The coronavirus pandemic has massively increased Internet traffic. This applies to work usage, legal entertainment, but also file-sharing.

Last week we showed how downloads, including content from popular sites such as The Pirate Bay, YTS, and RARBG, have increased in recent weeks.

While this upward trend is clearly visible in the global numbers, zooming in at the country level adds a more detailed perspective. That is exactly what we did over the past several days, resulting in some rather intriguing findings.

To begin, we take a look at Italy, which was the first European country to be severely impacted by COVID-19. Responding to the increasing threat, the local government implemented a lockdown on March 9th, instructing people to stay indoors.

Using data provided by iknowwhatyoudownload.com, we analyzed the number of Italian IP-addresses that were found sharing torrents from the start of the year, as well as the tracked number of downloads.

The graph below shows that both the number of downloads and the unique IP-addresses reached new highs on March 9, after which they continued to go up for a few days, to then stabilize.

On March 8, there were 592K downloads and 213K IP-addresses. A week later these numbers were up to 810K and 304K respectively.

In Spain, there is a similar trend that started a few days later, again coinciding with the lockdown measures. The Spanish Government ordered its lockdown on March 14, with both the number of downloads and unique IP-addresses reaching new highs on that exact date.

Similar to the Italian situation, both numbers continued to go up for a while. A week after the lockdown started, reported downloads and IP-addresses were up by roughly a third.

In France, the effect of the countrywide measures is also clearly visible. Again, both numbers reached a yearly high on the day the lockdown went into effect, growing even further in the following days.

There is also an upward trend in the UK, as can be seen in the graph below. This effect is less pronounced than elsewhere, likely because people are still allowed to move relatively freely, which is a clear difference compared to the previously mentioned countries.

There are also some clear outliers in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, there is no significant uptick in torrent downloads or IP-addresses. This, despite the intelligent-lockdown that’s been ordered locally.

There is not much change in Sweden either. That was more or less expected, however, as the Scandinavian country hasn’t taken any extreme measures to curb the spread of the virus.

Moving over to the United States we see that there appears to be a small increase in downloads over the past few weeks, but nothing that really stands out. This is likely because most of the restrictive measures are limited to a few affected regions.

In South America, however, the effects are very clear in some countries. In Argentina, for example, which issued a lockdown on March 19, reported download numbers and IP-addresses shot up in the following days.

On March 17, there were 508K downloads and 179K IP-addresses, and by the 25th these numbers had gone up to 706K and 254K respectively.

Moving around the world, we see similar boosts taking place. South Africa issued a three-week lockdown order starting on March 26, with torrent downloads and reported IP-addresses going up around the same time.

A similar spike was also evident in Saudi Arabia at the time more stringent measures were announced in some regions. On March 9 the first restrictions went into effect in Qatif, with measures following in Riyadh, Mecca, and Medina later in the month.

In Asia, the findings are not always as expected. While we previously reported on other data that showed that visits to file-sharing sites surged in China, the same pattern doesn’t appear in the downloads and IP-address data. This is also true for South Korea.

We did find a notable increase in some other Asian countries. In Singapore, for example, although the increase there had already started before the most far-reaching measures were made public.

On the whole, however, it is striking to see how many of these charts follow the COVID-19 measures locally. The overall trend appears to be that the more strict the lockdown measures are, the greater effect they have on BitTorrent activity.

It will be interesting to see how these graphs develop over time. Will they eventually return to the pre-corona numbers or remain at a higher level?

—

The data used for the graphs presented here were provided by iknowwhatyoudownload.com. While this is not a full record of all BitTorrent traffic, it is certainly helpful to reveal trends within countries. For full transparency, we make the underlying data available here (January 1, 2020 – April 6, 2020). This also includes other countries.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

With movie piracy becoming more sophisticated with each passing year and bandwidth cheaper than ever, the quality of copies appearing online has gradually increased.

Pirates are now very comfortable with downloading high-quality multi-gigabyte rips sourced from physical discs and VOD sources but many can’t wait, preferring to view movies early in their theatrical windows. The go-to sources in these cases are so-called ‘cam’ copies, i.e movies obtained by pointing a recording device directly at a cinema screen.

“Illicit camcording is the primary source of unauthorized copies of newly released movies found online,” the Office of the United States Trade Representative wrote in its latest Special 301 Report.

