Hertz has confirmed it suffered a data breach as a result of the Cleo zero-day vulnerability in late 2024, with the car rental giant warning that customer data was stolen.

In a statement confirming the incident, the firm said customer data was “acquired by an unauthorized party that we understand exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo's platform in October 2024 and December 2024”.

“Hertz immediately began analyzing the data to determine the scope of the event and to identify individuals whose personal information may have been impacted,” the statement added.

Customer data exposed in the breach may vary, the company said, but is believed to include customer names, contact information, dates of birth, credit card details, and information pertaining to driver’s licenses.

Similarly, a limited number of customers may have had US social security numbers or government ID information stolen in the breach.

"A very small number of individuals may have had their Social Security or other government identification numbers, passport information, Medicare or Medicaid ID (associated with workers' compensation claims), or injury-related information associated with vehicle accident claims impacted by the event," the company warned.

Hertz said it is yet to observe any “misuse of personal information” linked to the breach, but is offering customers two years of identity monitoring services. The company also advised customers to remain vigilant for potential fraudulent activity.

Hertz the latest to disclose Cleo vulnerability impact

Hertz’ confirmation makes it the latest in a string of companies to have fallen victim to the Cleo breach. First disclosed last year, a vulnerability in the popular managed file transfer (MFT) service was pounced on by the Clop ransomware group.

The threat group initially claimed it had stolen data belonging to more than 60 companies as a result of the zero-day. This list has since grown, and earlier this year Western Alliance Bank confirmed it was among the growing list of victims.

Other confirmed victims include Chicago Public Schools, Champion Home Builders, and WK Kellogg.

Fresh research from ReliaQuest shows the impact of the Cleo breach will continue to grow for enterprises globally. Indeed, analysis by the security firm found the incident fueled a 23% increase in overall ransomware activity between Q4 and Q1 2025.

“Clop’s exploitation of Cleo highlights how weaknesses in systems can ripple across interconnected industries, disrupting supply chains, halting operations, and impacting countless businesses simultaneously,” the firm said in a blog post.

Rebecca Moody, head of data research at Comparitech, echoed this warning, noting that there’s likely to be “many more breach notifications from this exploit” as Clop has since added over 350 victims to its data leak site.

Dray Agha, senior manager of security operations at Huntress, said the incident underlines the “significant risks” posed by vulnerabilities in third-party platforms like Cleo.

“This highlights the importance of maintaining robust vulnerability management programs to identify and address security gaps in software promptly, especially those used for sensitive data transfer.”

Agha added the incident reflects a growing trend of cyber criminals targeting secure file transfer platforms. 2023, for example, saw a number of high-profile organizations impacted by the MOVEit data breach.

MORE FROM ITPRO

• The new ransomware groups worrying security researchers in 2025
• The ‘BlackLock’ group has become one of the most prolific operators in the cyber crime industry
• Warning issued over prolific 'Ghost' ransomware group

The Pirate Bay torrent site opened for business again over the weekend, several months after a Swedish police raid saw it taken offline.

Reports suggesting its return was imminent began circulating late last week, after a new website appeared online featuring a countdown timer and a phoenix logo.

Meanwhile, an animation showing the infamous Pirate Bay logo moving towards a cartoon island with a harbour marked "welcome home", added fuel to the fire.

Update 3/2/15

Hacking group Anonymous claims that the FBI is controlling the domain of the relaunched Pirate Bay website and warned users about visiting.

On its Twitter account @TheAnonMessages, it was claimed that the domain had been compromised and pointed users in the direction of a newly built domain.

TorrentFreak

However, in a separate story, published days earlier by TorrentFreak, it was claimed the new version will be markedly lighter than the one it replaced, with fewer moderators on hand to rid it of spam and fake torrents.

The news has not been greeted favourably by former site admins, some of whom have worked on the site for more than a decade.

"As an admin and human, I won't stand aside and accept this kind of behaviour. This is the worst scenario that could happen," said one of the site's lead admins WTC-SWE.

Because of the alleged lack of moderator support, the site's former admins are also warning users to be wary of using it.

In the meantime, The Pirate Bay's former admin team is said to be working on its own version of the site, which will be operated from a new domain.

"It's only a matter of time. I will need to blast the whole coding and clean up all the mess. The real [The Pirate Bay] will be back with proper staff and all," WTC-SWE added.

The Pirate Bay: The story so far

The Pirate Bay was previously resurrected by torrent site Isohunt, after a Swedish police raid knocked the notorious file-sharing site offline in early December 2014.

Police seized the Swedish servers used to host the site on copyright violation grounds. This is the second time a raid like this has caused the site to go dark since 2006.

In the wake of the December raid, speculation about how long it would take a replacement site to pop-up had been rife, before a new version of The Pirate Bay appeared, thanks to UK torrent site Isohunt, at oldpiratebay.org.

To recreate the site, it's thought the team at Isohunt compiled a copy of The Pirate Bay's old database of torrent links.

Since then, Isohunt has created a more permanent replacement for The Pirate Bay, dubbed Open Bay, based on feedback from users.

In a blog post, announcing its launch, the organisation said Open Bay would continue to run in this democratic way.

"Our goal is to make [a] torrents database that will maintain, improve and gain content by itself, with no participation on our side. It'll be base that only Open Bay community will control and manage," the post stated.

"We put out polls on the main page and you guys will vote for a feature you want, and then it's up to community to make it.

"It is the only way, the right way to do it. Open Bay should be controlled only with democratic institute, which involves every user in the world," the post concluded.

Pirate Bay goes down: The reaction

In the wake of last December's raid, The Pirate Bay's co-founder Peter Sunde said he'd be happy to see the site remain "closed forever."

In another blog post, he said the last time The Pirate Bay went offline there were protests in the street, but now it feels like no-one cares.

"Today few seem to care. And I'm one of them," he wrote.

"It feels good that it might have closed down forever, just a real shame the way it did that."

He then went on to say the site had become "ugly, full of bugs, old code and old design" in recent times, and was slowly being filled with an increasing number of adverts for porn and viagra, he claimed.

"The past few years, there was no soul left in [The Pirate Bay]. The original team handed it over to, well, less soul-ish people to say the least.

"From the outside, I felt that no-one had any interest in helping the community if it didn't eventually pay out in cash," he added.

The raid has been linked to a criminal complaint made against the site - which is used to share links to pirated films, TV shows and music - by the anti-piracy group Rights Alliance.

In a post on its website in reference to the raid, the organisation explained the rationale behind its complaint.

"Pirate Bay is an illegal commercial service that makes considerable earnings by infringing the work of others," it states.

"The infringements affect all creators and it also hinders the growth of the legal services."

Speaking to Radio Sweden, Fredrik Ingblad a Swedish prosecutor confirmed the raid, but refused to reveal exactly how much of The Pirate Bay's infrastructure was seized.

"There were a number of police officers and digital forensics experts there. This took place during the morning [of Tuesday] and continued until this afternoon," he said.

"Several servers and computers were seized, but I cannot say exactly how many."

Meanwhile, a report on Torrentfreak suggests several other, smaller file-sharing sites were also taken down around the same time as The Pirate Bay.

In April 2012, the UK High Court ordered ISPs to block access to the site to make it harder for people to visit, but according to The Pirate Bay traffic to the site has actually doubled since then.

This story was originally published on 10/12/2014, before being updated to reflect the co-founder's thoughts on its closure, and the site's apparent resurrection on 2 February 2015.

File sharing and collaboration vendor Accellion today announced the launch of its new kiteworks global partner programme.

Accellion’s flagship kiteworks offering is a private cloud-based enterprise content sharing solution aimed at mobile workers.

The Palo Alto-based firm claims the partner programme will create a new recurring revenue model for partners, with “low overhead costs and attractive product margins” that will increase channel margins year-over-year. A services add-on business will also support channel partner growth.

“A strong channel is vital to sustainable growth in the enterprise world, and Accellion is making a commitment to moving into the channel, and working with our partners for the mutual success of new recurring revenue streams,” comments Patrick Conte, SVP and GM of worldwide field operations at Accellion.

Accellion – which markets itself as a “secure alternative to Dropbox” – is also rolling out a new online portal where channel partners can access marketing content, track leads and register deals while receiving real-time support from the Accellion team.

“We’re looking forward to growing our global channel through this new partner programme and portal,” says Conte.

The Pirate Bay has defiantly declared its traffic has doubled since ISPs across the globe started blocking access to the peer-to-peer file-sharing site.

The High Court ordered ISPs in the UK to block access to the file sharing site in April 2012 in the hope it would result in fewer people visiting the site, but the reverse appears to be true.

According to a recent article on TorrentFreak, the site claims that it now receives double the number of visitors today that it did in 2011, before the ISP bans kicked in.

The Pirate Bay told TorrenFreak that nine per cent of site visitors are dodging the ISP bans by opting to use proxies to access the site, and that the bulk of its traffic comes from the United States.

In the past, the site has also taken steps to help users circumnavigate ISP blocks through the launch of its own Mozilla Firefox-based web browser, which comes equipped with a Tor client called Vidalia.

Dubbed PirateBrowser, it was released in August 2013 by the site as a means of helping internet users "circumvent censorship" in the UK and Ireland, and was downloaded more than 2.5 million times within its first six months of availability.

The enterprise cloud is evolving and growing like never before. With money being pumped into both cloud start-ups and companies previously considered consumer-only, what can be expected of enterprise cloud in the future?

Well, the file sync and share market provides a useful snapshot of how software vendors are building their cloud-based platforms with a mobile, collaborative workforce in mind.

Wayne Cook, vice president of partner and alliances, EMEA at Box says the company realised a shift in the market after consulting with CIOs on how to evolve its platform. “Companies are asking, how do I put all work content on mobile devices and then share that with other people?” he says.

“We’ve been leaning towards how technology allows them to do business differently by collaborating and putting workflows into Box. Suppliers can see the content and the customers that haven’t been able to share before are now able to. We’re driving productivity through workflow and metadata so everyone can see what’s in the document and see the content around documents.”

To extend its reach in the market, Box has paid attention to the influence of the channel and it is using its partners to leverage its position. It previously set itself a challenge to get a quarter of its business from the channel within 18 months and although pre-IPO Box couldn’t comment on its progress, Cook says it’s very close to achieving that figure after doubling its network across Europe in the last year.

Meanwhile, Steve McChesney, Druva’s vice president of business development agrees that mobile and the convergence of devices has had an impact on its strategy too, and will continue to be a driver for its product development.

