NEWS Ukraine shuts down notorious file-sharing site, Demonoid
Ukrainian government officials have shut down one of the world’s largest file-sharing websites, Demonoid, following a request from law enforcement agency Interpol.
According to reports, Interpol asked the Division of Economic Crimes to shut down the site, whose servers were hosted by a company called ColoCall. Te web host then pulled Demonoid’s connection before government officials copied all information from the site’s servers and sealed them.
Te news emerged on August 6, 2012, but officials reportedly shut down the site on about August 1. Te site’s owners, who were arrested in Mexico in October 2011, are now apparently subject to a criminal investigation there.
In a statement, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which said its complaints over Demonoid prompted Interpol to shut down the site, welcomed the news.
“Te operation to close Demonoid was a great example of international cooperation to tackle a service that was facilitating the illegal
Demonoid “recently ranked among the top 600 websites in global traffic and the top 300 in US traffic, according to
Alexa.com”.
The US government was responsible for shutting down another high-profile file- sharing site, Megaupload, in January 2012.
distribution of music on a vast scale,” said Jeremy Banks, director, anti-piracy at the IFPI.
Demonoid was named on the US government’s Notorious Markets list, published in November 2011. Te annual report said at the time that
Officials are trying operators
to extradite the site’s and their leader, a man calling
himself Kim Dotcom, from their base in New Zealand.
Adam Rendle, an associate at Taylor Wessing LLP in London, said seizing Demonoid was an important development for rights owners. “Tat
the government of a country which
does not have a substantial exporting creative industry—ie, whose creative industries would not be directly affected by file-sharing—has taken this action, appears to be significant.
“If more similar action was taken there and elsewhere, it would become more difficult for file-sharing sites to base themselves in ‘offshore’ jurisdictions,” he said.
But he said many other sites continue to provide equivalent services, so it may reappear. “Tis requires further on- and offshore legal action, together with
legislative
and enforcement
support from governments and practical assistance from bystanders such as ISPs, to make a significant overall difference to the level of online piracy.”
12 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128