TorrentFreak

In 2015, Portugal’s General Inspectorate of Cultural Activities (IGAC) finalized an agreement hailed as a groundbreaking development in the fight against online piracy.

A multi-industry memorandum of understanding saw rightsholders, anti-piracy group MAPINET, ISP group Apritel, and DNS.pt, the organization responsible for .PT domains, team up with advertising companies and consumer groups to fight piracy – together.

Based on reports from rightsholders, MAPINET filed monthly complaints to IGAC and within 15 days, ISPs voluntarily blocked pirate sites and advertisers took measures to prevent ad placement.

The Pirate Bay had been previously blocked by court order, but with judicial oversight no longer a requirement under the voluntary program, progress was swift. Within weeks major torrent sites including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt, YTS and RARBG, were blocked, along with streaming portals Watchseries, Primewire, and many more besides.

Portugal was on a roll and impressing powerful rightsholders with its reported efficiency.

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

In 2016, it was reported that the Portuguese model was considered so effective that Hollywood had begun promoting it to other countries, including Spain and France. After just six months, 330 sites were on the blocklist and according to rightsholders, Portugal’s program was receiving international recognition for its streamlined blocking process.

Noting a “special efficiency” based on results versus costs of litigation, visits to pirate sites had been reportedly slashed by “at least 60%” already. In 2017, a study commissioned by the then-MPAA reported that usage of the top 250 pirate sites in Portugal had decreased 9.3 percent overall, while a control group showed that the same sites enjoyed a 30.8 percent increase in usage globally.

In 2019, the MoU was amended to allow for swift blocking of pirated streams of live sporting events, meaning that Portugal had access to the full range of blocking instruments; static, dynamic, and live. New law that came into force in 2022 added regulatory authority (IGAC) to the existing voluntary program and formalized obligations for intermediaries to address removal of infringing content.

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

Our most recent view of blocking activity in Portugal dates back to last November. Since official information isn’t made available to the public, reliance is placed on third-party resources’ best estimates.

The table of around 3,000 domains blocked since 2015 at the end of this article is likely incomplete. However, in light of Apritel’s statement concerning what it claims is a disastrous piracy situation in the country, the details are important when trying to process the bigger picture.

Apritel begins by reporting on data previously published by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 288,000 households in Portugal access paid piracy services (including pirate IPTV) every month, and around one million citizens have at some point consumed pirated content.

“Sports content leads the way in inappropriate consumption: 48% in the EU and 54% in Portugal,” Apritel explains, referencing the percentage of the population that have consumed pirated live sports streams at least once.

The telecoms group continues with additional information sourced from EU reports and covers the now-common talking points about the nature of pirate sites; the security risks faced by the people who use them, for example. Yet the thing that stands out most is actually notable for its puzzling absence.

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

Depending on the occasion, site-blocking is sometimes described as “just one of the tools in a broader anti-piracy toolbox” or more often one of the most essential tools available to rightsholders, period.

Portugal is as decorated as they come in respect of site blocking; if there was an Oscar for DNS tampering, Portugal would’ve received one a decade ago. Yet when describing the dire piracy situation in the country, Apritel doesn’t mention site blocking directly at all. The closest it gets is with a comment about VPNs noting that it’s “essential that no one gets left out.”

Instead, Apritel calls for urgent reform of the “Portuguese legislative framework and current practices by the competent authorities,” based on four fundamental points.

• Raising awareness among users of the illegality and risks of piracy; • Systematically identifying/penalizing illegal exploitation of content via streaming/IPTV; • Notifying and warning consumers as a first deterrent measure; • Applying simple and swift financial sanctions to repeat offenders.

Since site-blocking measures aren’t directly addressed, to what extent they had an effect is difficult to say. That being said, it seems safe to assume that regardless of performance, a blocking program once described as the model for others to follow, simply wasn’t effective enough to prevent a new piracy crisis. If indeed the last one ever went away.

Punishing Pirates

What Portugal should do now, Apritel says, is put pirate consumers under pressure; warnings to begin, then sanctions for consumers who repeatedly don’t get the message.

“Several European countries — Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark and Italy — have already implemented effective ‘Cease & Desist’ systems, with different models, which consist of formal warnings to consumers, supervised by competent authorities,” Apritel explains.

“In Portugal, this function would be the responsibility of the Inspectorate-General for Cultural Activities (IGAC), never that of electronic communications operators, as is wrongly believed. The data shows that illegal consumption per capita is significantly lower in countries that have adopted these tools. Why is this not being done here as well?”

The above caveat ‘with different models’ is worth a brief explanation. France has operated a system of warnings and sanctions for the past 15 years. Greece passed new law only recently but seems keen to start fining IPTV pirates as quickly as possible.

Italy passed new law in 2023 which supports small fines for an initial offense, increasing to 5,000 euros maximum for repeat offenders. At the time of writing, there are no reports of fines having been issued but pirate IPTV users are likely to be the first targets. Fines of around 70 euros are expected.

To our knowledge, Germany and Denmark have no comparable warning/fine systems in place for tackling piracy; what both have in common (Germany in particular) are histories of aggressive rightsholders using existing copyright law to squeeze cash settlements from the public.

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

Apparently timed to coincide with the blocking of major pirate sites, in October 2015 and after a long wait, Netflix finally launched in Portugal. Estimates in 2023 suggested that around 4.5 million people in Portugal were consuming legal content from legitimate services, with Netflix easily the most popular.

The Streaming Platform Barometer – BStream – is a regular study to monitor the awareness and consumption of on-demand streaming services in Portugal. The most recent edition reported early February 2025 found that 52% of Portuguese people (15+ years old) are now consuming content via streaming platforms, the highest figure since the study began.

While this year’s figure shows a 10% increase over that reported in 2021, it represents growth over last year of just one percentage point; the market is slowing down.

Prices Travel in One Direction

When Netflix launched in Portugal in 2015, a basic single screen subscription cost €7.99 per month; two screen HD cost €9.99, and a premium plan of four screens in Ultra HD cost €11.99. That’s a lot more than the zero paid out when visiting pirate sites, so considering the millions who subsequently went legal, that’s not bad at all.

Due to the imposition of advertising and other shifts in service, direct comparisons today are less straightforward. However, the base subscription now costs €8.99, the ‘standard’ plan costs €12.99, and the ‘Premium’ plan costs €17.99, up from €15.99 at the last increase. Netflix also charges €4.99 for any additional viewers who aren’t under the same roof; when added together, the pressure appears to be on those who lightened the load by sharing the costs.

Consumers obtaining dramatic cost reductions via alternative means is apparently a concern once again. Depending on who receives the money, fines seem unlikely to increase consumers’ disposable income, or make them more receptive to industry outreach.

More blocking?

Consisting of blocking data compiled and publicly made available by sitesbloqueados.pt (offline at the time of writing), the ~3,000 domains in the table below should be considered an incomplete set. The list may also contain a relatively small number of domains blocked for reasons other than piracy. We have already removed around 300 domains blocked for gambling reasons, but we may not have identified them all.

No domains blocked in the last six months are included, and we understand that relatively few domains were added between November 2023 and November 2024

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Spotify has certainly come a long way since it allowed us to hand out free invite codes to its beta launch 16 years ago.

With over 600 million monthly active users, across over 180 markets, it is now the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

“If Pirate Bay had not existed or made such a mess in the market, I don’t think Spotify would have seen the light of day. You wouldn’t get the licenses you wanted,” former Sony BMG CEO Per Sundin said a few years ago.

Pirates are Adversaries Now

Today, Spotify is the largest Swedish company according to some metrics, with a market cap of more than $120 billion. The days when it flirted with pirates are long gone and the company is actively shutting down sites and services that bypass its technical restrictions.

The music service doesn’t go after general pirate sites, but focuses on services and tools that target its own product. This includes sellers of premium codes, as well as tools that allow Spotify users to download tracks into their own devices.

These are not typical pirates, as they rely on Spotify’s legal service to function. However, the streaming service clearly isn’t happy with these creative uses of its platform, and regularly sends legal takedown notices in response.

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

This week, Spotify targeted a Chrome extension that allowed users to download decrypted tracks in high-quality audio formats, including the associated metadata. Fittingly named “SpotifyDL“, it has been available though GitHub for a few months.

The extension bypassed Spotify’s “PlayPlay” DRM to tackle Spotify’s encryption. It seemed to work as intended, allowing users to download tracks, playlists, or albums with relative ease.

SpotifyDL

Spotify wasn’t happy with this and the company previously requested GitHub to remove the “un-playplay” code that was used to bypass its decryption. However, the SpotifyDL extension remained functional, until it too was targeted.

The takedown notice doesn’t go into much detail; it simply mentions that the entire repository is infringing and should therefore be removed.

The takedown notice

The repository wasn’t removed in its entirety. Before taking action, GitHub allowed developer “cycyrild” to make changes so it would no longer be deemed a problem. In response, cycyrild removed the PlayPlay source code, effectively rendering the extension useless.

“Following a DMCA Takedown Notice from Spotify, I have been forced to remove the source code for the PlayPlay CDM,” the developer writes.

SpotifyDL No Longer Works

While it is understandable that Spotify wants to protect its rights, and those of its main partners, the company’s shift in focus when it comes to ‘pirates’ is noteworthy.

Similar to Netflix and other streaming services that promised to convert pirates into paying customers, for Spotify, there’s an increasing focus on the challenge ‘pirates’ present, rather than the opportunity.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor, which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

CDRM-Project repo before suspension

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

CDRM-Project repo is no more

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

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 ISPs fail 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, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf). The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf).

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database, the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi.

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

14 Days to Police The Internet

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character.

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down. The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

The internet has made video entertainment more accessible than ever before. With plenty of legal streaming services releasing new content every week, there’s no shortage of options.

While this is good news, choice brings its own difficulties. Because there are a myriad of legal options available today, paying several monthly subscription fees can become a costly endeavor. As a result, pirate streaming sites and services are thriving.

Hollywood and other copyright holders are trying to tackle this problem through enforcement. This has resulted in both large crackdowns and smaller successes, but new threats are always lurking around the corner. Sometimes they pop up in unexpected places.

A Piracy Optimized Browser?

Browser app Seekee has attracted quite a lot of attention recently, particularly on social media where people have noticed that the app is surprisingly good at accessing pirated content.

The app advertises itself as a fast and safe browser with built-in AI capabilities. While that sounds intriguing, the true appeal appears to lie in its entertainment offering, which is accessible via a single click on the “movies and series” and “animes” tabs.

Seekee

These tabs take users to an overview of trending content, which can be watched instantly. There’s no indication that Seekee hosts any of the content it links to, but videos from third-party pirated sources are conveniently organized.

