The original Napster service was launched by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker on June 1, 1999. Had it not been sued into oblivion by the record labels, it would’ve celebrated its 26th anniversary last Sunday.

In reality, Napster didn’t live for very long at all. The service was shut down by court order in July 2001 and in this month 23 years ago, Napster Inc. filed for bankruptcy.

Napster Brand Lives On, Legally

For more than two decades, the Napster brand has lived on. The company’s assets were initially acquired by Roxio, which led to its PressPlay music service relaunching in 2003 with Napster branding. After a fresh start as a legal music store, Napster was later acquired by Best Buy. In 2011, streaming service Rhapsody became Napster’s new owner and a few years later, Rhapsody itself reappeared with Napster branding.

These changes in Napster’s ownership offer very little excitement, a sign perhaps that Napster’s pirate roots were ancient history. Yet, starting in early 2017, the RIAA began sending DMCA notices to Google containing requests to have Napster URLs deindexed from search results. In January 2022, that suddenly stopped, only to suddenly start back up again, exactly two years later.

What exactly triggered these complaints is unknown but, earlier this year, a complaint filed in Italy went further still. Characterizing Napster as a platform of mass infringement, the complaint requested measures that would effectively prevent Napster from doing business anywhere in the country.

“Massive Copyright Violations”

The Italian Society of Authors and Publishers (SIAE) is one of the world’s largest collection societies. According to its website, it represents over 100K members, administers 62 million Italian and international works, and has “reciprocal representation agreements” with 184 authors’ societies around the world.

On March 24, 2025, SIAE filed a complaint with Italian telecoms regulator AGCOM, containing a long list of allegedly infringing URLs linking to songs by mainly local artists. The complaint described the list as an example of infringing content offered by Napster, so should not be considered exhaustive.

A sample of the allegedly infringing tracks (translated)

SIAE’s complaint noted that “the massive nature of the copyright violations” is highlighted when SIAE’s repertoire index is used as a reference.

Having confirmed that the content reported by SIAE was actually available on Napster.com, these alleged violations of copyright (Law 633/41 (pdf)) were sufficient for AGCOM and any linked bodies to examine the complaint more closely.

In this case and those similar, a step-by-step process resulting in an adverse decision usually leads to domains being blocked by ISPs nationwide. Pirate sites tackle blocking with new domains and other circumvention tactics. Legal streaming sites aren’t typically confronted with that kind of problem.

AGCOM Launches Investigation

Checks revealed that the domain Napster.com was registered at Cloudflare “on behalf of an unidentifiable customer” with hosting services for the platform also provided by Cloudflare.

A preliminary investigation carried out by the Directorate for Digital Services and Protection of Fundamental Rights confirmed the alleged violations, so the complaint wasn’t considered inadmissible or unfounded.

Since Napster’s servers were deemed to be located overseas, “personal communication” advising the start of a procedure against it was described as “overly burdonsome”.

Instead, a notification via AGCOM’s website and via email (most likely to Cloudflare) were considered sufficient. The communication raised the possibility of Napster “spontaneously complying” with SIAE’s requests, which usually means taking down the content in question.

No Defense by Napster, Disaster Looms

AGCOM reports that no counter-arguments were received in response to its notifications and the recorded music listed in the site blocking application remained accessible on the pages reported by SIAE. Of course, that’s potentially problematic in copyright cases generally, so when AGCOM found that under Italian law no exceptions applied to the content in question, its continued online presence was “believed to be unjustified.”

All of the above taken together, especially in light of the overseas servers, led to the conclusion that service providers could be instructed to block access to Napster in Italy, to prevent ongoing copyright infringement. Or rather, that’s typically what happens to pirate sites. Here, various factors took the matter in a different direction.

Before issuing a blocking order, AGCOM must consider adequacy, necessity, and proportionality; i.e whether the measure is suitable for the task in hand, is necessary or can the same effect be achieved by less restrictive means, and is a reasonable response under the circumstances.

Blocking Would Be Disproportionate

Based on the report of AGCOM commissioner Elisa Giomi, who happens to be an outspoken opponent of Italy’s Piracy Shield blocking system, AGCOM concluded that disabling access to the entire Napster website was not an option.

[T]he website http://napster.com/ reported by the applicant is a paid music streaming service which features a very high number of songs (110 million, as reported on the site’s homepage ) which are not limited exclusively to the sound works referred to [in the blocking application],” AGCOM’s decision reads.

“Considering that the violation ascertained concerns a limited number of works compared to the content of the reported site, the adoption of a measure to disable access to the entire website would be a disproportionate measure on the basis of the principles detailed above.”

The Right Decision But a Very Strange Case

In borderline cases, subjective assessments could go either way but, in this case, it’s obvious that AGCOM made the appropriate decision under the circumstances. However, there’s an unusual element to this blocking application that raises the question of why it even exists.

Under Italian copyright law, two entities are responsible for “preventing and ascertaining” certain violations within their competences. The first entity is telecoms regulator AGCOM, the second is the Italian Society of Authors and Publishers, the same entity listed as the applicant in the blocking case against Napster.

Even after a fleeting view of the paperwork, blocking was always the incorrect response in these circumstances. Miracles aside, the application was always likely to fail against a substantially non-infringing licensed music streaming service based in the United States, where a failure to license usually ends in a mauling from the major labels.

So, on the basis that AGCOM came to the same conclusion very easily, that raises a question;

Why did a public economic body founded 140+ years ago, with a key role in Italy’s Permanent Advisory Committee on Copyright, and recognized as the institution representing the interests of Italian authors, press ahead with a blocking application that had virtually no chance of success?

More fundamentally, success would’ve prevented the alleged infringement, but presumably would’ve denied the artists and companies behind Napster’s 110 million track library any opportunity to make money via that platform in the Italian market.

Any responses to our requests for comment will appear here in due course.

AGCOM’s decision, which denies the blocking request but refers the alleged violations of copyright to the judicial police, is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new site blocking bill, titled: Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA).

With piracy blocking efforts expanding globally, the introduction of a U.S. site blocking bill was perhaps only a matter of time. But it took time. The new bill arrived more than thirteen years after the previous SOPA bill was shut down. Interestingly, however, the bill is not alone.

In addition to FADPA, Representative Darrell Issa is also working on his own version of a pirate site blocking bill. While it has yet to be formally introduced, a discussion draft framework seen by TorrentFreak lays out the intended framework in great detail.

It’s important to keep in mind that this is a preliminary draft of the framework, not the final bill. Several changes in the text may take place before it is formally introduced, if it’s introduced at all.

The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA)

The draft American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) proposes a streamlined court procedure for U.S. copyright owners to block access to foreign pirate sites, or those whose U.S. operators cannot be found after reasonable investigation.

The site blocking process would involve four phases. First, a court determines if a target website qualifies as a “foreign piracy site” based on evidence presented by a copyright owner. This evidence would include proof of ongoing copyright infringement, details of the site’s foreign ownership (or inability to find a U.S. operator), evidence that piracy is its primary purpose and it has no significant non-infringing purpose, or is marketed to induce infringement.

In the second phase, the court could issue a blocking order requiring service providers, such as ISPs and DNS resolvers, to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent U.S. users from accessing the target website. These orders would remain valid for up to 12 months but would not prescribe specific blocking technologies.

The draft outlines third and fourth stages which cover how a blocking order would be maintained and modified, if necessary. The deadline for implementing a blocking order would be set at 10 days, but copyright owners could request a shorter timeframe when targeting live events.

ACPA vs. FADPA

The broad description of the new bill doesn’t differ much from the previously introduced FADPA legislation. Both target ISPs and DNS resolvers, for example, but there are several key differences and nuances.

For example, ACPA proposes that the Judicial Conference of the United States would maintain a list of specific district judges to hear all judicial piracy blocking cases, with at least one judge per regional circuit. Blocking requests would then go through the previously mentioned four-phase process.

The FADPA bill, on the other hand, relies on standard U.S. District Court jurisdiction and would establish a ‘preliminary order’ through a proposed Copyright Act amendment at section §502A.

The new ACPA draft further mentions that the Act would preempt state and local laws, with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) providing reports to Congress on the Act’s effectiveness and impact.

Transparency and Protections

The draft also has some explicit transparency provisions. For example, it tasks the U.S. Copyright Office with maintaining a public website where all active blocking orders are listed. In addition, copyright owners must demonstrate they attempted to notify the target site’s operator and domain name registry of the infringement.

The proposed bill also places restrictions on the service providers that can be named in a blocking order, excluding those with fewer than 50,000 annual users or, for ISPs, those representing 1% or less of U.S. market share. Operators of coffee shops, libraries, universities, and other premises, would be excluded.

Finally, overblocking is addressed directly in the draft. While this should be prevented, if a third party’s site other than the pirate site was blocked due to an error caused by the copyright owner, the third party could request up to $250,000 in compensation from the copyright owner.

DNS ‘At Risk’

Rep. Issa’s proposed framework excludes blocking measures against the root nameservers and TLD nameservers. Additionally, DNS resolvers providing services to fewer than 50,000 users annually would be exempt under the general exclusion for small providers. However, based on commentary in response to foreign DNS blocking efforts, the proposal can expect to meet some pushback.

Root nameservers excluded

This week, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, released a detailed report and website warning the public about DNS blocking threats.

DNS at Risk

The report details various examples of DNS blocking efforts around the world, including pirate site blocking actions in Italy, Spain, and France. According to Christian Dawson, Executive Director of the i2Coalition, the report is a wake-up call.

“DNS resolvers are neutral infrastructure—not censorship tools. When governments use them to enforce content policies, the result is overreach, disruption, and long-term harm to the open Internet.”

“We’ve built dnsatrisk.org to document these incidents and to help the global community push back with evidence and clarity,” Dawson adds.

Immunity & the DMCA

Companies running DNS servers are not alone in their concerns. Internet providers will likely want to ensure that their concerns are heard too. Previously, we reported that ISPs would like to have retrospective immunity.

The discussion draft does indeed mention immunity when it comes to liability for any blocking related actions, plus immunity from copyright claims by rightsholders who request blocking orders, insofar these apply to the blocked sites.

“A named service provider in a blocking order that is implementing the order in good faith is immune from all claims of copyright infringement by the copyright owner who obtained the blocking order based specifically on allegedly infringing activity on the foreign piracy site occurring on or after the date when the blocking order was issued, or when the provider was added to the order after issuance (whichever is later).”

The proposed immunity would not carry over to other claims of copyright infringement, meaning there would be no impact on the subscriber-related piracy liability lawsuits currently faced by Internet providers such as Cox and Verizon.

The draft framework explicitly and clearly states that the bill would not affect any existing DMCA liability claims, nor would it impact DMCA safe harbor protections.

“Except as expressly stated in this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed to change or affect any determination under the DMCA, or modify or expand any existing claims, liability, or immunity under the DMCA, including the scope, protection, and requirements for any safe harbor under section 512. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to provide for any new liability or immunity with respect to the DMCA or any other provision of law outside of this Act.”

Although it’s still unclear what type of retrospective immunity ISPs are looking for, the draft framework doesn’t provide any additional detail.

Overall, the discussion draft describes a well-thought-out plan, with some important transparency provisions and accountability for overblocking. That said, the inclusion of DNS providers and potentially ‘other intermediaries’ is already causing opposition before the final text is ready.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

As online piracy continued to cause headaches for South Korea, in 2023 key media entities formed the Video Copyright Protection Council.

The VCPC coalition adopted a unified “stronger together” strategy for operational efficiencies and greater governmental leverage, swiftly putting its first target on notice with a criminal complaint and a $3.7 billion damages claim.

NunuTV / NooNooTV

Popular in the local market, streaming site NunuTV (or Noonootv based on domain name format) had been servicing tens of millions of visitors per month and was reportedly responsible for 1.5 billion views of pirated movies and TV shows.