Druva’s flagship inSync platform combines backup, file sharing, DLP, and eDiscovery, giving customers a single line of sight into their endpoint data. Druva developed the solution allowing both enterprise-owned devices, as well as employee-owned devices to use the service.

“With the proliferation of data on laptops and smart devices, and the fact that most employees have multiple devices, enterprises are struggling to manage their endpoint data. inSync gives IT the ability to manage and have visibility into the entirety of that data, all through a single console,” explains McChesney.

Druva had been a direct sales company before the January launch of its partner programme. Now however, it too is looking to the channel to bring its cloud solutions to customers.

“We recognise that in order for us to have a presence in the enterprise we need to have an ecosystem,” McChesney recently told Channel Pro.

Elsewhere, Dropbox is most likely to garner the most recognition among consumers and SMBs. Used in more than four million businesses, the firm says one of the biggest challenges businesses face today is finding a solution that satisfies both IT needs and end-user preferences.

“In many cases, IT introduces a solution that fulfills their requirements and mandates that for employees – but without full adoption, employees eventually start bringing their preferred solution to the workplace,” explains Adam Nelson, head of Dropbox channel sales and partnerships.

In a clear attempt to pick up market share in the enterprise, Nelson says its Dropbox for Business offering enables a business to provide the same user-friendly tool employees know and trust, combined with the administrative controls necessary for CIOs and IT administrators.

In April, Dropbox introduced the ability to have both a personal and work Dropbox on the same device. This means each account can have separate passwords, settings, controls, and identities — giving users control over their personal Dropbox, and IT control over the work in Dropbox.

Other new features allow IT departments to increase their management and control over the Dropbox for Business account. For example, they can now remotely wipe a device of its business Dropbox content and Dropbox for Business also now offers admins a robust sharing audit log so they can easily look into what's shared with whom, and when.

Not only are cloud vendors becoming more savvy to ensuring their solutions fit in better with the evolving enterprise space, meaning employees can access what they need when and collaborate with customers, it’s interesting to note how the channel has played a big part in that.

Whether resellers have enabled vendors to reach new markets, or have provided valuable insight into what customers want, it’s clear cloud vendors are paying attention, expanding their reach and fostering that growth.

The Pirate Bay's co-founder Peter Sunde has been arrested in Sweden after being on the run for two years, Swedish police announced on Saturday.

Sunde, who has been wanted by interpol since 2012, will now need to serve his eight-month sentence for copyright violations.

Four men linked to The Pirate Bay were each sentenced to a year in jail and fined 32 million crowns (2.9 million), but this was later increased to 46 million Swedish crowns (4.1 million) when their prison sentences were reduced by varying amounts.

These fines were specified by Swedish film and music companies who felt The Pirate Bay founders had breached copyright by allowing their media to be distributed for free via the site.

Peter Althin, who defended Sunde during the trial, told Swedish news service TT: "He is extremely talented and I still think that the judgment was wrong...It's about being on the cutting edge if one is going to be successful... But if one is too far ahead it is not always about success. Peter fought for file-sharing and in 10 years I think it goes without saying that file-sharing for one's own needs will be allowed."

After a short time of being offline for everyone, The Pirate Bay is back up and running, although many ISPs have blocked access to the site. However, the website has released PirateBrowser, an adapted version of Mozilla Firefox that prevents ISPs from blocking the site and allows anyone to access The Pirate Bay, via peer-to-peer technology.

The news comes as a piracy crackdown intensifies in the UK. Last week, one of the world's largest torrent search and download sites, Torrentz.eu, was closed down. Meanwhile, David Cameron's intellectual property advisor put responsibility on search engines to prevent blocked sites appearing in search results.

UK channel partners have reacted with excitement to the latest products released from cloud-based file sharing and collaboration firm, Box.

The US vendor this week hosted its annual BoxWorks conference in San Francisco, where it lifted the lid on a number of enhancements to its platform. Most significant was the launch of Box Notes, which allows users to capture and share ideas across an organisation in real-time, and the addition metadata to the Box web application and Content API, to make it easier to add, edit and view additional types of information around a file from within a custom app or on Box.

In his keynote, founder and CEO Aaron Levie (pictured) maintained that while the first phase of the cloud was focused on deployment, the technology itself is set to move into the background: “The technology itself isn’t the interesting part – it’s what can we do with the information, and how can we get the most out of our information. That’s what the next phase is all about; it’s about connecting the right people with the right information at the right time.”

Warm welcome

The announcements garnered a surprisingly enthusiastic response from partners, who are known to be sometimes cynical when it comes to vendor relationships.

Adam Thornton, divisional sales director at Bytes Software, is excited about how the firm can integrate Box into its own cloud platform, built on Microsoft Azure. “The other vendors in the marketplace are a little behind that curve in terms of their technology USPs,” he comments. “The stuff that Box is talking about [around metadata] is nothing short of unbelievable in terms of what they can do. The innovation is second to none.”

Thornton says Bytes plans to “almost OEM Box; re-brand it and put our own front-end on it in our Azure platform.”

He explains: “One of the limitations of Azure is that unless you’re building a Citrix on top of it, it’s very difficult to access the system remotely. Box will allow us to have a front-end, all Bytes-branded…and then we’ll customise our own app to sit on iOS or Android so to all intents and purposes, everyone thinks it’s a Bytes solution.

“It gives us the ability to go to clients and talk about accessing their information and files anytime, anywhere and on any device…There’s no other solution like that which I’m aware of, with the features and functionality that Box can give us.”

Further, Thornton revealed plans to promote Box to a tier two vendor in the Insight portfolio, and says he’ll be surprised if it “doesn’t very quickly become a tier one vendor” alongside the likes of HP, Symantec, Oracle, IBM, Citrix and VMware. “The market opportunity is absolutely there,” he says.

“It’s just really interesting stuff,” agrees Clive Longbottom, founder and analysts at Quocirca. “[Box] are in that really nice area at the moment that they ahead of Dropbox, they’re well ahead of Microsoft and EMC and Citrix.”

The channel likes Box, says Longbottom, “because they can use the engine and not have to come up with their own object store…also customers love for the API: full function, flexible, you can do what you want with it but it’s still secure.”

CEO Levie is adamant, though, that the firm isn’t chasing Microsoft Office’s market share: “We’re not going after the typical word processing space that was defined ten or twenty years ago…The way of working has changed and incumbents like Microsoft haven’t responded to that. We’re building products for the new way that people work.”

He is keen for Box to set out its stall in the middle ground between the current simple consumer tools or the deep enterprise technology on offer to customers. “The biggest opportunities are often in the space between two existing product categories that no one has bothered to find,” he tweeted.

“Microsoft Word and PowerPoint are great tools but they were designed and engineered at a time when mobile isn’t where it is now,” says Thornton. “From an on-premise perspective they do a fantastic job, but now we’re in a new age; [Box is] bridging that gap.”

Insight is another partner equally enthusiastic about Box’s potential. “We said we’d try it for six months and it’s been absolutely phenomenal,” says Ash Patel, EMEA cloud business development & product manager at Insight UK.

“They’ve broken all of the records to date for the number of opportunities raised in a single day, and that is because their messaging is clear, concise and simple – which means the account reps and more importantly the customers understand how they can utilise it,” he says. “It’s really refreshing to see.”

The VAR plans to integrate Box with its Insight Cloud platform, which integrates different vendors’ technologies behind a single user interface. “It allows partners like Insight to keep the single pane experience, and make sure that as far as the customer’s concerned, they still have one throat to choke, and they can go to Insight for everything they need,” says Patel.

“What we’ve seen now is that they have the ability to develop the collaboration tools to be richer, such as multi-user access to the same document, and workflows,” he adds. “It’s no longer just a document storage platform. Once we get a customer to the table to talk about Box, we now have so much more to talk about.”

Channel growth

Privately-backed Box – the brainchild of 28 year old Levie and CFO Dylan Smith – hit the UK just last year, touting ambitious plans for international expansion, including building a European channel sales force. Since then it has recruited 150 partners in EMEA – 100 since June – with 55 in the UK, including big players such as Softcat, Insight UK and Bytes Software.

The company currently boasts 180,000 businesses as customers, and 97 percent of the Fortune 500 including GSK, Schneider Electric, Red Bull, Amazon and McAfee.

The week the firm announced it has “transitioned” its distribution agreements in Europe from SDG over to Tech Data. Box’s vice president of channel & alliances in EMEA, Wayne Cook explains: “SDG is in the process of being broken up between the Azlan companies at the moment. Tech Data obviously own SDG – so we will supply to Tech Data.

“It gives us access to value through Azlan, but also there’s also a big Tech Data mobile group, selling mobile stack products to resellers, so there’s two different market segments we can go after.”

Among all the excitement generated by the announcements, however, Insight’s Patel did raise one potential concern: “Box are doing so much development, you can get carried away, and it turns into a complex monster very quickly. I just hope they keep that simplicity, because for me that the success factor.”

“I see some problems with maintaining the speed they have to, to keep differentiated,” adds Longbottom. “The problem is that for Box to keep ahead of everybody else, they’re going to have to keep nibbling away at a lot of the channel space. So the channel has to increase the value that it adds. So they’ve got to be just as fast.

However, in line with the overwhelming number of attendees in San Francisco this week, he comments: “I’m cynical, and I’m excited about it.”

With plans to increase the percentage of Box’s indirect sales from 20 to 60 percent over the next couple of years, Box will be relying on excited partners to continue to spread the word.

The Pirate Bay has admitted claims it was given asylum in North Korea by its leader Kim Jong-Un were a hoax.

The peer-to-peer file sharing website, banned in the UK by most ISPs following a court order, said that statements saying it would relocate were false.

On its Facebook page, the Pirate Bay said that it hoped it made itself clear that the site isn't run "to make money".

"A profit hungry idiot ... doesn't tell the world that they have partnered with the most hated dictatorship in the world," a spokesman for the website said, alluding to music and movie industry associations in the US.

The website was thought to have used spoofing methods to make it appear that its servers were based in the secretive totalitarian state.

The supposed move to North Korea was a surprise to many, given North Korea's woeful internet infrastructure as well as its poor human rights record.

The Pirate Bay had set up the prank to ridicule critics and said those that had fallen for the joke needed to become more critical.

"You can't seriously cheer the "fact" that we moved our servers to bloody North Korea. Applause to you who told us to f*ck off. Always stay critical. Towards everyone!" it said.

Access to The Pirate Bay has been blocked in the UK for several months following a court order. Last week, judges ordered that ISPs block further file-sharing websites. These included Kickass Torrents, H33t and Fenopy.

As reported by sister site Cloud Pro, The Pirate Bay has relocated its servers into the cloud in order to evade detection by law enforcement agencies. This involved vrirtualising servers and encrypting them before putting them on public cloud run by several different providers. All that is left of its physical infrastructure is transit routers and load balancers.

ISPs have been ordered to block more torrent websites following a ruling from court ruling

Virgin Media, BT, BSkyB and other UK ISPs have been told that they must block access to three file sharing websites: Kickass Torrents, H33t and Fenopy.

In a written ruling, Judge Richard Arnold said that users and operators of the torrent websites had infringed on the copyrights of ten music companies "on an industrial scale".

Music and film industry groups welcomed the news.

"The growth of digital music in the U.K. is held back by a raft of illegal businesses commercially exploiting music online without permission," said Geoff Taylor, chief executive officer of the British Recorded Music Industry group BPI. "Blocking illegal sites helps ensure that the legal digital market can grow."

One of the ISPs that will have to block access, Virgin Media, said in a statement that it "supports the clear, legal framework put in place to protect against copyright infringement and we continue to comply with court orders specifically addressed to the company."

But critics of the tactics deployed by the music and movie industry said that blocking access wouldn't solve the problem of piracy.

"The British music industry has nothing positive to show from their site blocks and personal legal threats. Looking at sales figures from 2012, you can't draw the conclusion that stopping access to the Pirate Bay did anything to help artists," said UK Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye.

"Even so, the industry is insisting on pushing for ever greater blocks, just as we in the Pirate Party have been warning."

Kaye said that this latest move meant that the UK has now "handed the power over what we see on the Internet to corporate lobbyists."

Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group said that blocking was "an extreme response", which will encourage new forms of distributed infringement.

"The BPI and others should be mindful that their tactics may have the opposite effect to their intention, by legitimising and promoting resistance to their actions," he said.

"We are concerned that these orders are not protecting speech, are overblocking forums and discussion, and are prone to error as the actual block lists are private."

File-sharing service Mega generated waves of excitement worldwide when it was launched on Sunday more so than any other file sharing service has managed.

This was no-doubt due to the notoriety of founder Kim Dotcom, who was behind the immensely popularity Megaupload, which was seized and shutdown by Federal authorities a year ago.

Over 1 million users signed up to Mega in the first 24 hours, and Dotcom announced via Twitter there were 60 uploads every second.

Despite its popularity, there have been concerns raised about the security of files, and whether the site will be targeted by government agencies. We take a look to see what all the hype has been about:

How does Mega work?

The service is 100 per cent browser-based so users do not have to download anything to get started. Mega works with all major browsers, but users are pushed to use Google Chrome. Although it has initially been designed for use on laptops/desktops, the firm said that mobile apps are in the pipeline.

There is no guarantee against multiple concurrent failures and repeated unprecedented government misconduct," Mega warns its users

It's easy to share files users can upload individual ones or by dragging-and-dropping whole folders. You can then choose to share files with individuals by entering their email address and or generate a link which will direct anyone to the download page. Mega discourages using the latter option, as this is likely to be a way in which content is shared illegally.

What does Mega offer?

Users who sign up to a free account will receive 50GB of free cloud storage. There are no limits on the size of individual files, so it is possible for users to store any files they want such as HD videos, photos or documents.

Those wanting more than 50GB can sign up to a Pro account and there are three tiers of membership.

Pro I - 500GB storage and 1TB bandwidth for 9.99p/m.

Pro II - 2TB storage and 4TB bandwidth for 19.99p/m.

Pro III - 4TB storage and 8TB bandwidth for 29.99p/m.

How is data encrypted?

There has been some hoopla about the security protocols in place which have been addressed in a blog post by Mega. Security is different to other major cloud-based providers such as Dropbox.

So how does security work on Mega?

Mega makes use of cryptography to boost the security of files instead of relying solely on HTTPS and server-side encryption.

Uploaded data is encrypted before being transmitted via the web and is only decrypted once a download is complete. Mega uses 2048-bit encryption, contrary to reports that it was using the defunct 1024-bit encryption.

Your password is king on Mega. It is the master encryption key so forgetting it means you lose access to your account and files as there is no password reset feature at this time.

Mega has confirmed that it will offer a password reset feature in the future, which will re-encrypt the master key on its servers. However, Mega warns that - although you will be granted access back into your account with a new password - any files will be unreadable.

"Now, if you have any pre-exported file keys, you can import them to regain access to those files. On top of that, you could ask your share peers to send you the share-specific keys, but that's it - the remainder of your data appears as binary garbage until you remember your password," the firm notes in its FAQ.

Is Mega legal?

Yes. Much like Megaupload, the new file sharing site does not break any laws. The slogan of the website rather cheekily is "The Privacy Company".

Mega aims to cover itself with a disclaimer.

To absolve itself of responsibility of any potential legal action, in the terms of service, Mega states that users who sign up agree to absolve the firm from any responsibility if they are pursued by authorities for copyright infringement.

However, there will no doubt be people who use the service to infringe copyright regardless of these terms and it remains easy to do so.

Users can upload a movie to their account, generate a link to a download and then post this in a forum or email it to other potential infringers, for example.

Above I uploaded a trailer for Harry Potter and was able to share it with anyone by generating a link. However, this could easily be used to share copyrighted material

It will be up to content creators, such as movie studios, to scour the internet for such links and then file copyright infringement notices to Mega, so they can be taken down.

Will the FBI try and shutdown Mega?

Millions of users were left without access to their files once the FBI seized the Megaupload domain and shutdown the website. Kim Dotcom and his lawyers are still fighting with the authorities to retrieve this data and port it over to Mega.

But could Mega be subject to the same fate as its predecessor?

The answer is yes, and Mega acknowledges this too.

"Although we keep each file in at least two locations, there is no guarantee against multiple concurrent failures and repeated unprecedented government misconduct," Mega warns its users.

It's this final statement which suggest you should use the service at your own risk.

Internet file-sharing mogul Kim Dotcom has revealed details about his Mega service, which is due to launch on Sunday 20 January.

Dotcom announced via Twitter that users will receive 50GB of free storage space, enabling them to store large video files.

Dotcom also remained optimistic about porting user files over from Megaupload which were seized by the FBI. He claimed lawyers are working hard to find a resolution.

The Mega service is set to launch on Sunday and although the allowance may seem generous, it not as much as Dotcom offered users through Megaupload.

Megaupload users were offered 200GB of storage for free and could upload files as big as 2GB. Premium members were charged a subscription and were offered unlimited storage. However, the infamous repository was shutdown by federal authorities due to multiple claims of copyright infringement.

It remains to be seen what the uptake of the Mega service will be like considering that files uploaded to Megaupload were rendered inaccessible when the FBI shutdown the site.

Businesses are unlikely to use the service and are more likely to opt for Microsoft's SkyDrive or Google Drive, even though they offer less free space. However, those wanting a Mega-like repository may also opt for MediaFire which offers 50GB of free storage.

Syncplicity, the online file sharing service recently acquired by EMC, claims the storage giant's backing means its consumer-focused rivals will struggle to compete against its offerings in the enterprise.

The company, which was snapped up by EMC in May, offers cloud-based, Dropbox-like file synchronisation services that are primarily aimed at business users.

Our competitors are still trying to work out how to get into the enterprise.

Speaking to IT Pro at the EMC Momentum IIG user conference in Austria earlier today, Jeetu Patel, general manager of EMC Syncplicity, was keen to distance his firm's services from those offered by its consumer rivals.

"We are focused on the whole spread of the market, from SMBs to the largest of enterprises, not just the [consumer market]," said Patel.

"Being part of EMC gives us a tremendous amount of credibility to sell into [the business market], while the competitors have consumer-grade apps and are still trying to work out how to get into the enterprise."

Syncplicity co-founder, Leonard Chung, said the acquisition has opened many doors in the enterprise market for the firm.

"One of the most exciting parts for us is that we're starting to talk to companies in healthcare, life sciences and financial services [about] bringing them these new solutions that [other companies] do not have the expertise or trust to be able to do," Chung told IT Pro.

He then went on to cite the data security measures Syncplicty uses as the key reason why business users are more likely to opt for its services over its consumer rivals'.

"Everything is stored encrypted and transmitted encrypted and we employ policy controls to restrict where data can be shared," said Chung. "And, on top of those things, we can remote wipe data from a device."

Syncplicity used its first appearance at Momentum Europe to unveil a couple of new additions to its product portfolio, including a cloud connector tool that lets EMC Documentum users access their data from any device.

It also took the wraps off Mobile 2.0, an Apple iOS application that automatically synchronises files from computers to mobile devices to ensure the most recent version is available to users.

Patel also revealed plans are afoot to integrate more of EMC's products with Syncplicity, which could also result in end users being able to access a private cloud-based version of its service.

"Ultimately, our focus is on trying to provide the same ease of use and manageability that Facebook provides for photos with friends and families to businesses with their files and documents," he added.

Dropbox has rolled out two-factor authentication to protect users from having their account details stolen by hackers.

The cloud storage firm's file sharing service is one of the most popular on the internet.

Earlier this month, the company suffered a breach of its infrastructure when account holders reported receiving unwanted messages in email accounts used only for Dropbox communications.

The one-time passcode should increase security as they are much harder to intercept and expire quickly.

A security code can either be text to a mobile phone or generated by a mobile authenticator app.

Dropbox supports a number of different authenticator apps, including Google Authenticator for Android, iPhone, and BlackBerry; Amazon AWS MFA for Android and Authenticator for Windows Phone 7.

We're working on automated mechanisms to identify suspicious activity.

User will also need to upgrade their client to version 1.5.12. The settings can be activated via Dropbox's "Security" tab.

"Two-step verification is one of several steps that we're taking to enhance the security of your Dropbox," said Dan Wheeler on the company's blog.

The company has also created a way for users to view all active logins to their account using the Security tab. "We're working on automated mechanisms to identify suspicious activity," added Wheeler.

But early users of the system have complained the new security features are not quite ready.

One user, David W, said on the company's forum: "Someone didn't think this through. If my phone is lost, and I've lost my emergency backup code, there is currently NO WAY to recover your dropbox account. There really needs to be another method to recover the account."

Workspace management vendor RES Software has launched an on-premise file sharing product for business users that are unwilling to entrust similar online services with their data.

The product is called RES HyperDrive and allows BlackBerry, Android, iOS and Windows Phone users to share and access corporate data without relying on consumer products, such as Dropbox.

It can also be integrated with Microsoft Outlook and accessed through Windows Explorer, Mac Finder or a web browser.

Hyperdrive can be licensed for use within an organisation's datacentre or private cloud on an annual basis, at 38 per user per year, or monthly at a cost of 3.50 per user per month.

Speaking to IT Pro, Grant Tiller, senior product manager at RES Software, said the product has already attracted a lot of interest from the government, financial services and banking sectors.

"They are [markets] that wouldn't be accessible to technologies like Dropbox because you don't know where the data is and the compliance rules [those kinds of companies] need to abide by," said Tiller.

"We have leveraged the fact that everyone knows about Dropbox [to create interest], because organisations also recognise Dropbox's weaknesses from a security standpoint."

Tiller described the product as a virtual appliance that runs on VMware ESXi, Microsoft Hyper-V or Citrix XenServer.

"Basically, it can be dropped into your infrastructure, pointed at your storage and within 10-to-15 minutes, you're up and running," he claimed.

Bob Janssen, chief technology officer at RES Software, said end users can also use the firm's Baseline Desktop Analyser tool to find out how much corporate data is being stored on consumer file sharing platforms.

"Until now, IT executives have been limited to allowing users to adopt consumer services or enforcing less flexible on-premise solutions within their datacentre," he added.

"The combination of security and simplicity makes HyperDrive a welcome addition to the RES Software product portfolio."

Lawyers for popular file-sharing company Megaupload, accused of copyright theft and internet piracy, have moved to have the case thrown out, a US counsel said on Thursday.

Before it was shut down in January, Megaupload was one of the world's most popular websites, where millions of users stored data, either for free or by paying for premium service.

The law states that you can't indict and serve a company that does not have a presence in the United States

The FBI claims founder Kim Dotcom masterminded a scheme that made more than $175 million in a few short years by copying and distributing music, movies and other copyrighted content without authorisation.

Papers have been filed stating that US federal authorities cannot charge the company with criminal behavior because it is Hong Kong based, and also that no papers have ever been formally served, the lawyer said.

Megaupload's assets were seized and its executives in New Zealand and Holland arrested in January on warrants issued by the FBI alleging money laundering, internet piracy, and illegal file sharing.

But Megaupload's US counsel said the FBI had made a fundamental mistake.

"The law here in the United States is that you can't indict and then serve a company that does not have a presence in the United States," Ira Rothken told Radio New Zealand.

He said the case against Megaupload and its executives should be dismissed.

"This case was flawed from the start, once this case gets dismissed it cannot be fixed," Rothken said.

Megaupload chief executive Dotcom, 39, spent nearly a month in jail after New Zealand police raided a luxury country estate and cut him out of a safe room in which he had barricaded himself.

US authorities have asked for him and three other executives to be extradited.

Megaupload has always maintained that it simply offered online storage, and that music and movie companies were given every opportunity to have illegal material removed.

Dotcom is on bail after he convinced a court that he was not going to abscond.

In the past week he has been allowed back to his mansion, and had travel restrictions eased. A New Zealand judge also ordered prosecutors to give Dotcom's lawyers access to evidence collected against him and co-defendants.

Rothken said he had also filed papers in the U.S. to unfreeze Megaupload funds, which could be used by the defendants to defend themselves.

The FBI was not immediately available for comment.

Storage giant EMC has dipped into its $2 billion acquisition fund to purchase cloud-based file sharing vendor Syncplicity for an undisclosed sum.

The firm announced the deal at its annual partner and user conference in Las Vegas earlier today, hours after dodging questions from the press about who its next acquisition target might be.

The Syncplicity team remains intact so we can retain our unique culture of innovation and agility.

During a media Q&A session, the firm's chief executive Joe Tucci revealed that EMC has set aside $2 billion to spend on acquisitions, as part of its new product development plans.

"We are going to stick with our M&A strategy and make notable acquisitions. XtremIO [who the firm acquired earlier this month] won't be our last," he added.

Silicon Valley-based Syncplicity offers cloud-based collaboration and file sharing tools, which it claims are used by more than 25,000 businesses and consumers across the globe.

In a press statement, EMC said the company will become part of its Information Intelligence Group (IIG).

Rick Devenuti, president of the EMC's IIG group, said: "As cloud, social and mobile dominate the way work gets done, our customers require more than simple containers for managing and sharing content.

"With Syncplicity, we will deliver best-in-class solutions for true extended enterprise collaboration."

In a blog post, signed off by several of the firm's senior executives, Syncplicity revealed that it will operate as a wholly-owned subsidiary within EMC, allowing it to maintain its "unique" culture.

"The Syncplicity team remains intact so we can continue to retain our unique culture of innovation and agility while also joining our colleagues in IIG to develop amazing solutions that combine the best we each have to offer," it stated.

"Together we will deliver enterprise-grade sync, sharing, mobility and collaboration solutions that a CIO trusts and users love."

TappIn is a peer-to-peer sharing application, which lets you open, read, download and share files stored on your primarily machine with other PCs, mobile phones or tablets.

Think of TappIn as a cross between a remote desktop tool such as GoToMyPC and a cloud storage service like Dropbox.

The standard version of TappIn costs 13 a year. It's cheap, but then it should be as you're not actually buying storage - just a gateway to get access to your own files. The desktop agent is compatible with Windows, Mac OS and Linux. There are versions of the mobile app for iOS (iPhone and iPad), Android and for Windows Phone 7, but no Blackberry support at present.

As would be expected with a file sharing app, getting started is easy. Both the desktop and the mobile apps are simple to install.

However, it would have been helpful if the user guides were more comprehensive. They had nothing to say on the subject of setting up specific features.

File sharing

TappIn doesn't just make selected folders on your PC visible over the network. The service allows you to control access to shared folders, so only people you invite can see content.

Click on the folder name in your browsers, enter the email address of the person you want to share with and specify whether or not the folder should be password protected

Sharing content is easy and secure. As soon as you open your TappIn account, you'll see a list of all the folders on your host computer. Click on the one you want to share, specify whether or not you want to password protect it, and then send a link to the person with whom you wish to share. You can choose to make a folder read-only, if you are sending documents to third-parties, for example.

File transfers are secured with industry-standard SSL encryption and it is also possible to see who has accessed files since your last login. This is useful if you are storing confidential files and also helps to see who has done what when working to deadlines.

TappIn users can stream video and music from a host PC to any compatible target device such as a laptop, iPad, iPhone, Android or Windows Phone device via the inbuilt multimedia player. This will be useful for those who want to have access to multimedia content on the move. We had no problems with streaming content to a laptop and an iPhone over a 7Mbps connection.

Developers are also working on other features, which will be known as SocialShare. This will allow users to share content via text messages and through Facebook.

However, reading the blurb on the website, features such as 'Syncing photos with Facebook' appeared to be available and we were annoyed when we couldn't find them and were eventually told they were still in development.

With its built-in media player, TappIn makes it easy to listen to music or watch videos stored on a remote PC

[b2]No Backup

Although the P2P system saves you having to upload files to another server before being able to share them, we do have some reservations about this.

The lack of online backup is the primary concern. If your PC goes up in smoke or gets stolen you'll lose your files. And because people connect directly to your computer, rather than a server to which you have uploaded your files, their experience will depend totally on your broadband connection.

Companies such as Dropbox operate data-centres, with multiple high-speed inbound and outbound network connections. Upload your files to their servers, and once the upload is done, your colleagues can get to those files quickly and easily. With TappIn, if you're in a fleapit motel using dodgy Wi-Fi, any colleagues will have a similarly poor experience.

Overall

If you're going to be sharing files using a high-speed broadband connection, then TappIn is cheap and easy to use. You don't get the extra peace of mind afforded by an online backup, so you'll need a local backup system. But you should be backing up anyway.

In its current form, TappIn doesn't feel like it's ready for a commercial release. It would help if the features available were clarified to avoid frustration.

However, the 13 per year price makes TappIn a good investment and it is cheaper than full remote desktop offerings such as GoToMyPC, which costs 7.19 per month.

We envisage TappIn working well in conjunction with other cloud storage services such as Dropbox and Google Drive, which offer 2GB and 5GB of free storage, respectively.

Verdict

The pricing and ample sharing options make TappIn an attractive investment for small businesses. However, the lack of backup and need for high-speed internet mean this is better suited to being used as a contingency rather than a primary method of accessing files remotely.

Operating system required - Windows XP or higher, Linux, Mac OS, Windows Phone 7, Android and iOS.

Three Pirate Bay founders have been unsuccessful in their attempt to overturn their prison sentences for copyright infringement.

It all stems back to a court ruling over a year ago, when Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundstrom were found guilty of assisting users of the still-active Pirate Bay to break Sweden's copyright law and sentenced to one-year jail sentences.

Whilst the appeals court did not overturn the guilty verdict, the co-founders jail sentences were cut as Neij will serve 10 months, Sunde eight and Lundstrom four.

Their fines, however, have doubled, going up from a collective $2 million (1.3 million) to $6.5m (4.1 million).

A fourth founder who was also convicted last year, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, did not appear in court, citing illness. He will have his case heard at a future date.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which helped bring the initial case on behalf of a number of the rights owners, called for the Pirate Bay to now be closed down.

"Today's judgment confirms the illegality of the Pirate Bay and the seriousness of the crimes of those involved," said IFPI's chief executive (CEO) Frances Moore.

"It is now time for the Pirate Bay, whose operators have twice been convicted in court, to close. We now look to governments and ISPs to take note of this judgment, do the responsible thing and take the necessary steps to get The Pirate Bay shut down."

The Pirate Party UK, meanwhile, has raised concerns about the knock-on effects of the court's decision.

"I am deeply concerned that this will encourage ever more draconian legislation in the UK aimed at restricting people's access to the internet," Loz Kaye, leader of the Pirate Party UK, told IT PRO.

"The internet community feels under siege and frustrations are building."

There were indications earlier in the year that rather than damaging the Pirate Bay, the court proceedings had actually boosted the popularity of the group.

"Despite the high-profile nature of the case, file-sharing continues to rise in Sweden, and worldwide," Kaye claimed.

"Just as home taping did not kill music, neither will downloading."

Ofcom should tear up its draft code designed to cut down on illegal file sharing and start again, the Open Rights Group (ORG) has claimed.

The campaigning organisation said the draft, which features guidelines for how accusations of copyright infringement should be sent to internet users and internet service providers (ISPs), does not include essential requirements to outline important "standards of evidence".

Instead, the code says individuals or orgainsations gathering evidence on possible copyright infringers should follow what it calls a "quality assurance process" and a report on this should be made before being handed to Ofcom.

By not including a specification on the means of obtaining evidence or a standard of evidence, the code fails to comply with the Digital Economy Act, ORG said.

"Ofcom's proposal denies us the ability to check whether any of the evidence is trustworthy," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group.

"Instead, copyright holders and internet service providers will just self-certify that everything's OK. If they get it wrong, there's no penalty," Killock added.

He called for fresh consultation on a new code that complies with the Digital Economy Act.

"The Act requires the evidential standards to be defined - but Ofcom have passed the buck. How is anyone meant to trust this code if we can't see how the evidence is gathered or checked?"

Killock also suggested people were this week wrongly sent accusations of downloading music from the Ministry of Sound as the record label decided to go legal with the battle against file sharers.

"We know things go wrong and that's why the Act requires the evidential standards to be set out," Killock said.

Ofcom's code does not comply with other parts of the Digital Economy Act as well, ORG claimed.

ORG believes that it does not include "proper thresholds for identifying serious infringers" and fails to standardise information to be given to accused subscribers about appeals.

Furthermore, the appeals process itself does not match up with the guidelines set out in the Act, the body added.

An Ofcom spokesperson told IT PRO the body believes its code does meet the requirements of the Act and it welcomes all comments through the consultation on the draft until it closes on 30 July.

The Ministry of Sound record label has decided to take a stand against file sharers, sending out letters via its law firm Gallant Macmillan to potential guilty parties.

With the music industry experiencing a raft of problems in the current economic climate, there could be an escalation of legal battles between record companies and file sharers in the coming months and years.

We spoke to Simon Gallant, one of the partners at Gallant Macmillan which specialises in media law and intellectual property, about the case and what impact it could have on the wider problem of file-sharing and the music industry.

What has been your involvement in this kind of case before?

We've only just started doing this work. We are working for our client Ministry of Sound and we work with a German software company called DigiRights, who go on file-sharing sites and they identify IP addresses that are making available Ministry of Sound music.

It has been a real problem for Ministry of Sound but I think also for large parts of the industry. I think the client has reached the point where it has become exasperated by the level of downloading that is going on, or uploading I should say because that is the activity that we can identify from the software.

So what is the problem that Ministry of Sound has with file sharers?

It is the making available, it is the distribution to the world [of Ministry of Sound music] and that is having an impact on revenue that my client is generating. It is having an impact on the revenue it can pay to artists.

[With] the particular campaign we are running, astonishing numbers of people are making this available. We are talking about 41,000 IP addresses. That doesn't necessarily correlate with 41,000 people, obviously, but it is a wide scale problem.

I think that it is a cultural issue. I think people have got used to being able to file share. Nobody would dream of going into HMV and walking out without paying. Even more to the point they wouldn't dream of reproducing CDs and just giving them out to other people for free. Ministry of Sound feels, I think along with a lot of the industry, that it needs to take a stand.

To date we have sent around 2,000. How many we are going to send out I simply don't know, but we are talking about very large-scale activity, so potentially a lot.

This is an ongoing campaign and I think where the Ministry of Sound is coming from, like most rational people or companies, they don't like instructing lawyers - it is a pain. What they want to do is send out a message that people should not file share their product and their conclusion is that this is the only way of doing it.

What has been the process for you, in this case, for contacting the alleged file sharers?

What it [the letter] does is, it identifies the occasion when the user's IP address has been captured by the software and it explains that when we got the IP address we also were given the name of the ISP that the person had subscribed to.

We have then made an application to the court against the relevant ISP and we have said to the court we have got an arguable case', and to make good my client's claim for copyright infringement we need the ISPs to disclose to us who these subscribers are.

And then we write to the individuals and we explain how we have got their name, how we have got it through this court process and that we have raised a case against them.

[We invite] people's responses. If they have a sensible explanation for this [file sharing], obviously we will have to consider it and we have got to behave proportionally. We look at every case on its merits, every case very carefully.

What we also say is that were this matter to go any further and we were to commence proceedings, if we succeed the court will award damages and our client's costs. And what we do is invite the recipient of the letter to compromise the claim on the basis of a payment of 375.

The 375 is intended to cover damages, the charges that we have incurred with ISPs and legal costs. It is considerably less than the sum we would be asking the court to award us.

Is this case a sign that record companies are at breaking point? Do you now expect to see more cases such as this?

I can't really talk for the whole industry because the industry has been very reluctant over the last 12-13 years to take action. The BPI [the British Phonographic Industry] has been quite nervous. They started writing to people three or four years ago and for whatever reason decided not to go ahead.

One of the really interesting things is that in Germany, where this approach has been followed for the last two or three years, the level of file sharing, I understand, has dropped dramatically by about 25 per cent and that is really what the Ministry of Sound wants to achieve.

And what of the future of file sharing?

I think there will be a move to less file sharing. Whereas, perhaps five or six years ago there were not so many options for lawful downloading of music, now there is absolutely no excuse for not doing it. Anybody can go to Spotify, Last.fm.

Hopefully this [the Ministry of Sound case] is going to nudge people in the right direction and hopefully they will stop doing this activity.

The increasingly hard line being taken on illegal file-sharing is having an effect, with a new poll showing public support is growing the UK for internet providers' efforts to curb digital piracy.

US government officials this week shut down nine websites offering illegal film and TV downloads as part of Operation in Our Sites a major push to crack down on digital piracy.

Between them the targeted sites attracted an estimated 6.7 million visitors each month, with officials calling the initiative the "largest takedown of illegal movie and TV websites in a single action" ever.

Such heavy handed tactics have yet to be employed in the UK, but it seems public opinion on the matter is softening.

A new Ipsos Mori poll has revealed that most UK consumers now feel it is acceptable for internet service providers (ISPs) to slow down or suspend the internet connections of copyright infringers.

Despite ongoing questions over the accuracy of measures being used to identify alleged offenders, 53 per cent of those questioned said it was acceptable for ISPs to slow down their internet connections, and 52 per cent agreed that persistent offenders should have their account suspended.

Under the Digital Economy Act (DEA), set to come into force next year, ISPs will be able to do just that, and cut offenders who have ignored three earlier warnings delivered by letter.

While the DEA will place the burden of responsibility on the owner of the internet connection to make sure it isn't being used for illegal purposes, in the US authorities are striking out against the sources of pirated content.

This week's crackdown comes after months of evidence-gathering and preparation, with search warrants issued in four states in an investigation spanning 11 US states and the Netherlands, involving some 100 agents. Officials say the sites' operators could now face prison terms.

Only the domain names of the sites in question have been seized with the sites now displaying a warning to that effect on their home pages which means the services could easily reappear simply by using a different URL.

However, John Morton, assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which spearheaded the operation, said authorities would continue to track sites offering digital content illegally, regardless of where they moved.

"If a site reappears, so will we," Morton told reporters. "If the criminals move overseas, we will follow. Take it from me, I don't think that we've stopped Internet piracy in a day. This is going to be a sustained effort."

Research from YouGov, the company that runs the UK-wide Dongle Tracker survey of mobile broadband, found that a huge proportion of users a full 84 per cent had issues with their connection.

Chief among the problems cited was slow speeds, affecting 67 per cent of users. Close to half (49 per cent), had problems with coverage and 45 per cent were sometimes unable to connect. A further 40 per cent found they could connect, but the connection dropped. A slow speed connection was also the problem that happened most often.

Researchers found that video content is having the greatest impact of all types of Internet traffic on mobile broadband connections. An average YouTube video streams at 1Mbps, but the capacity of a single cell site running HSDPA is 18 to 21 Mbps. YouGov calculates that 36 per cent of mobile broadband users watch video online, at least occasionally.

Video users generate above-average revenues for mobile broadband networks, but video users almost always experienced quality issues, with multiple pauses in the video play back chief among these.

Networks rely on fair usage policies and usage caps to try to manage quality of service, but YouGov also found that only 42 per cent of users knew that they had a fair usage policy, even though when questioned further most people agreed that such policies were justified.

Mobile broadband users also said they were willing to accept "content adaptation", such as smaller video playback windows, if it improved quality.

According to mobile data specialist Acision, operators will need to invest in technologies to optimise content for users connecting via cellular networks, rather than rely entirely on caps or fair usage policies to throttle back demand.

Operators could, for example, offered tiered quality of service based on the content type, the user's subscription, or even the time of day. Services such as Internet telephony (VoIP) could also be given priority over, for example, file sharing.

Such moves could, though, run up against objections from users and some content providers for undermining net neutrality.

"In essence, we are in full support of net neutrality where users can access Internet content when and where they want," said Steven van Zanen, Acision's head of mobile broadband.

"But we also feel that those subscribers that consume the most bandwidth-hungry applications should pay their relative share of the network cost. This is not possible with the flat fee usage allowance price plans offered by operators today."

A group of top film firms have won a piracy case against a file-sharing site.

The UK High Court of Justice in London awarded an injunction against Newzbin, following a complaint from film makers with the Motion Picture Association (MPA), including Twentieth Century Fox and Disney.

Membership-only Usenet site Newzbin argued that it was essentially a search engine and doesn't host content, but the court disagreed.

In the ruling, the court said the site had 700,000 members and turnover above 1 million. "There is no doubt that the defendant has developed a very substantial business," the ruling said.

The MPA's general counsel for Europe Ted Sapiro welcomed the decision, saying it clarified European copyright laws.

"This is an important decision and it sends a clear message that websites focusing on providing viewers with pirated film and TV programmes infringe copyright and are liable for their actions even where those websites don't themselves host the content," he added.

Newzbin said the ruling was a waste of time. "Any of the material we index can be found on any one of thousands of sites on the internet so pursuit of us is a futile waste of everyone's time and money."

The terms of the injunction and any penalties will be announced later this week.

UK politicians are set to consider a bill that would give the Government the ability to shut down websites for hosting pirated content.

The Pirate Party is neither right nor left, won't fiddle with expenses and will listen to citizens as it doesn't have all the answers - and it'd quite like file sharing not to be criminalised, too.

That's the message from the ambitious first election manifesto for the new party, as it gets set to take on Labour, the Conservatives and the rest in a campaign that looks set to have a heavy tech focus.

The Pirate Party manifesto focuses on three areas: copyright and patent law, privacy law, and freedom of speech.

Right to file share

For copyright, it wants to create a right to "format shift" - such as move materials on CDs to iPods - as well as record for later use and, of course, share files.

It would also cut copyright terms from 70 years to 10, improve patent law, especially with pharmaceuticals, and put labels on products to warn if they include the "defect" of digital rights management (DRM).