In fact, trying to find links to legal alternatives is quite a challenge. When we searched for “The Last of Us”, we had to scroll down past a list of pirate sources, before the Wikipedia and IMDb entries finally appeared.

For good measure, users can also watch the offerings listed by streaming platform, including Netflix, Prime Video, and Max, but links to these official services are not presented anywhere near the top of results.

Hot Streaming

The videos we checked were being streamed from the unknown h5.swplayer.com domain and similar variants. In addition to subtitles and original audio, many videos are also available with Portuguese and Spanish audio. This may explain why the app is particularly popular in Latin America, both on social media and in the press.

Google Play & iOS App Store

When we started writing this article, the Seekee app had five million downloads in the Google Play store, most of which were added this month. However, it appears that this exposure turned out to be too much. The app was deleted without explanation, possibly following rightsholder complaints. APK versions are still floating around, however.

Five Million Users… Gone

In the iOS store, Seekee remains available for now, listed as a fast and safe browser with intelligent search, AI creation, and multimedia processing. That includes the aforementioned streaming options.

“Easily search for movies and TV resources across the entire network and get accurate and reliable results. With a massive library updated daily, you can seamlessly access entertainment anytime, anywhere,” the iOS listing reads.

Seekee in the App Store

The app is published by the Chinese company Xiji Information Technology Co., Ltd, which also has a web presence with a privacy policy and user agreement. We reached out to the company requesting additional information on its unique offering, but we didn’t hear back.

At What Cost?

Aside from copyright concerns, using new apps from unknown developers always comes with risks. In this case, the privacy policy mentions that users have to give up a lot of information, including the following selection of data;

Advertising IDs, cookies, identifiers, IP addresses, social media IDs and profile pictures, IMEI/OAID, GAID numbers, IMSI numbers, MAC addresses, serial numbers, system versions and types, ROM versions, Android versions, Android ID, Space ID, SIM card operator and region, screen display information, device model name, activation time, network operator, connection type, hardware details, sales channels, CPU data, storage info, battery usage, screen resolution, temperature, camera model, and wake/unlock frequency.

Again, that’s just a selection, there is more.

While this is a lot of data, quite a few apps list such broad data collection practices in their privacy policies, so it’s not completely out of the ordinary. Then again, it may very well explain why the app is free; the user and their data are the product.

It is hardly groundbreaking for apps like these to attract millions of users, with help from social media. However, the people who fall for the hype should be aware of the potential risks and trade-offs, especially if they are not bombarded by ads.

At the end of the day, someone is making money from the app. In this case, it’s not the people who make the films, series and anime, but some unknown people in a land far, far away.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

First released in 2004 as part of the broader “Piracy: It’s a Crime” campaign, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA quickly became iconic.

Its dramatic equation of online piracy with stealing handbags, televisions, and cars, also made it a fertile breeding ground for memes, satire, and ridicule.

While the main commercial is well-remembered, a lesser-known ‘street sales‘ equivalent has largely been forgotten. Even the official piracyitsacrime.com campaign website eventually vanished, only for the domain name to be later acquired and cleverly redirected to the famous IT Crowd parody mocking the original ad.

Piracy. It’s a Crime

Two decades on, the “You Wouldn’t Steal” video remains ingrained in internet culture. Yet, new details about the campaign continue to surface, including the ironic possibility that it used a ‘stolen’ font.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Font

In the past, reports have repeatedly claimed that the music used for the PSA was pirated. These claims were inaccurate, so when we saw repeated mentions suggesting that the font used for the “You Wouldn’t Steal” commercial was a clone of a commercial font, we were skeptical at first.

This time, however, the evidence seems compelling.

The “Piracy It’s a Crime” site and the “You Wouldn’t” steal commercials always appeared to use the FF Confidential font, which was created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. However, materials posted on the campaign website use an identical but differently named font called “XBAND Rough”.

XBAND Rough is a freely available font created by Catapult Entertainment in 1996, but it’s not difficult to see that this is a direct clone of Van Rossum’s font, which requires a license to use.

Pinpointing the font from the videos alone is difficult. However, Melissa Lewis recently suggested on Bluesky that the clone was used. This finding was later supported by another user, “Rib,” who discovered XBAND Rough embedded in a 2005 PDF file hosted on the official campaign website.

TorrentFreak was able to confirm independently that the campaign material uses the embedded XBAND Rough font, and the same applies to another campaign flyer created in 2005.

XBAND Rough

Technically, it’s still possible that the commercials used a licensed version of FF Confidential, so we refrain from drawing any strong conclusions. However, the irony that a free knockoff of a commercial font was used for an anti-piracy campaign doesn’t escape us.

Font Creator: It’s Hilarious

So, what does FF Confidential’s creator, Just Van Rossum, think of this discovery?

Van Rossum informs us that he can’t say whether his font was licensed for the commercial, or if the cloned version was used instead. However, the evidence suggests that the “Piracy It’s a Crime” campaign itself did use the free font, a fact he finds hilarious.

“I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious,” Van Rossum informs us.

The font’s creator has no intention of following this up, as he’s no longer the font’s official distributor. The licensing is currently handled by Monotype and before 2014, FontShop International had the exclusive rights.

More than two decades after its launch, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign continues to spark conversation. The revelation that its own materials likely contained a cloned version of a licensed font automatically leads us to a simple closing question: You wouldn’t steal a font, right?

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Back in 2019, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, alongside the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Hollywood’s MPA, had reason to celebrate following a successful enforcement operation.

Their target was a CDN (Content Delivery Network) known as Moonwalk, which offered vast quantities of movies and TV shows for pirate site operators to embed in their own sites.

Services like these aren’t necessarily the cheapest option, but if time is money, having a one-stop-shop video supplier take care of pretty much everything, ads included, could certainly lighten the load for those short on time.

Moonwalk allegedly supplied content to 80% of known Russian streaming portals before it was shut down. A knock-on effect quickly claimed the scalps of other big players including HDGO and Kodik, at least for a while.

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

Most visitors to popular pirate streaming sites will have watched embedded movies or TV shows that are hosted somewhere else entirely. This can be obvious when the viewer is presented with a choice of hosts, but that’s not always the case. Most streaming sites simply act as shop windows, which certainly helps with mobility when it’s time to rebrand while circumventing another round of blocking.

A new report from Russian cybersecurity firm F6 (previously Group-IB) provides an overview of the local pirate CDN market and presents some interesting findings.

One Player Dominates the Market

F6 analysts say they investigated 1,400 pirate sites to determine which CDNs are most popular in Russia. At the top of the list by some distance is the Alloha network. F6 estimates that 61% of local illegal streaming sites rely on Alloha for video content.

In our tests Alloha wasn’t readily findable in Google’s search results, despite being absent from the company’s takedown transparency report. Only when queries contained the platform’s full URL did it surface as expected; searches using Yandex, meanwhile, were much more straightforward.

Access to Alloha is granted on application, and subject to various terms and conditions.

The service states that applicants must operate their own site and must’ve had a minimum of 300 visitors per day during the previous week.

That appears to rule out brand-new sites seeking content to grow from an absolute standing start, but finding 300 visitors shouldn’t be too difficult.

Operating from an Indian domain, the Rewall service takes second place in the F6 list with 42%. In third place is Lumex with 11%, followed by the resurrected Kodik (9%), and HDVB with a modest 7% share. Since the total is over 100%, some pirates seem to be edging their bets with two or three suppliers, just in case.

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

The authors of the report claim that these services usually offer massive libraries of pirated content. One unnamed service reportedly has more than 550,000 items of video listed in its database.

Overall, F6 notes that these services allow pirates to more effectively grow their sites. Advertising delivered along with video streams through the embedded player reportedly accounts for 36% of all advertising on pirate streaming sites.

Alloha player implemented on two different sites

That leaves the claim that around 1,400 streaming sites rely on these types of services for content. That sounds entirely plausible.

Finding sites behind Cloudflare can be a challenge, but at least one of these platforms prefers not to use it, which helped us to quickly identify around 600 domains linked to the service. How many are unique is another question, but the end result probably wouldn’t undermine the headline figure.

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

Finally, it seems somewhat ironic that the West describes piracy in Russia as a very serious problem, yet in Russia, criticism in this case appears to run in the opposite direction. The mobility of indexing sites means that blocking in Russia descends into a game of cat and mouse, but the CDNs themselves are also considered problematic.

Instead of the CDNs being hosted in Russia, F6 notes that overseas hosting is preferred. The Netherlands, United States, Ukraine, Germany, and France are highlighted as the locations of choice, all of them more difficult for Russian authorities to block than servers hosted on home soil.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

For those not directly involved, assessing the effectiveness of an anti-piracy campaign meets significant challenges.

The results of campaigns are often measured by those behind them, in some cases after receiving significant financial assistance from friendly governments. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, subsequent reports suggesting that everyone wasted their money are impossible to find.

Reports of successful campaigns are less scarce but since supporting evidence now amounts to commercially-sensitive corporate information, details showing why the investment paid off tend to be restricted.

Estimating the results of an anti-piracy campaign that strives to increase awareness is much more straightforward. Publicly unencumbered by requirements to decrease piracy while increasing sales, success amounts to more people being aware of the issues than before the campaign launched.

Piracy Awareness At Record Highs in the UK

The UK’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign has been running since September/October 2023. At launch the campaign was publicly supported by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office, CrimeStoppers, British Association for Screen Entertainment, Sky, the Premier League, the Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness, and broadcaster ITV.

During the months that followed, additional companies and organizations were revealed as backers, including DAZN, BBC, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit, streaming platforms GAAGO and Clubber, U.S. giant Universal, and the most recent addition, the world-famous Formula 1.

As things stand that’s already an impressive set of backers but also somewhat understated.

Through their memberships of FACT and BASE, several major entertainment companies can be added to the list.

They include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, Studio Canal, Virgin Media, TNT, Lionsgate, Mattel, and Crunchyroll, to name a few. The overwhelming majority haven’t been publicly associated with the campaign in any way, with FACT shouldering most of the overt press appearances. Commentary provided is regularly attributed to FACT, but not explicitly stated as provided on behalf of the campaign.

If piracy awareness was the goal, mission accomplished. Awareness of pirate set-top boxes and the possibility of obtaining all media for free is at an all-time high in the UK. Much of the credit for that goes to the tabloid media for their sustained wall-to-wall piracy coverage over the past 18 months.

Divide and Conquer – GENTLY

Unlike many traditional anti-piracy campaigns that demonized suppliers and consumers of pirated content, BeStreamWise launched with emphasis on the risks associated with illegal content consumption, such as malware, credit card fraud, and identity theft.

By not immediately going to war with those consuming pirated content, the scale of any pushback was naturally limited, and the nightmare scenario of the campaign itself providing the fuel for opposition was effectively eliminated. That theoretically provided BeStreamWise with space to undermine loyalty to pirate suppliers and gently ease consumers back onside against a common adversary.

Perceptions of how things played out will obviously vary. However, of the 27 or so news updates subsequently published on the BeStreamWise portal, just three or four addressed the main theme of the campaign (consumer risk). The overwhelming majority reported on “crackdowns” on illegal IPTV services, raids, arrests, people being fined, imprisoned, and otherwise being held accountable for piracy activities.

This tends to suggest that warning messages are still perceived as important, if the confrontation they generate can be effectively managed.

Be Polite, Always Credit the Source

The BeStreamWise campaign’s official work with the media, and the motivation behind hundreds of articles published by the UK tabloids containing exactly the same talking points and overall narrative, show few clear dividing lines. Comments from Sky and the Intellectual Property Office, for example, are notable for their clear attribution, albeit in relatively few articles.

The individual companies and government departments behind BeStreamWise are known to communicate with the press, but attribution is consistently limited. Commentary from the campaign itself has in many cases gone uncredited in much the same way.

Despite being involved in a major national campaign, the Intellectual Property Office website lacks any public mention of BeStreamWise, while a trawl of its expenditure records reveals no direct references to financial assistance or details of resource allocation. The apparent disconnect seems unusual but considering the sensational and often misleading information churned out in local media, maintaining distance may avoid most of the embarrassing questions.

Warnings Published Regularly in the Media

Persistent media claims that users of pirate set-top boxes face up to a decade of imprisonment, are stated as fact but without attribution. Other distortions implying that police are somewhat routinely knocking on doors in search of people watching illegal streams, after tracking users down with vehicle-based ‘illegal streaming detection technology‘, receive exactly the same treatment.

These are just two examples of the type of commentary that has run alongside the campaign, in articles that mention the campaign and others that don’t. These claims are never directly linked to the campaign and that may be for good reason, i.e the campaign was not the source. Unfortunately, citing sources is extremely rare; corrections rarer still.

Statements similar to the above often appear in articles that unhelpfully conflate, or fail to differentiate between, action against suppliers and sellers of pirate streams, and the alleged threat of action against consumers of pirated content. We’ve highlighted this problem several times before, including directly, but to no avail.

Interestingly, confirmation that users are unlikely to face arrest arrived just a few days ago, in an article mentioning the BeStreamWise campaign where the source was actually cited.

Individuals Largely Use ‘Illegal Fire Sticks’ “Without Any Risk of Arrest”

Published in the Financial Times behind a paywall, the article’s headline speaks volumes. “Number of UK consumers streaming sports illegally has gone ‘through the roof’, police say” is the last thing rightsholders want to hear, but nonetheless typical of recent dreary assessments concerning the fight against piracy.

The article centers on an interview with Detective Chief Inspector Emma Warbey, the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at City of London Police. For the sake of clarity, the introduction and one additional paragraph are reproduced verbatim below.

The number of people who stream sports or other channels illegally in the UK has gone “through the roof” — straining already-stretched police forces in their efforts to prosecute consumers who flout the law, the head of Britain’s intellectual property crime unit has said.

Emma Warbey, detective chief inspector and head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at the City of London Police, admitted individuals were largely able to use “broken” illegal fire sticks without risk of arrest by her team as officers targeted organized crime groups and resellers at the head of such schemes. ————– Warbey said it would be wrong to conclude that using illegal streams to watch sports and other paid TV content was a risk-free way of watching media, pointing to fraud and funding for organized crime gangs. She said her team had focused efforts on tackling “resellers and the people at the top of the tree” given that “it’s really hard to stop people doing it”.

She added: “We always follow the money and go for the bigger organized crime groups and the bigger organized crime networks.”

The suggestion by the FT that consumers may have been at least considered for potential arrest is not especially surprising, but still falls way short of the scenarios suggested in the media.

The reality that police don’t have the necessary resources to pursue individual consumers is not surprising at all, but it would’ve been very effective at fueling the type of opposition BeStreamWise has largely avoided.

What happens should the more gentle approach be considered ineffective, is the same unanswered question repeated several times annually for the last 25 years.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Tackling online piracy is a complicated endeavor that often begins with efforts to identify the operators of infringing sites and services. This is also where the first hurdles show up.

Many pirates keep their identities concealed. This applies to the operators of sites and services as well as their users.

This relative anonymity is a nuisance to anti-piracy groups, including the RIAA and MPA. While most online services refuse to voluntarily hand over user details, legal tools can help rightsholders move forward.

In recent years, DMCA subpoenas have established themselves as a key anti-piracy enforcement tool. These requests don’t require any oversight from a judge and are typically signed off by a court clerk. This makes them ideal to swiftly identify online pirates.

DMCA Subpoenas at Risk

Both the RIAA and MPA have used these subpoenas to identify owners of pirate sites and individual infringers. The groups would like DMCA subpoenas, as detailed in DMCA §512(h), to remain in their toolbox but there are concerns that a recent court order could hinder their effectiveness.

The case in point doesn’t involve the RIAA or MPA. It’s a dispute between several independent film companies and Internet provider Cox. The latter successfully objected to a DMCA subpoena which sought to obtain the personal details of numerous alleged BitTorrent pirates.

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to residential Internet providers. Cox argued against, describing itself as a mere conduit provider benefiting from the DMCA’s §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, because the ISP doesn’t store content.

For background, a brief summary of the four types of ISPs under 17 U.S.C. § 512.

– §512(a): transitory digital network communications; services that merely pass on bits and bytes – §512(b): system caching; services that temporarily store (cache) data – §512(c): storage of information on systems; services that host data – §512(d): information location tools; services that connect users to online locations (e.g. social media, search engines)

Last year, the court agreed with Cox’s reasoning and quashed the subpoena. The order concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.

The film companies, including Capstone Studios and Millennium Funding, didn’t give up. After the motion for reconsideration failed, they filed an appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, the appeal argued that Cox also falls under DMCA §512(d), as it can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

In addition, the rightsholders also argue that DMCA subpoenas apply to § 512(a) service providers. Therefore, they say, a DMCA subpoena should be valid for Cox.

MPA and RIAA Want to be Heard

The language of the DMCA can be complex at times and open to interpretation. The film companies hope that they can force a breakthrough via the court of appeals, but an adverse ruling that further restricts the scope of DMCA subpoenas is possible too.

The risk of an adverse ruling clearly has the MPA and RIAA worried. They often use these subpoenas to request information from third-party services such as Cloudflare, social media companies, and domain registrars.

The trade groups previously shared their thoughts in an amicus brief. They didn’t take sides in the dispute, but pointed out that the lower court’s ruling was too broad. Specifically, they questioned the part suggesting that IP addresses may never function as links, within the context of the section 512(d) safe harbor.

MPA and RIAA instead argued that section 512(d) services, which could cover reverse proxy providers such as Cloudflare, can link to pirate websites through IP-addresses.

If the district court’s order stands, the validity of MPA and RIAA DMCA subpoenas may be in question. For this reason, the group urged the court to limit its findings to the evidence at hand, without the contested and presumably unneeded IP-address interpretation.

To further reiterate this position, MPA and RIAA asked for speaking time at a hearing scheduled for June. They request 10 minutes of the court’s time, while keeping the available time for the other parties at 15 minutes each.

“MPA and RIAA invest substantial resources to combat online piracy, including through the use of section 512(h) subpoenas. Because infringers hide under aliases and behind proxies, section 512(h) subpoenas are a key tool to combat online infringement and protect the legitimate creative industries,” the groups inform the court.

“Amici intend to use their time to advocate for reversal or a narrow ruling, preventing unintended consequences for subpoenas and issues not before this Court that could have unintended consequences on the carefully-crafted compromise reflected in the DMCA.”

MPA and RIAA brief

The court has yet to rule on this request. While the movie companies don’t object, Cox doesn’t want to extend the hearing by ten minutes, but wants the MPA and RIAA to use the film companies’ time instead.

‘Trolls’

Where the MPA and RIAA call for a more narrow and restricted ruling, an additional third-party has submitted an amicus brief that extends far beyond the legal intricacies of the DMCA’s section 512.

That submission comes from Charles Muszynski, who has been embroiled with movie companies and their attorneys for several years. Their dispute started when the movie companies targeted LiquidVPN, which had been purchased by one of Muszynski’s companies.

That particular legal battle is over, but follow-up litigation in international courts continues to this day. According to Muszynski, the movie companies are of a “copyright troll” group that operates a “criminal racketeering and money laundering sham” that he likens to the criminal Prenda Law operation.

These allegations are not immediately relevant for the DMCA subpoena argument. But, for the matter at hand, Muszynski’s amicus brief concurs and adopts the arguments that were previously made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in this case.

‘Trolling Sham’

EFF also used the “troll” terminology, albeit in a different context and without directly referring to the movie companies. EFF urged the court not to allow copyright holders to issue §512(h) subpoenas to ISPs who simply transmit data, as this could trigger more coercive settlement requests against internet subscribers.

The amicus curiae briefs from both EFF and Muszynski are still listed as pending, so it’s still unknown whether they will be considered by the Court of Appeals. That said, with many eyes on this case, it’s clear that there’s a lot at stake in the upcoming hearing, and in the ruling that will eventually follow.

—

A copy of the MPA and RIAA’s request to participate in the oral hearing is available here (pdf). Muszynski’s amicus curiae brief is available here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Since early February, Spain has faced unprecedented yet avoidable nationwide disruption to previously functioning, entirely legitimate online services.

A court order obtained by top-tier football league LaLiga in partnership with telecommunications giant Telefonica, authorized ISP-level blocking across all major ISPs to prevent public access to pirate IPTV services and websites.

In the first instance, controversy centered on Cloudflare, where shared IP addresses were blocked by local ISPs when pirates were detected using them, regardless of the legitimate Cloudflare customers using them too.

When legal action by Cloudflare failed, in part due to a judge’s insistence that no evidence of damage to third parties had been proven before the court, joint applicants LaLiga and Telefonica continued with their blocking campaign. It began affecting innocent third parties early February and hasn’t stopped since.

Vercel Latest Target

US-based Vercel describes itself as a “complete platform for the web.” Through the provision of cloud infrastructure and developer tools, users can deploy code from their computers and have it up and running in just seconds. Vercel is not a ‘rogue’ hosting provider that ignores copyright complaints, it takes its responsibilities very seriously.

Yet it became evident last week that blocking instructions executed by Telefonica-owned telecoms company Movistar were once again blocking innocent users, this time customers of Vercel.

Movistar informed of yet more adverse blocking

As the thread on X continued, Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch was asked whether Vercel had “received any requests to remove illegal content before the blocking occurs?”

Vercel Principal Engineer Matheus Fernandes answered quickly.