With billions of dollars worth of damage allegedly suffered by legitimate platforms, NunuTV became a clear candidate for aggressive site-blocking measures. The authorities blocked domain after new domain but nothing seemed capable of significantly reducing the site’s popularity.

Coupled with a warning from the coalition, an announcement that the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, would create a new piracy investigation unit, in hindsight signaled the beginning of the end for NunuTV.

Less than two years after its launch in June 2021, the site announced that it would shut down on April 14, 2023, citing “outrageous” bandwidth costs and “pressure on the site from all directions.”

Site Down, Legal Subscribers Up, Hail Blocking

The site’s closure was cause for cautious celebration. In a July 2023 report published by subscription streaming platform Tving, a growing subscriber base was attributed to customer loyalty and the closure of NunuTV. In the United States, the tactics used against the site highlighted were seen as important.

After nominating the site for ‘notorious market’ status in 2022 (pdf), the MPA’s 2023 submission (pdf), attributed the site’s demise to the success of site blocking and the and the Ministry of Culture’s announcement regarding its investigation team..

Season 2: Surprisingly Short

In the background, the emergence of a new site just weeks after the disappearance of the first, had already prompted an announcement by the government.

Aggressive site blocking was back on the table, with blocks updated several times each day. It remained to be seen what other “strong measures” could be taken that hadn’t been tried before.

Quite quickly, however, the problem found its own solution.

“Hello, this is NunuTV Season 2. After careful consideration, the NunuTV Season 2 site is closed. Although it is a short period of time, we sincerely appreciate your interest.”

With over 1,300 domains containing “noonootv” registered and ready for use, copycat sites were always likely to be a problem. Yet, minus the features that made the original so popular, few if any could expect anything like the same success.

As is often the case with site resurrections, only those behind the original site could realistically deliver the same experience. Late last year, the chances of that happening collapsed in an instant.

Operator of NunuTV Arrested in South Korea

In November 2024, Korean authorities announced the shutdown of TVWIKI, a popular streaming piracy site with millions of users. A special unit under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism arrested the site’s alleged operator, who according to reports, was also behind streaming platform OKTOON.

A takedown notice hosted on GitHub revealed that the individual, identified only as ‘Person A’, was also the operator of NunuTV.

Concerns that the raids and arrest were an of elaborate hoax were soon dismissed by Korean authorities.

According to local news reports, law enforcement authorities seized assets worth 2.6 billion won (US$1.9m) including two luxury cars, and a total of 14 bitcoin.

Six months later, ‘Person A’ appeared before a court in South Korea to discover how his immediate future would be playing out.

Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison, $500K Fine

On May 26, Judge Koh Young-sik at the 9th Criminal Division of the Daejeon District Court, sentenced ‘Person A’ for offenses under the Copyright Act.

“The nature of the crime is bad because it systematically infringed on property rights over a long period of time for profit-making purposes such as obtaining advertising revenue,” Judge Koh said.

To avoid the effects of site blocking and other government action, Person A continued to operate using dozens of domains and overseas servers, including in the Dominican Republic and Paraguay. Virtual private networks (VPNs), overseas credit cards, and cryptocurrencies were also used in an effort to avoid being tracked down by investigators.

To obtain content from legal webtoon platforms, Person A reportedly obtained official accounts from an unspecified number of people before posting illegal copies online. A diagram supplied by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism provides an overview of the operation.

Image credit: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (text TF)

“Copyright crimes not only infringe on the copyright holder’s ability to generate revenue, but also discourage creative desire, ultimately hindering cultural development,” Judge Koh continued.

“In addition, the defendant admitted his wrongdoing, and his criminal record was taken into consideration when determining the sentence.”

For the illegal distribution of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted videos and webtoons via NunuTV, TVWiki, and OKTOON, the former pirate site operator was ordered to serve three years in prison and pay a fine of 700 million won (US$512K)

Odds of Evasion: Slim

Reports claim that NunuTV’s operator was “meticulous” in his efforts to remain anonymous but when local government and law enforcement agencies team up with international partners, that may not be enough. Person A was the target of a joint investigation by the Copyright Crime Scientific Investigation Unit of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the International Criminal Police Organization, better known as INTERPOL.

In January 2025, INTERPOL announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding and launch of the second phase of INTERPOL-Stop Online Piracy (I-SOP), an international collaborative anti-piracy project to crack down on illegal online distribution platforms.

The initiative receives funding from the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST) (2.8 million euros) with support from the Korean National Police Agency.

In addition to the dismantling of NunuTV, successes during the first phase include the arrest of individuals behind P2P release group EVO.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

BREIN has just published its latest annual report, providing insights into the priorities of the organization and the progress being made.

This was BREIN’s first year under new leadership. After Tim Kuik retired in 2024, Bastiaan van Ramshorst became the new director flanked by Birre Büller, the new head of legal affairs.

BREIN’s 2024 Annual Report

Last week, the group published its 2024 annual report which shows that anti-piracy activities continue undeterred. BREIN completed 339 cases last year, of which 179 were marked as extensive investigations. As a result, 40 settlements were reached, including 7 “knock & talks”.

In addition to these dedicated investigations, BREIN also continued its regular operations. This includes updating the pirate site blocklist used by local ISPs, to which 525 unique domains were added last year. At the end of 2024, 574 domains were blocked, up from 208 at the start of the year.

The new target domain names were also reported to Google, which voluntarily removed these 525 domains from its search results. That comes in addition to the 166,945 individual Google search results BREIN asked the company to remove.

IPTV Action Intensifies

The voluntary cooperation of Google is noteworthy and doesn’t stop at delisting blocked domains. The company also helped to prevent the promotion of pirate IPTV services through its advertising business. This led to the drastic decision where Google updated its policy to no longer allow ads for the search term “IPTV”.

As a result of this policy change, BREIN reported fewer IPTV advertisements last year. According to BREIN, action by Google was in part taken in response to complaints from the Dutch anti-piracy group.

These restrictions are part of a broader theme in which IPTV is increasingly recognized as a major piracy threat. According to BREIN, IPTV is now considered the biggest threat to the audiovisual content industry.

“The Dutch fiscal police (FIOD) officially designated IPTV as a phenomenon in 2024. This means higher priority and more budget for combating illegal IPTV. As a result, there is more room for investigation and ultimately more criminal cases,” BREIN writes

“Illegal IPTV also has the full attention of Europol, Eurojust and the EUIPO. Among other things, this regularly leads to criminal actions in the Netherlands at the request of foreign investigative agencies. Where possible, BREIN and foreign sister organizations of BREIN contribute to this.”

Criminal Action and Boots on the Ground

The added attention to the IPTV problem has resulted in several new criminal referrals by BREIN last year. The group expects that this will lead to new arrests and potential prosecutions in 2025, but as these investigations are ongoing, further details are currently unavailable.

“These cases are expected to result in arrests in 2025. Because of ongoing criminal investigations, BREIN can only make announcements about them after arrests have been made,” BREIN writes.

These IPTV actions are not limited to online operations; they also extend to offline marketplaces. Since the Beverwijk Bazaar is seen as a hotspot for this activity in the Netherlands, BREIN has signed an agreement with the market to tackle the problem.

If stalls are caught selling illegal IPTV services and devices, in the first instance they receive a warning. If the activity continues, they can be fined, and if that does not solve the issue, tenants can lose their lease.

“Two tenants had their lease terminated in 2024 based on the agreements made,” BREIN writes, adding that “repeated checks and purchases at the Beverwijk Bazaar remain necessary to identify and deal with IPTV traders.”

AI, NL and More

In addition to the strong focus on IPTV, artificial intelligence is also flagged as a major threat. The group has identified several Dutch datasets that partly consist of copyright-infringing material and successfully shut these down.

“BREIN conducted extensive investigations into infringing datasets on which Generative AI models are trained and turned into unlawful AI models and was able to successfully complete the first AI investigations,” BREIN writes.

Another series of Dutch-focused achievements came after the registry for .NL domains updated its policy to no longer allow intermediaries to register domain names. The EURid registry (.eu) has a similar policy which enabled BREIN to make 16 .NL and 7 .EU domains inaccessible.

These changes are part of broader efforts to involve more intermediaries in the anti-piracy fight. For example, BREIN says it signed a confidential agreement with several Dutch hosting providers who will enforce a proper know-your-customer policy. That could lead to more enforcement action in the future.

All in all, it’s been a productive year for BREIN. The full annual report with more detail on specific actions and an overview of the key numbers, as summarized by BREIN, is available below.

—

• 339 files closed • 179 investigations completed • 155 illegal sites/services/platforms stopped • 11 platforms, 9 IP addresses and 525 unique domains dynamically blocked at DNS level • 525 illegal websites completely removed from search results by Google iv • 160 proxies/mirrors stopped • 46 illegal traders IPTV/VOD subscriptions stopped • 14 IPTV ads removed by Google • 47 streaming sites taken offline • 3 major uploaders, administrators and/or scripters investigated and stopped • 166,945 Google search results removed • 3,677 interventions involving removal of online ads for illegal copies • 40 settlements, including 7 ‘knock & talks’ • 3 judicial ex parte orders obtained • 10 online cases involving physical media were handled • 14 checks conducted at record fairs • 16 .nl and 7 .eu domain names taken offline

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In recent years, the European Commission has proposed and adopted various legislative changes to help combat online piracy.

The Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act both envisioned tighter copyright takedown rules for online service providers.

Many rightsholder groups felt that the new rules were insufficient to target live streaming piracy, sports content in particular. They wanted more incentives for online service providers to act faster and more diligently, as suspensions are useless after a live broadcast ends.

The EU Commission heard these calls and published a targeted recommendation ‘on combating online piracy of sports and other live events’, encouraging member states to introduce measures to facilitate prompt takedowns of live streams. At the same time, service providers and rightsholders were encouraged to collaborate, to tackle the challenge together.

Over two years later, the European Commission recently launched a call for evidence, asking stakeholders to share their views on the recommendation. Based on its assessment, the Commission will evaluate whether further EU-level measures are needed to tackle the issue.

MPA: Site Blocking is Key

Last week, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) submitted its comments on the effectiveness of the 2023 recommendation. Representing prominent movie industry players including Netflix, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery, it has a significant stake in the matter.

Overall, the MPA is positive about the EU legal framework, noting that it provides valuable tools such as site blocking injunctions. However, implementation of these measures across EU member states is inconsistent and in some countries, cumbersome or completely absent.

Site blocking measures have been available under EU law for more than two decades, but not all EU countries implemented them correctly, MPA says, mentioning Germany, Poland, and Bulgaria as examples.

“Despite the Commission’s Recommendation, Europe is missing effective and appropriate implementation of these provisions across all Member States. Germany has not correctly implemented Article 8(3) InfoSoc nor Article 11 IPRED, whereas Poland and Bulgaria have not implemented these provisions at all,” MPA writes.

In Germany, for example, copyright holders must take steps to identify the operator of piracy sites before they can request blocking measures. In some cases, this requires pursuing legal action against hosting companies.

This is a barrier that makes site blocking unnecessarily complicated or costly, MPA says. That’s counterproductive in an environment where pirate sites and services are quick to adapt their strategies.

“Swift action is needed to limit the dissemination and damage of copyright infringement,” MPA stresses.

Automated Real-Time Blocking

Automated solutions already exist in some countries. The MPA is particularly interested in site blocking schemes that allow rightsholders to automatically add new piracy domains in realtime.

This is especially important for live broadcasts, including sports events, as these have a small blocking window. The MPA says that these broadcasts require dynamic siteblocking and fast-track legal procedures in order to be protected.

“MPA is therefore supportive of automated effective siteblocking mechanisms that can be updated in realtime with appropriate safeguards to address emerging infringing streams. In Italy, Greece, Portugal and Brazil automated dynamic systems are available to rightsholders allowing effective real-time blocks.”

Automated blocking measures also help to combat circumvention. Pirate site operators are generally quick to circumvent blocking measures with new domain names. Their users can typically find new pirate sites though search engines and social media.

“When a pirate service is blocked, pirate infringing operators register and activate a new domain—often with a similar name—allowing users to regain access, therefore circumventing the initial blocking order,” MPA writes.

CDNs, VPNs and other Intermediaries

Collaboration between Internet providers and copyright holders is essential to implement effective blocking mechanisms, MPA says. However, other intermediaries should also be brought into the fold.

MPA suggests a more active role for reverse proxy providers, content delivery networks (CDNs) hosting providers, VPNs and search engines. These were also highlighted in the EU Commission’s 2023 recommendation.

The group notes that cooperation with CDNs (e.g. Cloudflare) is key to properly enforcing dynamic blocking.

“Intermediaries such as CDNs also have the technical capability to implement targeted blocking at the infrastructure level, which can be a highly effective complement to traditional siteblocking, especially where operators rely on CDN services to deliver pirated content at scale.”

“Their engagement tends to be necessary to make targeted and technically feasible siteblocking possible. Failing to involve these actors undermines the effectiveness of dynamic injunctions, as pirates increasingly rely on them to obscure their infrastructure and evade enforcement.”

Identifying Pirates

In addition to helping on the blocking side, MPA also sees a role for these intermediaries when it comes to identifying pirate site operators. To achieve this, rightsholders should be able to use “Right of Information” requests to swiftly identify potential targets.

These information requests should be made available under EU law and, just as importantly, the EU should expand Know Your Business Customer (KYBC) requirements to online intermediaries. At the moment, KYBC rules only apply to online marketplaces.

“To effectively allow the identification of the source and repeated misuse of their services, intermediaries need to ensure that they obtain accurate and complete customer information,” MPA writes, adding that KYBC requirements are an “ideal tool” with “minimal burdens” for the intermediaries involved.

All in all, the MPA believes that Europe is largely on the right track with its anti-piracy efforts and policies, but with the suggested improvements, ideally formalized in legislation, the process can be further improved.

Rightsholders United

The MPA is not the only stakeholder making these types of demands. A wide variety of other rightsholder organizations, representing various sectors of the creative industries, echoed the call for more robust anti-piracy measures with legislative backing across the European Union.

For example, MFE-MEDIAFOREUROPE, which controls major broadcasters like Mediaset, stressed that hosting providers, CDN providers, and payment services need to take more decisive action.

Meanwhile, DAZN described the DSA as a missed opportunity to specifically target entities like VPN providers, dedicated server hosts, and CDN services that play a role in facilitating online piracy. Both DAZN and MFE joined the MPA in calling for KYBC obligations to be extended to more intermediaries.

Ultimately, these submissions paint a picture of rightsholders acknowledging the EU’s efforts, while highlighting a clear need for further, stronger action at the EU level. The European Commission will typically take its time to evaluate this feedback, while also keeping an eye on those that are more critical of recent anti-piracy efforts.

—

A copy of the Motion Picture Association submission in response the EU Commission’s assessment of the May 2023 Commission Recommendation to combating online piracy of sports and other live events is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

If Hollywood studios, major record labels, broadcasters, and sports organizations stopped publishing their own piracy research, the scale of the phenomenon and potential solutions would likely be less clearly defined than they are today.

What we have instead is a largely unified response across multiple industries, featuring broadly similar claims on the scale of the problem, what needs to be done, and by whom. Everyone pushing in the same direction, no wasted energy.

The messaging is notable, not for just its clarity, but for the almost complete absence of conflicting opinions on who is to blame and how various goals can be achieved. It’s as if the dozens of major companies involved, many of them rivals operating in the same market, conducted their own independent research, arrived at the same conclusions, then brainstormed identical solutions totally independently.

New Report, No Additional Friction

A new report from Enders Analysis published on Friday was quickly covered by news outlets all over the world. Tackling the illegal streaming of live sports and premium TV, the report found that “industrial scale theft of video services” costs broadcasters and sports companies “billions” while posing a “direct threat” to the “UK creative industries.”

Company founder Claire Enders, CBE, told the Financial Times that “piracy is costing content originators, pay-TV and streaming companies, many billions globally,” a conclusion drawn from various data, including that provided by various European TV companies, such as Sky in the UK.

Impactful phrases of the type mentioned above are an immediately recognizable component of the anti-piracy vocabulary. After appearing in dozens of studies and countless press releases, over the years they may have lost some of their shock value.

At a time when the unstoppable proliferation of pirate services seems to be causing genuine problems, that’s certainly unfortunate. Nevertheless, contributors to these adverse conditions are called out in the report; they may even sound familiar.

Video Piracy: Big Tech is Clearly Unwilling to Address the Problem

The sub-heading above is the title of the Ender’s report, which signals its direction right from the start. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are variously described as not doing enough to prevent piracy, or in the case of the former, actively fueling it as an “enabler”.

“Big tech is both friend and foe in solving the piracy problem. Conflicting incentives harm consumer safety by providing easy discovery of illegal pirated services, and reduced friction through low-cost hardware such as the Amazon Firestick,” the report notes.

The soaring popularity of Amazon’s devices was obvious almost 10 years ago and thanks to a recent campaign, unprecedented media coverage raised awareness of the Amazon brand, at zero cost to the company.

Enders’ view of the ‘Firestick’ issue was in part based on data provided by Sky, which found that 59% of pirates active in the previous 12 months using a physical device, said they had consumed pirated content via an Amazon Fire device. It’s an interesting statistic, some might even consider it an opportunity to be exploited.

Yet, if Amazon chooses not to respond in the manner the industry expects, there’s no legal Plan B available. Amazon doesn’t promote its products for infringing uses. It’s also a major rightsholder, not to mention member of both the MPA and Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment. Calling the company out in court as a piracy enabler isn’t just unrealistic, it’s much worse than that.

When a legal device is framed as a threat, not just by the video industry but also here in the Enders report, all that does is divert attention away from the core issues. Specifically, one of the main reasons that premium content from the UK is so readily available from pirate sources. According to the Enders report, Big Tech must take some responsibility for that too.

Google and Microsoft Refuse to Engage on DRM

Widevine and PlayReady, owned by Google and Microsoft respectively, are anti-piracy solutions that allow authorized users to view video streams while preventing downloading and unauthorized copies. Widely used to secure premium content, Widevine is used by major streaming services including Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Sky. But, after its weaknesses were exploited several years ago, protection from determined pirates isn’t what it used to be.

“Over twenty years since launch, the DRM solutions provided by Google and Microsoft are in steep decline,” the Engers report notes.

“A complete overhaul of the technology architecture, licensing, and support model is needed. Lack of engagement with content owners indicates this a low priority.”

Put more directly, it appears that Google and Microsoft have no interest in supporting or updating 26 and 18-year-old software/systems and, as a result, content pours rather than leaks out, fueling an entire pirate ecosystem. As quite literally the ‘source’ of a significant part of the UK’s piracy problem, the Enders report quite rightly gives it a mention, although with framing clearly suggesting yet another Big Tech failure.

“The research by Enders Analysis accuses Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft of ‘ambivalence and inertia’ over a problem it says costs broadcasters revenue and puts users at an increased risk of cyber-crime,” coverage by the BBC reads.

That the Enders analysis views the piracy problem from the same long-standing positions of entertainment companies shouldn’t come as a surprise.

A History of Championing Intellectual Property Rights

Enders Analysis is known for its reports and generally speaking, receives praise for its work, in particular its focus on technology, telecoms and media. In 2009, founder Claire Enders told the Guardian that a prediction in 2001 that the music industry would have piracy under control by 2005, was a “Titanic” mistake. Yet, control was indeed being regained a few years later, leading to the record figures we see today and an industry in rude health.

How much of the credit for that can be attributed to Enders is hard to quantify, but her company’s position is clear, and as a staunch supporter of the UK’s Digital Economy Act, her personal position on piracy is extremely clear.

“It has been a decade since I first started to work for an industry-led anti-piracy regime, whose delay is detrimental to the creative economy,” Enders said at the time.

That the report once again highlights the scale of piracy in the market isn’t a surprise, and importantly, isn’t inaccurate either. That Big Tech comes under fire for reasons identical to those of the affected industries, is no surprise either. Yet, it may be that when voices are so unified as one, there’s no opportunity for fresh ideas that might provide a solution, in the absence of Big Tech suddenly waving its magic wand.

Surprisingly, especially given its target audience and subscription model, an article in the Financial Times covering the report has a mountain of comments from subscribers that may be quite useful.

The overwhelming majority see the piracy situation quite differently, but whether opposing views are welcome is another matter.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that the ISPs failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in ‘appropriate circumstances’, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, other companies remained at risk, including Frontier Communications which emerged from bankruptcy three years ago.

Frontier Settles Twice

Frontier was fighting not one, but two legal battles. The troubled company faced a pair of similar piracy liability lawsuits filed by movie and music companies. Both cases were scheduled to go to trial this spring, but that didn’t happen.

Last month, we reported that the movie companies’ lawsuit had been settled on undisclosed terms. As a result, demands for pirate site blocking were also off the table.

This week, the music companies, including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, also reached a settlement with Frontier. In a notice submitted to the New York federal court, they informed the court that all claims are settled and can therefore be dismissed.

Settled

The case was settled “with prejudice” so the dismissed claims cannot be refiled in the future. It’s a final resolution of the dispute, preventing all parties from bringing the same claims against each other again.

The settlement terms are not mentioned, so it’s unknown whether there was any financial compensation; however, when it comes to the court proceedings, all parties agreed to bear their own costs.

Change Afoot?

The settlement arrives in the same week the U.S. Government took a position in a legal battle between Internet provider Cox and several record labels. The U.S. recommended the Supreme Court to hear Cox’s case, which seeks to overturn a liability ruling in favor of the music companies.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. position impacted the Frontier lawsuit in any way. However, if the Supreme Court does indeed take on the matter, the eventual outcome will affect other piracy liability lawsuits against Internet providers.

Another recent development could also impact these cases. In the U.S., several lawmakers are working on site blocking legislation under which ISPs would be tasked with blocking access to pirate sites. According to recent information, some ISPs are open to this idea, provided they’re granted “retrospective immunity“.

The details of these background discussions are sparse, but ISPs may not see the benefit in voluntarily working towards a blocking plan if they’re dealing with piracy liability lawsuits at the same time.

—

A copy of the notice of settlement, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

A complex case that had dragged on for years, in part due to the global pandemic, concluded last summer with the conviction of five men behind pirate streaming service Jetflicks.

The court heard that Kristopher Dallmann, Douglas Courson, Felipe Garcia, Jared Jaurequi and Peter Huber, generated millions of dollars in revenue through what was described as one of the largest pirate sites in the United States.

The Case That Refuses to End

Last summer, a jury found all five men guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Dallmann was further convicted on two counts of money laundering by concealment, plus three counts of misdemeanor criminal copyright infringement. No sentencing date was announced at the time, but the reported maximum sentences suggested that the defendants were in for a tough ride.

Four of the men were told they could receive up to 60 months in prison, but the Department of Justice highlighted that group leader Kristopher Dallmann could face a much higher sentence

The justification for this extraordinary estimate isn’t easily explained. The current docket has close to 700 filings and indictments that date back to 2019, for conduct that concluded in 2017. It’s a case in which two additional defendants pleaded guilty six years ago, one regarding conduct at Jetflicks, the other in connection with Jetflicks and rival streaming service, iStreamitAll.

Argument Over Sentencing Continues

Over the years, sealed filings regularly interrupted the flow of information, a trend that continues today, some 10 months after the defendants’ convictions. None of the five men are currently incarcerated, and after fighting for every inch of ground for the last six years, Kristopher Dallmann isn’t ready to back down now.

In a supplemental sentencing memorandum dated last week, counsel for Dallmann contest the sentence proposed in the Presentence Investigations Report. Since access to the document is restricted, only limited details are available. However, language used by Dallmann’s counsel conveys a strong reaction to the government’s proposals, with an alternative sentencing proposition from the defense helping to establish a best-case scenario.