“The recordings made in movie theaters today are very different from those by a single person sitting in a theater with a bulky videotape recorder. The results are not shaky, inaudible recordings. It is now easy for a surreptitious recording in a movie theater to result in a clean digital copy of a movie with perfect audio that can be quickly distributed online.”

While this may be overstating the quality of the average ‘cam’ recording found online today, the United States views the availability of these copies as a “significant trade problem.” In particular, fingers are regularly pointed at Russia as a primary source of ‘cams’ but, to date, local authorities haven’t been able to prevent dozens appearing online every year. Now, however, Russia seems ready to take action.

According to the TASS news agency, the Ministry of Culture has prepared a new bill that aims to address apparent shortcomings in Russian legislation. Right now, punishment for recording in cinemas is moderated according to intent, meaning that someone who isn’t acting for financial gain can escape prosecution. The government now wishes to tighten up the loopholes to ensure that no one falls through the gaps.

“The Ministry of Culture of Russia has prepared a draft federal law prohibiting the recording of films in cinemas regardless of the purpose of such recordings,” says Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova.

“In other words, to hold the violator accountable it will no longer be necessary to prove that he was shooting specifically for profit.”

Lyubimova says that the changes will support other anti-piracy measures as part of a government strategy to not only introduce new legislation but to also sharpen up laws already in place. Whether fresh anti-camming penalties will reduce the high number of copies appearing online from Russia will remain to be seen but US rightsholders will be hoping for a good set of results.

According to the USTR, 26 illegally camcorded movies were traced back to Russian cinemas in 2015. In 2016, this had jumped to 63 cammed copies and the following year the figure rose again to 78 movies, a 300% increase over the number reported in 2015.

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, however, the USTR’s latest Special 301 Report noted a significant drop for movies ‘cammed’ in Russia, with ‘just’ 48 titles appearing online in 2018.

The threat from Russia-sourced recordings isn’t just limited to video though. When ‘cammed’ copies appear online it is not uncommon for their components to be sourced from different places, i.e the video could be recorded in one country and the audio in another. According to the USTR, a total of 34 movie audio tracks were traced back to Russian cinemas in 2018.

Traditionally, illicit ‘cam’ copies were blamed for undermining the theatrical market but with the rise of licensed VOD platforms, authorities say that they are being affected too.

“In addition to theater owners who lose revenue, legitimate digital platforms, who often negotiate for a certain period of exclusivity after the theatrical run, cannot fairly compete in the market,” the USTR states.

While Russia is viewed as the primary supplier of first-run movie ‘cams’, other countries receive their share of criticism too. In 2018, Mexico was claimed to be the second-largest foreign source of illegally recorded films, with India and China earning mentions for not doing enough to curtail supply.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

This week we have four newcomers in our chart.

Bad Boys for Life is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1	(1)	Bad Boys for Life	7.1 / trailer
2	(…)	Trolls World Tour	6.1 / trailer
3	(…)	Gretel & Hansel	6.1 / trailer
4	(2)	The Gentlemen	8.0 / trailer
5	(…)	IP Man 4	7.2 / trailer
6	(6)	Sonic The Hedgehog	6.6 / trailer
7	(3)	Bloodshot	5.7 / trailer
8	(4)	Underwater	5.9 / trailer
9	(5)	Birds of Prey	6.3 / trailer
10	(…)	My Spy	6.0 / trailer

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

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

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

This practice by itself is not illegal, but Hansmeier and his associate John Steele entered the criminal realm when they lied to the courts, committed identity theft, and created a honeypot by uploading self-produced porn torrents to The Pirate Bay as bait.

Both lawyers were sentenced to long prison sentences, with the first receiving the longest sentence due to his lack of cooperation. Hansmeier appealed his sentence and previously asked the court if he could await this decision out of jail.

That effort failed initially, but with the Coronavirus spreading in the US, he’s now asking the court to reconsider.

A few days ago, Hansmeier sent a handwritten letter from the Sandstone prison in Minnesota to the U.S. District Court, which included his motion for a release pending appeal.

In the letter, the disbarred lawyer explains that he is better off outside, as the risk of being infected by the Coronavirus is much greater in prison.