No takedown requests, just blocks

Additional users were soon airing their grievances; ChatGPT blocked regularly on Sundays, a whole day “ruined” due to unwarranted blocking of AI code editor Cursor, blocking at Cloudflare, GitHub, BunnyCDN, the list goes on.

Vercel Slams “Unaccountable Internet Censorship”

In a joint statement last week, Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch and Principal Engineer Matheus Fernandes cited the LaLiga/Telefonica court order and reported that ISPs are “blocking entire IP ranges, not specific domains or content.”

Among them, the IP addresses 66.33.60.129 and 76.76.21.142, “used by businesses like Spanish startup Tinybird, Hello Magazine, and others operating on Vercel, despite no affiliations with piracy in any form.”

This isn’t a narrowly scoped takedown. LaLiga is a private organization triggering IP-wide blocks that impact critical infrastructure, developers, and businesses—without review, due process, or transparency. These blocks are primarily enforced during LaLiga matchdays, typically on weekends and select weekdays, when live broadcasts occur.

ISP-level blocking of individual sites is common. Typically, this is done by inspecting the Server Name Indication (SNI) header during the TLS handshake. SNI contains the hostname in plaintext before encryption, allowing ISPs to block specific domains while leaving other traffic on the same IP untouched, even while the actual traffic is encrypted.

But that’s not what’s happening here. Spanish ISPs are blocking entire IPs, ignoring SNI and making no effort to distinguish between hosts. Any website or service behind a blocked IP is taken offline, regardless of its legitimacy.

What started as an anti-piracy measure has become an unaccountable form of internet censorship. There’s no distinction between targeted enforcement and mass collateral damage. IPs are being blocklisted wholesale.

Like all platforms working with user-uploaded content, Vercel receives external complaints concerning potential copyright infringement. Vercel’s latest transparency report reveals that during the latest reporting period it received 1,015 DMCA notices and restricted content in response to 1,001 of them. For additional perspective, Vercel has six million users and has a dedicated dispute resolution program, should that be necessary in respect of any complaint.

Vercel Now in Contact With LaLiga

The details concerning this latest blocking disaster and the many others since February, are unavailable to the public. This lack of transparency is consistent with most if not all dynamic blocking programs around the world. With close to zero transparency, there is no accountability when blocking takes a turn for the worse, and no obvious process through which innocent parties can be fairly heard. While these negatives are a real concern, it appears that tech-savvy Spaniards are embracing the challenge.

In our previous report we highlighted several coding projects that aim to counter the blocking issues in various ways. The hayahora.futbol project is especially impressive; it gathers evidence of blocking events, including dates, which ISPs implemented blocking, how long the blocks remained in place, and which legitimate services were wrongfully blocked.

Vercel blocked IP addresses, who was responsible, and for how long

While clearly unhappy with how the company has been treated, Vercel says it’s now working with LaLiga.

“We remain committed to providing fast, secure infrastructure for modern web applications. Likewise, we expect enforcement efforts to do the same: targeted, transparent, and technically sound. We are in contact with La Liga and are collaborating to remove illegal content in accordance with the court order. We’re exploring mitigation strategies to restore access for Spanish users and continue to advocate for an open and permissionless web,” Vercel concludes.

The Changing Role of ISPs

ISPs were traditionally the first to push back against site blocking but in Spain, all of those now involved have commercial interests in the content being blocked. They agreed to the terms of the blocking order, and they weren’t subjected to it against their will; that’s why the court approved it.

Yet when LaLiga is portrayed as the driving force behind events playing out in Spain, very little attention is paid to the significant help it needs to make blocking happen. The reasons why that help continues to arrive – despite known and repeated overblocking incidents – may raise questions as part of the wider net neutrality debate.

On one hand, LaLiga, Telefonica, and the interested ISPs, are protecting their rights in live LaLiga match broadcasts against rampant piracy under extremely difficult conditions. Yet on the other, they’re blocking IP addresses that their sophisticated anti-piracy departments know are also used by innocent companies and their customers trying to conduct legitimate business in Spain. There are suggestions that may yet run into trouble.

That leads us to RootedCON, the cybersecurity group that previously attempted to end LaLiga’s blocking campaign with an appeal to the court. Like Cloudflare, the bid failed but motivation to examine other potential opportunities remains high.

Previously dismissed as “geeks” by LaLiga, others consider the term “hackers” more descriptive. It also adds more spice to the recent mention that there may be a release of “technical tools to piss people off” as an interim (but entirely legal) anti-blocking measure.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

For major companies like Nintendo, tackling online piracy isn’t just about punishing individual infringers; it’s about strategic deterrence.

Filing lawsuits against casual gamers who may have made an isolated mistake is not a good look and could potentially backfire. Nintendo understands that and carefully picks its battles.

The case against Jesse Keighin, better known under his gaming handle “EveryGameGuru”, exemplifies this approach. Filed in a Colorado federal court last November, Nintendo’s complaint lists many alleged wrongdoings, including pre-release game streaming using pirated ROMs and distribution of circumvention tools.

Add in the public exposure through streaming platforms such as YouTube, Discord, and Twitch, and it’s not difficult to see why Nintendo singled out this defendant.

Absent and Undeterred Defendant

Facing a lawsuit from a multibillion-dollar company can be a frightening prospect. In this case, however, the defendant seemed undeterred, based on public messages that appeared online.

Instead of trying to avoid a legal disaster, Keighin apparently went on the offensive, with no sign of giving in. Quite the contrary.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets,” Keighin wrote to Nintendo’s legal team at some point, warning that they should have done more research on him before taking action.

The defendant reportedly destroyed evidence and evaded Nintendo’s attempts to serve him personally. Due to these complications, the court eventually allowed service via email and the home addresses of his mother, grandmother, and partner.

When that didn’t yield a response in court either, the game giant requested an entry of default, so it could move the case forward without an official defense.

Nintendo Seeks Default Judgment

In a motion for default judgment, Nintendo explains that the defendant willfully streamed pirated copies of pre-release games to his followers. These streams were tagged as “EARLY RELEASE” or “FIRST LOOK,” but without authorization from Nintendo.

“At least fifty times in the last two years, Defendant streamed gameplay of pirated copies of at least ten different Nintendo games—all before those titles were released,” Nintendo writes.

“By streaming games prior to their publication, Defendant normalizes and encourages prerelease piracy, signaling to viewers that they too should pirate and play the game now, without waiting for its release or paying for it.”

Nintendo’s allegations

In addition to directly infringing the copyrights of games including “Mario & Luigi: Brothership”, the defendant also shared links to the Nintendo Switch emulators Ryujinx, Yuzu, Suyu, and Sudachi on social media. By doing so, Nintendo says he effectively trafficked in circumvention devices.

Nintendo also accuses Keighin of circumventing technical protection measures himself, in violation of the DMCA, as well as using hacked hardware to play pirated games.

“Defendant often used an emulator but also used a hacked Nintendo Switch, demonstrating that he decrypted and accessed without authorization the prerelease games he streamed,” Nintendo writes.

$17,500 and a Broad Injunction

The legal paperwork includes ten titles that the defendant allegedly infringed, willfully. In theory, this can lead to up to $1.5 million in statutory damages for copyright infringement alone, but the game company requests a substantially lower amount.

Here, Nintendo requests damages for only one of the ten games and says that $10,000 is an appropriate award. After ignoring previous warnings for close to two years, this should help deter future wrongdoings.

For circumvention of technological protection measures and trafficking in circumvention technology, the game giant requests damages of $5,000 and $2,500 respectively. This brings the total damages amount to $17,500.

In addition to the monetary damages, Nintendo also seeks a broad permanent injunction against Keighin, which would apply worldwide. If granted, this injunction will prohibit the defendant from any infringing activities going forward, including the use of emulators.

Nintendo’s proposed injunction (not granted yet)

These restrictions apply to existing emulators such as Yuzu or Ryujinx, but also those not yet named. Similarly, the injunction would apply to existing Nintendo games and games that do not yet exist. Meanwhile, all infringing hardware and software need to be destroyed.

The court has yet to grant Nintendo’s motion, but it’s notable that the company has not requested the maximum amount in compensation. Instead, it hopes to send a deterrent message to Keighin and other alleged pirates, to stop pirating and streaming Nintendo games.

Whether this strategy will pay off remains to be seen. Thus far, “EveryGameGuru” hasn’t been very receptive to Nintendo’s outreach. That said, this legal action also puts others on notice that Nintendo doesn’t appreciate pre-release streams or advertising of ‘rogue’ emulators.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s motion for default judgment against Keighin, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado last Friday, is available here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Five years ago, the World Health Organization formally declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic.

Follow-up measures taken by governments and organizations around the world directly affected the lives of billions of people.

Those who were lucky enough to keep their jobs started to work from home, if possible. The same applied to school-going youth, who saw their social lives cut off due to lockdowns and curfews.

The devastating health crisis is over today, but its impact can’t be understated. Aside from lingering health issues, the aftermath also extends to the online piracy niche, where the effects of COVID-19 were already visible in anecdotal piracy figures early on.

In early 2020, we reported that there was increased interest in the movie Contagion, a decade-old classic which depicts a worldwide virus outbreak. Mid-March, the first signs revealed an increased interest in pirate sites and services in severely affected regions.

Soon after the pandemic was official, additional research revealed that torrent traffic spiked in many countries when lockdown measures were put in place.

Academic Paper Documents a Diverse Piracy Pandemic

While we take our own journalistic research seriously, it doesn’t compare to proper academic research. This typically takes years to complete and paints a more detailed and complex picture of COVID-19’s effects on piracy.

A paper titled “Digital piracy in times of Covid‑19” was published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Cultural Economics. Authored by Julia Mazzei and colleagues, it presents the results of an extensive survey conducted in 2022.

The full dataset includes 25,939 respondents, 7,095 of which are minors, from 14 different countries including France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Indonesia, and Brazil. All respondents were asked about their media consumption habits during the pandemic.

Paired with demographic information, including whether respondents experienced income reductions or significant changes to online working or schooling, the responses allowed the researchers to obtain more insight into the link between the pandemic, legal consumption, and piracy.

New Pirates Emerged

The overall conclusion shows that the number of new pirates grew faster than usual during the pandemic, while existing pirates increased their illegal consumption volumes.

“[A]s much as 6–8% of the population started using illegal channels during the pandemic, as opposed to a maximum of 2.5% that would be expected as a result of demographic developments. In addition, many who had used illegal channels before increased their pirating activities,” the researchers note.

The paper identifies two main drivers of this effect: affordability and available time. With more spare time, especially for those who were home-bound, people were eager for entertainment, including content offered through pirate sites and services.

The affordability aspect of piracy applies to everyone, but was particularly important for those who lost income as a result of the pandemic, as they may not have the funds to take out additional subscriptions.

Complex Effects on Legal Consumption

While it’s clear that piracy increased overall, this doesn’t mean that legal consumption decreased across the board. In fact, the opposite effect can be found.

For example, film and TV piracy showed a positive association with legal consumption. One illegally accessed movie or series was linked to an increase of 0.5 in legally consumed items, suggesting a potential sampling or complementary effect overall.

The music industry was less lucky, however, as the researchers found substantial negative displacement. Consuming one music album through illegal channels was associated with a 0.7 reduction in the amount of music accessed legally.

For books, there was no statistically significant link between piracy and legal consumption, measured over the entire population. For games, there was a small negative effect, but this was only marginally significant.

Zooming In Reveals More Detail

To add to the complexity, these displacement effects can differ according to age group. Looking at film and TV piracy, piracy among minors was linked to greater legal consumption, while the effect was reversed for young adults (18-34).

For books, the roles were reversed; piracy was linked to less legal consumption for minors, while young adults showed a positive association.

Interestingly, piracy displacement effects might also cross categories in some rare instances. For minors, film and TV piracy increased legal viewing activity, but it was also correlated with less book consumption. In other words, the increase in film and TV consumption, was linked to less book reading.

All in all, the study indicates that the pandemic clearly resulted in new pirates and more piracy. However, at the same time, it suggests that piracy is not by definition linked to fewer sales, or less legal activity.

The researchers end the paper by noting that people should be cautious in interpreting the findings as causal effects. Nonetheless, they help to shed further light on the complex piracy phenomenon, as it will be interesting to see if the findings will hold up in future studies.

—

A copy of the paper, published under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0) is available here. Mazzei, J., Martinelli, A., Nuvolari, A. et al. Digital piracy in times of Covid-19. J Cult Econ (2025)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

When the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment launched in 2017, the globalization of online piracy had been apparent for some time.

In the relatively calm waters of a decade earlier, the Hollywood majors tackled pirate adversaries all around the world, often while pooling resources under the banner of the MPAA.

Less-connected rightsholders had little choice but to go it alone while shouldering 100% of the costs. For those who meet the ACE entry criteria today, access to a wealth of knowledge and vast experience that money simply can’t buy, comes as part of the package after paying the ACE members’ annual fee.

Today over 50 companies involved in movie and TV production, broadcasting and distribution, and more recently live sports, come together as members of ACE, a collective inseparable from the anti-piracy operations of the MPA.

In day to day business, several member companies are direct rivals in the same markets, many more find themselves among general competition to varying degrees. Yet all have something in common; a persistent piracy problem that in many key markets, only seems to be getting worse.

Fighting Back Globally

The need to eliminate existing priority targets and swiftly suppress emerging priority threats is universally understood. Somewhere in the middle, where the bulk of pirate sites and services exist, sits a vast pool of potential targets ready for triage.

Relatively few are named in a full-blown lawsuit, but it does happen and can prove very costly indeed. Only very rarely does ACE confirm a shutdown in connection with a settlement agreement but again, that definitely happens too. The precise financial implications for site operators is almost never revealed but a six figure demand seen by TF some years ago seems unlikely to have been unique.

Domain Seizures For Q1 2025

Regardless of any financial terms they may or may not contain, a settlement or agreement to cease-and-desist often sees ACE/MPA take control of domain names, to prevent their infringing use moving forward.

The details occasionally appear in ACE announcements but more often than not, domains are silently signed over to the MPA, with future visitors redirected to the ACE portal for a warning on the dangers of piracy. Pick an especially rare domain and the redirect may even lead to the MPA’s site.

Pirates can pick their poison (ACE left, MPA right)

The only mention of domain seizures thus far in 2025 appears in an announcement revealing the closure of Spanish file-hosting site Gamovideo. The pair of domains seized aren’t identified by name but we can confirm they are gamovideo.com and gamovideo.net.

Domains seized during the first quarter of 2025 (plus a few seized earlier this month), appear in the table below. There’s around 80 in total, but a few more may already be in the pipeline.

ACE/MPA – Pirate Domains Seized 2025 (Q1)**

The seized domains reveal a familiar mix of movie and TV show streaming sites, live sports streaming sites, plus a small number of file-hosting and IPTV services. Nothing especially unusual, at least as far as we’re able to determine.

Some of these sites may reappear in the weeks or months ahead under existing or new branding. Others may happily throw in the towel and consider themselves lucky. Much seems to depend on the location of site operators and/or the level to which ACE has managed to strip away their anonymity.

Such matters are never discussed publicly but circumstantial evidence suggesting a lack of respect for agreements among a minority isn’t too difficult to find. Nor is it likely to be forgotten – ever.

MPA Has an Impressive Domain Collection

Finally, if success could be measured based on the volume of domain seizures alone, no other anti-piracy group in the world would come close to the haul amassed by ACE/MPA.

For the sole purpose of demonstrating the scale, the table below contains roughly 500 domains. Not all domains are instantly identifiable, so there’s a chance that a small number of non-pirate domains may have slipped through the net.

If that’s the case, refilling the gaps with pirate replacements won’t be an issue. The API used to obtain this list returned around 1,300 domains in response to a reverse WHOIS query for ‘Motion Picture Association, Inc.‘ of which we discarded around 200 for being general use domains not directly connected to piracy. Another API suggests the availability of considerably more; around 11,000, give or take.

Many domains need to be renewed at the end of year one, so the cost of holding them all long-term is likely to be significant.

Not for the MPA, of course, especially when compared to the billions of untapped business said to flood away each year due to the very thing the members of ACE are determined to reduce.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

With millions of daily users, Reddit is undoubtedly one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

The community-oriented platform has “subreddits” dedicated to pretty much every topic one can think of, including several that are linked to online piracy and related issues.

As the platform continued to grow into the $17 billion company that it is today, rightsholders started to pay attention to these discussions. Eight years ago, Reddit was asked to remove ‘just’ 4,352 pieces of content, but that increased to well over a million a few years later.

Reddit Publishes Transparency Report

This week, Reddit published its latest transparency report which shows that this year-long upward trend has reversed recently. The company now receives fewer and fewer takedown requests.

The takedown surge peaked in 2023 with rightsholders asking the platform to remove more than 1.7 million pieces of content. The latest figures indicate that this number declined by roughly 50% last year to 879,645.

This is a significant drop by itself. However, it’s even more pronounced if we look at the number of requests Reddit took action on. This decreased to 550,554 items last year, compared to 1.2 million removals a year earlier.

The lower actionability rate is mostly driven by the second half of last year, where less than half of all items flagged by rightsholders were removed. This is mostly caused by duplicate reports.

The chart below(*) shows that Reddit also declined to take action in response to tens of thousands of reports because it didn’t find any infringement. Meanwhile, 5,573 reports failed to identify specific content and 1,721 items were suspected to be fraudulently reported.

Fair ‘AI’ Use

Reddit also declined to remove content because it deemed these to be “fair use”. The absolute number for these is very low, 360 items in the final half of last year, but the reasons provided are all the more intriguing.

For example, Reddit declined to take action in response to a notice from a major sports rightsholder because the identified clip wasn’t a full broadcast, but an AI-generated parody.

“The rightsholder for a major televised sporting event submitted a copyright takedown notice seeking the removal of a video from Reddit, and identified their copyrighted work as a full broadcast,” Reddit notes.

“The video posted to Reddit used AI to significantly transform and parody a short clip taken from the original broadcast. We declined to remove this content because we believe it makes fair use of the broadcast.”

The example provided by Reddit is unique and rare, but it indicates that the company pays attention to individual notices, including potential defenses against copyright infringement claims.

Repeat Infringers

Moving on, Reddit reports that in the second half of 2024, it banned 1,813 users for repeat copyright infringements. In addition, 181 subreddits were banned permanently for the same reason.

The number of user bans is significantly higher than the first half of the year, and for the subreddits this effect is reversed.

Looking further back, these copyright-related bans are down significantly from their 2022 peak, similar to the removals. Reddit previously banned 5,853 users in 2022, while 3,215 subreddits were taken offline that year.

It will be interesting to see if these copyright action downtrends continue in the years to come. That is certainly not a given, as is exemplified by Google’s recent copyright takedown resurgence.

—

Note: (*) This breakdown doesn’t appear to include all reported items from noticed that were classified as invalid. We report them as they appeared in the report.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

A trio of DMCA subpoena applications filed in the United States this week aim to extract any information held by three well-known internet companies, on potentially dozens of pirate site operators using their services.

The vast majority of the requests appear in a single DMCA subpoena targeting Cloudflare. Of the 52 main domains in that application, six also appear in another application directed at Tonic Corporation’s .to registry.

While .to domains are preferred by some operators due to the limited information requested by the registry when acquiring them, ACE/MPA file requests similar to the one below several times each year.

Six Domains Face Double Scrutiny

The final subpoena contains a single request for Zenlayer to offer up the personal details of whoever is behind the app MAGIS TV v7.1.2, which appears to serve movies direct from the company’s servers.

Stability vs. Mobility

In the DMCA subpoena above targeting Tonic, 1337x.to is easily recognized as the main domain of one of the most popular torrent sites online today, having been in use for well over a decade. The domain predates the launch of Google’s transparency report a decade ago, but since then has been targeted by at least 6.59 million URL takedown notices sent to Google alone.

For comparison, other domains mentioned in the subpoenas, including netmovies.to (2022) and 1hd.to (2023), have attracted relatively few takedown notices. Further examples, including Binged.to and Freek.to, only raised their heads above the parapet in the last quarter of 2024, and have barely received any at all.

Freek.to

That leaves freeky.to which appears to have attracted just four takedown notices – ever. As the data in the table below shows, traffic growth at some of these sites has been remarkable in the absence of significant pushback.

The data above begins in January but for Freek.to, December 2024 was an even more productive month; over 24 million visits according to SimilarWeb data, with less than 5% of its overall traffic attributed to organic search.

Time to Burn

With ACE/MPA now clearly on the case, future tactics should be interesting to watch. That being said, ACE has seen this same pattern of activity several times before. Sooner or later, the domains above will likely cease to exist, or at least, won’t present the problems they once did after their return to storage.

At that point, all eyes will be on the new rising stars of pirate streaming, having apparently appeared out of thin air but just in time to seamlessly scoop up a massive windfall of traffic.

The Rest of the Rest

Other domains listed in the DMCA subpoena include hydrahd.me, a domain that received 87.1m visits in January, 82.1m in February, and ‘just’ 54.7m in March. The domain hydrahd.cc also ‘lost’ significant traffic, falling from 2.57m in January to less than 1 million in March. Hydrahd.com started the year with 500K visits but by March had just 125K left.

Fortunately, hydrahd.ac performed significantly better; zero visits in January and February led to a healthy 21.3m in March. The reasons for the site returning an intermittent Error 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons) this week are currently unknown.

