AfterDawn: Tech news

Anti-piracy champions BREIN took down 128 file sharing sites in last six months

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 27 Jul 2015 23:01 User comments (13)

Anti-piracy champions BREIN took down 128 file sharing sites in last six months Dutch anti-piracy firm BREIN put in some serious work during the first half of the year, effectively taking down 128 file sharing sites and also obtaining injunctions against major torrent uploaders.
BREIN's main tactic was pressuring local webhosts to take down "illegal" sites, and 128 were taken down during the first six months of the year. 22 were BitTorrent sites, 37 were streaming video portals and two were cyberlockers that were distributing unauthorized music. The rest of the sites linked to content hosted via Usenet or cyberlockers.

The group, like many other anti-piracy firms have noted, says many pirate sites have tried to hide their locations using Cloudflare but that their locations can be uncovered. "BREIN believes that the services provided by CloudFlare to illegal providers should be discontinued after notification by BREIN," the group added.

Additionally, the firm managed to get 12 ex-parte injunctions so far this year (court orders where the defendant is not present), four against large torrent uploaders, one against a major Usenet uploader, one against "an important moderator" for a major torrent site, two against major eBook pirates and even one against an alleged video game pirate that was modifying consoles.

Finally, the company also sent 1.4 million takedown notices to Google to have allegedly infringing links removed from the search engine.

Source:
TF

Previous Next  

13 user comments

127.7.2015 23:31

All the torrent sites I use are still in tact. Not sure how piddly these 128 are.


When in doubt..........torrentz.eu

228.7.2015 1:49

Kickass Torrents and The Pirate Bay still work fine.

The truth of it is, that they'll never be able to shut down a significant percentage of filesharing. It's just a Sisyphean waste of money and resources, much like most DRM.

328.7.2015 3:50

good on you!, hopefully these cheap thieving punks will eventually understand that if you want something PAY FOR IT!


ZX Spectrum 128K

428.7.2015 11:08

It's nowhere near that simple or black-and-white, Dragon3000.

528.7.2015 11:15

How can it not be? Bozobub. I don't want to make any assumptions on what you mean, as that might lead to confusion. Do you want to elaborate?


ZX Spectrum 128K

628.7.2015 11:44

I may regret posting this, but caution to the wind and all that...


When I was a kid way back in the early '80s, I went through the process of applying for written Copyright protection for some stories and comics I'd written. I received a packet of documentation on Copyright Law and I read through all of it so I understood what it was all about.

After some clearing out of storage boxes, I came across the packet again and read through some of it.

What was clear about the law back then is that, first, it was protection specifically for the performance of works of art. It specifically states that ideas alone are not subject to Copyright protections.

Therein lies one of the problems with Copyright law today. It's been warped into something that it was never intended to restrict: ideas.

Software publishers have weaved their way into Copyright protections by claiming Copyright on the artwork within their software. It's an appropriate application of the law, but it becomes problematic when the general public assumes, incorrectly, that the Copyright protecion also applies to the bulk of the work. It doesn't. It's the artwork within the software that is valid for protection, not the software itself.

Is a word processor a work of art? No, it's a tool which allows for works of art to be performed in the shape of books and literature. By itself it doesn't qualify. But the icons do. And that's all it takes to lock down ideas in the form of word processor technology.

It's similar to drawing a picture on a hammer and stating that hammers may only be reproduced by the person who drew the picture. It's fringe. It qualifies, but barely. <humor>Fortunately, laws already in place prevent hammers from being duplicated on a whim.</humor>


I think this is the problem a lot of people have with the law. It isn't being applied justly.

I could go on. There's so much more to get into. A law from the 1700s is being used to restrict access to modern technology. The minefield of problems associated with it really do need to be addressed. Unfortunately there's so much power being siphoned by the law's current state that it likely will never happen.

My point in all this is, please don't assume all is hunky-dory with Copyright in its current form. It has major problems, not all of which are readily apparent, and are most likely only going to get worse.


Sorry this was so long, If I had more time I'd make it shorter.


When laws allow unlimited ownership of ideas, it is to a society as iron fusion is to the core of a star.

When verified realities lead us to anger, we must learn to reevaluate our beliefs.

728.7.2015 13:23

Originally posted by Clam_Up:


Therein lies one of the problems with Copyright law today. It's been warped into something that it was never intended to restrict: ideas.

Precisely.
This is what this is really about.

Movie & music companies whining about people downloading stuff (which is, in many cases, often available to them anyway via host of other routes - either by satellite/cable TV or radio....which these days all seem to allow copying to store) is not the real issue.

This is about an attempt to monetise everything possible (even, using patent 'mining', things which have nothing to do with anything those companies have actually created).
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 28 Jul 2015 @ 13:23

828.7.2015 15:05

Originally posted by Dragon3000:
good on you!, hopefully these cheap thieving punks will eventually understand that if you want something PAY FOR IT!
Don't be so bloody pompous!!

928.7.2015 17:22

Originally posted by blaster4:
Originally posted by Dragon3000:
good on you!, hopefully these cheap thieving punks will eventually understand that if you want something PAY FOR IT!
Don't be so bloody pompous!!

I believe I'm one of this person's "thieving punks"

I buy a ton of blu-rays and movies but download some illicitly too. I don't leech like most! Don't blame me.......GOD granted me the ability to circumvent the system as my profession is highly technical. You don't like........BITCH TO HIM ABOUT IT!


I don't buy music because the money is made on touring. I don't give a rat's ass about money going to the labels. Artists that sell direct, I do buy.


So yeah......agreed with 'blaster4'....POMPOUS! Now you pipe down yo!

1028.7.2015 22:55

Originally posted by Dragon3000:
good on you!, hopefully these cheap thieving punks will eventually understand that if you want something PAY FOR IT!
Well you just go ahead and dish out $300-$400 for a program like Photoshop and then think about it afterwards.

1129.7.2015 4:06

Got to say, I didn't expect anything less from some of you. You will always defend having something for nothing and the excuses given are always the same, but to me are simply unjustified.

Pompous? no, I don' think so. A person of Rectitude, yes.


ZX Spectrum 128K

1229.7.2015 4:47

Originally posted by Dragon3000:
Got to say, I didn't expect anything less from some of you. You will always defend having something for nothing and the excuses given are always the same, but to me are simply unjustified.

Pompous? no, I don' think so. A person of Rectitude, yes.
Rectally retentive perhaps. Sorry, my friend, I couldn't resist. We each have our opinion on most matters but preaching impresses nobody.

1329.7.2015 10:37

Note my original post: Please feel free to say how I was actually wrong. Furthermore, I made absolutely no claims on the morality of the act, either way.

Get over yourself.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive