• chevron_right

      BitTorrent is No Longer the ‘King’ of Upstream Internet Traffic

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Friday, 15 March - 20:41 · 2 minutes

    upload key In the past two decades, Internet traffic has exploded with more bytes being transferred in each successive year.

    While this stable trend continues, the types of traffic that pass through the pipes have changed radically.

    Back in 2004, in the pre-Web 2.0 era, research indicated that BitTorrent was responsible for an impressive 35% of all Internet traffic . At the time, file-sharing via peer-to-peer networks was the main traffic driver as no other services consumed large amounts of bandwidth.

    Video Streaming Killed the Torrent Star

    Fast-forward two decades and these statistics are ancient history. With the growth of video streaming, including services such as YouTube, Netflix, and TikTok, file-sharing traffic is nothing more than a drop in today’s data pool.

    Even among pirates, file-sharing is no longer as relevant as it once was. Most pirate sites today are streaming-based and BitTorrent lost pretty much all of its ‘market share’ there too.

    As these changes took place, BitTorrent-watchers, including the undersigned, started to focus on upload traffic. This continued to be dominated by BitTorrent for a long time. Two years ago, the file-sharing protocol still accounted for the largest share of global upstream Internet traffic .

    The main question was how long this would last. In 2013, BitTorrent still accounted for roughly a third of all upload traffic . It remained the dominant upload source in the years that followed, but trended downwards, reaching a new low of 10% two years ago.

    BitTorrent Dethroned

    This week, Canadian broadband management company Sandvine released its latest Global Internet Phenomena Report which makes it clear that BitTorrent no longer leads any charts.

    The latest data show that video and social media are the leading drivers of downstream traffic, accounting for more than half of all fixed access and mobile data worldwide. Needless to say, BitTorrent is nowhere to be found in the list of ‘top apps’.

    Looking at upstream traffic, BitTorrent still has some relevance on fixed access networks where it accounts for 4% of the bandwidth. However, it’s been surpassed by cloud storage apps, FaceTime, Google, and YouTube. On mobile connections, BitTorrent no longer makes it into the top ten.

    Top Upstream Apps (fixed/mobile)

    The average of 46 MB upstream traffic per subscriber shouldn’t impress any file-sharer. However, since only a small percentage of all subscribers use BitTorrent, the upstream traffic per user is of course much higher.

    End of an Era

    The report mentions BitTorrent as a “significant factor” as the traffic is generated by a small number of users. These include pirates, but also academics who use torrents to share large datasets. However, Sandvine also sees the writing on the wall.

    “[U]sage of BitTorrent might go down as people use the cloud and tap the content that is increasingly available through streaming services,” the report reads.

    Finally, it’s worth noting that not all torrent traffic can be accurately measured. When people use VPNs, for example. While this may impact the statistics, the VPN category doesn’t appear in the top upload lists so its usage won’t change the overall conclusion that BitTorrent no longer dominates.

    This marks the end of an era; two decades of BitTorrent’s status as a traffic leader in some way, shape, or form, disappearing in the rearview mirror. As such, this will likely be the last report of this kind on TorrentFreak. Unless there’s an unforeseen revival somewhere in the future, of course.

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

    • chevron_right

      Bitmagnet Allows People to Run Their Own Decentralized Torrent Indexer Locally

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Sunday, 18 February - 13:32 · 5 minutes

    magnet-ai When Bram Cohen released the first version of BitTorrent in 2002, it sparked a file-sharing revolution.

    At the time bandwidth was a scarce resource, making it impossible to simultaneously share large files with millions of people over the Internet. BitTorrent not only thrived in that environment, the protocol remains effective even to this day.

    BitTorrent transfers rely on peer-to-peer file-sharing without a central storage location. With updated additions to the protocol, such as the BitTorrent Distributed Hash Table ( DHT ), torrent files no longer require a tracker server either, making it decentralized by nature.

    In theory, it doesn’t always work like that though. People who use BitTorrent, for research purposes or to grab the latest Linux distros, often use centralized search engines or indexes. If these go offline, the .torrent files they offer go offline too.

    Decentralizing Torrents

    This problem isn’t new and solutions have been around for quite a few years. There’s the University-sponsored Tribler torrent client, for example, and the BitTorrent protocol extension ( BEP51 ), developed by ‘The 8472’, that also helps to tackle this exact problem.

    BEP51 makes it possible to discover and collect infohashes through DHT, without the need for a central tracker. These infohashes can be converted to magnet links and when paired with relevant metadata, it’s possible to create a full BitTorrent index that easily rivals most centralized torrent sites.