The rest of the domains can be found with additional data in the table below. How many will choose to self-destruct and/or hand themselves in for seamless recycling will probably become apparent in due course, at least among those with the strength, patience, and spare time to keep up.

Copies of the DMCA subpoena applications are available here (1,2,3,pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for shadow libraries that allows users to find pirated books and other related resources.

In late 2023, the search engine Anna’s Archive expanded its offering by making data from OCLC’s proprietary WorldCat database available online.

Anna’s Archive scraped several terabytes of data over the course of a year and published roughly 700 million unique records online, for free.

These records contain no copyrighted books or articles. However, they can help to create a to-do list of all missing shadow library content on the web, with the ultimate goal of making as much content publicly available as possible.

OCLC Sued Anna’s Archive

This ‘metadata’ heist was a massive breakthrough in the quest to archive as much published content as possible online. However, OCLC responded with a lawsuit filed at an Ohio federal court, accusing the site and its operators of hacking and demanding damages.

The non-profit says that it spent more than a million dollars responding to Anna’s Archive’s alleged hacking efforts. Even then, it couldn’t prevent the data from being released through a torrent.

Following the alleged hacking efforts, OCLC attempted to identify the perpetrators. The investigation led them to Seattle resident Maria Dolores A. Matienzo, the sole named defendant in the case.

The complaint mentioned that Matienzo describes herself as an “archivist” and uses the handle “anarchivist” on social media and Github. The defendant was allegedly employed as a software engineer at an AI startup and previously worked as a catalog librarian at a direct competitor of OCLC.

Maria A. Denies Involvement

Responding to the allegations in court, Matienzo denied any involvement with Anna’s Archive.

“I am not affiliated in any way with Anna’s Archive and had no involvement in the alleged hacking and/or scraping of data from WorldCat.org that was allegedly orchestrated and carried out by Anna’s Archive,” Matienzo wrote.

In a motion to dismiss, Matienzo’s attorney wrote that there is no “shred of evidence” that links the defendant to the search engine, let alone any of the alleged hacking or scraping efforts.

As the case progressed, no other defendants were identified. OCLC moved for a default judgment against the ‘unnamed’ operators, while Matienzo’s motion to dismiss was pending. Last month, however, an Ohio federal judge slammed on the brakes.

In a detailed order, Judge Watson expressed uncertainty about the legality of large-scale data scraping under state law.

Citing this uncertainty, the judge denied OCLC’s request for default judgment against Anna’s Archive and denied Matienzo’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, pending clarification from the Supreme Court of Ohio, to which several core legal questions were referred.

Key Defendant Dropped From Lawsuit

Disappointed by the decision, OCLC asked the court to reconsider its position. It also requested the only named defendant to be dropped from the case, to focus on obtaining a final judgment against Anna’s Archive, which could help to get the associated domain names blocked.

The Ohio federal court initially denied the request over procedural issues, after which OCLC and Matienzo filed a joint motion this week, asking the court to drop the defendant from the case.

“At this juncture of the proceedings, OCLC and Matienzo have reached an agreement that Matienzo be dropped from this action. As a result, OCLC no longer seeks relief from Matienzo in this action,” the joint motion reads.

This request has yet to be approved by the court but with agreement from both sides, that’s likely just a formality. And because the defendant will be dropped ‘with prejudice’, similar claims can’t be refiled against her at a later stage.

From the public filings, it appears that OCLC has no idea who the real operators of Anna’s Archive are. There sure are plenty of archivists named Anna, but ideally, they need something more than association by name.

Instant update: The motion to dismiss Matienzo from the case was granted.

—

A copy of the joint motion to drop defendant Maria Matienzo from the lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, is available here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Without assurances that hosts, domain registries, registrars, DNS providers, and consumer ISPs would not be immediately held liable for internet users’ activities, investing in the growth of the early internet may have proven less attractive.

Of course, not being held immediately liable is a far cry from not being held liable at all. After years of relatively plain sailing, multiple ISPs in the United States are currently embroiled in multi-multi million dollar lawsuits for not policing infringing users. In Europe, countries including Italy and France have introduced legislation to ensure that if online services facilitate or assist piracy in any way, they can be compelled by law to help tackle it.

DNS Under Pressure

Given their critical role online, and the fact that not a single byte of infringing content has ever touched their services, some believed that DNS providers would be among the last services to be put under pressure.

After Sony sued Quad9 and wider discussions opened up soon after, in 2023 Canal+ used French law to target DNS providers. Last year, Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco were ordered to prevent their services from translating domain names into IP addresses used by dozens of sports piracy sites.

While all three companies objected, it’s understood that Cloudflare and Google eventually complied with the order. Cisco’s compliance was also achieved, albeit by its unexpected decision to suspend access to its DNS service for the whole of France and the overseas territories listed in the order.

So Long France, Goodbye Belgium

Another court order obtained by DAZN at the end of March followed a similar pattern.

Handed down by a court in Belgium, it compels the same three DNS providers to cease returning IP addresses when internet users provide the domain names of around 100 pirate sports streaming sites.

At last count those sites were linked to over 130 domain names which in its role as a search engine operator, Google was also ordered to deindex from search results.

During the evening of April 5, Belgian media reported that a major blocking campaign was underway to protect content licensed by DAZN and 12th Player, most likely football matches from Belgium’s Pro League. DAZN described the action as the “the first of its kind” and a “real step forward” in the fight against content piracy. Google and Cloudflare’s participation was not confirmed, but it seems likely that Cisco was not involved all.

In a very short statement posted to the Cisco community forum, employee tom1 announced that effective April 11, 2025, OpenDNS will no longer be accessible to users in Belgium due to a court order. The nature of the order isn’t clarified, but it almost certainly refers to the order obtained by DAZN.

Cisco’s suspension of OpenDNS in Belgium mirrors its response to a similar court order in France. Both statements were delivered without fanfare which may suggest that the company prefers not to be seen as taking a stand. In reality, Cisco’s reasons are currently unknown and that has provoked some interesting comments from users on the Cisco community forum.

Possible Motivation to Exit

Whether the rightsholders requested it, or the Judge simply thought it was appropriate, is still unclear, but the blocking order has a sting in its tail for non-compliance. Believed to be targeted at Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco – but not Belgian ISPs also required to comply with its terms – the order warns of penalties of €100,000 for each day of non-compliance. A user on Cisco’s forum felt that compliance shouldn’t be a problem.

“The court is very specific what needs to be blocked (130 pirate sports streaming domains and five illegal IPTV platforms). Blocking DNS requests based on domain categorization is at the core of the service of OpenDNS. There is nothing stating that OpenDNS should stop its services in Belgium,” Wiggum wrote.

“So why isn’t OpenDNS complying to this ruling? Instead, by pulling out of [Belgium], the Internet becomes less safe for those making use of it.”

While these are valid points, without the order being made available to the public, the definition of “non-compliance” is an unknown factor with potential to tip the scales. €100,000 per day is an awful lot of money for failing to deal with alleged copyright infringement over which the company has zero visibility.

Compliance is an Ongoing Commitment

The second and most critical factor is the assumption that blocking 130 domains is the end of Cisco’s obligations. The blocking order is dynamic, meaning that DAZN can and will add additional domains to the block list whenever that’s required. On the basis that blocking new domains quickly is the main goal of dynamic blocking, it’s at least possible that Cisco preferred an exit rather than a ruinous penalty hanging over its head.

Speculation, of course, but with no such penalties directed at the pirate sites themselves, it’s not difficult to see why being held liable may not sit well with intermediaries distant from any potential infringement.

For those who until recently were simply going about their daily business, blindly directing overwhelmingly legal internet traffic, perhaps the mandatory police uniform didn’t fit or sit well.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

With an estimated 240 million visits during the first three months of the year, Nhentai is one of the most trafficked websites online today.

The site serves adult-oriented anime and manga, also known as hentai. These spicy Japanese comics are popular worldwide but not everyone is happy with Nhentai or its massive audience. Some rightsholders consider the site a deviant pirate operation.

California-based rightsholder PCR Distributing, which operates under brands including J18 and JAST USA, initiated action against nHentai last summer, describing the site as a significant threat to its business.

PCR initially requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, claiming that they failed to process takedown notices. These subpoena requests are typically straightforward, but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to intervene in court.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Facing opposition, PCR swiftly dropped the subpoena request and filed a full complaint against the site’s operators in a California federal court instead. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint alleged.

Nhentai’s initial opposition, in which it countered that it had been granted permission to share content, already indicated that the site had no plans to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, Nhentai responded to the lawsuit and actively fought back.

Nhentai Seeks Dismissal and Anonymity

In January, Nhentai asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The anonymous operators said there were several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely, including insufficient copyright registrations.

In addition, Nhentai requested a protective order to proceed in the case anonymously, at least in the early stages. Keeping personal details out of public filings, but available to the opposing attorneys, would shield them from potential retribution.

“The specific harm and prejudice to Nhentai.net is that the Plaintiff in this matter has shown particular animus toward Nhentai.net and even its counsel and taken public action accordingly,” Nhentai’s attorney wrote.

“In truth, this case has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but rather appears to be a money grab and an attempt to take over the entire domain www.nhentai.net based on knowingly meritless claims,” the defense added.

Nhentai Operators Ordered to Unveil Themselves

Nhentai’s operators asked the court to keep their personal details private, at least until the motion to dismiss had been decided. In February, however, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin decided otherwise.

The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that they would be harmed by being named, the Magistrate Judge concluded. The order further noted that there’s a public interest in knowing who the operators of this popular site are.

“The focus of this case is a publicly available website alleged to receive around 79.38 million monthly visitors from the United States and around the world. Thus, the Court easily concludes that the public has a strong interest in knowing the identity of the corporate entity that operates this website and is appearing in federal court,” Judge Richlin wrote.

Nhentai objected to the ruling, but after the matter was referred to California District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, the Judge arrived at the same conclusion.

“Overall, Defendant has made no showing that it is entitled to keep its identity hidden from the parties to the action, this Court, or the public, let alone a showing that the Magistrate Judge Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” Judge Valenzuela wrote in her decision last week.

Dismissal Denied, Case Continues

In addition to denying the protective order, Judge Valenzuela also denied Nhentai’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims.

Judge Valenzuela notes that PCR sufficiently pled that it owns valid copyrights that are being infringed by the defendant. While there may be potential shortcomings in the pleading, they don’t warrant a dismissal at this stage.

This means that the case will now move forward with all copyright infringement claims intact.

Jason Tucker, president of anti-piracy outfit Battleship Stance, which helps PCR and other companies with their legal strategies, is pleased with the outcome. He says it confirms that the defendants in these cases can’t remain anonymous.