“Mr. Dallman respectfully asks that the Court to impose a sentence of one-year on the misdemeanor counts, 3 and 4, and a total sentence of thirty-six-months on the felony counts; each count running concurrent to each other,” the memorandum reads.

“This sentence is reasonable and ‘adequately reflects the seriousness of the offense, affords adequate deterrence, promotes respect for the law, provides just punishment for the offense, and protects the public.”

And then the teardown begins.

Government’s Loss Calculations: “Facially Absurd”

Counsel for Dallmann note that their primary focus is to dispute the PSR and the government’s infringement loss calculations, “which are, and this author does not say this lightly, facially absurd,” the submission notes.

“Nor is the Office of Probation any help in conducting these calculations as that agency has relied solely on the government’s facially problematic, and unduly enigmatic, calculations.”

Describing the sentencing guideline calculations as “unresponsive to the actual facts of the case,” the defense says the draconian end result should give the court significant pause.

“The fundamental error of the infringement loss calculations is that, in addition to being almost comically speculative, it ignores the business model at issue. This case does not involve the retail purchase of individual television shows. At issue is a streaming service that the government alleges failed to acquire the proper reproduction licenses from the actual copyright holders.”

Users of Jetflicks Were Not Victims

The memorandum states that Jetflicks users can’t be classed as victims; they paid for a service and received one. The victims, “to the extent there are any,” are the copyright holders.

“The loss at issue is the licensing fee those holders would have received had Jetflicks acquired the right to stream from those entities. What this amount would have been, if the copyright holders would have even consented, is unknown and undeterminable. What is known is that the government’s loss calculations bear almost no resemblance to actual copyright holder losses.

“The problem with the calculations, lies in the government’s pedantic reliance on the concept of retail value when that concept applies to physical counterfeited items,” the defense argues. Again, no exact figures are provided but the defense says that the “government’s proffered infringement amount dwarfs, by a literal order of magnitude, the total gross receipts of Jetflicks over its entire lifespan.”

An attempt by the government to explain its calculations lacked reliance on case law, data, or expert analysis; “Indecipherable,” according to the defense.

“To the extent one can tell what the government is attempting to argue, it appears to be counting the same streaming content over and over again.”

MPA Request for Attorney Fees

Counsel for Dallmann highlight several points to explain why the MPA’s suggestion of attorney fees is “inappropriate.” Since the MPA is not a litigant in the case, it can’t be considered a prevailing party. There’s no itemized attorney bill to show costs directly related to the case, and there’s nothing to show which fees are permissible costs.

“If the MPA is the victim in this case, as it claims to represent all impacted copyright holders, that entity has made no effort to determine its losses. Instead, it relies on the government’s facially invalid loss theory,” the memorandum continues.

As far as any costs incurred while assisting the government’s prosecution, “those are not allowable losses as the costs of prosecuting a case are not recoverable as restitution.”

The Trial Tax Problem

In December 2019, Darryl Julius Polo (aka djppimp) pleaded guilty to charges of copyright infringement and money laundering for helping to program Jetflicks and for founding and operating rival platform iStreamitAll. Polo was sentenced to 57 months in prison, with a $1 million forfeiture order covering the proceeds of his offending.

According to Dallmann, the appearance of unproven allegations from Polo’s indictment in the PSR is problematic. Polo is described as a co-conspirator, whereas Dallmann maintains that Polo was a competitor operating a similar but entirely separate business. In practical terms the difference is important; as a co-conspirator, Dallmann can be held vicariously liable for Polo’s infringing business, in addition to conduct directly attributable to his own.

The U.S. government’s headline-grabbing description of Polo’s platform iStreamitAll contained a claim that it had a bigger library than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and Amazon Prime. That wasn’t necessarily a statement of fact, it was a claim copied from iStreamitAll’s sales pitch.

Nevertheless, it’s consistent with iStreamItAll offering a huge library of movies and TV shows, in contrast to Jetflicks which offered TV shows only. According to the defense, a comparison of the services and contrasting government-calculated infringement amounts, show that Dallmann is being punished more severely because he exercised his right to stand trial.

“The government represented in Polo’s signed plea agreement that the infringement amount under § 2B3.5 should be between $250,000 to $500,000. This calculation was based on the value of Mr. Polo’s inventory of infringement materials as found during the execution of search warrants,” the memorandum notes.

“Yet for Mr. Dallmann, because he failed to plead guilty, the government devised an entirely new way of calculating infringement value that increased the figure by literally more than a factor of sixty.”

The government-calculated figure in Dallmann’s case, presented in the still-restricted PSR, is $37,478,436.

“This is not a question of normal plea-bargaining concessions such as whether acceptance of responsibility reductions apply or whether the government would bring additional charges,” the memorandum continues. “This is a wholesale reformulation of a previously embraced sentencing theory. This raises the appearance, if not the specter, of undue retribution and punishment for the exercise of a constitutional right.”

Argument over calculations and various points of law continues for several pages but the easily missed bottom line, is the government’s position that Dallmann’s offending warrants the most severe sentence ever handed down in an online piracy case.

The government’s conceptual corruption has resulted in a computed Sentencing Guideline range that is stunningly severe. It is reasonable to assert that a white-collar offender should not face a Sentencing Guideline range of twenty-five to thirty years for what is essentially a victimless crime; as the government has failed to show any actual victim losses.

The government’s theory dramatically increases the sentencing exposure of Mr. Dallmann. This conclusion is reinforced by looking to the calculations utilized for the co-defendants, such as Daryl Polo, where the infringement loss is approximately 1.5% of that advanced against Mr. Dallmann despite the fact the government describes Jetflicks and iStreamitAll as being similarly situated.

“Given Mr. Dallmann’s history and characteristics, which a host of mitigating factors as previously briefed under seal, a probationary sentence is warranted in this matter. If incarceration is deemed necessary by this Court, Mr. Dallmann respectfully asks this Court to consider a three-year sentence,” counsel for Dallmann conclude.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Over the past few years, stream-ripping service Yout.com has fought legal battles on several continents.

The most prominent lawsuit was filed by the site’s operator, American developer Johnathan Nader, who took the RIAA to court in an attempt to have the site declared legal.

Criminal Prosecution

The RIAA case is still under appeal and Yout.com remains available in most countries. Not in Brazil, however, as the site was effectively blocked several years ago after the Public Prosecutor’s Office of São Paulo, Brazil, filed a criminal complaint.

As part of the criminal proceeding, Yout.com was preemptively blocked by Brazilian ISPs. Unsurprisingly, this made the site’s traffic in the country tank. Perhaps even more concerning is a looming criminal sentence for the site’s American operator.

Nader doesn’t believe that his site is illegal, but if a Brazilian criminal court decides otherwise, criminal copyright infringement can result in a prison sentence of up to four years. Despite this pressure, Nader continues to stand behind the site.

Deal Rejected

In 2022, the prosecution offered Yout.com a way out in the form of a deal. In exchange for reaching an agreement on several predetermined terms, the public prosecutor was willing to suspend the criminal prosecution. This would come at a cost, however.

Under the proposed terms, Yout’s operator would have to pay the authorities 1.9 million Brazilian real, roughly $400,000, to be allocated to a special fund earmarked for social programs.

The deal also required Yout.com to actively block Brazilian visitors and delete their accounts, while ensuring all local payments were blocked. In addition, the site would have to log access attempts from Brazil and share the details with the authorities twice per month.

Nader and his legal team gave the proposal some serious thought, but eventually decided to decline the offer. Instead, they tried to turn the case in their favor through the court.

Court Rejects Yout’s Motion to Dismiss

In the 12th Criminal Court of the Central Criminal Court Barra Funda in São Paulo, the defense tried to have the complaint dismissed, citing a lack of just cause and insufficient evidence. The request was rejected earlier this month.

After reviewing arguments from both sides, the Court ruled that the prosecution’s criminal complaint is sufficient for the case to continue.

The prosecution alleges that Yout’s operator violated article 184, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code by offering an Internet-based tool to allow users to select and download a copyrighted work without obtaining permission from the rightsholder. This was allegedly motivated by profit.

From the order (translated)

Complaint Sufficient

The Court found that the complaint meets the requirements of article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“The indictment is based on minimal evidence, consisting of documents and expert reports, which, at this stage, are sufficient to support a judgment of admissibility. Although the defense presented strong arguments, it was unsuccessful in deconstructing the elements presented by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and further evidence was required in the criminal investigation,” the order reads.

Yout typically describes itself as an Internet DVR. It does not store any copyright infringing material and does not know what files its users select to ‘format shift’.

However, the Court reiterated that the conditions for accepting a complaint concern evidence of authorship and materiality, not the full proof that will be developed during the investigation. Arguments about lack of evidence are not enough to reject the complaint at this initial phase.

“According to the consolidated understanding of the Supreme Courts, receiving a complaint only requires evidence of authorship and materiality, and does not require full proof, which will be produced during the investigation,” the order adds.

Prosecution Goes Ahead

Ultimately, the court concluded that the requirements for criminal prosecution are present and there are no defects that would warrant a dismissal under article 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the judge upheld the prior decision to accept the complaint.

The case will now move forward at a hearing set for August 9, 2025, for instruction, debates and judgment.

Since Nader lives in the United States, the hearing will be held virtually and won’t be required to appear in person. The prosecution is expected to present several witnesses, including a representative of the music industry.

—

A copy of the (translated) order of the 12th Criminal Court of the Central Criminal Court in São Paulo is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Three years ago, pirated Blu-ray copies of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” began circulating on pirate sites, weeks before its official release.

Such high-profile leaks are rare, and the source of the breach remained unknown until earlier this year.

In February, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted 37-year-old Steven Hale from Tennessee, a former employee of a disc manufacturing and distribution company in Memphis. While working at the unnamed company between 2021 and 2022, Hale allegedly stole numerous “pre-release” DVD and Blu-ray discs from his employer.

These stolen discs contained many high-profile movie titles including “Spider-Man: No Way Home”.

Hale Pleads Guilty

Hale initially pleaded not guilty to two criminal copyright infringement charges and an additional charge of interstate transportation of stolen goods. This week Hale changed his plea, admitting guilt to one of the charges, and signing a plea agreement with the prosecution.

Hale entered his guilty plea to Count Two of the indictment. The charge relates to his distribution of ten or more copies of copyrighted works, including pre-release movies, for commercial advantage and private financial gain. This includes the pre-release ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ disc, which is likely the source of the leak.

The other films covered by this count are ‘Jungle Cruise,’ ‘Venom: Let There Be Carnage,’ ‘Encanto,’ ‘Eternals,’ ‘The King’s Man,’ ‘Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,’ ‘Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City,’ ‘Marry Me,’ ‘Sing 2,’ and ‘The Matrix Resurrections.’

Plea Agreement

Lower Sentence, Limited Damages

As part of the agreement, the prosecution agreed to drop two other counts and the Justice Department will recommend that the court awards the maximum available sentence reduction because Hale accepted responsibility. It will also recommend that the defendant is sentenced at the low end of the guideline range.

For the remaining count, Hale faces a potential maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release. In addition, he has also agreed to pay restitution to all identifiable victims who suffered losses due to his criminal conduct.

Interestingly, for sentencing guideline purposes, the plea agreement puts the “infringement amount” between $15,000 and $40,000. That’s lower than the tens of millions of dollars in estimated losses mentioned in the indictment related to ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home. The final damages amount has yet to be determined by the court.

1,160 Blu-rays and DVDs

The plea agreement doesn’t add much detail to what is already publicly known. Importantly, however, it does reveal that law enforcement seized approximately 1,160 Blu-rays and DVDs from the defendant on or around March 14, 2022.

This means that the authorities had tracked down Hale as a potential suspect just days after the ‘Spider-Man’ movie leaked online. After that, it took nearly three years before the defendant was indicted.

Why the indictment took so long is unknown, but the case may have been part of a broader ongoing investigation.

Speculation and Sentencing

While one can only speculate beyond this point, it is worth pointing out that the early online leaks of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” were shared publicly by the infamous release group EVO. This group was known for distributing pre-release content.

A few months after the authorities tracked down Hale, EVO was dismantled by the Portuguese authorities. There is no evidence to suggest that these two cases are connected, but it’s not impossible either.

What we do know for sure is that Hale will be sentenced by the District Court of Tennessee later this year. This sentencing hearing is scheduled to take place at the end of August.

—

A copy of the Plea Agreement, signed by all parties and submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Describing Sweden as a country with a serious pirate IPTV problem is technically accurate, but lacking in all-important context.

As a member of the European Union, Sweden is among 27 member states experiencing broadly similar difficulties. The main drivers usually boil down to lots of content being accessible from one supplier, at a price people can afford or are willing to pay.

There are variables across the bloc, from consumer demand for specific types of often expensive regional content, to rightsholders’ ability to take action, and/or convince local governments to commit scarce resources towards solving the problem.

In broad terms, the problem today is worse than it was pre-2020. No combination of industry measures, legal amendments, or government investment, has delivered anything close to a solution, anywhere in the EU. Even when positive news does arrive, it’s often met with cautious suspicion.

60,000 Swedish Households Say “No” to IPTV

Stockholm-based consulting firm Mediavision conducts regular surveys to assess consumption trends in the Nordic countries. Its report for Sweden covering several months in 2024 could hardly have been worse.

In the period bridging spring and the fall of last year, pirate IPTV subscription rates increased by a record 25%, with an estimated 700,000 households (one subscription = one household) regularly consuming from illicit sources. On face value, however, the numbers in Mediavision’s latest report seem to indicate progress.

“The use of illegal IPTV is still high and it is now estimated that 640,000 Swedish households pay for illegal IPTV services,” says anti-piracy group Rights Alliance (Rattighetsalliansen).

When a 60,000-household reduction warrants such a frosty reception (Rights Alliance says it’s too early to celebrate), the rest of the figures may not be encouraging either.

2.3 Million Swedes Use Illegal Source Every Month

The new Mediavision survey estimates that 2.3 million Swedes aged 15 to 74-years-old, consume movies, TV shows, or live sports, from illegal sources, at least every month. Sweden is a relatively small country where 2.3 million people represent 30% of the population.

Studies regularly show that infringement rates are higher among younger people; Sweden continues the long-standing trend here.

Among citizens aged 15 to 34, over half say they regularly use content from illegal sources. As expected, piracy rates are highest among younger men and when every other person is already a subscriber or regular viewer, word tends to spread especially fast.

Organized Crime

The Rights Alliance graphic below shows that another large number is also causing concern.

In 2019, the European Union Intellectual Property Office estimated that pirate IPTV services were generating close to a billion euros in annual revenue, in the EU alone (pdf). At the time, the Netherlands and Sweden had the highest percentage of IPTV users in the bloc, with 8.9% and 8.5% respectively.

To put Sweden’s pirate IPTV growth into perspective, today’s 640,000 households can be placed alongside 616,700 individuals in the six-year-old EU report. In 2018, revenue generated by pirate providers from Swedish sales was an estimated 490,000 euros.

The 1.4 billion figure above is in Swedish Krona; at today’s exchange rate that’s €137.6 million (US$154.8 million)

“1.4 billion SEK directly from Swedish households into the criminal economy is unacceptable. Organized crime is fueled, and the damages to rights holders are much bigger than this,” Rights Alliance says.

An investigation launched in Sweden a year ago is still ongoing. Alongside an assessment of financial damage to the film and TV industries, advice on whether action against IPTV subscribers is required (including a ‘ban’ on IPTV itself) is expected in the final report. Rights Alliance believes that more can be done immediately.

“There is a need for increased resources and enhanced expertise among police and prosecutors,” says Rights Alliance lawyer and former police IP crime investigator, Alma Shawwaf.

“Several actors can also do more to make it harder for criminals, not least payment providers and search engines such as Google.”

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages.

This case is one of many. Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit, while ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and last August filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition, hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Last November, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. Before deciding, however, the U.S. Solicitor General was invited to share the Government’s view on the matter.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. Needless to say, their input weighs strongly for the Supreme Court’s decision whether to accept these petitions or not.

U.S. Backs Cox’s Petition

Yesterday, the Solicitor General submitted its amicus brief in this matter, clearly siding with the Internet provider.

The Solicitor General argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision, which held Cox liable for contributory infringement, “departs from this Court’s contributory-infringement precedents” and is in “substantial tension” with the Supreme Court’s recent analysis of secondary liability in Twitter v. Taamneh.

“The Taamneh Court’s reasoning reinforces the conclusion that imposing liability on Cox for copyright infringement committed by its users, based on Cox’s failure to terminate service to IP addresses associated with infringement, is incompatible with traditional common-law limitations on secondary liability,” the brief reads.

The U.S. also cites the Sony and Grokster cases, which make clear that contributory liability for copyright infringement requires more than knowing about pirating activity. Instead, it requires “culpable intent” to cause copyright infringement.

“If Cox had explicitly or implicitly marketed its service as being particularly useful for infringers, or if it had encouraged subscribers to use Cox’s internet service to infringe, liability might be appropriate,” the Solicitor General writes.

According to the view of the U.S. Government, an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it fails to terminate subscribers after receiving copyright infringement notices. This is a strong statement that targets the central issue in many similar lawsuits in U.S. courts.

Not Liable

Innocent Subscribers at Risk

The amicus brief goes on to state that the current verdict of the Court of Appeals can have broad implications for ISPs and their subscribers.

Cox previously argued that, based on this precedent, ISPs find themselves ‘forced’ to terminate subscribers who may have done little wrong. The U.S. Solicitor General acknowledges this potential threat.

If copyright infringement notices from third parties can trigger liability, Internet providers may take more drastic action to avoid legal trouble.

“Given the breadth of that liability, the decision below might encourage providers to avoid substantial monetary liability by terminating subscribers after receiving a single notice of alleged infringement,” the Solicitor General writes.

“Losing internet access is a serious consequence, as the internet has become an essential feature of modern life. And because a single internet connection might be used by an entire family—or, in the case of coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and the like, by hundreds of downstream users— the decision below could cause numerous non-infringing users to lose their internet access.”

No Willful Infringement

Aside from the liability question, the brief also criticizes the Fourth Circuit’s finding of “willfulness” against Cox, which led to the enhanced statutory damages.

The Solicitor General argues that the jury instruction was “erroneous” because it allowed a finding of willfulness based on the notion that Cox knew its subscribers’ actions were unlawful, even though Cox believed its own response was lawful.

The Solicitor General notes that “willfulness” generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard that the defendant’s own conduct was unlawful. Simply knowing about third-party infringements should not be sufficient.

This broad interpretation would essentially undermine the Copyright Act’s two-tiered damages scheme, which reserves higher damages for willful copyright infringement than for non-willful infringement.

Music Companies’ Writ Should be Denied

While the U.S. supports Cox’s petition, it has asked the Supreme Court to deny a related writ from the opposing music labels, who argue that Cox should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Defendants can be held vicariously liable if they had the right and ability to control the infringing activities and a direct financial interest in those activities. According to the Solicitor General, the lower court correctly concluded that is not the case here.

“There was no evidence that Cox would be forced to collect a lower fee if the users of its internet service ceased to infringe; that subscribers were drawn to Cox’s internet service because of the ability to engage in copyright infringement using that service; or that Cox had used the opportunity for customers to infringe to lend credibility to the service it offered,” the brief notes.

All in all, it’s clear that the U.S. Solicitor General, and thus the U.S. Department of Justice, supports Cox’s attempt to overturn the piracy liability verdict. While the Supreme Court has yet to formally decide whether it will take on the case, the brief suggests the chance is now significantly higher.

Conclusion

While Cox will be pleased to see the supportive brief, there are no guarantees that the Supreme Court will agree with the U.S. Solicitor General, should it ultimately decide to take on the case.

—

A copy of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Amicus Curiae brief for the United States is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

When rightsholders, broadcasters, and ISPs have a shared interest in the success of a multi-billion euro broadcasting rights deal, there’s no dispute over the need for a blocking order.

With formalities out of the way, who argues against asking the court for anything less than the full measures the judge is prepared to authorize?

When Telefonica spent billions acquiring broadcasting rights from LaLiga, the companies received full backing from ISPs/TV providers to protect their collective revenues. According to LaLiga’s reading of the piracy blocking order subsequently obtained from the court, it authorizes the applicants to take whatever blocking actions are necessary to prevent access in Spain to around 130 pirate sites.

That many of the sites used Cloudflare IP addresses, each shared among hundreds or thousands of sites with no connection to piracy, came as no surprise to the applicants. Unlike blocking orders obtained outside Spain where similar issues are dealt with differently, LaLiga began instructing ISPs to block Cloudflare IP addresses used by pirate sites listed in the order.

Outlawed By Some Courts, Unprecedented Blocking Ensued

Some estimates claim that over two million innocent sites were affected by blocking but whatever the true number, the decision to block Cloudflare at scale was unprecedented.

LaLiga’s claim, that the injunction authorizes blocking of Cloudflare IP addresses, seems to be confirmed by the text of the order. It’s only when attempting to reconcile LaLiga’s intellectual property rights with the general and indeed fundamental rights of third parties does the situation become unfathomable. So we asked LaLiga about something else instead.

Since everyone seems to be on the same page concerning the blocking of shared IP addresses, we put it to LaLiga that when compared to site-blocking measures that aim to avoid collateral damage (most blocking worldwide), knowingly ‘overblocking’ must introduce new risks. Did LaLiga conduct a risk assessment before it started to block Cloudflare in February?

“At LALIGA we are fully aware that any blocking measure —even when legally justified— requires a cautious and proportional approach,” the league responded.

“That is precisely why we do not act indiscriminately, and why all our blocking actions are backed by judicial resolutions that assess the proportionality and potential impact before being authorized. It’s relevant to highlight that these blockings are requested and implemented once there are clear proofs of piracy signals and content.”

The Importance of Definitions

LaLiga’s position as stated here appears to stand on its definition of proportional, indiscriminate, and its grounds for blocking. It seems safe to assume that the IP addresses it reports are indeed being used by pirate sites offering its content illegally. Grounds for blocking don’t get any better than that.

If we place a tight definition on the word indiscriminate, it’s reasonable to assume that the IP addresses identified by LaLiga are obtained scientifically rather than randomly pulled out of hat. So with indiscriminate set the side for a moment, we have ourselves a question.

When a rights holder with legal standing demonstrates a genuine need to block, has obtained authorization from a court, and has no other immediate options available:

Does a proportional approach to infringement include blocking an IP address when there’s a risk that dozens, hundreds, or thousands of innocent third parties are using it too?

Herein lies an even bigger problem, directly linked to the biggest question of all.

Does TV Subscription Data Reveal Any Positive Effects of Blocking?

Establishing whether blocking has a positive effect on sales often prompts charts showing fewer people visiting blocked sites. Data cited by CEO Javier Tebas indicates that blocking suppressed piracy on a grand scale.

“Weekend piracy has decreased by 40%. That doesn’t mean everyone has already switched to paid channels, but… how do we know this? Barcelona-Inter semifinal in Spain: 1,200,000 viewers and a certain amount of data usage. El Clásico, four days later, had a much larger audience—two million—and resulted in 60% less piracy in consumption. In other words, it made a difference: more viewers were seen, much less illegal consumption as a result of the blocks we’re implementing,” he explains.

If this is an accurate picture, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that such large percentages are likely to have some impact on Spanish football’s bottom line. The immediate problem concerns the type of blocking used to achieve these results and whether similar authority would be granted again.

That leads to another complication.