"We believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial, incomprehensible, overreaching patents," the manifesto promises.

Privacy

The Pirate Party also looks to ban the monitoring of communications by a third party - think Phorm as well as Labour's attempts to gather browsing session data.

It wants to end "compulsory" ID cards as well as regulate the associated database, in wording perhaps less tough on the controversial cards than the Tories, who have pledged to ditch the scheme.

The party would toughen data protection laws, introducing compensation for those hit by data breaches.

It would also seek to control the use of CCTV and DNA records, and make the Government more accountable, saying the "right to privacy will be secondary to the public right to hold them to account for their actions."

Internet

Under the umbrella of "freedom of speech," the party lumps in its focus on net neutrality as well as protection for whistleblowers and photographers, and better computing education in schools.

Rather than promise hard-to-deliver superfast broadband like its rival parties, the Pirate Party opts to get connections to rural areas and to ensure people get what they pay for.

"We will solve the problem of false and misleading advertising of internet speeds by giving customers a new right to pay only for the fraction of the claimed broadband speed that the provider actually delivers, so if you sign up for an 8Mbps connection and only receive 2Mbps, you would only have to pay a quarter of the agreed price," the manifesto says.

The full manifesto is available here.

Read on to find out how the Pirate Party sees its chances.

Google exits China

The will they/won't they battle has finally come to an end with Google announcing this week it will no longer censor Chinese search results. The reaction from the country and the industry at large has been somewhat mixed. IT PRO

The Pirate Party sails again

The Pirate Party is calling for file sharing to be legalised, despite those around it calling for those who file share to be cut off or given a large slap on the wrist and a big fine. PC Pro

Touch screens are so last year

Forget touch screen devices or hybrid hard keyboard and touch affairs. The devices of the future could make use of our own skin to input commands and type texts, according to researchers. Expert Reviews

History put on the web

Historians have been given access to the past at the touch of a button thanks to a Connected History web project that has essentially created a dedicated search engine for the cause. BBC

Fine the file sharers?

BT's chief executive says that file sharers should be fined rather than cut off completely. BBC

Networks in battle to win iPad

The UK's big mobile players are wrestling with each other to secure exclusive network rights for the iPad. Expert Reviews

More broadband boosters needed

It's going to take a lot more than just reducing price tags to get more people online using broadband in the UK, according to new research. Cable

Microsoft rolls out video-on-demand

Microsoft's new video-on-demand service is expected to be rolled out this week, featuring access to a myriad of programmes. Guardian

A number of web users have been sent letters by a law firm suggesting they've been involved in illegal file sharing, despite the users protesting their innocence.

So claims Which? Computing which has been approached by more than 150 people who've received letters threatening them with legal action and offering the opportunity to settle out of court for their alleged wrong doing for the sum of 500.

"My 78 year-old father yesterday received a letter from ACS law demanding 500 for a porn file he is alleged to have downloaded," one such user who contacted Which? Computing said. "He doesn't even know what file sharing or bittorrent is so has certainly not done this himself or given anyone else permission to use his computer to do such a thing."

A number of people are being falsely accused of committing file sharing acts that not only have they not carried out, but wouldn't know how to, according to Which? technology editor Matt Bath.

"Which? is concerned that many people will be frightened into paying up rather than facing the stress of a court battle. Over 150 people have turned to Which? for help already. We'd like to see an end to these letters being sent to innocent people and encourage copyright owners to focus their attention on those who are continually breaking the law."

IT PRO contacted ACS:Law for comment but it had not responded to our request at the time of publication.

"We are happy that the information we get is completely accurate," ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley, told the BBC.

"We explain that an infringement has taken place but it may not be the account holder who has done it."

ISP TalkTalk hasn't hesitated in criticising the Government's proposed Digital Economy Bill.

From slamming the broadband tax to slating the free PC scheme, senior executives are not afraid to be outspoken when it comes to Whitehall.

Today, the company took its thoughts right to the heart of Westminster and held an event, metres from the Houses of Parliament, to voice its own condemnation of copyright infringement laws set out in the Digital Economy Bill, currently being debated in the House of Lords.

The ISP invited other groups with similar concerns - including Which?, Liberty and the Open Rights Group - to the event and we took the opportunity to talk to Jim Killock, executive director of the latter, for his thoughts on the Government's controversial plans.

Why are you here at the event today?

We are trying to outline to politicians [and] journalists exactly what the problems are with the bill at the moment.

[This] includes sweeping liability for anybody with an internet connection or anybody else using their internet connection. As a result [it is] a very blanket approach for copy infringement or infringers.

There is a total lack of clarity in the bill of what those liabilities are. Whether people can appeal, what the natures of appeal are, what the tribunals are. None of this is in the bill.

We are promised further detail in statutory instruments and the Ofcom codes, which of course we know nothing about at this stage so the commons [is] being asked to vote for something that they can't read. [This] is not an acceptable way of dealing with the matter of justice.

Peter Mandelson is heading this up. Why do you think he has gone about things this way?

Because it is extremely difficult to try to say who has or has not infringed copyright so he has gone for a really draconian approach which extends liability in an unacceptable way. That is part of it and the other is simply he has been very heavily lobbied by industries who are struggling and he has accepted their arguments, frankly, on fairly thin grounds.

Six to 12 months ago, the Government wasn't taking this approach and it has leaped several stages forward essentially because of industry pressure.

What are our thoughts on the specifics of the bill, especially clause 17?

Obviously we are against sweeping plans to amend copyright law without proper parliamentary debate.

It is important for everybody that copyright law is stable and predictable because there are a big range of people who use copyright material, from hardware manufacturers through software developers, through online services.

All of these people can potentially use copyright materials and to weight the whole balance, to say the whole issue of copyright is infringement [and] we will keep copyright law as hard line as possible on infringers, is to skew the debate away from the people that are actually making a lot of the value [from it].

Software and hardware developers could end up with constant new obligations to deal with infringement using their technologies and that will spiral costs up, it will prevent technologies from reaching consumers [and] it could cause all of kinds of damage to innovation. That is bad for everybody.

What does your group feel is the best way to deal with the copyright issues as they grow?

Well, I am not sure it is growing. Actually it is reducing by most recent estimations because the legal offerings are getting better and they are getting closer to what people want.

People who infringe copyright [do so] because they are looking for access to that material quickly, easily and cheaply. If you can do those things in a way that is better for consumers then actually you are going to stop people from infringing.

That is exactly what has happened with BBC iplayer and Spotify. I bet the number of people file sharing BBC programmes after they are released on television has been hugely reduced since the release of iPlayer and I bet that Spotify has reduced a lot of casual infringers as well.

That is what the evidence shows so that is the way to do it, provide the legal offerings in a way that consumers want.

What do you think your chances are, along with the other people here, of stopping the bill from going through as it is at the moment?

I think the Lords debate has been encouraging. We have seen both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats looking at the problems in the bill very closely, and also Lord Whitty one of the Government's own back benchers, so there is a chance that some of the bigger issues will be dealt with.

Obviously we have a very big fight on our hands. It is a test as much for the Government's ability to show that they actually understand the industry and where consumers' social benefits really lie as to whether they can get this bill right and that will be a voting issue for some people too.

U2 frontman Bono's comments that internet service providers (ISPs) weren't doing enough to tackle illegal file-sharing have been branded as "outrageous" by leading broadband provider TalkTalk.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled Ten for the Next Ten, Bono shared his thoughts on 10 ideas he thought would make the next decade more interesting. But he surely had little suspicion of the firestorm his comments in the "Intellectual Property Developers" entry would kick off.

Bono argued that internet providers profited from copyright infringement by failing to take stronger technical measures against it. "We're the post office, [ISPs] tell us; who knows what's in the brown-paper packages?" the U2 lead singer wrote.

He went on to claim that "we know from America's noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China's ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it's perfectly possible to track content".

However, TalkTalk executive director of strategy and regulation Andrew Heaney hit back, saying it was "outrageous to equate the need to protect minors from the evils of child pornography with the need to protect copyright owners".

Writing on the TalkTalk blog, Heaney said: "As a society we have accepted that it is appropriate and proportionate to intrude on people's internet use by blocking access to sites that host child abuse images.

He added: "To suggest that sharing a music file is every bit as evil as child abuse beggars belief."

TalkTalk has been prominent in its criticism of the government's proposed Digital Economy Bill, which aims to introduce bandwidth caps and disconnections for persistent copyright infringement via file-sharing networks.

And Heaney suggested Bono was guilty of the same fundamental misunderstanding of the issues that made the Digital Economy Bill so flawed: "Bono obviously does not understand how simple it is to access copyright protected content without being detected," he said.

"P2P file-sharing can be spotted (albeit at great cost) but there are dozens of applications and tools out there which allow people to view content for free and no amount of snooping can detect it".

Following the government's announcement of the Digital Economy bill last week, which described radical measures for dealing with persistent file sharers, Labour peer Lord Puttnam has laid out his full support for the controversial bill.

"I believe that many of the proposals set out in the Digital Economy bill and the government's plans for broadband more generally, set the right direction of travel," Puttnam said, speaking at a panel discussion in London yesterday on the future of digital cinema in the UK.

Puttnam claimed that with the move to digital projection, the UK film industry had a crucial role to play in creating a digital Britain.

"Cinema has the ability to be at the heart of any digital vision that the government sets out," he said.

Puttnam explained that digital cinema was necessary to respond to ever increasing consumer expectations of immediate access to content. However, he said that this raised challenges for anyone creating, distributing or exhibiting such content.

"There needs to be some pretty hard thinking about the best ways to maximise value of both rights and its real estate... whether it's in relation to making broadband more readily available, encouraging new high speed networks, or significantly reducing illegal peer to peer sharing."

Puttnam also made no secret of his own personal reasons for wanting the proposals to go through.

"As a rights holder I entirely recognise the importance of maintaining and even strengthening the economic entitlement which flows from the ownership of intellectual property rights," he said.

"I am the very happy beneficiary of constant annual flow of revenues from a number of films I produced... and what enables those revenues to flow is the notion that copyright is respected..." he said. "Otherwise over time in a world of high speed broadband connectivity revenues will be substantially diminished leading to an overall decline in the appetite for investment in new content."

Core to the Digital Economy Bill is the three strikes rule', which looks to cut off those who repeatedly defy warnings regarding illegal file sharing. However, the Open Rights Group has declared that the bill might well be illegal under European law.

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson is looking to take his campaign against file sharers even further by changing copyright law.

According to reports, Mandelson wrote a letter to house leader Harriet Harman, asking to change the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act in order to take on illegal file sharing.

The change would simply be an amendment to the act, which would happen much more quickly than passing the Digital Economy Bill. Published today, that bill looks to cut off the broadband connects of persistent pirates.

The tweak to the Copyright Act would give "any person as may be specified" the power to take action on online infringement.

According to a report in the Guardian, Mandelson is worried about what he calls "cyberlockers" - essentially online storage services.

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson reportedly wrote in the letter.

While he admits, consumers won't like the plan, Mandelson wrote: "I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs."

Many ISPs are already angry about the plans in the Digital Economy Bill, which would see them forced to cut off file sharers. Rights groups have long argued against the disconnection plans since they were announced.

The plans were slammed by well-known blogger Cory Doctorow, who wrote: "This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition."

He added: "This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail."

The government has unveiled the Digital Economy Bill to bring in new laws for file sharing and more.

Borne out of the Digital Britain report earlier this year, the bill was formally introduced in the Queen's speech with the line: "My government will introduce a bill to ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting."

Captivating. But what does all that actually mean?

So... what is this bill, then?

The Digital Economy Bill brings together some rather disparate bits and pieces of law to manage new technology.

It was originally announced over the summer, but has been consulted on and tweaked since then. It was introduced in the Queen's speech, so it means the current government will introduce it to parliament to consider.

What new laws does it cover?

Aside from controversial file sharing plans, and broadband improvements, it also includes video game classification changes, so children can't buy adult-rated games.

It will also hand new powers and duties to Ofcom, lay out the framework for switching to digital radio, look to modernise spectrum for mobile broadband use, and tweak how Channel 4 is run.

What's the deal with the file sharing rules?

The bill would introduce disconnection for the worst illegal file sharers - but they wouldn't have to be proven so in court first.

According to the Open Rights Group, the bill might not even be legal. "We believe these laws will be illegal under European law. The new Amendment 138 appears to guarantee a prior legal process and hearing before disconnection occurs where our government is proposing an appeal mechanism, for those who choose to take it up," director Jim Killock said in a blog post.

"Evidence cannot show who may have infringed copyright, only what connection was used. And the punishment could have an enormous range of effects, from being disruptive to removing someone's ability to earn a living," he added. "For both these reasons, disconnection should only ever be imposed as the result of a court hearing."

ISPs have come out against it too, but many rights holders quite like it.

What about all the broadband plans they've been talking about?

This bill grew out of the Digital Britain plans, but it doesn't include anything on getting everyone's broadband up to 2Mbps - the main goal of that document.

While the government said more details on broadband bits of hte bill would soon be unveiled, the 2Mbps promise won't be there. "It does not need legislation," a spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the BBC.

The bill also doesn't include the so-called broadband tax, which would see every connection charged an extra 50 pence to help pay for everything. It must be introduced in the Finance Bill next year.

Will the bill get passed?

It's hard to say. There's a big election looming, limiting how much time Labour has to push this through.

Aside from the file sharing bit, none of it is particularly controversial - one complaint competing politicians have made, in fact, is that it doesn't go far enough.

If you don't want the file sharing aspect to become law, you could always vote for the Pirate Party in the next election, and hope everyone else does too.

Want to read more background on the latest IT topics? Click here for all the tech cheatsheets in our Need to Know series.

One must not illegally file share, it would seem.

In the Queen's speech today, the government introduced its Digital Economy Bill, which will be fully detailed on Friday and includes plans to cut file sharers' broadband connections.

"My government will introduce a bill to ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting," the Queen said in her speech, which is written by the sitting government to introduce bills for the coming year.

That bill will include new laws to take on illegal file sharing, including a controversial plan to disconnect broadband for the worst offenders. It won't include much on the Digital Britain plans, as tax issues need to be sorted out first.

Controversial plans

The single line in the Queen's Speech drew anger from activists against the file sharing plans and praise from industry bodies.

In a blog post, Open Rights Group director Jim Killock said the plans were illegal under EU law, wouldn't even prevent file sharing, and would lead to a "gradual war by the state and rights holders to restrict services on the net."

"The internet and our rights need defending," he added.

Copyright cheer

The Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) was cheered by the bill, however.

"This is the culmination of years of work by many in the creative industries. FAST has lobbied long and hard for a sensible change to the law that maintains a level playing field for the legitimate user," said John Lovelock, FAST chief executive, in a statement.

"People see software piracy as a victimless crime, but it robs organisations of their legitimate revenue to invest in new products, employees of their livelihood, and the government of taxable income from sales which all UK citizens benefit from eventually," he added.

The UK will follow France's controversial lead to create a three strikes rule to battle illegal file sharing.

Speaking at a conference run by the Creativity and Business International Network (C&binet), business secretary Peter Mandelson said: "I was shocked to learn that only one in 20 music tracks in the UK is downloaded legally. We cannot sit back and do nothing."

However, Mandelson also confirmed Culture Minister Ben Bradshaw's statement last week that file sharers would not be cut off "willy nilly".

"Technical measures will be a last resort and I have no expectation of mass suspensions resulting," Mandelson said.

Those illegally sharing files will first be sent an indefinite stream of warning letters, telling them to knock it off. If they don't, the owner of the content will be allowed to take legal action, with appeals going through Ofcom.

If those two steps aren't enough, the file sharer faces being disconnected by their ISP and being added to a "serious infringer list." However, disconnections won't happen until at least 2011.

Mandelson also called on industry to step up to help solve the issue of illegal file sharing by offering cheaper content that's easy enough to download. Mandelson has previously been accused of being too close to the music industry.

He also said that copyright laws needed to be sorted out, so people would be able to share content such as music with friends and family.

Opposition

The head of Open Rights Group Jim Killock said listening to Mandelson's speech was "very unpleasant".

"Even MI5 disagree with him they are convinced we will see a rise of a Dark Net' of infringers," he wrote on the ORG blog. "Nobody at C&binet from an online music service, as opposed to an old media company, thought that P2P was a threat to their businesses."

"Yet Mandelson seems determined to push forward with his plans for three strikes' threatening to punish people extremely harshly, threatening their education, businesses and livelihoods for a relatively minor financial misdemeanour," he added. "Meanwhile, Mandelson said very little on licensing reform, the real block to the rise of legitimate online music services."

Click here to find out how copyright has fallen behind technology.

The heads of BT, Talk Talk and Orange have united to criticise government proposals that could lead to the internet connections of file sharers being cut off.

In a joint letter to The Times, chief executives Ian Livingston, Charles Dunstone and Tom Alexander claimed that the proposals were "misconceived" and threatened the rights of broadband users, as well as stifling the development of new services.

Members of Which?, the Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus co-signed the letter, which said that disconnection was a "harsh" and "punitive" measure, and needed "rigorous" and "objective" assessment by Ofcom.

The letter said: "We must avoid an extrajudicial kangaroo court' process where evidence is not tested properly and accused broadband users are denied the right to defend themselves against false accusations."

It continued: "Without these protections innocent customers will suffer."

The letter also said that the approach was likely to encounter consumer resistance, and that disconnecting users was a "serious limit on their freedom of expression".

The proposals, which were alleged to have been sparked by a meeting between business secretary Peter Mandelson and record company boss Peter Geffen, has already been criticised by ISPs and campaigners.

The government responded, admitting enforcement would be tough, but that a tribunal system to appeal would be part of the new policy.

The Government has responded to critics of its proposed new policy to deal with illegal filesharing.

In a blog post the Digital Britain team responded to a selection of criticisms in an attempt to justify the new proposals, announced by Peter Mandelson on Tuesday.

An executive director of internet service provider (ISP) Talk Talk, Andrew Heaney, said this week that he was "dismayed" by the policy, which he felt would be near impossible to enforce. He added his company planned to "strongly resist" its implementation.

The post admitted that enforcement would be tough, with innocent people possibly getting caught in the cross fire, but a tribunal system to appeal would also be brought in as part of the policy.

The Government was also accused of criminalising an entire generation who regularly fileshare, but it responded by saying it was just highlighting the unlawful act.

The post said: "Getting copyrighted material without permission or payment is already unlawful (it is a civil offence). Recognising that fact and enforcing existing rights is not criminalisation."

Other issues confronted in the report included Mandelson's alleged discussions with music industry heavyweight David Geffen it was denied that the two discussed Digital Britain issues and a move away from the original Digital Britain report.

However, the Digital Britain team denied they were leaving behind the initial guidelines of the report, but rather adding to them through consultation.

Plans to cut off the broadband connections of illegal file sharers have come under fire from industry groups, privacy advocates and even major ISPs.

Yesterday, the government said it was considering forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to shut down the connections of the most prolific file sharers. The move follows rumours of close ties between music industry leaders and current business secretary Peter Mandelson.

But if the music and software industries are happy, they might be the only ones.

TalkTalk "dismayed"

In a blog post, Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at Carphone Warehouse's TalkTalk, said he was "dismayed" by the plans.

"Barely two months after the publication of largely sensible and pragmatic measures to tackle the problem (in the Digital Britain report) Lord Mandelson has, it seems, caved in under pressure from powerful lobbyists in the content industry," he wrote.

Heaney said that TalkTalk supported the existing plans to cut piracy through education, letters to offenders, and taking the worst filesharers to court.

"Introducing measures such as disconnection at the instigation of the Secretary of State will sidestep proper scrutiny, likely breach fundamental human rights and result in innocent people being disconnected or, worse, prosecuted," he said.

Disconnecting people without going through courts will mean accused file sharers will not be able to see the evidence against them, he explained.

"What's more, they will not work," he added, noting that that clever file sharers will be able to easily conceal their identities, while wifi-hijacking and users with shared accounts could lead to innocent people being cut off.

Heaney said his firm would "strongly resist" plans to introduce such laws, and did not want ISPs to act as the "internet police" or have to pay the costs to do so.

ISPA "disappointed"

The Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) echoed TalkTalk's comments, expressing disappointment and concern with the plans.

The ISPA said in a statement that it was "disappointed" by the account cut-off plans. "ISPs and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the European Parliament."

The body said it was concerned that the Secretary of State would be given too much power. "This would politicise the process and would be a negative step," it said.

Like TalkTalk, the association was also unhappy with the changes to costs, and called on the government to better consult with the ISPs on the issue.

Campaign group concern

The Open Rights Group came out swinging against the plans, too. "Instead of letting the market solve the problems, the government seems intent on heavy-handed intervention, that could include disconnection and other account restrictions," wrote Jim Killock on the group's blog.