“These rulings send a clear message: you don’t get to profit from other people’s work and stay hidden in the process. I’m glad the Court recognized that this case is about holding people accountable when they build businesses off someone else’s content.”

“That’s one of the few ways we can protect creative work and the people who make it. We’re still in the early stages, but it’s a meaningful step forward,” Tucker adds.

Both the motion to dismiss and the motion for a protective order were decided on the April 8th. The court ordered Nhentai to file a status report, disclosing the names of all defendants within three business days. A week has now passed, and as of today, no defendants appear to have been publicly named in court filings.

—

A copy of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela’s order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike is available here (pdf). The order denying the motion for a protective order can be found here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

As debate heats up in the United States over proposed site-blocking legislation, opinions of what that might mean in practice are already beginning to emerge.

Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren late January, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) attempts to distill well over a decade of site blocking experience amassed by U.S. rightsholders overseas, into a package carefully curated for use on home soil.

Site-Blocking Debate Returns to Polarization

Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.

As proponents have made clear many times over the past 15 years or so, to remain effective site-blocking must continuously adapt. That necessarily means that the FADPA proposals on the table today are the starting point for U.S. site-blocking. For those advocating in favor of FADPA, especially as a highly predictable framework with guardrails for safety, the inherent need to adapt and expand presents challenges for longer-term assurances.

No Wild Predictions Required, Europe Holds the Answers

Unlike the SOPA debate in 2012, where wild predictions one way or another had no clear historical basis, today there is a deep well of information to draw from, much of it the result of U.S. rightsholders’ implementation of site-blocking in Europe. As such, events there should be considered informative.

Established four years ago, Germany operates an administrative site blocking regime which requires no direct legal oversight. A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.

Recommendations for blocking are published on the CUII website, along with redacted reports explaining investigators’ findings. The image below shows all recommendations for blocking since the program began.

This level of transparency is already a step up from broadly equivalent schemes seen elsewhere in Europe. However, in common with many of its counterparts elsewhere, the domains subsequently nominated by rightsholders and then blocked by ISPs are on a confidential list to which the public has no access. Or at least, that was the original plan.

Confidential Block List Exposed By ISP

A Netzpolitik report published last week revealed that Germany’s secret site-blocking list had been publicly available for at least 10 months via the URL rpz01do.versatel-west.de. Accidentally made available by ISP 1&1 Versatel, the URL let visitors see every domain blocked by local ISPs, enabling them to see how the list changed over time following numerous updates.

While the CUII website lists 24 platforms for blocking, at last count the exposed list contained well over ten times more domains/subdomains, over 300 in total. For perspective, Germany’s site-blocking program is very modest when compared to schemes in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, for example, where thousands of sites are blocked with information on domains mostly restricted.

Last year we reported on the work of Damian, a then-17-year-old in Germany who lifted the veil of secrecy on the scale of domain blocking via the site cuiiliste.de.

“CUII is a private organization that blocks websites that it believes violate copyright law – without any court orders. In addition, their approach seems very non-transparent in my opinion,” Damian said.

Damian and others working on the project used various DNS-based techniques to establish which domains were blocked in Germany. However, he informs Netzpolitik that access to the ‘leaked’ master list helped to confirm that all blocked domains were present on the cuiliste.de site, something that can longer be guaranteed.

That’s because, predictably, as soon as 1&1 Versatel discovered its accidental transparency, measures were swiftly taken to ensure the list was hidden away as originally intended.

Site-Blocking = Censorship?

A pro-FADPA article published late last week by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation put forward reasons ‘Why the US Should Block Piracy’. One of a series of articles with a similar theme over the last few years, the piece describes site-blocking as “a no-brainer” and U.S. policy as having “international precedent.”

The crux of the piece dismisses concerns that FADPA could be used as a tool for censorship, and rejects the notion that the “one sided process” through which orders are obtained are “fundamentally flawed.” These are entrenched positions that have closed very little over the last 12+ years and will undoubtedly continue to rage as the months unfold.

“[W]hen policymakers propose reasonable, legally sound tools to stop [piracy], critics respond with hyperbole, misdirection, and scare tactics,” the piece adds, a claim that has been utilized by both sides, if any at all.

No Censorship Where There’s Transparency

Claims of censorship often depend on the context and the FADPA proposals in the U.S. will need to address those claims at some point, whether justified or not. However, while censorship and transparency have some similarities, the latter may deserve more attention.

Proposals in the U.S. suggest a system not dissimilar to those operating in Europe, with and without involvement of the courts. An initial blocking order against a platform will be made available to the public, but since those orders are likely to be flexible (‘dynamic’ in site-blocking parlance), permission will be granted to block additional resources without returning to court.

Following the clear pattern on display in Europe, whatever rightsholders and ISPs agree to block privately, will be blocked, and if there is no transparency requirement, none will be forthcoming.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Tech companies are racing to build the most powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) but how these systems are trained is now mired in controversy.

Many major tech firms allegedly used huge amounts of copyrighted material to train their AI, without obtaining permission from rightsholders. This has triggered a series of copyright infringement lawsuits.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is one of the companies being sued. Well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, previously filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

This lawsuit has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used BitTorrent to download archives of pirated books to use as training material for its Llama models.

Notably, the authors argued that, in addition to downloading pirated books from Anna’s Archive, Z-Library and other sources, Meta uploaded pirated books to third parties in the process.

Last month, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Meta’s motion relied heavily on a fair use defense. Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing.

Law Professors Back Both Sides

Given the high stakes, the motions for summary judgment attracted interest from various third parties. Through amicus brief filings, these groups are asking the court to consider their perspectives. Previously, several law professors backed Meta, for example, arguing that training AI using ‘pirated’ content might be fair use.

Not all law professors agree with this conclusion, however, as highlighted in a new amicus brief from another group of law professors. This “friend of the court” brief, submitted last Friday, clearly backs the authors.

These law professors, who don’t address the BitTorrent-specific allegations, believe that using copyrighted books to train AI is not fair use.

“Meta’s claim that its unauthorized copying of plaintiffs’ works to train its large language models is fair use is a breathtaking request for greater legal privileges than courts have ever granted human authors. It should be rejected,” they write.

Using copyrighted works without permission might be considered ‘fair use’ if the use creates a new and transformative product. However, the law professors don’t believe that’s the case here.

Instead, they see the AI end product as a commercial tool that has a similar purpose to the books it is trained on; namely, to educate people.

“The use of copyrighted works to train generative models is not ‘transformative,’ because using works for that purpose is not relevantly different from using them to educate human authors, which is a principal original purpose of all of plaintiffs’ works,” the professors state.

“That training use is also not ‘transformative’ because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the copied works in the same markets – a purpose that, when pursued by a for-profit company like Meta, also makes the use undeniably ‘commercial’.”

In their 19-page brief, the professors dispute Meta’s fair use defense by analyzing several relevant factors. They ultimately conclude that these factors weigh “conclusively” against a finding of fair use.

Professors’ conclusion

Publishers Highlight Brazen Widespread Piracy

The book authors also receive support from other third parties, including The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), which also submitted an amicus curiae brief last Friday.

The publishers’ brief highlights the shadow libraries that Meta allegedly used to source some of its training materials. These include Z-Library, Sci-Hub, Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive, which have all been subject to legal problems of their own; such as the criminal prosecution of two alleged Z-Library operators.

“The illegal websites that Meta used to purloin a trove of copyrighted works have been the repeated subject of enforcement,” the publishers’ brief reads.

“Collectively, they have been found by multiple courts to be illegal and against the public interest; investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, including for potential espionage; had their domains shut down; and had their operators arrested.”

From the STM brief

Meta previously argued that its alleged use of copyrighted books as training inputs could be seen as fair use, regardless of the source of the data. However, STM sees this differently. They say that the “use of stolen content matters.”

The brief urges the court to consider these pirate sources, not only regarding the direct copyright infringement claim, but also when determining fair use for the AI training.

“Meta knowingly copied and distributed a shocking amount of infringing material from the world’s most notorious infringing websites to serve its commercial ends. Meta’s brazen acts of infringement, unprecedented in the annals of copyright law, must be considered in the context of fair use and should weigh heavily against it,” the publishers conclude.

The publishers’ position doesn’t come as a surprise, as they are directly impacted by the legal debate over AI training data. However, the fact that law professors can have vastly different opinions on the fair use analysis, shows that this isn’t an easy matter to resolve in court.

And given the stakes at play, these and other AI-related fair-use questions could very well end up at the Supreme Court in a few years.

—

Update: The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has also submitted an amicus brief (pdf).

“In filing this amicus brief, AAP explains in detail that Meta’s systematic copying and encoding of protected creative works, word by word, into a large language model, is not a transformative fair use under the law, but rather, grossly exceeds the doctrine’s legal purpose and judicial precedent,” says Maria A. Pallante, AAP’s President and CEO.

“The brief also corrects Meta’s spurious assertion that there is no way for AI developers to lawfully license what they seek to use, citing numerous examples to the contrary of existing and emerging markets.”

—

A copy of the Amicus Curiae brief from the Law Professors is available here (pdf), and the brief from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers can be found here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In the wake of a global pandemic, an ongoing war in Europe, and a new U.S. president taking the world on a surprise mystery tour to somewhere, Season 7 of Black Mirror faces the show’s toughest test following its Netflix debut on Thursday.

Ensuring each episode has a provocative, meaningful impact is getting harder in a world where the highly improbable seems to happen much more frequently. Facing genuine competition from real world events, including some that don’t involve Greenland, desensitization is likely to be a factor already.

Block Mirror?

There’s a risk that a Spanish-themed episode, in which a powerful corporation blocks internet traffic to improve sales of an exclusive entertainment product, might be too much, too soon.

Starting around 2008 before reaching its climax in a dystopian future labeled 2025, it could reveal how ISP blocking measures that the public didn’t want, were presented as the only viable option for tackling pirate sites. The episode could place emphasis on assurances that site blocking would always respect fundamental rights, such as the right to receive and impart information.

After fast forwarding to the present day, the episode could show how site blocking has matured to the point where targeting hundreds of pirate sites, means blocking thousands of innocent sites at the same time. Delivered to camera with a completely straight face, the audience should be informed that blocking innocent websites is perfectly fine, because a judge says that it’s legal.

Given that websites in Spain contain material protected by copyright, not to mention information that EU citizens have a right to impart and receive, it does seem unfair that thousands of sites (some claim its millions) find themselves completely blacked out when football matches are broadcast in Spain.

Circumvent Site-Blocking

So, with no help from the authorities and no TV deal expected anytime soon, Spaniards are beginning to take matters into their own hands.

Pirates have always circumvented blocking measures, mostly to access pirated content that blocking measures are supposed to deny. Today, regular developers are coming up with solutions to thwart site blocking, for reasons that include running a business and feeding their families. All they want, and it’s really not much at all, is to put up a website and have people who’d like to pay a visit face no barriers while doing so.