No Evidence to Show Overblocking

Back in March when Cloudflare and RootedCON separately attended court hoping to end LaLiga’s ability to block, neither was successful, in part due to evidential failures. In short, information presented to the court was deemed insufficient since it failed to show “specific, quantifiable damage to third parties.” It’s a theme that still interests LaLiga.

“LALIGA has implemented a dedicated mailbox for complaints related to the blocking measures. This mechanism allows any third party who believes they’ve been unintentionally affected by a blocking action to contact us directly, provide technical evidence, and request a review,” Laliga says.

“To date, we have not received any formal complaints through this channel nor received any formal complaint through other legal channels, which reinforces our position that the system is working as intended: focused, precise, and without collateral impact on legitimate services.”

At Soccerex Amsterdam last weekend, Javier Tebas said that while LaLiga’s critics describe the court order as “useless” and “make a lot of noise,” it’s an example of what can be done.

[The order is] dynamic and should be implemented country by country. It’s very important that rights holders, UEFA, and national leagues become more united and more convinced that this is the way forward.”

The controversial order is available here (pdf, Spanish)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Last September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action wasn’t completely unexpected. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for a long time, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

Musi Sues Apple

Delisting from the App Store put the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors, but since the tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi took the matter to court.

Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. The app developer alleged this was an “unfair” and “tainted” removal process designed to put it out of business.

Musi requested a preliminary injunction to reinstate the app, but that attempt failed. In January, a California federal court denied the injunction, ruling that Apple did not act unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the app following complaints from music industry players and YouTube.

Apple Calls for Sanctions

With the underlying lawsuit yet to be resolved, a few weeks ago Apple fired back with a motion for sanctions. According to Apple, the court should sanction Musi for false or misleading allegations, which include the remarks concerning the alleged “backchannel scheme”.

According to Apple, discovery in this case clearly revealed that there were no backroom deals but Musi nonetheless included these claims in its amended complaint.

“[D]iscovery thoroughly disproved Musi’s baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit ‘friends’ in the music industry,” Apple notes.

Apple further alleged that to get its app reinstated after an earlier removal years ago, Musi allegedly faked an UMG email. These alleged misrepresentations are sanctionable, Apple argues, while reiterating that it had received numerous complaints about Musi from various parties over the years.

Musi Fires Back, Requests Sanctions

Last week, Musi responded in court by opposing Apple’s motion and, in turn, requesting sanctions against Apple. The app creator notes that sanctions motions are often used as a tactic of intimidation and harassment and describes Apple’s motion as “a member of that shameful lineage.”

From Musi’s motion

A motion for sanctions is warranted if there are no facts to support the allegations but Musi contends that its claims are supported by credible evidence obtained during discovery.

“None of Musi’s challenged allegations are factually baseless, and all are based on a reasonable and competent inquiry by Musi’s counsel. Apple’s motion should thus be denied, and Apple should itself be sanctioned and required to pay Musi’s attorneys’ fees for opposing its baseless motion.”

‘Not a Simple App Removal’

Apple previously argued that there was no need for backroom discussions as Apple could simply remove Musi under its own terms, with or without previous complaints from rightsholders. Musi doesn’t deny that, but it notes that evidence indicates this isn’t what happened.

Based on evidence gathered through discovery, Musi suggests that there were ongoing discussions behind the scenes to discuss the potential removal of the app. The timeline below reflects Musi’s perspective and interpretation of these events.

– April 11, 2024: A Sony Music Entertainment executive, Jeff Walker, emails senior Apple legal personnel (Elizabeth Miles and Robert Windom) requesting Apple’s assistance in removing the Musi app from the App Store. Specifically, Sony asked for help to “identify a path forward” to “have the Musi app removed from the Apple app store”.

A Path Forward

– May 20, 2024: Apple’s Elizabeth Miles holds a call with Sony’s Jeff Walker about the Musi app, at Sony’s request.

– May 24, 2024: Following internal Apple discussions, Apple’s Chief Counsel of Content and Services, Robert Windom, instructs Apple in-house counsel Sean Cameron to “please try to get that meeting set up”. Musi implies that this was a meeting with YouTube.

– Around May 29, 2024: At Cameron’s direction, Apple’s YouTube liaison, Arun Singh, contacts YouTube’s Kelvin Paulino by phone. Musi argues Singh inquired about a March 2023 YouTube complaint that Apple had previously considered “resolved”; Singh testified Paulino initially seemed unaware of Musi or the complaint.

– July 15, 2024: The Call: Apple and YouTube legal teams meet. According to Musi (citing Apple’s own witnesses), Apple counsel Sean Cameron stated Apple considered YouTube’s 2023 complaint “resolved” and, after mentioning other “music industry” complaints, asked YouTube if it wanted to “continue with the [2023] complaint”. YouTube allegedly confirmed ongoing API violations by Musi and expressed intent to pursue the complaint, requesting Apple send an email to formalize this.

– The “Re-Open” Email: Post-call, Apple’s ‘AppStoreNotices’ emailed YouTube Legal: “Per request from the YouTube Legal team… If you would like to re-open your claim against this app, please specify the rights you believe are being infringed…”.

Re-Open

– August 20, 2024: Apple’s Elizabeth Miles has a call with National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) representatives regarding Musi, at the NMPA’s request.

– September 11, 2024: The NMPA sends Apple a letter supporting YouTube’s complaint against Musi.

Turning the Tables

Musi believes this is sufficient to back up its claim that the app’s removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. In any case, it argues that a motion for sanctions is not warranted, as this wasn’t a simple removal process.

To strengthen its claim, Musi cites an email from Apple’s Elizabeth Miles who, after Musi was removed, noted that it was a “complex process”.

Complex process

According to Musi, Apple’s motion for sanctions is baseless and should therefore be denied. Turning the tables, the app devloper asked the court to sanction Apple for improper use of a sanctions motion.

—

A copy of Musi’s opposition to Apple’s motion for sanctions, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Portugal now has a decade of experience with pirate site blocking measures, which were made possible through a voluntary agreement

In 2015, the country’s blocking scheme was formalized through a deal between several parties, including the Government, rightsholders, and Internet providers.

Under the blocking regime, many thousands of domain names have been blocked over the years. To strengthen the impact, advertisers joined in on the action by preventing ad placements on these sites.

Portugal: A Leading Site Blocking Example

The relative ease of this rollout, which received little pushback overall, was swiftly embraced by Hollywood. In 2016, Portugal served as a leading example of how other countries, including Spain and France, could implement their blocking plans.

A year later, a Hollywood-commissioned study confirmed that traffic to blocked sites had decreased significantly. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, as these domains are blocked after all, but it was seen as a great accomplishment nonetheless.

While site blocking is effective at blocking specific domains, it typically boosts traffic to unblocked sites. The effect wasn’t considered in the initial study, but the problem was previously documented in related research. And it’s visible today too, as Portugal’s piracy woes are far from over.

Blocking Pioneer and Piracy Hotspot?

Earlier this year, Apritel, the association for Portuguese Internet providers and telcos, flagged pirate streaming and IPTV services as a major problem. The group didn’t mention blocking as a solution, but suggested that the authorities should enable financial penalties for users of these services.

These piracy concerns are shared by many rightsholders and were also a topic at the Colloquium on Digital Piracy of Audiovisual Content, which took place in Lisbon last week. Here, many stakeholders discussed the ongoing piracy challenges.

With more than 3,000 blocked domain names, Portugal has strict anti-piracy measures in place. However, data from piracy tracking firm MUSO, prepared for last week’s meeting, shows that piracy remains popular in Portugal, even by European standards.

“Portugal’s piracy rate per user is 33% higher than the European average, marking it as one of the most active territories for unauthorised content consumption,” MUSO explains.

The higher piracy rates are also reflected in the number of visits to pirate sites by Internet users. These visit numbers are higher than in any other country in the region, despite the existing blocking measures.

“This pattern of high engagement has remained consistent across several years, indicating a need for ongoing and more refined enforcement strategies,” MUSO writes, aligning with the call for stronger enforcement.

Since MUSO only reports data on website visits, the growth in the use of pirate IPTV services is not reflected in these numbers. Instead, it appears that Portugal’s piracy numbers are in large part due to a seemingly overlooked content category.

Manga / Anime Blindspot?

After years of site blocking, many pirate sites are known to temporarily evade measures by switching to new domain names, which are eventually blocked again, resulting in an ongoing cat and mouse game. Tugaflix, for example, has been blocked for a decade, but new domains continue to show up.

MUSO data shows that a ‘Tugaflix’ domain has appeared in the list of ten most visited pirate sites in Portugal over the past 12 months. The domain has since been blocked and has already moved to a new location.

Pirate sites with most visits (MUSO: April 24 / March 25)

The list also reveals another interesting insight. The list of most visited piracy sites includes many Manga and Anime sites, including the hugely popular Asuracomic.net, as well as Hianime and 3xyaoi. According to our blocklist data, these remain accessible in Portugal.

In fact, we don’t see any Manga or Anime related website in the list of 3,000 blocked domain names we have access to, which was updated a few months ago. Apparently, this is somewhat of an enforcement blindspot.

This means that the relatively high piracy rates are not necessarily the result of lacking anti-piracy measures. Online piracy doesn’t magically disappear merely because anti-piracy tools exist; these tools must be actively and properly utilized by rightsholders.

Whether this was also a topic of discussion at last week’s anti-piracy colloquium is unknown.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

LaLiga’s 2024/2025 season is officially over. FC Barcelona were actually crowned champions on Thursday after it became mathematically impossible for Real Madrid to conjure up seven points or more from the six points available.

The final matches of the season were played on Sunday but with the championship settled, would LaLiga show restraint and taper down its blocking activity? Or perhaps it would continue under the authority of judge, despite the widespread collateral damage inflicted on innocent internet users since February, a scandal now known as #laligagate.

In For a Penny?

The early signs did little to inspire confidence. Protest website LaLigaGate.com was hit by a total blockade but whether the site was targeted deliberately or succumbed to collateral damage is unknown.

Intentional and Unintentional Blocking Look Identical

As the latest data suggests that mass blocking of Cloudflare in pursuit of 150 piracy platforms has negatively affected millions of innocent websites, use of the term ‘collateral damage’ may be running out of scope.

Unintentional overblocking became inevitable overblocking some time ago, a point certainly not lost on Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince.

Posting to X last week, Prince asked if anyone wanted any general feedback, declaring that he felt “in an especially truthful mood.” The first response contained direct questions about the LaLiga controversy, the blame for which LaLiga places squarely on the shoulders of Cloudflare.

For the first time since Cloudflare legal action failed to end LaLiga’s blocking campaign, Prince weighed in with his assessment of the current situation and where he believes it’s inevitably heading.

“Bonkers” Blocking Strategy

“A huge percentage of the Internet sits behind us, including small businesses and emergency resources in Spain,” Prince explained.

“The strategy of blocking broadly through ISPs based on IPs is bonkers because so much content, including emergency services content, can be behind any IP. The collateral damage is vast and is hurting Spanish citizens from accessing critical resources,” he added.

Earlier this year, various comments and statements by LaLiga suggested that its relationship with Cloudflare had reached rock bottom. It transpired that LaLiga had obtained an injunction which allowed it to tackle Cloudflare and Encrypted Client Hello (ECH), but had done so without Cloudflare’s knowledge, effectively denying the company a right to respond.

Alongside other attacks delivered via the media, LaLiga slammed Cloudflare for refusing to cooperate. What action LaLiga had demanded still isn’t clear, but the league said that if there was any overblocking as a result, Cloudflare would have to shoulder the blame.

The Potential for Deadly Consequences

The scale of overblocking reported in Spain is unprecedented but since LaLiga has a court order that effectively gives Cloudflare blocking a green light, it has been doing so in bulk, every single week since February.

Depending on who addresses the overblocking issue, with whom and when, the league claims that collateral damage a) doesn’t exist or is minimal and/or b) is Cloudflare’s responsibility. Prince appears to have grave concerns over the scale and type of blocking taking place, warning that a worst-case scenario is inevitable.