    Some centralized torrent sites, such as BTDigg, have already done just that. However, the beauty of the proposition involving DHT is that centralized sites are not required to act as search engines. With the right code, anyone can set up their own personalized and private DHT crawler, torrent index, and search engine.

    Bitmagnet: A Private Decentralized Torrent Index

    Bitmagnet is a relatively new self-hosted tool that does exactly that. The software, which is still in an early stage of development, was launched publicly a few months ago.

    “The project aims to reduce reliance on public torrent sites that are prone to takedown and expose users to ads and malware,” Mike, the lead developer, tells us.

    Those who know how to create a Docker container can have an instance up and running in minutes and for the privacy conscious, the docker-compose file on GitHub supports VPNs via Gluetun . Once Bitmagnet is up and running, it starts collecting torrent data from DHT, neatly classifies what it finds, and makes everything discoverable through its own search engine.

    Bitmagnet UI

    Decentralization is just one of the stated advantages. The developer was also positively surprised by the sheer amount of content that was discovered and categorized through Bitmagnet. This easily exceeds the libraries of most traditional torrent sites.

    “Run it for a month and you’ll have a personal index and search engine that dwarfs the popular torrent websites, and includes much content that can often only be found on difficult-to-join private trackers,” Mike tells us.

    After running the software for four months, the developer now has more than 12 million indexed torrents. However, other users with more bandwidth and better connections have many more already. This also brings us to one of the main drawbacks; a lack of curation.

    Curation

    Unlike well-moderated torrent sites, Bitmagnet adds almost any torrent it finds to its database. This includes mislabeled files, malware-ridden releases, and potentially illegal content. The software tries to limit abuse by filtering metadata for CSAM content, however.

    There are plans to add more curation by adding support for manual postings and federation. That would allow people with similar interests to connect, acting more like a trusted community. However, this is still work in progress.

    Another downside is that it could take longer to index rare content, as it has to be discovered first. Widely shared torrents tend to distribute quickly over DHT, but rare releases will take much longer to be picked up. In addition, users may occasionally stumble upon dead or incomplete torrents.

    Thus far, these drawbacks are not stopping people from trying the software.

    While Bitmagnet is only out as an “alpha” release it’s getting plenty of interest. The Docker image has been downloaded nearly 25k times and the repository has been starred by more than a thousand other developers so far.

    Caution is Advised!

    Mike doesn’t know how many people are running an instance or how they’re using them. Bitmagnet is designed and intended for people to run on their own computer and network, but people could turn it into a public-facing search engine as well.

    Running a public search engine comes with legal risks of course. Once there’s serious traffic, that will undoubtedly alert anti-piracy groups.

    Even those who use the software privately to download legitimate content might receive complaints. By crawling the DHT, the software presents itself as a torrent client. While it doesn’t download any content automatically, some rudimentary anti-piracy tracking tools might still (incorrectly) flag this activity.

    There are no examples of this happening at the moment, but the potential risk is why Bitmagnet advises users to opt for VPN routing .

    Impossible to Shut Down

    All in all, Bitmagnet is an interesting tool that uses some of BitTorrent’s underutilized powers, which have become increasingly rare in recent years.

    The idea behind Bitmagnet is similar to Magnetico , which first came out in 2017. While that no longer appears to be actively maintained, it remains available on GitHub . During these years, we haven’t seen any takedown notices targeting the software.

    Mike hopes that his project will be spared from copyright complaints too. The developer sees it simply as a content-neutral tool, much like a web browser.

    “I hope that the project is immune from such issues, because the source code contains no copyright infringing material. How people choose to use the app is up to them – if you access copyrighted content using a web browser or BitTorrent client, that does not make the vendors of those apps liable.”

    “Bitmagnet cannot be ‘taken down’ – even if the GitHub repository were threatened by an illegitimate takedown request, the code can easily be hosted elsewhere,” Mike concludes.

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

    • chevron_right

      Court Slams Brakes on DMCA Subpoena Use to Expose Alleged Movie Pirates

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Thursday, 1 February - 19:12 · 5 minutes

    privacy Two decades ago, when the RIAA tried to obtain the identities of Verizon customers via the convenient DMCA subpoena process, significant pushback led to defeat for the record labels .

    The case made it clear that subpoenas obtained under section 512(h) of the DMCA only apply to ISPs that directly store, cache, or provide links to infringing material. An RIAA lawsuit against Charter failed for similar reasons .

