

Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

“Pirate Monitor devised an elaborate scheme to prove itself sufficiently trustworthy to use YouTube’s advanced copyright management tools,” YouTube begins.

“Through agents using pseudonyms to hide their identities, Pirate Monitor uploaded some two thousand videos to YouTube, each time representing that the content did not infringe anyone’s copyright. Shortly thereafter, Pirate Monitor invoked the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that YouTube remove the same videos its agents had just uploaded.”

YouTube notes that Pirate Monitor has still not disputed these claims but has nevertheless moved to dismiss, arguing that YouTube should provide detailed evidence to support its allegations. According to YouTube, it does not have to do that at this early stage but nevertheless highlights some key evidence to show foul play.

Suspicious Uploads

In all, YouTube processed nearly 2,000 DMCA notices it received by Pirate Monitor in the fall of 2019. All of the targeted videos had a uniform length, around 30 seconds each, generated from “obscure Hungarian movies”. They had been uploaded in bulk from users with IP addresses allocated to Pakistan.

“That alone was suspicious, there is no obvious reason why short clips from relatively unknown Hungarian-language movies should be uploaded to YouTube from accounts and devices in Pakistan,” YouTube writes.

Furthermore, YouTube notes that the videos were uploaded by users with similar names, such as RansomNova11 and RansomNova12, who gave the clips nondescript titles. Perhaps even more telling, the takedown notices were sent soon after the videos were uploaded, sometimes before the videos had been seen by anyone.

While the nature of the uploads is indeed suspicious, YouTube says that it also found what it describes as a “smoking gun”, i.e evidence that the uploads and DMCA notices were being sent by the same entity.

The Smoking Gun

“After considerable digging, YouTube found a smoking gun. In November 2019, amidst a raft of takedown notices from Pirate Monitor, one of the ‘RansomNova’ users that had been uploading clips via IP addresses in Pakistan logged into their YouTube account from a computer connected to the Internet via an IP address in Hungary,” YouTube explains.

“Pirate Monitor had been sending YouTube its takedown notices from a computer assigned that very same unique numeric address in Hungary. Simply put, whoever RansomNova is, he or she was sharing Pirate Monitor’s computer and/or Internet connection, and doing so at the same time Pirate Monitor was using the same computer and/or connection to send YouTube takedown notices.”

To counter Pirate Monitor’s claims that not enough evidence has been provided, YouTube says that a party is not required to prove its entire case in its complaint and the relevant rules do not allow Pirate Monitor to escape any accounting for fraudulent and illegal conduct by “concealing the identity of its agents and obscuring its connection to them.”

Specifically, however, YouTube says it has already answered the “who, what, where and when?” questions Pirate Monitor claims YouTube has not answered. The “who” is Pirate Monitor, the “what” is Pirate Monitor’s allegedly fraudulent representations, the “where” is YouTube’s website, and the “when” is from August 2019 to November 2019.

“For these reasons, Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss should be denied,” YouTube’s legal team writes.

The opposition to Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss can be found here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Earlier this year Texas-based model Deniece Waidhofer sued Thothub for copyright infringement after the site’s users posted many of her ‘exclusive’ photos.

Soon after the complaint was filed Thothub went offline . This prompted Waidhofer to shift priorities.

In an amended complaint, submitted a few weeks ago, Thothub is no longer a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit now focuses on several sites and services that did business with the pirate site, including CDN provider Cloudflare.

Cosplay Models Join Case Against Cloudflare

Another significant change is that Waidhofer is no longer the sole plaintiff. She is now joined by two cosplay artists, Ryuu Lavitz and Margaret McGhee, better known as OMGcosplay . Together, these models have millions of online followers.

When the original case was filed, Lavitz and McGhee hadn’t registered their photos at the Copyright Office. Both submitted their registrations for hundreds of works in September, after which they were able to join the case.

In addition to removing Thothub as a defendant and adding two plaintiffs, some of the strongest allegations were stripped from the original complaint. Cloudflare is no longer alleged to be part of a RICO conspiracy but is accused of direct and contributory copyright infringement.

The models claim that Cloudflare has carved out a competitive niche by serving illegal pirate sites that other large CDN companies like Akamai Technologies would not. It ‘helps’ these sites by concealing the real IP-address and by ‘storing’ their content, it’s alleged.

Motion to Dismiss

Cloudflare replied to these allegations by pointing out that it’s merely a middleman. The company has no knowledge of the traffic that passes through its network and doesn’t store content permanently, in most cases, but simply makes temporary “cache” copies.

“Under Plaintiffs’ wildly expansive theory of liability, the owner of any computer connected to the Internet could potentially be exposed to unlimited liability,” Cloudflare argued, adding that the complaint doesn’t show bad “intent”.

Based on these and various other deficiencies, the CDN provider asked the court to dismiss the case. However, the models disagree and recently submitted several counterarguments.

‘Cloudflare Helps Pirate Sites’

The models argue that Cloudflare was aware of the copyright infringements on Thothub, but chose not to do anything. Instead, it helped the site to cope with vast amounts of traffic so it could stay online. That’s what the site does for other pirate sites as well.

“Cloudflare easily could have limited Thothub’s infringement simply by terminating service, or by not delivering URLs that it had already been notified contained infringing content. But Cloudflare stood behind Thothub instead, as it does regularly for pirates everywhere. Indeed, Cloudflare has made a cottage industry out of indulging pirates.”

The plaintiffs say that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. The company’s decision not to take action helped Thothub to stay online and operate more efficiently. That is enough to be held liable, the models argue, referencing the ALS Scan case against Cloudflare.

“Cloudflare enabled Thothub to be operated securely on a vast scale. The law recognizes this as a material contribution that, with knowledge, creates liability,” they write.

Thothub Alternatives Still use Cloudflare

Without Cloudflare, Thothub’s site would have been “overrun and crashed.” Although it may have come back, that ‘simple measure’ would have made a difference, at least briefly. Cloudflare, however, decided not to act and it does the same for many similar sites today.

“The Complaint identifies nearly two dozen other pirate sites — all Cloudflare clients — that are Thothub copycats, including one called Thothub.ru that is nearly a direct clone,” the plaintiffs write.

In addition to contributory infringement, the models also accuse the company of direct infringement. They argue that the CDN provider made copies of Thothub files on its own accord and continued copying works after takedown notices were sent.

The reply to Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss is filled with allegations that will eventually have to be backed up with evidence. In addition to focusing on the case at hand, it also references an EU report which concluded that 62% of the world’s top 500 pirate sites use Cloudflare.

Daily Stormer and 8Chan

And, as we predicted a few years ago , Cloudflare’s decision to ban The Daily Stormer is also being brought up.

“Despite serving most of the world’s top pirate sites, on information and belief, Cloudflare has never voluntarily terminated services to a customer for repeat copyright infringement. Cloudflare has, however, voluntarily terminated services for other customer sites, including the American Neo-Nazi group Daily Stormer and the conspiracy website 8chan,” the reply reads.

It is now up to the US District Court for the Central District of California to decide whether the case against Cloudflare should be dismissed, or if the models can pursue their claims at trial.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is available here (pdf) and the reply from the models can be found here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

With millions of regular visitors, Torrentz2 is without a doubt the most popular torrent meta-search engine on the Internet.

Update December 4: Torrentz2.is remains down after a week. The 503 error is still the only thing that’s showing up. We repeatedly reached out to the operator without any response. This suggests that there may be more going on than a DDoS attack. When we know more we will write a new article. All proxies, mirrors, or alternatives that are online are unofficial.

The site took this spot from the original Torrentz site, which shut down unexpectedly during the summer of 2016.

Since then, not much has changed. The site has continued to operate quietly like its predecessor by indexing and linking to dozens of millions of links on external torrent sites.

Torrentz2’s Domain Issues

Earlier this year the site suffered a major setback. In June, the official Torrentz2.eu domain name was suspended by the EURid registry, an action that was taken following an order from the Belgian Public Prosecutor in Brussels .

Torrentz2 swiftly responded and moved to Torrentz2.is, while adding several backup domains such as Torrentz.pl and Torrentsmirror.com. While these domains still work fine, they also show the same error.

503 Service Unavailable

For more than a day, Torrentz2 has been returning a “503 Service Unavailable” error, as shown in the screenshot below.

“503 Service Unavailable” is an HTTP status code that typically indicates that the server of a website is overloaded. This is often a temporary issue but, in this case, it’s taking unusually long.

TorrentFreak reached out to the operator of Torrentz2 to ask whether the problem will be resolved in the near future, but we have yet to hear back.

Without an official comment, we can only speculate as to the reason for the ‘downtime’. It seems likely, however, that it is of a technical nature. That could include DDoS attacks, which are not uncommon for torrent sites.

Torrentz2 uses Cloudflare, which generally protects servers from DDoS attacks. However, if attackers know the origin IP-address, they can bypass that protection layer.

There doesn’t appear to be a connection to the domain issues from earlier this year, which appeared to be linked to Hollywood. Torrentz2’s main .is domain, which is managed by Iceland’s ISNIC registry, is functioning properly.

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

Next week, US lawmakers are expected to present the spending bill that keeps the government running.

This ‘must pass’ legislation, also known as the appropriations bill, is often padded in order to get unrelated proposals passed before the end of the year.

While the official content remains unknown at the time of writing, several groups and organizations are already sounding the alarm bell. Based on sources, there is fear that several controversial pieces of copyright legislation will be tagged on.

The CASE Act

The CASE Act is one of the bills that may be added. Short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” it proposes to establish a copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office.

If adopted, the new board will provide an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, which significantly reduces the associated costs. As such, it aims to make it easier for smaller creators, such as photographers, to address copyright infringements.

Opponents fear that the new tribunal will trigger an avalanche of claims against ordinary Internet users, with potential damages of up to $30,000 per case. While targeted people have the choice to opt-out, many simply have no clue what to do, they argue.

Despite fierce protests, the CASE Act passed the House with an overwhelming majority last year. And now it is possibly being added to the spending bill, Techdirt reports , which means that it could soon become law.

Streaming Piracy Felony Proposal

Another controversial proposal that may end up in the spending bill should sound familiar too. Protocol writes that Senator Thom Tillis will, once again, is trying to make streaming piracy a felony.

Under current law, unauthorized streaming is categorized as a public performance instead of distribution, which is punishable as a misdemeanor, not a felony. Lawmakers tried to change this with the SOPA and PIPA bills but these didn’t pass. The plan never completely disappeared, however.

Earlier this year it gained momentum again in Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Senator Tillis, who chairs the subcommittee, has reportedly picked up the baton and added the proposal to the spending bill.

Opposition

In addition to the two aforementioned pieces of legislation, the Trademark Modernization Act is also on the list of additions. Together, these bills present a volatile mix of copyright-related plans that should not be rushed through, opponents warn.

A group of civil rights groups, tech companies, libraries and educators recently shared their concerns in a letter (pdf) to the U.S. Senate.

“We write to you today regarding recently reported efforts to include a package of intellectual property bills in the year-end spending bill that includes the CASE Act, the Trademark Modernization Act and a felony streaming proposal,” it begins.

Unintended Consequences

The signatories, including the CCIA, the Internet Archive, the Internet Association, the Library Copyright Alliance, and the Center for Democracy & Technology, warn that these proposals will have negative impacts on many organizations and Internet users in general.

“All signatories have serious concerns with at least some aspect of the bills slated to be included in their current state, and we stand ready to work with Congress to avoid their unintended consequences,” the letter reads.

“In order to allow that process to take place, we ask that you decline to include this package of bills in any must-pass government funding bill, and instead allow these bills to be considered through the regular order process.”

While the addition of the controversial plans have yet to be confirmed, the opposition is already in full swing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, is calling on the public to urge senators not to pass the CASE Act.

“The CASE Act could mean Internet users facing $30,000 penalties for sharing a meme or making a video. It has no place in must-pass legislation,” EFF writes .

If these three proposals are indeed added to the spending bill, more opposition is likely to follow. That said, the bills also have substantial support in the creative industries, so there will be plenty of backing as well.

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

Hacking group Team-Xecuter has long been a thorn in the side of major gaming companies.

The group offers hardware and software solutions that allow people to install and play unofficial games – including pirated copies – on various consoles, including the popular Nintendo Switch.

Team-Xecuter often defended its work by pointing out that their products are not necessarily pirate tools. They are supporters of the ‘right to repair’ movement and back people who want to play homebrew games on their devices for personal use.

The affected game companies disagree, with Nintendo front and center. The Japanese gaming company has been chasing down Team-Xecuter for years and a few months ago the company took several online stores to court for selling Team-Xecuter products .

In October, these enforcement efforts reached a new level when the US Government launched a criminal prosecution of three of the group’s members.

Bowser aka ‘GaryOPA’

One of the defendants is Canadian Gary Bowser. He was arrested in the Dominican Republic in September and was deported to the US soon after. Bowser was allegedly responsible for the development of circumvention devices and maintained regular contact with resellers.

Bowser is perhaps best known through his nickname GaryOPA, the supposed operator and a frequent writer on the website “MaxConsole,” which regularly reviewed Team-Xecuter hardware and other hacking tools.

Flight Risk

In a ‘Zoom’ hearing held last week, a federal court in Seattle reviewed a request for pretrial detention, submitted by the US prosecution. It is not uncommon for criminal defendants to be released on bail pending their trial, but the US argues against this in Bowser’s case, as he’s considered a ‘flight risk.’ The court agrees.

“Defendant poses a risk of nonappearance due to his lack of ties to this district, ties to Canada and the Dominican Republic, ownership of a Canadian passport, history of international travel, unstable living situation, and an uncorroborated personal history,” US Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson writes.

“Based on these findings, and for the reasons stated on the record, there does not appear to be any condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance at future court hearings,” she adds.

Bowser was not interviewed by the court, which currently has no information on his family ties, personal history, or employment. That leaves the door open to reopening the detention hearing at a future date, which may change things.

The Other Defendants

There is no update on the other defendants at this point. Based on the information in the court dockets, Yuanning Chen from China is still at large. According to the indictment, Chen managed a manufacturing and distribution company where Team-Xecuter’s hardware was made.

The third defendant, French national Max Louarn, was arrested in Canada where a U.S. extradition request was launched. The US Government sees Louarn, who’s hacking track record goes back to the early nineties, as the leader of Team-Xecuter.

Louarn allegedly made Team-Xecuter’s important business decisions, arranged investors and financing, and oversaw product development and the wholesale distribution chains.

Nintendo Takes Over Domains

The US criminal prosecution is not the only legal pressure on Team-Xecuter. Nintendo has also seen very active on the legal front. One of the stores it sued earlier this year, Axiogame.com, was allegedly operated by Team-Xecuter . That has been shut down through Nintendo’s lawsuit.

The Axiogame.com domain is now owned by Nintendo and over recent days the gaming company took over several other domains of former piracy hack stores, assisted by an updated court order .

Flashcarda.com switched to the new Materpl.com domain and both are owned by Nintendo now. The same is true for Txswitch.com that switched to Stxwitch.com, Usachipss.com that moved to Nerged.com, and several other domains.

Team-Xecuter Continues

Despite the mounting legal pressure, Team-Xecuter is far from defeated. In fact, the site’s main website remains online . The forum remains active as well, with people privately offering help to install or buy mods.

Team-Xecuter’s dedicated page for the SX product line is also still intact. This links to a list of authorized resellers. While many of these stores are offline now, a few are still actively selling.

—

A copy of the detention order issued by US Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson is available here (pdf) . Nintendo’s filing, pointing out the newly targeted shop domains can be found here (pdf)

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