“If released pending appeal, Hansmeier would self-quarantine at his house for 14 days, and then continue to shelter in place per the Minnesota Governor’s executive order,” Hansmeier writes, adding that he would use the time to care for his children.

According to Hansmeier, there is no need to stay in prison pending the appeal. It is not likely that he will flee or pose a danger to the community, for example, and his appeal raises a substantial issue, as the U.S. code requires.

The main reason for the request, however, is the COVID-19 pandemic. The former Prenda lawyer cites several media reports that describe the challenges and risks prisons face, quoting one insider stating that it’s “chaos” and that things will “get worse.” These descriptions also apply to Sandstone, he notes.

“Inmates at Sandstone share tight quarters in dormitory-style housing and spend much of their time together,” Hansmeier writes, adding that “…there is nothing that officials can do, short of releasing prisoners en masse, to even approach the recommendations of the CDC and the President’s Coronavirus Task Force.”

Hansmeier fears that the virus will rip through the entire prison population if it arrives, wreaking havoc, and potentially killing dozens of people. By allowing the release pending appeal, he would avoid this risk.

“[A]pplication of the current death rate associated with COVID-19, suggests that 25 inmates at Sandstone can expect to die,” Hansmeier warns.

While the disbarred lawyer argues that there is no reason for him to be exposed to unnecessary health risks, the prosecution sees things differently. In a reply motion, United States Attorney Erica MacDonald cast doubt over the request.

MacDonald refers to Hansmeier as “a healthy 38-year old man,” who “is thriving at Sandstone.” That he, because of the pandemic, now wants to be released to care for his children seems illogical.

MacDonald stresses that the only case cited to support the motion is one where a court agreed to delay the surrender date of a convict. The reason for this was to not add any people to the prison population. However, Hansmeier is in prison already.

“Hansmeier, in contrast, cannot be added to the prison population because he is already part of the prison population, and has been since July 2019, before the pandemic even began,” MacDonald writes.

Instead of helping the situation, the disbarred lawyer may actually make things worse, she adds.

“Hansmeier’s request to be released, to care for his children, and then to return to BOP custody if he loses his appeal, would expose the prison community at Sandstone to a greater threat from COVID-19 than simply keeping the uninfected Hansmeier in custody as the pandemic runs its course,” the Attorney General adds.

Based on these and a variety of other arguments, including the Government’s position that there is no substantial issue raised in the appeal, MacDonald urgest the court to keep the convicted Prenda lawyer in prison.

After reviewing the details, US District Judge Joan Ericksen issued a brief but clear order on Friday. Instead of going into any of the COVID-19 arguments, she denied to consider the request for a temporary release because of Hansmeier argued it himself, even though he is represented by an attorney.

—

A copy of Hansmeier’s pro se motion for a release pending appeal is available here and the Government’s objections can be found here.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Just over a year ago, author John Van Stry filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in a Texas court against former Pirate Party Canada leader Travis McCrea, the operator of eBook download platform eBook.bike.

The complaint alleged that McCrea infringed the copyrights of Van Stry by making at least a dozen of his books available for download without a license, along with other titles by prominent authors including Stephen King and J.K. Rowling.

Following the case has been testing, to say the least. The discovery process was labored, disorganized, and at times not much short of chaotic. The parties, when they communicated at all, were beset by problems that were agonizingly detailed in pages of court filings. McCrea cited various defenses, including under the DMCA and on religious grounds, and was flat-out accused of frustrating the entire process by Van Stry’s legal team.

Behind that briefest summary of events, the case has been rumbling on the background, consuming large sums of time and money as it has done so. Given McCrea’s earlier claim that he would never be able to pay should he lose the case and Van Stry’s obvious financial investment in the matter, it was always going to be hard to pick a ‘winner’.

That being said, Van Stry seems determined to make a point about piracy, not only for him but for all authors. It might prove difficult to put a price tag on that but it is the court’s job to try. That leads us to a proposed motion for final summary judgment filed by Van Stry’s legal team that has just been dealt with by the judge.

The proposed summary judgment asks the court to find that McCrea “knowingly and intentionally” committed direct infringement in respect of 12 of Van Stry’s books and is “contributorily and vicariously responsible” for copyright infringements carried by Ebook.bike’s users in respect of the same works.

Demanding a broad injunction to prevent McCrea and his “agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with him” from infringing, causing, enabling, facilitating, encouraging, contributing to, or participation in infringement of the works in future, it further proposes significant damages.

“Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(1), the Court awards Mr. Van Stry $15,000 per each of the twelve works-at-issue, consisting of $3,800 in compensatory damages and, due to Mr. McCrea’s willful infringement, $11,200 in punitive damages, for a total of $180,000,” the proposal reads.

On top, of course, Van Stry is demanding full costs, including attorneys’ fees, to ensure he isn’t left out of pocket.

In a memorandum and opinion issued this week, District Court Judge William Bryson notes that under the Copyright Act, Van Stry could’ve demanded a whole lot more in statutory damages – $150,000 per work, to be precise. The Judge then goes on to address several documents filed by McCrea in which he denied any wrongdoing because there was no evidence “that there had been any downloads of copyrighted material.”

“At the same time, Mr. McCrea said that he was ‘practising [his] religion by helping authors connect with their readers’,” the Judge writes. “McCrea also claimed that his actions were protected by the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And, in the event of liability, Mr. McCrea disputed Mr. Van Stry’s contention as to the appropriate amount to be awarded in damages.”

On the DMCA issue, the Judge goes into some detail but ultimately notes that McCrea is not entitled to claim safe harbor due to his failure to register an agent at the Copyright Office.

In respect of some kind of defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993 (RFRA), the Judge states that the RFRA doesn’t apply because the case is a dispute between private parties.

“Even assuming the sincerity of Mr. McCrea’s beliefs and even if RFRA were applicable to this case, Mr. McCrea’s affirmative defense would still fail because he has provided no evidence that the government, or any entity, has substantially burdened his practicing of his religion,” the Judge notes.

“The only religious practices Mr. McCrea identifies is ‘helping authors connect with their readers’ and copying and sharing information. I fail to see the suggested conflict between those practices and abiding by the Copyright Act. Mr. McCrea certainly could have approached Mr. Van Stry to obtain a license to copy, make available, and distribute Mr. Van Stry’s copyrighted works, if that was how Mr. McCrea chose to help connect Mr. Van Stry with his readers.”

At this stage, the motion appears to be going nowhere good for McCrea but the Judge then reveals he won’t be rubber-stamping Van Stry’s request for damages as outlined in his proposed motion. The Supreme Court provides a right to a trial and the scale of statutory damages is a question for the jury, unless both sides agree to a decision being made by the court.

Given submissions from the parties, Judge Bryson says he believes Van Stry and McCrea want him to decide the appropriate amount of statutory damages. However, what Van Stry is demanding ($15,000 per work) conflicts with the statutory minimum suggested by McCrea ($750 per work).

As a result, the Judge wants both sides to write to the court to confirm that they want him to decide the amount, rather than a jury. This, however, raises other issues.

“[I] note that the right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages does not apply when the plaintiff seeks an award limited to the statutorily guaranteed minimum amount,” the Judge notes.

“In light of Mr. Van Stry’s acknowledgement that damages in this case are likely to be illusory, he may wish to limit his request for statutory damages to the statutory minimum award of $750 per work —an amount that Mr. McCrea has already agreed would be appropriate. In that event, a jury trial on damages would not be necessary.

“Mr. Van Stry may, if he chooses, make the request to limit the award of statutory damages in the alternative. The request, that is, would only control in the event that Mr. McCrea does not waive his right to a jury trial,” Judge Bryson adds.

The parties have been given seven days to advise the Court whether they wish to have the Court “resolve all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages” in excess of the statutory limit of $750 per work. We know that $750 is acceptable to McCrea but seems unlikely to be acceptable to Van Stry – 12 x $750 sounds like $9,000, a lot less than the $180,000 previously mentioned.

Should the author win the case he will, however, be entitled to recover his costs. Earlier this year, Van Stry indicated he was already in the hole for $60,000 in legal fees, only half of which was covered by donations from fellow authors and other well-wishers.

But even that figure must’ve been surpassed by now, especially if the associated GoFundMe campaign’s target of $90,000 is anything to go by. That still leaves the question of whether he can recover anything at all – damages or costs – from McCrea, who doesn’t even live in the United States.

Either way, eBook.bike shut down many months ago.

The motion for summary judgment and memorandum opinion and order can be found here and here

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.