    In 2014 and after a considerable break, BMG and anti-piracy partner Rightscorp attempted to unmask 30,000 CBeyond subscribers using the same DMCA subpoena process. That also ended in disappointment but somehow, seven years later on the same legal basis, DMCA subpoena applications suddenly began producing results.

    Cautiously Building Momentum

    After testing the water in 2019, during 2022 and early 2023, companies including Voltage Pictures, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios obtained DMCA subpoenas targeting customers of CenturyLink (now Lumen). After a relatively gentle request to obtain the identities of 13 subscribers , subsequent demands turned up the heat.

    An additional DMCA subpoena later sought to unmask almost four times more subscribers than the preceding one, before a follow-up application took the previous target of 63, doubled it, and added another couple of dozen subscribers on top for good measure.

    After focusing on CenturyLink subscribers for more than a year, Voltage, Millennium, and Capstone obtained a DMCA subpoena targeting 41 IP addresses operated by ISP Cox Communications. Most of the IP addresses were allegedly linked to piracy of the movie ‘Fall,’ with infringements reportedly carried out by Cox subscribers using BitTorrent networks.

    The DMCA subpoena application itself was somewhat unusual. Explanatory text recognized that under conventional thinking, § 512(h) doesn’t usually apply to conduit ISPs. However, it suggested that legal developments over the past few years supported a theory that the Tenth Circuit would eventually come to see § 512(h) in a whole new light; specifically, that it does apply to conduit ISPs after all.

    DMCA Subpoena Immediately Challenged

    When the DMCA subpoena was served on Cox Communications, the ISP contacted the relevant subscribers to determine whether any would object to having their identities disclosed. One subscriber took the opportunity to send a letter of objection to the court, which now forms part of the public record.

    The letter doesn’t identify the ‘John Doe’ subscriber or their family, but since it contains sensitive personal information in the first couple of paragraphs, only the last three paragraphs are reproduced here.

    The letter was construed by the court as a motion to quash, with a recommendation that the subpoena was invalid under § 512(h). A subsequent report issued by Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter later arrived at the same conclusion. It further noted that, to the extent any information had been derived from the invalid subpoena, it must be returned or destroyed while no further information should be obtained or placed on record.

    A DMCA Subpoena Cannot Apply Here

    In his order handed down this week, District Judge J. Michael Seabright provides an exceptionally clear overview of the four types of safe harbor available to ISPs under the DMCA. In doing so, the Judge also shows why the movie companies’ DMCA subpoena fails.

    The breakdown seems to show why DMCA subpoenas issued under § 512(h) cannot be used to obtain the identities of P2P infringers when their ISP qualifies for protection under § 512(a). (For reference, the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions are detailed in full here )

    The key points of the order read as follows (minor edits for brevity) :

    – The safe harbor in § 512(a) protects ISPs from liability for ‘transmitting, routing, or providing connections for’ material through a system or network.

    – The safe harbors in § 512(b), (c), and (d) protect ISPs from liability for infringing material that users temporarily store in caches (§ 512(b)), on systems or networks (§ 512(c)), or at links (§ 512(d)) provided by the ISP.

    – The safe harbor in § 512(a) does not require ISPs to take down material upon receiving notice from a copyright owner — if an ISP is a “mere conduit,” nothing is stored, and there is nothing to take down.

    – Conversely, though their wording differs, each of the safe harbors in § 512(b), (c), and (d) requires that, when notified of alleged infringement by a copyright owner, an ISP “respond[] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement (notice and takedown)

    – In contrast, the “mere conduit” safe harbor in § 512(a) does not contain any notice and take down provision referring to Subsection (c)(3)(A)—because there is no material to take down.

    – In considering whether a copyright owner can obtain the IP addresses of P2P infringers by subpoenaing an ISP under § 512(h), the Eighth Circuit [Verizon] and D.C. Circuit [Charter] both reasoned that if the ISP acts as a “mere conduit” in cases of P2P filesharing, it is not possible for a copyright owner to satisfy the notice requirement in Subsection (c)(3)(A).

    – On this basis, both courts ruled that the ISP fell within the safe harbor in § 512(a) and the subpoenas over P2P filesharing were improper. [..] In short, a § 512(h) subpoena cannot issue if the ISP is unable to locate and remove the infringing material, and an ISP acting as a mere conduit for allegedly infringing activity cannot do so. This court agrees with the reasoning of the Eighth and D.C. Circuits.

    Movie Companies’ Objections

    Despite being rejected by the Court, the main objections filed by the movie companies still make for interesting reading.

    When applying for the DMCA subpoena, the movie companies submitted a list of IP addresses that allegedly participated in the infringing activity. The aim here was to demonstrate compliance under § 512(h) by providing a notification of claimed infringement that identified the allegedly infringing material/activity, along with sufficient information for the ISP to locate it.

    The companies reasoned that in assigning IP addresses to the alleged infringers, Cox was “referring or linking material” under § 512(d), making their list of IP addresses a valid notice of infringement.

    The movie companies also objected to a statement in the Magistrate Judge’s report, which concluded that Cox acted as a “mere conduit” in the transfer of files through its network. After arguing that they should have had the ability to submit a briefing on the issue of statutory interpretation, the Judge ordered Cox to file a declaration on its status as a service provider.

    Cox responded with a declaration which confirmed that it operates as an ISP under 17 U.S.C. § 512(a). The movie companies objected to that too, but without the desired result.

    The full order is linked below for those interested in the finer details. Needless to say, none of the arguments were able to prevent the DMCA subpoena from being ruled invalid, on exactly the same basis the RIAA’s attempts were rejected over 20 years ago.

    District Judge J. Michael Seabright’s order is available here (pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      FrostWire Returns to Google Play Store After Music Industry Takedown

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Monday, 15 January - 22:02 · 4 minutes · 3 visibility

    FrostWire logo dark Back in 2004, when LimeWire was the file-sharing client of choice for millions of users, FrostWire appeared as the new kid on the block.

    The application began life as a LimeWire fork but underwent several changes over the years. In 2016, it added support for torrents and, five years later, it completely dropped its Gnutella base in favor of BitTorrent.

    Today, FrostWire is a well-established torrent client that’s available across the most popular platforms, including Windows, macOS, Linux, and Android. While it’s not the most used torrent client, it has built an impressive userbase of 10 million installs and nearly a quarter million reviews in the Google Play Store alone.

    The application is content-neutral and nothing is stored in the client. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s immune to complaints from rightsholders. These are relatively rare but when they arrive they can do a lot of damage, as was illustrated recently.

    Play Store Takes Down FrostWire

    At the end of November last year, Google informed the FrostWire team that its app had been suspended from Google Play due to alleged copyright infringement. While the software doesn’t host or feature infringing content, the Indian Music Industry ( IMI ) reached a different conclusion.

    frostwire suspend

    IMI represents the interests of local music companies and record labels, including familiar names such as Universal Music India, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music India. According to the takedown notice, FrostWire infringed the rights of the song “Genda Phool,” released by Indian rapper Badshah.

    The YouTube clip of the track went viral around the globe, which was good news for the artists and the label, Sony Music India. This naturally meant that some people were trying to pirate it, which triggered IMI to send takedown notices.

    IMI’s actions make sense as far as they apply to sites that host or link to pirated copies of the track. However, FrostWire sees itself as a content-neutral app, more akin to a web browser.

    Counternotice

    After Google suspended the app on November 27, FrostWire developer Angel Leon swiftly sent a reinstatement request along the following lines;

    “It’s important to clarify that our app functions as a BitTorrent client, providing a platform for users to share and download legal content.

    We unequivocally condemn copyright infringement. Our platform is designed to respect and uphold the rights of content creators while promoting open and legal digital sharing. We believe that the recent copyright claim against our application stems from a misunderstanding of its purpose and functionality.”

    If developers file a counternotice, rightsholders have 10 days to respond with a formal legal complaint. In the event non arrive, the app should in theory be restored. According to FrostWire’s developer, that didn’t happen here.

    “Then we didn’t hear back from anyone until December 28th, when the app changed status from ‘Suspended’ to ‘Removed’, and we had to follow a process of reinstatement that was absolutely retarded,” Leon says.

    Google flagged several issues that weren’t linked to copyright infringement but required multiple code updates. This included changes to old installers that no longer affected newer versions.

    Reinstated After More than a Month

    After submitting multiple new updates, Google eventually gave the green light to add the app back into the Play Store .

    frostwire google

    The question remains whether IMI’s takedown notice was indeed a misunderstanding, or if the music group has a real problem with the software. We approached the group for a comment and further context but have yet to hear back.

    For now, FrostWire is happy to move on and has just released an update which celebrates its rise from the ashes.

    “This update is particularly special as it comes just after FrostWire’s reinstatement on the Google Play Store. It’s not just an update; it’s a celebration of persistence, innovation, and community spirit.”

    Troubled Past, Uncertain Future

    Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that FrostWire has been booted from the Play Store. A similar incident happened several years ago. At the time, Google initially refused to reinstate the app, which was a major setback.

    Most of FrostWire’s users are on Android and in a dramatic move, the torrent client decided to call it quits . The decision was eventually reversed after Google changed course and reinstated the app.

    This time, FrostWire didn’t make any drastic decisions, but the removal still had a significant impact on its operation.

    While all is good for now, there’s no certainty that the app will remain safe. Another rightsholder could come along and ask for it to be removed, which will start the same process all over again.

    Ideally, FrostWire would like to see repercussions for inaccurate takedowns, as every time this happens, the app loses some users.

    “Both times this happened, we lost a lot of our active userbase, lost subscribers, and revenue, and as you can imagine it can happen again. All it takes is an accusation from anybody and they don’t have any repercussions for doing so,” Leon tells us.

    While this is a grim outlook, FrostWire seems to have a fighting spirit these days. In a recent blog post, it likens itself to an “Ice Phoenix”.

    “As we celebrate this rebirth, imagine an ‘Ice Phoenix’ rising majestically from a frosty terrain. This mythical creature, with its crystalline feathers and a shimmering aura, soars upwards amidst swirling snowflakes.

    “This Ice Phoenix is not just a fantasy; it embodies the spirit of FrostWire – ever resilient, ever evolving.”

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

    • chevron_right

      BitTorrent Tracker Blocks Thousands of ‘Infringing’ Hashes

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Wednesday, 3 January - 19:25 · 3 minutes

    hashes Every day, millions of people from all around the world use BitTorrent to download and share files.

    Most of these transfers are facilitated by third-party torrent trackers, which help file-sharers connect to each other.

    When someone asks for information referenced by a specific torrent hash, the tracker will respond with a list of peers, if available. This is a pretty straightforward but resource-intensive process.

    While there are serverless technologies such as DHT and PEX, trackers remain a central part of most people’s torrent transfers. Despite this rather crucial role, the top trackers are mostly run by volunteers and hobbyists.

    OpenTrackr

    OpenTrackr is one of the most used BitTorrent trackers today. The service was launched in 2015 when there was a shortage of alternatives. Since then, it has established itself as a steady player, coordinating the transfers of more than five million torrents today.

    Despite handling up to 500,000 connections per second, which is good for several terabytes of daily traffic, the software runs on a single machine, an AMD Ryzen 9 Pro 3900 CPU with 2x DDR4-3200 16GB memory.

    OpenTrackr’s operator, Isa, is proud of her achievements. On her own, with a little help from Patreon subscribers , she’s made the tracker a significant and reliable player in the BitTorrent ecosystem.

    “It’s cool to see OpenTrackr have near daily peaks of 500,000 connections per second though, we’ve come a long way from the little Virtual Machine I spun up over 8 years ago,” Isa informs TorrentFreak.

    DMCA Notices

    Running a tracker is not just a technical challenge, it also comes with a legal angle. While the tracker doesn’t host any torrent or media files, not all rightsholders are pleased with the fact that bad actors can use it as well.

    To accommodate these complaints, OpenTrackr accepts and processes DMCA takedown notices which allows rightsholders to list hashes that point to potentially infringing content, and have them blocked by the tracker.

    If a hash is blocked, the tracker will stop assisting the communication between BitTorrent users who are interested in sharing that file.

    These takedown notices are relatively rare. In 2021 and 2022 not a single DMCA notice came in, but in the past year there was some activity. On behalf of various rightsholders, anti-piracy outfit MarkScan reported 2,990 problematic hashes.

    Transparency

    OpenTrackr transparently discloses all takedown requests it receives. This includes the full list of hashes, which are not particularly insightful on their own.

    Some ‘Infringing’ Hashes

    pirate hashes DMCA opentrackr

    A quick lookup reveals that these strings of numbers and letters indirectly link to torrents of a wide variety of entertainment content, including the TV series “Miracle Workers”, “Telemarketers”, and “Winning Time: The Rise Of The Lakers Dynasty.”

    These hashes themselves are not directly infringing. However, a rightsholder could argue that, since OpenTrackr can block the associated torrent transfers, it must take action if problems are pointed out.

    Avoiding Trouble

    The notices often include duplicate hashes, which are not counted towards the total. The ones that remain are blocked indefinitely. This also applies to any future encounters.

    The tracker’s operator prefers not to elaborate on the legal ramifications or potential overblocking. It’s most important for the tracker to avoid any type of problem, so processing the notices is the best option.

    “Blocking a couple of thousand hashes out of the millions of active hashes is a small price to pay, the harm it would cause to so many services that rely on our tracker greatly outweighs the benefits of ignoring the notices we do get,” Isa says

    This approach seems sensible. OpenTrackr is a hobby project with limited means, so its key focus is to avoid problems. According to Isa, securing the tracker’s future is most important.

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

    • chevron_right

      On sait quelles séries vous avez le plus piratées sur BitTorrent en 2023

      news.movim.eu / Numerama · Thursday, 28 December - 14:45

    Les séries les plus attendues de l'année se retrouvent généralement en tête des listes de téléchargement des sites illégaux. Cela se confirme en tout cas pour les échanges sur BitTorrent, au grand dam de Disney+, Apple TV et des autres services de streaming.

    • chevron_right

      Piratage : les gérants de T411 condamnés à un demi-milliard d’euros de dédommagement

      news.movim.eu / Numerama · Tuesday, 17 October - 08:43

    piratage

    489 millions d'euros. C'est le montant du dédommagement que sont censés verser les administrateurs de T411, célèbre ancien annuaire de liens BitTorrent. Ils sont aussi condamnés à trois ans de prison ferme. Une décision inédite en France. [Lire la suite]

    Abonnez-vous aux newsletters Numerama pour recevoir l’essentiel de l’actualité https://www.numerama.com/newsletter/

    • chevron_right

      Anti-Piracy Agency Credited With BitTorrent Victory, IPTV & Streaming Take on Both

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Wednesday, 11 October - 09:25 · 4 minutes

    network-round With millions of monthly users, BitTorrent’s reign at the top of the file-sharing seemed unstoppable in 2007, but the French government had other plans.

    Presented to the Senate in June 2008, what would later become France’s Hadopi law envisioned a crackdown on peer-to-peer file-sharing via a ‘graduated response’ mechanism, with around eight million local BitTorrent users the primary targets. The Hadopi agency created to administer the new law was initially kept busy but in the background, file-hosting and video streaming platforms were providing a taste of things to come.

    By 2011, once-dominant BitTorrent indexing sites found themselves suddenly outnumbered by ‘one-click’ hosting and similar sites including 4shared, Megaupload, Mediafire, Rapidshare and Hotfile. As the threat grew, rightsholders deployed the pejorative term ‘cyberlocker’ to describe ‘rogue’ file-hosting services, while BitTorrent-focused anti-piracy outfits found their peer-to-peer monitoring tools somewhat less relevant.

    The inherent technical genius of the BitTorrent protocol means it continues today, silently moving around large files to millions of users. At the same time, the way internet users consume content has been transformed. Three years after BitTorrent traffic hit an all-time low in 2015, pirate streaming platform Openload was generating more traffic than Hulu and HBO Go.

    Meanwhile, dedicated pirate IPTV services were hitting the mainstream, shifting the market once again and leaving Hadopi and successor Arcom with a decreasing pool of pirates they could monitor directly. Consisting mostly of those still using BitTorrent, the pool excluded users of streaming sites, illegal IPTV providers, file-hosting platforms, and VPN services.

    Arcom Credited for BitTorrent Slump

    In official documents published as part of the French 2024 budget bill, Arcom’s twin role as both audiovisual/telecoms regulator and anti-piracy agency accompanies accounts of recent achievements and those attributable to the infamous “graduated response” program.

    “The graduated response, for its part, makes it possible to fight against illicit practices on a peer-to-peer basis,” reports Clair Landais, the government’s secretary general with responsibility for the protection of rights and freedoms.

    “If, in 2010, more than 8 million Internet users used peer-to-peer for criminal purposes, the efforts of Hadopi and now Arcom to put an end to these practices have made it possible to reduce them by almost by 75%. In 2022, 2 million Internet users have illicitly consumed peer-to-peer content, or 22% of Internet users engaging in illicit practices.”

    While the history books provide much-needed nuance, Hadopi and now Arcom’s efforts to reduce piracy go beyond enforcement. The regulator aims to educate the public on the importance of supporting legal services while encouraging the availability of those platforms in the marketplace.

    “Building on these encouraging results, due to the constant progression of the legal offer, in particular subscription video on demand (VOD) services and music streaming offers, combined with the anti-piracy policy led by the public authorities and rights holders, the latter adjust their actions in the fight against peer-to-peer,” Landais notes.

    This version of events suggests the massive reduction in BitTorrent piracy led to the creation of legal video platforms. In reality, the availability of attractive legal content also played a key role in the reduction of piracy rates and continues to do so.

    Arcom’s Piracy Blocking Program

    Referrals to the ‘graduated response’ scheme have been trending down since 2016, with an 11% decline in 2022 alone. The report predicts the trend will continue, with another 10% reduction in 2023 followed by a modest 5% annual reduction from 2024.

    The earlier highlighted shifts in consumption leave Arcom with plenty of work to do. The threat posed by illicit IPTV services means the fight against live sports piracy is a priority, along with Arcom’s site blocking work and its ongoing game of cat-and-mouse with domain-hopping mirror sites.

    According to Arcom data, during the whole of 2022 the regulator received 85 referrals from four sports rights holders (two publishers of audiovisual programs and two sports leagues), covering ten sports competitions, which led to the subsequent blocking of 767 domain names by local ISPs. That was merely a warm-up.

    “During the period January-July 2023, the use of this system increased. Arcom thus received 85 referrals— but in only seven months – from the same four sports rights holders (two publishers of audiovisual programs and two sports leagues), covering ten sports competitions, for a total of 1,318 domain names effectively blocked by ISPs,” the report continues.

    “Given the effectiveness of the system and its high use by rights holders, a maintenance, or even an increase in the number of blocked domain names, would bring the total to around 700 number of domain names blocked for the last quarter — approximately 2,000 domain names blocked for the whole of 2023,” the report predicts.

    Arcom says that on average the processing time for sports rightsholders’ referrals is currently 3 to 5 days, but that may decrease beginning in autumn 2023 and more widely in 2024, following the effective implementation of automation tools.

    Tackling Mirror Sites

    So-called mirror sites (blocked platforms that subsequently reappear online) are handled under Article L. 331-27 of the Intellectual Property Code introduced in October 2022. During the last quarter of 2022, Arcom received 22 referrals from four rights holders, covering 45 domain names.

    Between January and July 2023, Arcom received 32 referrals from three rights holders, covering a total of 182 domain names. The administrative rules for blocking mirror sites are more complex, generating a two-month delay before they can be reported to Arcom.

    The regulator says it usually processes files in eight or nine days but since blocking of IPTV services requires advanced verification, some requests may take longer to handle. Overall, current mirror site processing time is approximately 14 days.

    “This is the reason why the average time for notification of blocking measures for sites illicitly broadcasting sporting events and competitions or mirror sites was set, provisionally, at 10 days for 2023 with an overall trend towards a reduction in this deadline over the period 2024-2026 with a target of 7 days,” the report concludes.

    The full report, first reported by NextInpact , is available here (French, pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      Weak IP Address Evidence Collapses ‘Non-Responsive Movie Pirates’ Lawsuit

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Monday, 2 October - 07:02 · 5 minutes

    ip address Voltage Holdings is one of many mostly American movie companies that have attempted to turn piracy into profit over the last 15 years. A lawsuit the company filed in Canada is broadly the same as others filed elsewhere but the same cannot be said about the outcome.

    Background

    In 2017, piracy monitoring company Maverickeye collected IP addresses of BitTorrent users sharing the Voltage-owned sci-fi movie ‘Revolt’. Canada operates a so-called ‘notice-and-notice’ regime so Voltage identified the ISPs related to the IP addresses and warning notices were sent to the relevant subscribers. Second notices were sent after Maverickeye found the same IP addresses sharing the same work a week or more later.

    In March 2018, Voltage filed a statement of claim against 110 ‘Doe’ defendants, identified only by their IP addresses. Voltage later obtained a so-called Norwich order which compelled the ISPs to disclose the names and addresses of the subscribers.

    Voltage labeled a subset of those subscribers “the worst of the worst” and since they failed to respond, the company requested default judgment at Canada’s Federal Court.

    Justice Angela Furlanetto agreed the defendants were in default but since Voltage only presented IP address-based evidence, questions remained over who had actually shared the movie.

    The Judge said that there wasn’t enough evidence to show a direct link to the subscriber or draw an adverse inference. Voltage argued that if the subscriber wasn’t the infringer, the fact that they had already received warnings under Canada’s ‘notice-and-notice’ regime, among other things, meant that they should be held liable for ‘authorizing’ infringement carried out by others.

    In June 2022, Justice Furlanetto declined default judgment but also refused to dismiss the case. Voltage was given more time to present evidence to support direct infringement or authorization but the company took its case to the Federal Court of Appeal instead.

    Basis for Voltage’s Appeal

    In its 36-page memorandum filed in November 2022, Voltage outlined two legal theories; either the billpayers pirated the movie themselves (direct infringement), or they authorized someone else’s direct infringement by allowing them to continue pirating Voltage’s movie, despite receiving warning notices from their ISPs.

    Arguments were heard on March 28, 2023, and three appeal court judges (Justices Donald J. Rennie, David W. Stratas, Wyman W. Webb) handed down their judgment last week.

    The judgment says that the appeal engages two issues: the jurisprudence on what constitutes direct infringement and authorizing infringement, and the burden of proof and circumstances under which an adverse inference can be drawn.

    “These issues are closely interrelated. The jurisprudence with respect to the law of copyright determines the minimum evidentiary requirements to establish the asserted types of infringement; in other words, the jurisprudence constrains the extent to which an adverse inference may be drawn in the context of online copyright infringement,” the judgment reads.

    Judgment Guided By Supreme Court Ruling in 2022

    According to Voltage, once it had presented all “technologically available” evidence to the Court, a “tactical burden of proof” shifted to the internet subscribers. This effectively meant they had to show they were not the infringers. In respect of its authorization claims, Voltage said that Justice Furlanetto was wrong to insist on more evidence; the fact that the subscribers received notices yet failed to control their internet connections was sufficient.

    The judgment deals with the authorization claims first, guided by a Supreme Court decision handed down in 2022 in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association .

    “The Supreme Court endorsed the Copyright Board’s determination that ‘it is the act of posting [the work] that constitutes authorization’ because the person who makes the work available ‘either controls or purports to control the right to communicate it’ and ‘invites anyone with Internet access to have the work communicated to them. The authorizer is the individual directly engaging with the copyrighted material,” the judgment clarifies.

    As a result, the Court of Appeal says that whoever used the subscribers’ internet connections to make Voltage’s movie available for download, authorized the infringement. The Supreme Court found that an authorizer permits reproduction but Voltage claims that an authorizer is someone who permits someone to permit reproduction.

    The difference in opinion would prove fatal.

    Collisions in Copyright Law

    Justice Rennie says the Voltage appeal fails to show “any reversible error” in the Federal Court’s decision. Furthermore, Voltage’s arguments on authorization are “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision. Voltage’s claims of direct infringement also run into trouble.

    “Although it accepted that individuals using each respondents’ IP address had infringed the appellant’s copyright by uploading the Work, the Federal Court found that it could not conclude at this time that the respondents were themselves those particular
    individuals. I agree,” Justice Rennie writes.

    On the question of a subscriber’s failure to defend, the Judge agrees that can lead to an adverse inference. However, just because a defendant is found to be in default at an early stage, it does not necessarily follow that an adverse inference should be drawn at the same stage.

    “If the fact that a defendant was in default automatically allowed for adverse inferences at the second stage of the test for motions for default judgment, plaintiffs on ex parte motions for default judgment would need to present no evidence to the court in order to be successful. Some evidence is required,” Justice Rennie continues.

    Indeed, the Federal Court held that “something more is needed than the bare assertion that a subscriber is, by default, the user responsible for infringement.” Voltage failed to provide sufficient evidence, the Court of Appeal notes, so no adverse inference could be drawn.

    Court of Appeal Tightens the Noose

    Voltage’s reliance on infringement warnings to show subscribers’ failure to exercise control – over internet connections and connected devices – fails.

    As clarified in the Supreme Court decision, authorization depends on the alleged authorizer’s control over the person who committed the resulting infringement; it does not depend on the alleged authorizer’s control over the supply of their technology.

    Furthermore, to establish an infringing activity, there must be evidence to show what the activity does to the work in question.

    “Posting a work online and inviting others to view it engages the author’s authorization right; however, sharing internet access after receiving notices of alleged infringement does nothing to the work in question, and does not therefore engage any copyright interest granted to the author exclusively,” the Court of Appeal notes.

    Conclusion: Voltage’s Appeal is Dismissed

    From the judgment: “In the factual matrix of this case and at this relatively early stage of this case, the defendants’ lack of participation in litigation does not offset the plaintiff’s lack of evidence.

    “The Federal Court was not obligated to draw an adverse inference at this stage of the litigation merely because the respondents had, by their silence, not put forward sufficient evidence to rebut the appellant’s allegations,” Justice Rennie concludes.

    For these reasons, Justices Rennie, Stratas, and Webb, dismissed the appeal.

    The full judgment is available here ( pdf )

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