Archiv der Kategorie: Alle (English)

Eco, an association with quite a few piracy providers

Eco, the largest Internet industry association in Europe, stands for free Internet and liability exemptions for Internet providers. Why?
All you have to do is take a look into their membership list and you will find a great deal of acquaintances who distribute pirated movies to customers in Germany and other markets:

  • Cloudflare (also called crimeflare), USA: Content delivery network which is used by 9 out of the top 10 portals for file-hosters.
  • Cyando, Switzerland: Owner of the most important filehoster Uploaded. According to the regional Court of Munich, Uploaded is aiding and abetting copyright infringers.
  • Dancom, Belize: Content delivery network / data center for the most important portal for videohosting (
  • OVH, France: Data center for 3 of the 10 most important filehosters (, and
  • Voxility, Romania: Data center for the most important videohoster
  • M247, UK: Data center for, a top 5 filehoster portal and a top 10 videohoster and other videohosters such as, and
  • Leaseweb, Netherland: Data center for the top 5 videohoster

Additionally there are other members, who offer dataspace and Internet connection for hosters with thousands of copyright infringing movies, e.g.:

  • Akami with and
  • Hetzner with
  • Link11 with
  • Nforce with and
  • Plusserver with
  • Serverius with

Netherland: Producers Demand damages

The Financial Times has reported that the Dutch film producers have filed a claim for damages from the government because it tolerated illegal downloads until a verdict of the ECJ forbade this.

A study estimated a loss of € 78 million in a market that has a total volume of € 500 million.


A MPA employee published an overview on blocking orders in regard to copyright in Europe.
According to this the following countries have blocking orders:
1 – Italy (238 blocked sites)
2 – United Kingdom (135)
3 – Denmark (41)
4 – Spain (24)
5 – France (18)
6 – Portugal (15)
7 – Belgium (13)
8 – Norway (7)
9 – Austria (6)
10 – Ireland (2)
10 – Greece (2)
10 – Iceland (2)
11 – Finland (1)


In many countries “The Pirate Bay“ has been blocked. In Sweden the domain registration of could be withdrawn. So “The Pirate Bay” has lost many visits. Starting with 436 million visits in July 2014 they lost 35% of all visits until March 2015, which had 285.5 million visits.
Therefore “The Pirate Bay” is trying to distribute their customers across several alternative domains (e.g.

Alternative Domains
According to data gathered from Similiar Web, only 9 of 46 domains are important (more than a million visits); nine domains had less than 500 visits per month.

The Pirate Bay visits (data from
  Jul 14 Mrz 15 Jul 15 450,000,000 285,500,000        7,200,000
Alternative Domains                –    16,149,500    286,771,500
450,000,000 301,649,500    293,971,500

Proxies can be used to circumvent blocking measures. There are a many on Google, but we tested 267 and found data only for 161 proxies.

Visits on The Pirate Bay-Proxys (similarweb)
proxies Share
unknown 17 6.4%
not enough data 89 33.3%
with data 161 60.3%
Total 267

Only 26 proxies had more than 100,000 visits in July and two with more than a million. Visits to proxies rose by 24% between March and July 2015 with 28,445,000 visits.

So the traffic to “The Pirate Bay” is still concentrated on a few sites.

Germany and Austria: Are registries supporting Cybercrime?

Spamhaus reports on German and Austrian Internet registries helping cybercriminals. Countless cybercrime pages are registered by Denic and Complaints are useless because both organizations say they are not liable. They only delete domain names by court order or if they violate their terms and conditions.
Unlike Austria and Germany, Switzerland and Russia have implemented appropriate mechanisms in their regulation or registrar agreements.

Most of the malicious domain names are registered through a German-based registrar called Key-Systems. Some of the reported domain names have been suspended, but now the registrar seems to be recommending that its customers move the domain name to a different registrar: “What we are now seeing within ccTLD .at is ridiculous: Several registrars, mostly German-based, are moving malicious domain names around between each other. Once you report a malicious domain name to one of these registrars, they will just transfer it to a different registrar.”

ECJ: Right of Information is more powerful than banking secrecy

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that banking institutions can not rely on banking secrecy when the owner of a trademark wants to know who the holder of a bank account is which has been used for paying counterfeit items.
In the initial case, the Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg refused to give information on the holder of the account.

This verdict supports rights holders who have paid for a counterfeit item and therefore the perpetrators account information is exposed.
In the case of copyright infringements on the Internet this is normally not the case because there are 3rd parties involved. Then the right to information is not enough. According to the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, the rights holder has no right to be informed about the uploaders bank account details.

[European Court, C-580/13, 16 July 2015];jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d5f9dddfd98fc24b76a5c1b69bd078d29c.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4ObN8Te0?text=&docid=165900&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=106174

On the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Cologne (OLG Köln):

Regional Court of Cologne on the liability of a registrar

If a registrar of a domain knows that there are untruthful statements on this website (and this is confirmed by the owner of the page) and he does not take action to prevent this, he is liable as a so-called „interferer“.

[LG Köln, 13.05.2014, Az. 28 O 11/15]

See also:

ECHR: Liability for third party content

According to a verdict of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), an operator of a commercial online forum can be responsible for third party comments. If he does not remove offensive comments without delay, he has to pay damages:
“where third-party user comments are in the form of hate speech and direct threats to the physical integrity of individuals (…) the rights and interest of others and of society as a whole may entitle contracting states to impose liability on internet news portals, without contravening article 10 ECHR, if they fail to take measures to remove clearly unlawful comments without delay, even without notice from the alleged victim or from third parties” (Paragraph 159 of the Grand Chamber judgment)

Looking at this verdict you can assume that commercial hosters who do not take measures against illegal content have to fear damages in the near future.{„languageisocode“:[„ENG“],“appno“:[„64569/09″],“documentcollectionid2“:[„GRANDCHAMBER“],“itemid“:[„001-155105“]}

INTERNET PIRACY: Still high advertising revenues

The American „Digital Citizens Alliance“ has examined the annual ad revenue of piracy sites. They estimated the ad turnover to be of 209 million US $ (€ 188 million) per year; nearly as much as last years turnover of US $ 227 million. The study is based on almost 600 sites with a wealth of take-down notices at Google.

“Good Money Still Going Bad”

British Incopro conducted a study into the revenue sources for websites making available copyright content without consent in the EU. The report analyses the revenue sources for the 250 most popular websites accessible to users in key territories in the European Union (Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom):

  • 570 out of the total 622 sites (91.6%) examined in this study have at least one source of revenue;
  • Advertising is the predominant revenue source for the top 250 unauthorised sites
  • Excluding malware, the top three advertisers are
    • Bet365 (Gambling)
    • William Hill (Gambling)
    • Aliexpress (Retail)