"This would be in direct contravention of their own goal of universal broadband access, as well as a curtailment of people's freedom of expression," he added.

He predicted the cut-off law would cause a public backlash. "The result of these proposals is likely to be protest, challenges and public arguments in the run-up to the general election. Popular movements in France, Sweden and elsewhere have kick-started over similar measures."

The Pirate Party is set to run in the next general election on the very issue of file sharing. It said the government had "moved the goalposts" on the new regulations.

"This is a massive announcement that threatens far more people than before, yet it has been hidden away in an update to a consultation document," said Pirate Party leader Andrew Robinson in a blog post.

"Yet again the Government have done exactly what the big media cartel have told them. There is still no hint of a real discussion on the rights and wrongs of file sharing, or that the strong arguments in favour of legislation will be given fair consideration."

ANALYSIS: The debate over digital piracy and file sharing is heating up.

Last week, the Pirate Party officially registered in the UK and over the weekend, stories broke that high-level politician Peter Mandelson met with a famous recording industry executive and is now eyeing tougher new laws.

According to reports in national newspapers this morning, after meeting with David Geffen earlier this month, business secretary Mandelson is looking for ISPs to cut off file sharers' internet access. Mandelson's spokespeople have reportedly said the Corfu meeting had nothing to do with file sharing.

But it's not the only punishment filesharers could face. Existing proposals in the Digital Britain plan have called for a 50,000 fine for those illegally sharing music, movies and software online in the hopes of cutting digital piracy by 70 per cent.

None of it has passed through parliament yet, but it's set to become a big issue in the next election if the newly registered Pirate Party UK has its way.

Speaking to our sister site PC Pro last week, leader Andrew Robinson said: "If you look at what's proposed in the Digital Britain report, there's a 50,000 fine for sharing files. There's approximately seven million file sharers in this country - you're branding a huge percentage of this population criminals for doing something that doesn't have any proven implications. It's a ridiculous state of affairs."

It may come as a surprise that the Pirate Party wants piracy to be illegal. One member wrote on the site's blog that it would be helpful to force record companies to have to prove someone was breaking copyright.

"t would be of great help if the government would criminalise the offence and then the evidence would have to be gathered in a proper manner against each individual," the post said.

Either way, the problem needs to be addressed.

A survey released last week by UK Music - a commercial music industry body - showed that some 61 per cent of those surveyed between the age of 14 and 24 were downloading music, with 87 per cent saying sharing music between devices was important to them.

"[W]e will achieve nothing if we do not work with music fans, and young music fans in particular. They are hugely demanding in their needs, but collectively we must rise to that challenge," said the group's chief executive Feargal Sharkey in a statement.

"We ignore engagement at our peril. That message is loud and clear," he added.

COMMENT:Last week, the government came under pressure from the UK creative industries to deal with the persistent problem of illegal file sharers, downloaders, and the common internet pirate. However, can the government, even when working in cahoots with internet service providers (ISPs), stop literally billions of people all over the world from downloading and sharing their proverbial pieces of eight?

The recent high profile ruling of the PirateBay's case not only sparked a large scale global media debate, it has also added a level of reality to a problem that has been associated with the internet since its early days. That is illegal downloading and the damage it causes the creative industries.

However, in the real world - outside media debate and coverage - I've still yet to see a Hollywood or UK A-lister going hungry, or even taking a marginal reduction in their frankly absurd wage packets, which begs the question: where exactly is all this damage being done?

A creative industry alliance is attempting to force the government into adopting similar legislation that has been implemented in both France and Taiwan. The legislation would mean a three strikes and you're out' ruling that would see persistent file-sharers permanently disconnected from the internet.

Nevertheless, the problem is a multifaceted one. It brings up issues of privacy and anonymity, as well as the actual reality of monitoring such illegal activity, not to mention the financial and resource burden it would place on ISPs if they were required to undertake such a role.

How can ISPs, or even our profoundly Orwellian government, actually monitor the activity of millions of people? The term, needle in a haystack comes to mind.

ISPs have taken the stance of being merely conduits of internet traffic, which is how the law perceives them, and probably how the majority of the general public does too. Additionally, if the law is passed, and they have to monitor their customers' private internet activity, there is also the pressing ethical issue of whether or not its "cool" for companies to spy on their paying customers?

Either way, the government has stated that it will reduce the amount of illegal file-sharing by 70-80 per cent within the next three years. Quite a bold statement indeed. Particularly, since new software and ISPs are being born every day and providing complete anonymity and IP address scrambling, effectively cloaking such activity and online presence from any potential prying eyes.

The issue itself is huge in scale and cannot be tackled simply by imposing a ban; it just won't work. People are resourceful, and will always find a way back online. This is the nature of free economies, black markets, and a supposedly free society. If there is a need for something, somebody will provide it, either above board or illegally.

In short, the only way to stop file-sharing would be the complete totalitarian policing of the internet, with mass censorship, reams of regulation, and even more government red tape and bureaucracy, all of which would inevitably come out of the tax payers' wallet.

However, in reality this would be quite a leap. Whatever government is in power cannot expect private companies, such as the ISPs, amidst an economic downturn to drop everything and become the government's on-line secret police.

Unions and businesses from Britain's creative industries have come together to urge the government to make a decisive move against illegal file-sharing.

Organisations including the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) made a statement urging the government to protect industry from the threat of illegal downloading and piracy.

The groups called on ISPs to first send warning notices to offenders, and if multiple warnings were ignored, to then disconnect users who continue to download illegally.

In practice, this would mean the government would need to create new legislation alongside Ofcom.

The call to action comes as the government this summer finalises its Digital Britain report, which recommended ways to protect digital industries.

"The UK government has the opportunity to take action now to address piracy which will protect the 800,000 jobs dependent upon the creative industries in the UK," said Equity general secretary Christine Payne in a statement.

France has previously tried to implement a similar system, but it has since been overturned. The EU has also slammed the plans, while the UK's own intellectual minister this January said the government would not force ISPs to take such action.

Industry body the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) said it disputed the calls for the disconnection of users, or any other type of technological measure to deal with copyright infringement.

ISPA also said that ISPs, consumers groups and the European Parliament believed that disconnection was a disproportionate response.

"ISPA recognises that there is a problem with unlawful P2P file sharing," said ISPA secretary Nicholas Lansman.

"But it is important to recognise that a major part of the solution lies in licensing reform and the availability of legal content online."

The call comes as the British Software Alliance revealed that 41 per cent of all software was pirated, while 35 billion was lost in revenue last year.

The release candidate of Windows 7 is believed to be circulating on BitTorrent sites such as the Pirate Bay.

Several different versions of the build with the number 7100 have been uploaded, and comments suggest that some might be genuine - while others may contain Trojans or rootkits.

Microsoft is expected to publicly release the release candidate for beta testers in the first week of May, but reports have suggested it will be distributed to developers even sooner.

This is not the first time that a build of Windows 7 has been leaked early on BitTorrent sites.

In January, a Beta 1 Build 7000 version of Windows 7 was leaked before Microsoft had officially released it.

Microsoft has already warned of the possible consequences of downloading an unofficial version on its Windows 7 Engineering blog.

It said: "It will always be tempting to get the build with the mod' already done but you never really know what else has been done to the build.

"There's a thrill in getting the latest, we know, but that also comes with risks that can't be quantified."

David Lammy, the Intellectual Property (IP) minister, claims the government will not force internet service providers (ISPs) to clamp down on illegal file sharing.

Possible legislation was mooted last year, in response to an agreement drawn up by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) to introduce a three-strikes' rule to persuade users sharing copyrighted music through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.

The music industry body said it knew of thousands of UK P2P file sharers and that it could work with the ISPs to target them with written warnings, bandwidth throttling and ultimate service disconnection for continued pirate activities.

And, following support for the move in other European countries, including France, the Culture Secretary Andy Burnham last year hinted the government may use legislation to force the ISPs' hand.

But following criticism from civil liberties groups and the public, which culminated in the launch of a petition against possible legislation on the Prime Minister's website last February, Lammy reportedly told the Times today that such plans had been ruled out.

"We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms," he said, adding that enforced disconnection would involve very complex legal issues.

A recent consultation by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) also found no consensus existed between the music industry and ISPs on the issue.

Meanwhile the publication of the Digital Britain report by Communications minister, Lord Carter which was expected today, but is now expected later this week is widely expected to suggest alternative means for tackling the piracy problem.

Reports suggest Lord Carter will call for a "rights agency" to determine if additional charges should be paid by either ISPs or customers to the music industry in compensation for losses due to piracy claimed to be in the region of 200 million a year.

In a statement echoing the sentiments of many ISPs, BT said it was still hoping "an amicable solution" could be reached that did not resort to legislation. "It doesn't make sense to try to get people online and at the same time scare them away," it said.

McAfee has reported what it claims is the most significant malware outbreak in three years, with more than 500,000 detections of a Trojan horse which masquerades as a media file.

A number of fake video and music files have been deliberately spread over peer-to-peer file sharing services like Limewire and eDonkey. These were malicious MP3 and MPEG files triggering the download of an application which served ads to the infected computer.

"People were downloading these files hoping it was music, but it was a media file format that allowed you to link to another site where you downloaded additional files," said Toralv Dirro, security strategist at McAfee Avert Labs.

"Those files downloaded turned out to adware that in some cases even asked the user to accept an end user licence agreement prior to installing."

McAfee saw this as 'medium' risk, with no other malware receiving that risk rating since 2005 as all others were rated less severe.

The security vendor claimed that it was the most prevalent piece of malware in the last three years, and that it had never seen a threat this significant come as a media file.

The huge figure came from retail users that had the option to submit data on what viruses and adware was detected on their computer to McAfee and made publicly available.

Dirro said: "We are currently seeing that the distribution is still going on. It is now at about 580,000 where files have been detected, so people are continuing to download and share these files."

The strategist said that these only reported the incidents that were actually detected, and the real number of users and computers affected would be much higher.

He said that although the damage in this case was not too serious as it was only adware, it could have been much worse and what McAfee were now afraid of in the future was attackers with a more sinister agenda.

"They could try and copycat this attempt as they have seen it is a very successful way to distribute malware," Dirro said. "In the future we are pretty much expecting this distribution method a lot more."

Dirro said that instead of pointing to adware, it could lead users to spyware which would instead try to steal people's data. Instead of being a multimedia file it could take the form of a directly executable one.

"It has happened in the past, but not anywhere close to this scale," Dirro said of the peer-to-peer nature of the attack.