Football Piracy Blocks Will Claim Lives

Despite LaLiga’s unshakable claims to the contrary, Prince believes that it’s not a case of ‘if’ disaster strikes, it’s ‘when’.

“It’s only a matter of time before a Spanish citizen can’t access a life-saving emergency resource because the rights holder in a football match refuses to send a limited request to block one resource versus a broad request to block a whole swath of the Internet,” Prince warned.

“When that unfortunately and inevitably happens and harms lives, I’m confident policy makers and courts in Spain and elsewhere will make the right policy decision. Until then, it’ll be up to users to make politicians clear on the risk. I pray no one dies.”

The suggestion that LaLiga’s demands were too broad, doesn’t mean that Cloudflare is refusing to help, Prince suggested. On the contrary, there’s a process available, LaLiga just needs to use it.

“We’ve always been happy and willing to work with rights holders in conjunction with judicial bodies to protect their content. We have a clear process that works around the world to do that, Prince explained.

LaLiga Targeted Cloudflare and Others During the Weekend

Live blocking data provided by hayahora.futbol has proven invaluable to those documenting #laligagate in recent months and this past weekend was no different.

As the small sample of Cloudflare IP addresses blocked on Sunday seems to show, concerns that every IP address blocked would inevitably result in collateral damage, seem to have been trumped by the authority of the now-famous court order.

The importance of strict adherence to the law was underlined by LaLiga’s Global Content Protection Manager in a recent interview.

José Ignacio Carrillo de Albornoz told El Confidencial that without the collaboration of intermediaries, piracy will be impossible to beat. Carrillo de Albornoz concluded with a “statement of responsibility” which notes that real progress will require all parties to work together and go beyond compliance with the law.

“It is necessary that all links in the digital chain act legally and ethically,” he said.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

If it was possible to strip away the roles and behaviors that inevitably lead to head-on clashes, in some cases pirates and piracy fighters might find ways to get along. In some cases they may love the same things.

Yet back in the real world, the insatiable appetite for pirated content owned or protected by the latter, means the war never ends, only the shape changes. Whether South Korean publishing company Kakao Entertainment had always intended to do something different isn’t clear, but when it comes to presentation, no equivalent approach to fighting piracy exists at scale anywhere else.

The Krew

Launched in 2021 to proactively protect Kakao Entertainment’s ‘webtoon’ comic library, the new ‘P.CoK’ anti-piracy unit’s name was inspired by the ‘eyes’ on a peacock’s feathers.

“We’re always on the lookout for illegal use of Kakao Entertainment’s exclusive content worldwide,” the Kakao ‘Krew’ explained in 2023.

P.CoK conceded that it couldn’t yet put a figure on the scale of the piracy it was addressing or the monetary value of any losses attributable to it. Of course, even the wider industry has to settle for best estimates, so a fairly blunt but honest admission was fundamentally credible, yet also quite rare.

At the time, forming a complete database of pirate sites responsible for sharing Kakao content remained a work in progress. On the prevention side, P.CoK reported working with watermarking, image recognition, and usage pattern analysis, which helped the team “keep an eye on things and nip illegal activity in the bud.”

Complete the Quest, Level Up

Like much of the corporate world, anti-piracy work and how it’s presented to the outside world may at times undergo a little cosmetic filtering, to send the right message or benefit from being seen in a particular light.

Due to the nature of the work there may be an element of misdirection, especially when the target audience are those the company and often the police are determined to catch.

In P.CoK’s case, some things that are so neat and perfect, you really, really want them to be true. Maybe they are.

Piracy Culture, Videogame Culture? No Problem

As presented, there are three people in the team, all quite young with great names – Xeno, Hani, and Jeno. These people undoubtedly understand Kakao’s audience, especially those who prefer not to pay—on sites where they’re also active members.

P.CoK also enjoys webtoons and without getting too personal, one spent a number of years as a webtoon artist. Then the icing on the cake – at least two are gamers. One likens shutting down a site to “clearing a stage” in a game and the other focuses on anti-piracy strategic planning and then “leveling up after completing a quest.”

Documenting Progress

The publication of an anti-piracy white paper every six months (Sixth Edition here) provides an overview of progress and challenges in Kakao’s fight against piracy.

As reported in February’s edition, a total of 240 million illegal content removals worldwide in the second half of 2024 contributed to a grand total of 740 million removals overall. This was made possible by Kakao’s Trusted Copyright Removal Program (TCRP) status at Google, and the small matter of filing 30,000 takedown requests every day.

Some rightsholders use their takedown notice volumes as a proxy for progress in the fight against piracy; at least in the beginning, the removal of a million links to pirated content tends to speak for itself. Yet when Kakao mentions a 10.9% decrease in takedown notices in its sixth White Paper, compared to the number cited in the fifth, the reduction represents progress instead.

The decline was largely attributed to P.CoK’s long-term monitoring and the subsequent shutdown of a “major domestic” pirate site. Kakao identifies the platform as site “A”, almost certainly a reference to Agitoon and the linked Agitoon Novel sites shut down in a law enforcement operation last August.

“The case underscores the critical role of site shutdowns in reducing overall piracy activity,” Kakao noted in February. “Kakao Entertainment has consistently emphasized that shutting down a site by identifying its operator is at the core of its response to illegal distribution.”

Rare outlier examples aside, when a site operator’s anonymity is compromised, that can forever change the game. Anti-piracy outfits tend to keep unmasking details secret for operational reasons. P.CoK likes to tell those stories on social media.

Raising Awareness, Recruiting Informants

The theory that raising awareness of piracy discourages illegal consumption, is being tested in several ongoing campaigns. Spreading the message that piracy hurts everyone involved in creating webtoons, is one of P.CoK’s responsibilities.

The day-to-day platform of choice for raising awareness is Twitter. At what point spreading the gospel of Kindness to Creators began its transformation isn’t clear, but today the P.CoK account on X is much more than that.

Acting as a notice board for P.CoK’s anti-piracy activities and the availability of legal content, the channel also encourages webtoon fans to report links to illegal content, wherever they exist online.

For fans and supporters prepared to go further, P.CoK’s channel on X acts as a recruitment office for informants. After obtaining useful information from piracy circles, they head back to base where the information is relayed to P.CoK for enforcement purposes.

Having gathered a number of willing informants over the last couple of years, P.CoK claims to have built an underground network that actively supports its One Point Response System.

Shutting Sites Down Using Any Legal Means

Traditional wisdom suggests that revealing details of an anti-piracy enforcement plan up front may introduce unnecessary risk. Yet having shared the details of its One Point Response System with TorrentFreak recently, at face value P.CoK probably thinks otherwise.

P.CoK’s response to infringement begins with TTT: Targeting, Tracing, and Takedown. It’s at this early stage that the technical aspects, operations, revenue streams, and community details of pirate sites are gathered together, and cross-referenced with P.CoK’s databases of illegal site operators and the networks they operate in.

After combining and analyzing all available information, a shortlist of suspected site operators is compared with a list of actual operators. After final verification, the next stage can begin.

P.CoK says that it reaches out to the operators of pirate sites and services via “legally effective communications” such as email or physical documents. From the information available to us, the strategy seems to rely on operators believing there’s a credible threat of escalation, but they hold none of the cards.

Anonymity Gone – Choose a Poison

With the clear emphasis being placed on removing all anonymity, proving that to be the case will likely support efforts to convince operators that anything other than total capitulation is already a lost cause. Those who push back could face civil or criminal action.

Those who decide to comply and throw in the towel are expected to post a public announcement, shut down their site, and pledge never to infringe again. These final ‘goodbye’ statements are also posted on X, where the consequences of non-compliance are on display, presumably for the benefit of others in a similar position. It’s the modern-day equivalent of a severed head on a pike, with a comfortable chair and maybe a beer as a tempting potential off-ramp.

Of course, there are no restrictions on who can read these types of notices, which range from members of the public curious about content being made available for free, to lower tier pirate site staff and uploaders nervous about maintaining anonymity.

Even those daydreaming about launching a site of their own one day might stumble upon one of the statements below and take a different course.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Anti-piracy outfits aren’t typically known for seeking this type of attention. That being said, we assume P.CoK only has to take Kakao’s interests into account and having agreed the parameters, it simply gets on with the job. We’re informed that the total number of sites shut down has risen to 28 following the sudden closure of Reaper Scans announced this week.

A ‘goodbye’ message posted by the operators of Reaper Scans revealed that the demise of the 10 million visits per month site was triggered by a cease-and-desist notice received via email. It transpires that P.CoK had identified three Reaper Scans operators in as many countries (United States, India and Croatia) and for good measure, addressed them personally using their real names.

Why Reveal the Plan and Who Benefits?

While the plan is quite detailed, specific, and at times, fairly elaborate, it contains no information useful to pirate site operators. Equally, there’s no sign of anything that undermines P.CoK or Kakao or the strategy itself. That naturally leads to the obvious question: who benefits from the details being made public?

Assuming that this is a true representation of P.CoK’s plan, it’s fundamentally solid; identify the suspects, leave no space for maneuver, provide an exit strategy, and work hard in advance to ensure that despite the presence of choice, site operators have only one viable option.

Indeed, by being unambiguous about how things are likely to play out, at all times there’s a tacit understanding over where this will inevitably end up for the freshly deanonymized. The joker in the pack concerns the informants; how many actually exist, or do any exist at all? Are they effective? Who are they?

To the extent that answers to any of those questions are in any way helpful, pirate site communities have been known to self corrode from excessive suspicion alone.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Praised by major rightsholders as progress in the fight against piracy, Italy’s Piracy Shield system made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Authorized under new legislation and promoted as a killer blow to piracy of live sports, Piracy Shield’s launch soon descended into a series of overblocking blunders and international news headlines. Realization that Piracy Shield was incapable of living up to the hype, led to legal amendments that contained direct threats against the tech sector.

CCIA Intervenes On Behalf of the Tech Sector

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) represents global tech giants including Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Google, and Meta, among others. In a January 2025 letter to the EU Commission, CCIA acknowledged that Piracy Shield exists to protect rightsholders but warned that the blocking mechanism is a “blunt instrument” that threatens businesses and the public alike.

When telecoms regulator AGCOM launched a public consultation on proposed amendments to copyright regulations and Piracy Shield’s operations, CCIA took the opportunity to restate its concerns. Highlighting the risk of overblocking, CCIA turned to the blocking requests made by rightsholders and a requirement under Italian law to execute them within 30 minutes.

“[W]e believe that the Piracy Shield poses significant risks to the principles of freedom of enterprise expression, as established by European and Italian law,” CCIA wrote.

CCIA Urges European Commission to Intervene

After months of engagement, including its letter to the European Commission back in January, CCIA’s latest submission calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity to publish a detailed opinion to address Piracy Shield’s apparent incompatibility with EU law.

CCIA’s submission to AGCOM begins by highlighting the proposed amendments.

“The Piracy Shield allows copyright holders to request site-blocking orders to be executed within 30 minutes, with limited transparency or recourse for affected parties.

“These amendments, most notably changes to Article 10 and Article 8 (3-bis) of the Regulation, further consolidate the Shield’s role, including extraterritorial content-removal capabilities without clear coordination with EU law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA),” CCIA’s submission reads.

“Given the serious implications of these proposals for the EU internal market, the freedom to provide cross-border services, and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and due process, CCIA Europe urges the Commission to issue a detailed opinion under the TRIS procedure.”

TRIS – Prevention of Technical Barriers to Trade

One of the basic principles of the European Union is an internal market that embraces the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. Mechanisms that restrict or have the effect of restricting such movement, may create prohibited ‘internal frontiers’.

The aim of the TRIS procedure (Directive 2015/1535) is to identify and prevent the appearance of internal barriers before they can have a negative effect on the market. Under TRIS, notifications sent to the European Commission may lead to a legal analysis in light of EU law.

CCIA’s submission draws attention to key issues that it believes should be assessed by the Commission, summarized as follows:

Lack of procedural safeguards and transparency in the Piracy Shield platform

• Blocking requests processed automatically, does not seem AGCOM checks for accuracy. • No meaningful opportunity to contest blocking orders before enforcement. • No independent review or appeal mechanism that operates in a timely manner. • Piracy Shield technical specs and operational protocols have never been made public. • Development and governance lacked stakeholder inclusivity. • Platform incompatible with principles of proportionality and due process

Risk of overblocking and collateral damage covers known incidents of overblocking, including the event that caused a widespread outage of Google Drive and the blocking of shared IP addresses at Cloudflare.

In general, blocking of shared IP addresses “poses a high risk of unjustified interference with lawful online content and services” while domain name blocking “heightens the potential for overreach and content censorship, particularly when a single domain may host a mix [of] infringing and non-infringing content.”

Questionable legal basis for cross-border removal

AGCOM’s new proposal introduces a provision empowering itself to issue orders for the removal of content hosted in other EU Member States, vaguely referring to the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a legal basis. This raises several concerns:

• The DSA provides for structured cross-border cooperation mechanisms and does not grant national authorities carte blanche to take direct enforcement action against hosting services in other Member States.

• The proposal lacks clarity on which provisions of the DSA are being invoked and how these powers align with Articles 8 and 9 of the DSA, which govern the issuance and enforcement of orders to act against illegal content.

• This extraterritorial enforcement risks undermining the DSA’s country-of-origin principle and creates legal uncertainty for service providers operating across the EU.

The final section in the submission titled Ineffectiveness of network-level blocking notes that blocking is easily circumvented and does not remove any infringing content from the internet. Blocking can also “serve to obscure” rather than address the root causes of piracy. Overall, better options exist.

That leads CCIA to its conclusions and a brief summary of its key points and concerns.

No timeline is mentioned in respect of a decision for or against an assessment, or how long a subsequent opinion could take to arrive.

The full CCIA submission is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Over the past two decades, online piracy has proven to be a massive headache for the entertainment industries.

Governments around the world have recognized this challenge and, where possible, lend a helping hand to identify and address the threats.

The European Commission, for example, compiles a biennial ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’, following the example set by the United States. Like its U.S. equivalent, the EU watchlist relies on input from copyright holders, which nominate problematic sites and services for inclusion.

New Threats

This week the Commission released its latest version of the Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List. The report provides a detailed overview of the piracy landscape including statistics from many studies that were previously published. In addition, it highlights what are seen as the most serious threats today.

Compared to the previous edition, there appears to be a stronger focus on game piracy. Several new additions are gaming-related, including the elusive repacker FitGirl and several NSW2U domain names. Both have been blocked by ISPs in several EU countries.

FitGirl

Other newcomers are the streaming repository Doodstream, sports streaming site Pirlo TV, hosting provider Virtual Systems, IPTV service GenIPTV and the pirate video library Vidsrc.

Njalla: Off-the-Shelf Piracy Service?

Another new target is Njalla, the privacy-focused domain registration intermediary founded by Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde. The service is operated by Saint Kitts and Nevis-based 1337 Services.

According to the EU report, Njalla appears to do more than simply registering domains for its customers. Allegedly, it allows people to launch a complete pirate site using the service.

“This off-the-shelf piracy facilitation service makes it easy for would-be pirates to create and monetise a fully functioning pirate service,” the EU report reads.

From EU’s Watch List

This description does not fit Njalla as we know it. However, it can be explained. Apparently, the the EU Commission appears to apply the general description of “Piracy as a Service” (PaaS) providers to Njalla. While MPA previously reported Njalla as a PaaS service (to the USTR), applying the full description seems out of place here.

From MPA’s 2024 recommendation to the USTR

In its submission, MPA argued that PaaS services, taken together, make it easy for aspiring pirates to launch their own services. However, Njalla itself does not allow “pirates to create and monetise a fully functioning pirate service” as the EU Commission suggests. That’s a concerning error, to say the least.

The PaaS term was originally coined years ago. We first noticed it in a MPA report in 2021, where the same “off the shelf” terminology was used.

IPFS

The final newcomer to stand out is the InterPlanetary File System, more broadly known as IPFS. This is a decentralized network where users make files available to each other. The system makes websites censorship resistant and not vulnerable to regular hosting outages.

These advantages allow archivists, content creators, researchers, and many others to reliably distribute large volumes of data over the Internet. Wikipedia has used it’s for example, and Lockheed Martin helped to launch an IPFS node into space.

However, the same censorship-resistant features also appeal to pirate sites, which is why the EU has now included it on its watch list. The same applies to the Interplanetary Distributed Literature Catalog (IPDL), which maintains links to torrent and IPFS archives.

“Super Pirate and the major pirate networks, including Library Genesis (LibGen), Z-Library, Anna’s Archive are reported to use public gateways to host and distribute copyrighted materials on IPFS,” the report reads.

Usual Suspects

In addition to roughly a dozen fresh entries, the EU watchlist includes many familiar websites. Torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and Rutracker make an appearance, similar to previous years.

Fmovies is still mentioned too, despite its shutdown last year. Instead of the original site, the EU Watch list now includes two copycat Fmovies sites; fmoviesto.site and f-moviesz.to.

The music category, meanwhile, is dominated by stream-ripping services, while publishing companies highlighted Sci-Hub and LibGen as persistent threats. The full list is completed by various hosting companies, IPTV services, and pirate apps and tools.

While all currently listed sites and services would likely prefer to remain unmentioned, there are no immediate consequences, at least as far as the EU is concerned.

The EU Commission notes that the Piracy Watch List mainly serves to encourage operators and owners, as well as local governments and enforcement authorities, to take appropriate action to reduce online piracy.

—-

A copy of the European Commission’s fourth Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List is available here (pdf). A list of all the online piracy targets and intermediaries can be found below.

Cyberlockers

– Mega.nz/.io – Uptobox.com / Uptostream.com – Rapidgator.net – Uploaded.net (ul.to, uploaded.to) – Dbree.org – Doodstream (new) – Z-Library (new)

Stream-Rippers

– YTMP3.CC, Ytmp3.nu (new) – X2mate.com (new) – Y2mate.com and related sites – Savefrom.net /ssyoutube.com/sfrom.ne – Flvto.biz and 2conv.com – Snappea.com

Linking or referring websites

– Fmovies (clones, fmoviesto.site, f-moviesz.to) – Seasonvar.ru – Rlsbb.ru – Rezka.ag – Dytt8[.]net, Dytt89.com, Dy2018.net, Dy2018[.]com, Dydytt[.]net, and Ygdy8[.]com (new) – Hianime (formerly Aniwatch[.]to and zoro[.]to) (new) – Cuevana[.]biz and Cuevana3[.]eu, Cuevana3[.]ch, Cuevana.is (new) – nsw2u.xyz/nsw2u.com/nsw2u.net (new) – fitgirl-repacks.site (new) – Pirlo TV (new)

Peer-to-peer and BitTorrent indexing websites

– ThePirateBay.org (and related domains) – Rarbg.to – Rutracker.org – 1337x.to – Interplanetary Distributed Literature Catalog (IPDL) (new) – InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) (new)

Unlicensed download sites

– Music-Bazaar.com and Music-Bazaar.mobi – Sci-hub.io (Sci-hub.tw; sci-hub.cc; sci-hub.ac; sci-hub.bz and others) – Libgen.onl and mirror sites

Piracy Apps

– IPTV Smarters – Ievpad.com – MagisTV – Shabakaty

Hosting providers

– DDoS-Guard.net – Private Layer – Virtual Systems, V-Sys (new) – Squitter, ABC Consultancy, Peenq, ESTOXY, BestDC, SERDECHS (new) – “Amarutu”, also known as Koddos – AS-Istqservers / Istqserverses (“Istq”) – HostPalace Web Solution PVT LTD (“Host Palace”)

Unlicensed IPTV services

– BIPTV.best and BestBuyIPTV.store – King365tv.com / Theking365tv.pro, Theking365tv.site – VolkaIPTV.com /.ru – GenIPTV (new) – Dark IPTV (new)

Piracy Supporting Services

– 2embed.ru; 2embed, or 2embed[.]cc / 2embed[.]skin – Fembed.com – Vidsrc[.]to (new) – Njal[.]la – 1337 Services (new) – GDrivePlayer (new)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

To protect copyright holders, YouTube regularly removes, disables, or demonetizes videos that contain allegedly infringing content.

For years, little was known about the scope of these copyright claims. That changed three years ago when the streaming platform published its first-ever transparency report.

The report showed that roughly 99% of all copyright claims on YouTube are handled through the Content ID system. Since many claims are automated, without human intervention, access is restricted to a few thousand vetted rightsholders.

4,564 Users, 2.2 Billion Claims

Published this week, YouTube’s latest Transparency Report shows that the number of automated claims continues to rise. In 2024, the streaming platform processed over 2.2 billion claims, up from nearly 2 billion a year earlier.

YouTube reports that of the 7,703 rightsholders who currently have access to the system, 4,564 actively use it. That’s a relatively small number when compared to the 308,556 users who filed just over 3 million claims through the online takedown form.

YouTube’s 2024 copyright claims

The report reveals that 99.43% of all copyright actions taken on the platform throughout the year are processed by the Content ID system. These are mostly automated claims, but Content ID users also flagged content manually in 0.31% of cases.

This tiny percentage might not sound like much but, at this scale, it translates to approximately 6.9 million manual claims.

Disputed Claims

Despite the immense volume of claims, the number of disputed claims remains relatively low. Fewer than 1% of the over 2.2 billion Content ID claims were disputed by recipients in 2024. That’s relatively low, although one percent still equates to 22 million disputes.

Interestingly, manually generated claims were more than twice as likely to be disputed (1.13%) compared to those made via automated detection (0.54%). This suggests that human intervention triggers more complaints.

Challenges against Copyright claims are often filed for good reason. According to the report, over 65% of Content ID claim disputes in 2024 were resolved in favor of the uploader. This typically happens because claimants voluntarily released their claim or did not respond in time.

A “$12 Billion” Money Machine

While Content ID can be a major source of frustration for YouTubers, it has become a goldmine for rightsholders. Instead of removing infringing videos, most rightsholders prefer to monetize them through YouTube instead.

Rightsholders chose to monetize over 90% of all Content ID claims in 2024. As a result, the advertising revenue from these videos is shared with the claiming parties instead of the uploaders.

This monetization strategy has proven to generate substantial revenues for claimants. Since inception, YouTube has paid out $12 billion in revenue for copyright claims originating from the Content ID system.

Access Restricted

The numbers reported above only apply to the Content ID system. While it’s responsible for nearly all copyright actions on YouTube, those who are not part of the system must use other options, such as the webform or the Copyright Match Tool.

Many other rightsholders would like access to Content ID, but YouTube intentionally limits participation to a few thousand vetted users.

One of the reasons YouTube limits use of Content ID to a relatively small group, is the potential for damage. An inaccurate or abusive reference file can result in thousands of false claims.

“In Content ID the impact is multiplied due to its automated nature; one bad reference file can impact hundreds or even thousands of videos across the site,” YouTube writes.

“In one highly publicized instance, a news channel uploaded public domain footage from NASA of a Mars rover and ended up making inappropriate claims against all other news channels and creators using the same footage, even against the NASA channel itself.”

This doesn’t mean that Content ID is perfect, of course. While there have been plenty of mistakes and even outright criminal abuse in the past, YouTube hopes that with the current setup, it has found a balance most rightsholders and content creators can live with. Whether that’s indeed the case, depends on who you ask.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google, third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply.

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

Reaction to blocking notice

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

PM sent to Laidbackmanor users

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

COLLECTiVE’s Nickel Boys release

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award, shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

Senator Coons

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says.

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade, which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish (original here), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022. Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board, instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, R Street, and Engine, filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

Claims filed

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

How claims are resolved

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf). Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed