At issue is the FISA Amendments Act, expiring legislation authorizing the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”
Much more:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/congress-mulls-spy-powers/
Fact #1: In order to notify Google of an infringement, you first need to find the infringement. But Google places artificial limits on the number of queries that can be made by a copyright owner to identify infringements. These limits significantly decrease the utility of Google’s take down tool given the vast nature of the piracy problem today and the number of titles we are trying to protect. The number of queries they allow is miniscule, especially when you consider that Google handles more than 3 billion searches per day. Yet Google has denied requests to remove this barrier to finding the infringements.
Fact #2: You can’t notify Google about the scope of the problem if it limits the notices it will accept and process through its automated tool. And that is what Google does. On top of the query limitation, Google also limits the number of links we can ask them to remove per day. Google has the resources to allow take downs that would more meaningfully address the piracy problem it recognizes, given that it likely indexes hundreds of millions of links per day. Yet this limitation remains despite requests to remove it.
Fact #3: One needs to consider these numbers and Google’s activities in context. Google says it received requests to remove 1.2 million links from 1000 copyright owners in one month. But consider that Google has identified nearly 5 million new links posted in just the last month in searches for free mp3 downloads of just the top 10 Billboard tracks. The constraints Google has placed on the tools they promote to deter infringement are well below what is necessary to identify and notice infringements on the Billboard top 10, much less the entire catalog of the American creative community.
Googl
Fact #4: Google’s “transparency report” calculates the percentage of a site that is infringing – but this data is flawed and of little value on its own. Specifically, Google claims that the DMCA notices it has received for a site represent less than .1% of the links it had indexed for the domains at the top of this list. But this number is misleading given the constraints imposed by Google on a copyright owner’s ability to find infringements and send notices to Google. If these constraints did not exist, how many more links on these sites might be identified? For example, Google calculates that infringing links account for only .1% of links on filestube, a notorious source of infringing links. For anyone who knows filestube, this seems unlikely, especially given that Google’s data doesn’t include DMCA notices sent directly to the site. Moreover, Google’s methodology fails to account for the percentage of traffic to the infringing portion of the site compared to any potential non-infringing portions. Let’s give copyright owners the ability to access all the pages on a site and take down all the infringing links, and then let’s rationally discuss how to categorize the sites.
Fact #5: Google’s data shows why its interpretation of the DMCA makes it ineffective. Let’s take a step back for a moment. Everyone – including Google – knows that the worst sites are repopulated with links to infringing files of the same content as quickly as links are taken down. For example, in a recent one month period, we sent Google, and the site in question, multiple DMCA notices concerning over 300 separate unauthorized copies of the same musical recording owned by one of our member companies. Yet that song is still available on that site today, and we reached it via a search result link indexed by Google. This highlights the futility of the exercise: if “take down” does not mean “keep down,” then Google’s limitations merely perpetuate the fraud wrought on copyright owners by those who game the system under the DMCA.
The move follows an April 2012 ruling by the High Court of Justice in London (here), which imposed a court order upon the ISPs that required them to block the website. The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s largest BitTorrent (P2P / File Sharing) trackers but also allows internet copyright infringement (piracy) to take place.
Sky Statement
We have invested billions of pounds in high-quality entertainment for our customers because we know how much our customers value it. It’s therefore important that companies like ours do what they can, alongside the Government and the rest of the media and technology industries, to help protect their copyright. Such protection makes sure that consumers continue to benefit from TV programmes, movies and music both now and in the future. This means taking effective action against online piracy and copyright infringement.
Increasingly content owners are turning to the courts to present evidence of copyright infringement by websites that offer content illegally to users. When they do so, and the court agrees that copyright infringement has occurred, the content owners can seek a court order which compels the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to those sites over their broadband networks.
To date Sky has received court orders to block the following websites that were found to have breached copyright laws:
* Newzbin 2, which Sky blocked on 13 December 2011
* The Pirate Bay, which Sky blocked on 30 May 2012
In a further effort to desperately try and prevent additional site blocking verdicts, XS4ALL Managing Director Theo de Vries is now claiming that blocking The Pirate Bay is counterproductive because the internet service provider has only seen overall Bittorrent traffic increase as of late. He makes his statement in an article in the Economy section of Dutch magazine Elsevier.
De Vries does not mention specific traffic data and also does not elaborate on whether the website itself has become more popular in The Netherlands. Also, the blocking measure relates to a website, not the entire BitTorrent protocol, so one can expect file sharers to seek out other BitTorrent platforms now that The Pirate Bay has been blocked.
Secondly, XS4ALL isn’t one of the major ISPs active in The Netherlands and the blocking measure has not been widely implemented by every Dutch ISP just yet.
Regardless, The Pirate Bay website’s popularity in The Netherlands has recently dropped from the 27th spot to number 43 on Alexa’s site popularity list for The Netherlands.
In The United Kingdom, similar events are taking place as The Pirate Bay website has recently dropped to the 63rd spot, starting out as the 39th most popular website in that country, before it was subject to site blocking measures very recently. As in The Netherlands, not every ISP in the UK is fully blocking The Pirate Bay website just yet.
Dutch language news article:
http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Economie/339993/Pirate-Bayblokkade-werkt-niet-tegen-downloaden.htm
Previously:
XS4ALL Home Page ‘Black Out’ As A Protest Against Imposed Pirate Bay Blockade. Mere Conduit?
Translation of banner text:
Today is a black day
Wednesday 1st February 2012: for the first time in history a Dutch ISP is being forced to render a foreign site inaccessible. On the basis of an order of the Court of The Hague, XS4ALL is required to block a number of IP addresses and domains.
The judge felt that freedom of information – a fundamental right of European citizens – was being outweighed by the interests of the entertainment industry. A wrong judgment. Therefore XS4ALL will appeal the ruling.
Theo de Vries
General Director XS4ALL
In his verdict, the judge noted that he should be careful and even reserved when being asked to impose remedies related to access to the internet. He noted that those remedies can only be applied when it is sufficiently certain that claimed (copyright) infringements have occurred and conditions in relation to proportionality and subsidiarity have been taken into account. The Court felt that those conditions had been met.
The judge specifically noted that this was about a balance between the protection of copyrights and neighbouring rights of the rights owners versus the protection of the freedom of entrepreneurship of ZIGGO and XS4ALL.
Dutch language verdict:
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BV0549&u_ljn=BV0549
http://www.xs4all.nl/ on 1st February 2012
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2729223/xs4all-zwart-protest.html
See also:
http://vrritti.com/?s=xs4all
http://vrritti.com/2012/02/01/xs4all-home-page-black-out-as-a-protest-against-imposed-pirate-bay-blockade-mere-conduit/
and
Every XS4ALL Customer To Receive Free Spotify Premium Subscription
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/23/every-xs4all-customer-to-receive-free-spotify-premium-subscription/
Minister wants to amend relevant laws to enable the MIVD to legally intercept internet related data. He confirms that there is tension between what is technically possible and what is legally allowed
Dutch language news article:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/82243/kabinet-mivd-overtreedt-wet-bij-aftappen.html
Previously:
Experts Discover That Nobody Cares Whether International Cybercrime Enforcement Is Based On Any Legal Framework Or Not
http://vrritti.com/2012/04/06/experts-discover-that-nobody-cares-whether-international-cybercrime-enforcement-is-based-on-any-legal-framework-or-not/
Dutch Prosecutor Van Zwieten: Remote Investigations Are Illegal, But Inevitable. Laws Need To Be Modernized
http://vrritti.com/2012/03/10/dutch-prosecutor-van-zwieten-remote-investigations-are-illegal-but-inevitable-laws-need-to-be-modernized/
Dutch Public Prosecutor Lodewijk van Zwieten: Dutch police was allowed to hack systems of botnet victims. Says that police should also be allowed to hack straight into PCs of cybercriminals in foreign countries
http://vrritti.com/2011/11/16/dutch-public-prosecutor-lodewijk-van-zwieten-dutch-police-was-allowed-to-hack-systems-of-botnet-victims-says-that-police-should-also-be-allowed-to-hack-straight-into-pcs-of-cybercriminals-in-foreign/
The legal team filed the motion on the grounds that the US government had violated MU’s due process rights by destroying its business without properly serving the company. Coincidentally, unlike people, companies cannot be served outside of US territory (like, say, New Zealand). Per the statute, due process rights are harmed when, “a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State and that the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.”
MU’s legal team is arguing that seizing the company’s domains and data has effectively put it out of business.
More:
http://gizmodo.com/5914419/megauploads-defense-files-for-dismissal-of-all-government-charges
According to a leaked lengthy excerpt from a new book scheduled to hit shelves written by Parmy Olson, the London bureau chief for Forbes Magazine, FBI agents inside the LulzSec hackers secretly tracked and spied on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
“We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency” is an upcoming book from Parmy Olson, the London bureau chief for Forbes Magazine. And although her alleged account has not yet hit the shelves, a lengthy excerpt has been leaked to the Web — and its contents suggest that that the world’s once most powerful hacking collective was in correspondence with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after he allegedly reached out to the organization for assistance. The US government says that they had already infiltrated LulzSec by then, though, meaning that WikiLeak’s plea to the hacking collective was actually being offered to an FBI mole.
According to Olson, the June 2011 attack on the public website of the US Central Intelligence Agency by LulzSec caught the attention of Assange, who was residing in the countryside manor of an English journalist while on house arrest. Once he saw that a LulzSec-led invasion had crippled CIA.gov, Assange allegedly sent out two tweets from the WikiLeaks Twitter account, only to delete the micomessages shortly after:
“WikiLeaks supporters, LulzSec, take down CIA . . . who has a task force into WikiLeaks,” read one.”CIA finally learns the real meaning of WTF” reads the other.
Assange “didn’t want to be publicly associated with what were clearly black hat hackers” writes Olson, speaking of computer compromisers who target network for perhaps no real intention other than mischief making. “Instead, he decided it was time to quietly reach out to the audacious new group that was grabbing the spotlight,” she says.
According to the book, an associate of WikiLeaks contacted LulzSec spokesman Topiary on June 16 hours after the assault on the CIA. The two would eventually converse over an Internet Relay Chat channel that was reported to be witnessed by Assange, who confirmed his identity by providing a video to the hacker in real time during their chat. For a few weeks, writes Olson, Assange and/or his associate returned to the LulzSec IRC channel “four or five more times,” during which others occasionally engaged in conversation with both sides. During at least one of those conversations, Assange’s contact at WikiLeaks offered LulzSec a spreadsheet of classified government data contained in a file named RSA 128, which she says was heavily encrypted and needed the manpower of black hat hacktivists to decode.
Olson says that one of those hackers aware the newfangled relationship was Hector Xavier Monsegur, who spearheaded LulzSec by serving as a leader of sorts under the handle Sabu. Perhaps unbeknownst to all engaged in the IRC chats, however, was that Sabu had been arrested on June 7 and, according to the federal government, began immediately working as an FBI informant.
More:
http://www.infowars.com/fbi-used-lulzsec-hackers-to-spy-on-wikileaks-assange/
Previously:
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange – The Cypherpunk Revolutionary
http://vrritti.com/2011/03/04/julian-assange-the-cypherpunk-revolutionary/
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange – A CypherPunk
http://vrritti.com/2010/12/10/wikileaks-julian-assange-a-cypherpunk/
War on the internet: the financial network behind WikiLeaks
http://vrritti.com/2010/12/07/war-on-the-internet-the-financial-network-behind-wikileaks/
WikiLeaks co-producer Rop Gonggrijp: First Hacker and Techno Anarchist of the Netherlands
http://vrritti.com/2010/12/11/wikileaks-co-producer-rop-gonggrijp-first-hacker-and-techno-anarchist-of-the-netherlands/
Another appearance of WikiLeaks Co-Producer Rop Gonggrijp on Dutch TV
http://vrritti.com/2011/01/12/another-appearance-of-wikileaks-co-producer-rop-gonggrijp-on-dutch-tv/
Because algorithms only enable automated spam, malware, app and advertising takedowns, not takedowns of copyrighted content
Engineer Craig Mansfield has worked out how much it would cost per year to pre-screen all that video for copyright infringements—and the answer is close to that of Google’s annual revenue.
Mansfield calculated that a team of 199,584 judges—or equally qualified individuals—would be required to watch and rule over the video, which in turn would cost $36,829,468,840. For comparison, Google’s revenue for 2011 was $37,905,000,000.
Much more:
http://gizmodo.com/5914188/it-would-cost-37-billion-per-year-to-pre+screen-youtube-videos
Previously:
Last Year Google Rejected 610,000 Websites And Disapproved 134 Million Ads
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/26/last-year-google-rejected-610000-websites-and-disapproved-134-million-ads/
Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware, ‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem. It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/28/much-worse-than-the-loss-of-freely-accessible-pirated-files-is-the-loss-of-freely-accessibly-attractive-websites-in-general/
The White House is planning to convene a cybersecurity summit Wednesday morning to discuss ways to counter botnets, which have emerged as the leading Internet security threat.
Industry representatives are planning to announce a nine-point plan that includes sharing more information about identifying botnets — and how to help their customers remove the malware from their computers.
Much more:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57443380-83/white-house-prepares-to-convene-anti-botnet-summit/
The implementation of the judgement will be deferred for two weeks
“Threatening” to splatter its website across 256 IP addresses which are all part of its own IP range
Dutch language news article:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/110649/the-pirate-bay-dreigt-met-256-eigen-ip-adressen.html
Previously:
Site Blocking Measures Appear To Work: The Pirate Bay Changes Its IP Address (But Still In The Same Range)
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/18/site-blocking-measures-appear-to-work-the-pirate-bay-changes-its-ip-address-but-still-in-the-same-range/
If there’s one thing that jumps out from the new Google copyright removal request tool released last week, it’s that Microsoft is number one, having gone after 2.5 million URLs that may infringe on the company’s copyright. But dig a little deeper, and it becomes clear that around 2 million of those URLs were reported by a company called Marketly LLC, which tops the list of reporting organizations.
Given that the next highest is only around a million URLs, as reported by NBCUniversal, followed by Degban, a company that openly advertises its services, it seems a bit odd that Marketly seems to have popped up out of nowhere. It remains a bit of a mystery as to what Microsoft’s and Marketly’s relationship is exactly and how Microsoft selected this tiny company to become its copyright attack dog.
Dutch police and US enforcement officers representing ICE are to provide more information at press conference in The Netherlands
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2822442/wereldwijd-440-onderzoeken-zedenzaak.html
See also:
http://vrritti.com/?s=mikelsons&submit=Search
and:
The investigation into the Dutch pedophile Robert Mikelsons, who has abused 87 toddlers and babies, produced 46,803 pictures and 3,672 videos (8 Terabytes of data)
http://vrritti.com/2012/03/12/the-investigation-into-the-dutch-pedophile-robert-mikelsons-who-has-abused-87-toddlers-and-babies-produced-46803-pictures-and-3672-videos-8-terabytes-of-data/
Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation
Commissioner Neelie Kroes:
BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for. For most Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers.
For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or peer-to-peer file sharing.
Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country.
At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries.
But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information.
Given that BEREC’s findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe.
First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you’ll get when you’re also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium “managed” service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online
Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline.
Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.
More:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/
See also:
Study: A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe
http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf
A New Zealand court this week relaxed his bail term and ruled that Dotcom was no longer a flight risk.
New Zealand press report that meaning Ortmann, Batato and Van der Kolk- are also no longer subject to electronic monitoring.
Dotcom, currently on bail awaiting an extradition hearing to the US, last week his defence team filed a motion requesting that Dotcom be allowed to move back into the property with his wife Mona and their children.
At a court appearance last week Dotcom’s bail conditions were also altered in order for him to spend more time at Neil Finn’s recording studio where he is recording his own album.
Judge David Harvey told the Auckland District Court he believes it is unlikely that Dotcom will flee New Zealand, claiming that the original flight risk was overstated and he no longer needs to be electronically monitored.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/kimdotcom_hangs_at_home/
A New Zealand court has ruled that the U.S. Government must hand over the evidence they have against Megaupload so Kim Dotcom and other employees can properly defend themselves against the pending extradition request. The U.S. refused to comply but Judge Harvey concluded that this would be unfair. He further noted that the entire U.S. case stands or falls on the strength of the alleged copyright infringement charges.
This is a significant victory for Megaupload, and not only because they can now build a better defense against the extradition as well as any U.S trial. The comments made by Judge Harvey also suggest that without proper evidence of criminal copyright infringements against the accused, there’s not much left of the case. And as Kim Dotcom revealed earlier, this evidence might not be that strong
More:
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-wins-crucial-evidence-disclosure-battle-with-us-govt-120529/
That corporation would be PepsiCo. According to press reports, masked men attacked five warehouses and vehicle lots on Friday and Saturday nights belonging to the U.S. snack and soft drink giant. More specifically, PepsiCo’s Mexican subsidiary: Sabritas. Dozens of yellow delivery trucks — which transport Sabritas chips and Fritos, Cheetos and Ruffles (among other brands) for the Mexican market — were burned. The good news: No one was injured or killed. At least one member of the Knights Templar cartel was reportedly arrested. Video has also emerged of firefighters battling the blazing trucks and the European Pressphoto Agency released images of Sabritas’ smiley-face mascot illuminated by the flames.
More:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/cartels-cheetos/
Every day copyright holders send out countless notices which order BitTorrent indexes, cyberlockers, forums, blogs and search engines to remove links to allegedly infringing content. The process is time consuming for everyone involved. So, since time is money, shouldn’t those being burdened by the actions of third parties be compensated for their work? One anti-piracy company says charging for takedowns amounts to extortion.
More:
http://torrentfreak.com/should-websites-charge-a-fee-to-process-copyright-takedowns-120528/
VVD Member of Parliament Afke Schaart: “The treaty is bad for privacy and disastrous to innovation. As far as we’re concerned it can be thrown into a trash can because that’s were it belongs”
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2821870/kamer-verwerpt-acta.html
Dutch providers are desperately trying to continue to provide access to The Pirate Bay. They previously tried to argue that changes in IP address and domain name would save them from having to block the torrent website.
Now they’re trying to argue that the judge should have indicated that the verdict applies to mobile networks too…
Dutch language news article:
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2821798/t-mobile-blokkeert-pirate-bay-niet-mobiel.html
Previously:
Judges Are Not Idiots: Change Of Domain Name Or IP Address Will Not Change Illegality Of Websites
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/25/judges-are-not-idiots-change-of-domain-name-or-ip-address-will-not-change-illegality-of-websites/
The notes, which were previously redacted, cover the meetings in Paris during 2008, Rabat and Seoul in 2009 and Guadalajara in 2010. EDRi have conducted their analysis and are disappointed with their findings.
More:
http://torrentfreak.com/acta-unredacted-docs-show-european-commission-negotiation-failures-120528/
China’s law enforcers look to combat an apparent spike in domestic online crime
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/shanghai_police_online_crime_team/
The provider “chose not to man their abuse desk” and did not respond to the warnings.
Apparently all TalkTalk needed to do to get the ban lifted was reply to Trend Micro’s message, which was sent to their abuse desk at abuse@talktalkplc.com (perhaps it got stuck in their spam filter 
.. no seriously).
Trend Micro’s Rik Ferguson said:
“Once a Realtime Blackhole List (RBL) listing is made, we require the ISP to take effective action to stop the spam. We monitor this action, and if the investigator sees the spam stop, they will remove the listing.
Because there are multiple people involved with checking an RBL listing, it is exceedingly rare that a mistake is made. In each case of an RBL listing, we have spam-on-hand, and can produce that on request for the ISP. The size of the ISP behind any given IP address is not a factor in our decision to list on the RBL; the fact that we have spam from that address, and that there has been no action to reduce the spam, is.
Because the ISP receives at least two notices from us, we feel that they have adequate time to deal with the problem.”
A TalkTalk spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk:
“Some Pipex customers may have had difficulty sending emails to NHS and other government agencies after a number of customers’ computers were infected with malicious software and started sending out spam. We have taken measures to tackle the problem and reduced spam messages by 70 per cent since the start of May.”
More:
Because free websites + free attractive content makes for some good advertising opportunities. No matter whether those websites – or the content they’re providing access to - are legal or illegal.
That’s why there are so many who want the media and the public to believe that website blocking does not work.
In order to make that point, they start by arguing that website blocking is a useless remedy, since it does not address all possible instances of content piracy, and circumvention may still be possible.
But that’s beside the point. Big Content may not even be looking to eradicate 100% the piracy problem, much like Big Data is not looking to eradicate 100% of the botnet, spam, malware, ‘bad’ apps or illegal advertising problem.
It’s about limiting damages…limiting costs due to piracy or other illegal activities online. Technical solutions for online illegallity need to be able to at least achieve that goal.
And it turns out that even badly implemented site blocking remedies are able to achieve that, much like partially successful spam filtering campaigns.
Now imagine if ISPs and other online service providers would be able to make money by fighting piracy. Maybe that would cause even better technological remedies to pop up all of a sudden, not only addressing a significant part of the problem, but perhaps even the majority of it.
Only time will tell…
For the time being we’ll have to keep up with large quantities of propaganda that aims to leave attractive online clusters of (illegal) content intact for as much and as long as possible…
Of course this is hardly a surprise. In companies with thousands of employees there will always be people who use BitTorrent for illicit purposes. And in tech companies it’s probably even more common.
Microsoft is in good company also.
Previously we were able to show that unauthorized downloads occur even in the most unexpected of places, from the palace of the French President, via the Church of God, to the RIAA and the US House of Representatives.
Much more:
http://torrentfreak.com/busted-microsoft-harbors-bittorrent-pirates-120527/
The website blocking measures in the UK are now seriously affecting The Pirate Bay’s popularity.
Not too long ago, the Pirate Bay was the 39th most popular website in the UK. Right now the site’s popularity is decreasing and even after only a few weeks of blocking by a limited number of ISPs, the effect is already quite noticeable:
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries;2/GB
Similar effects in have been observed in The Netherlands too, although only a few ISPs are blocking the site in that country as most of them have refused to do so, regardless of relevant legal verdicts. That situation is expected to change sometime next week.
Previously:
High Court has ruled that several UK ISPs including Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must block The Pirate Bay website
http://vrritti.com/2012/04/30/high-court-has-ruled-that-several-uk-isps-including-sky-everything-everywhere-talktalk-o2-and-virgin-media-must-block-the-pirate-bay-website/
Pirate Bay’s Alexa Rank For UK And NL Continues To Drop After Blocking Measures
http://vrritti.com/2012/05/12/pirate-bays-alexa-rank-for-uk-and-nl-continues-to-drop-after-blocking-measures/
United States law enforcement authorities have confirmed they are investigating images of child abuse unearthed from Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload servers.
The material was discovered during FBI examination of the contents of the internet millionaire’s cloud storage system, seized in the global takedown of the “Mega Conspiracy” that included police raids at Dotcom’s Auckland mansion in January.
A spokesman from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Peter Carr, said there was an ongoing investigation into the images of child pornography found on the servers but would make no further comment.
More:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/child-porn-found-megaupload-servers-fbi-4901637
Centropy member Matthew Thompson is sharing with TorrentFreak readers an excerpt from his forthcoming book, This is the Scene.
Things were great for me as a pirate; I had access to whatever I wanted and was a member of some of the biggest groups that have ever existed. Then Operation Fastlink happened.
Operation Fastlink was a multi-year, joint-operation run by the United States Department of Justice and the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section of INTERPOL designed to take out the groups Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, ProjectX, and Class.
Matthew is currently running a Kickstarter campaign to raise funding to continue work on his book.
The campaign page and accompanying video are available here.
Much more:
http://torrentfreak.com/i-was-a-member-of-centropy-the-worlds-leading-movie-piracy-group-120526/