Well, help is starting to arrive, at least unofficially. The developers of the tools below hope to improve a situation that has only deteriorated in recent weeks.

The tools listed below are available from GitHub. Usual security caveats apply, if in any doubt, do not install.

Cloudflare Status Monitor for LaLiga Blocks

GitHub repo: aitorroma/cloudflare-laliga-bypass

Summary of key features/benefits • The script monitors check.aitorroma.com to verify if Cloudflare is active. • When LaLiga implements blocks during football matches, the system automatically detects it. • Automatically disables Cloudflare when blocks are detected • Reactivates Cloudflare when the site is back online • Uses webhooks to keep you informed about status changes

• Minimize downtime during football broadcasts • Eliminates the need to manually manage Cloudflare blocks • Provides an automated solution to keep the service available • Ensures service continuity for legitimate websites

Cloudflare Status Monitor for LaLiga Blocks is available on GitHub

LaLiga Block Evasion Filter

GitHub repo: fdezsergio02/Anti-LaLiga

How does the filter work?

This filter leverages the benefits of major CDN servers, allowing you to replace the blocked IP address provided by the DNS server with an IP address from the affected CDN that is not blocked, allowing websites to load correctly.

For example, if the URL “example.com” is associated with the IP address “1.2.3.4,” which is blocked by carriers, this filter switches to an unblocked IP address, such as “1.2.3.5,” so that legitimate pages can load correctly. Depending on the situation, it rotates to the next IP address or chooses a different IP address belonging to the same CDN.

LaLiga Block Evasion Filter is available on GitHub

LaLiga Lock Checker

GitHub repo: GitHub repo: agustim/laliga-lock-checker

Summary of key features/benefits

• Go script to check if a set of domains are blocked and, if necessary, test them through a VPN. The results are saved in a CSV file with time, status and latency. • Read domains from a JSON file ( sites.json). • It makes HTTP requests and checks if they respond. • If they don’t respond, activate a VPN connection (WireGuard) and try again. • Write the results to a CSV file: hora,domini,estat,latencia_ms. • It allows you to configure it via command line, environment variables or .env.

LaLiga Lock Checker is available on GitHub

LaLiga IP List

GitHub repo: GitHub repo: r4y7s/laliga-ip-list

Summary of key features/benefits

• This repository maintains a whitelist of legitimate IPs that have been unintentionally affected by judicial IP blocks in Spain ordered by LaLiga as part of its anti-piracy efforts, based on public data from hayahora.futbol. • The file laliga_ip_list.txt is updated twice a day automatically. • What’s inside? The laliga_ip_list.txt file includes legitimate IPs that were wrongly blocked during football match streams in Spain, affecting services like: RAE (Royal Spanish Academy), universities and research centers, news outlets, sponsor and club websites

———–

Whether the existence of these tools amounts to evidence of overblocking, remains to be seen. But one thing is certain.

Providing an environment that necessitates circumvention, so that people can go about their legal business, runs counter to the prevention of piracy and so much more.

It undermines the entire site-blocking movement, and provides new credibility and moral legitimacy to anything that stands in its way – or indeed, tunnels straight through it.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In recent months, piracy-related overblocking concerns in Italy and Spain have reached new highs.

Rightsholders successfully advocated for broader blocking measures. While these may indeed be more effective, they have also resulted in a noticeable increase in overblocking reports.

For example, Italy’s “Piracy Shield” blocked access to Google Drive, CDN providers, and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile in Spain, overblocking is now the de facto standard, as the result of continued disagreement between football rightsholder LaLiga and Cloudflare.

Tensions remain high. Major tech companies have chimed in with calls for a more balanced approach, while some rightsholders see broader blocking action as the best way forward. Meanwhile, gestures to limit overblocking have reportedly found themselves stranded in a black hole.

.Cat Domain Registry

While it’s near impossible to cover all developments, our attention was recently drawn to a response from an organization that hasn’t raised its voice before; the Catalan domain name registry ‘PuntCAT foundation’, which manages the .cat TLD.

The PuntCAT registry allows organizations and individuals to associate with and promote the cultural Catalan identity. This includes the prominent football club Barcelona, which is currently leading the LaLiga championship.

The FCBarcelona.cat domain name doesn’t use Cloudflare and has not been inadvertently caught up in piracy blocking activities. However, other .cat domains have been affected, the registry recently confirmed.

Registry Alerts Customers and Tracks Abuse

PuntCAT reportedly heard from several customers whose websites were blocked by local ISPs, even though they have no association with football or piracy. In response, the registry alerted all customers who use Cloudflare to warn them about potential future problems.

“In recent weeks, some .cat domain holders have informed us that access to their pages, which have no connection to the broadcast of football matches, have been restricted during the broadcasts of La Liga matches,” the email begins.

Email sent to .cat Cloudflare users

PuntCAT launched an investigation following these reports and, with help from experts, found that 2,294 .cat domains use Cloudflare as a proxy to improve the security and accessibility of the associated websites.

All at-risk customers were sent an email notification and via its website, the registry informed the public that in February alone, sites with more than 400,000 visitors were affected.

Registry Doesn’t Rule Out a Legal Response

While the registry is not yet directly involved in the dispute, it decided to step up and actively monitor .cat domains for overblocking issues. This real-time monitoring allows it to take swift countermeasures if needed, potentially including legal action.

“If these undue blockages are confirmed, we commit to acting decisively to protect the quality of the service we offer our users, reserving the right to take legal action and to collectively represent the owners of the affected domains,” PuntCAT wrote in the email.

Thus far, the registry hasn’t taken action. However, the fact that core Internet services, including ICANN-accredited domain registries, are concerned about the escalating blocking measures shows that these issues impact the broader ecosystem.

Ironically, these problems come at the worst possible time, as the United States is currently considering its own site blocking legislation. Opponents of the U.S. plans, including EFF, will likely use these overblocking examples to show how site-blocking can spiral out of control.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Adult entertainment company Flava Works specializes in gay media, mostly pornographic films and magazines featuring Black and Latino men.

Over the years, the company has built a reputation for aggressively pursuing legal action against individuals accused of sharing its copyrighted content, often via private torrent sites specializing in gay content. Flava is known for identifying ordinary downloaders and those who leak their content, presumably through use of unique identifiers embedded in official videos.

Many hundreds of alleged pirates have been targeted in these legal actions, including a Hollywood executive who fought back in court. After a retaliatory lawsuit was dropped, the case was eventually settled on undisclosed terms.

In other lawsuits, Flava clearly came out on top, including a damages claim of $1.5 million against a defendant who shared seven films.

Flava’s lawsuits appeared to slow down in recent years, but a new complaint filed at an Illinois district court shows that the production company continues to monitor pirates, including those in private communities.

Lawsuit Targets Alleged Leaker & 47 File-Sharers

The complaint by Flava Works Entertainment and affiliate Blatino Media, lists Canadian resident Nicolas G. as the main defendant. Allegedly a paid subscriber to the plaintiffs’ official websites, the defendant is said to have downloaded several films and then shared some of them on private torrent tracker GayTorrent.ru, which is also accessible at GayTor.rent.

Flava accuses the Canadian defendant of downloading copyrighted videos and distributing them on the torrent platform, in violation of its terms of service.

“Defendant [Nicolas G.] downloaded copyrighted videos of Flava Works as part of his paid memberships and, in violation of the terms and conditions of the paid sites, posted and distributed the aforesaid videos on other websites, including websites with peer-to-peer sharing and torrent technology,” the complaint reads.

The complaint

The legal paperwork doesn’t specify how the main defendant was linked to the pirated videos, but it’s likely they contained embedded identifiers. Flava alleges that as a result of the unauthorized sharing, dozens of members of the private torrent site were able to download the pirated videos.

These downloaders, 47 in total, are listed as John Doe defendants. They’re currently identified only by their respective usernames, including ActorCA, Balloonboy82, Furiousd2023, TheMonitor72, and WarGod83. All face direct copyright infringement claims and a risk of substantial damages.

Millions in Damages

The complaint is brief and doesn’t include any details explaining how the defendants were tracked or identified. The main defendant likely had personal details linked to their paid Flava account, but what evidence exists to show that the alleged users of the site downloaded pirated films is unknown.

The scale of the damages claim is clear. For each of the 47 John Doe defendants the plaintiffs request $150,000 in statutory damages. The main defendant faces a significantly larger claim of $1,500,000, pushing the total damages claim to over $8 million.

Damages

Again, no reasons are provided to justify these amounts but $150,000 is the maximum available for copyright infringement of a single work. The lawsuit was filed with a list of 31 copyrighted works, but no details to show who shared what and when. It’s possible that more details will emerge as the case progresses.

All in all, the recent complaint shows that after more than a decade, Flava is still actively monitoring BitTorrent pirates. While new lawsuits are rare, they are not without consequence and should not be ignored. The fact that Flava’s name previously appeared in multiple bankruptcy proceedings says enough.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed by Flava Works Entertainment, Inc. and Blatino Media, Inc at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available here (pdf)

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Having listened to LaLiga chief Javier Tebas speak about piracy for almost an hour at a conference recently, several things become apparent.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with his stance on how to tackle piracy, in particular the blocking controversy that has dogged Spain since early February, at a time of crisis this would be the man to have fighting your corner. He’s passionate about his mission, knows exactly what needs to be done, and is as unmovable as he is uncompromising on how to get there.

For these reasons and many more like them, what some argue is a football business problem is already developing into a potential problem for everyone. Tebas believes the financial impact of piracy on Spanish football is currently between 600 and 700 million euros and with the recently confirmed authority awarded by a local court. LaLiga currently blocks 3,000 IP addresses every weekend to reduce the damage.

Empowered By the Judiciary, LaLiga Blocks in Line With the Mission

During the weekend, hunting pirates (Tebas prefers the term ‘martians’) starts at noon on Saturday and ends between eleven and midnight; rinse and repeat on Sunday. If it transpires that all 3,000 IP addresses belong to Cloudflare, LaLiga will block however many it sees fit.

Tebas acknowledges that each Cloudflare IP can in theory protect 1,000 to 2,000 non-pirate IP resources. It necessarily follows that, if blocking is effective, those ordinarily neutral web resources will be rendered inaccessible along with any offending pirate sites, for as long blocking remains in place. Tebas blames Cloudflare for using these innocent resources as ‘human shields’ and at the same time points to just a handful of cases he considers to be verified, genuine complaints.

Other complaints of overblocking are variously described as overblown or non-genuine, and collectively as just “noise.”

“Google has even paid communication agencies to say that there’s been a lot of noise, that there have been some barbaric outages,” Tebas alleged. “I’m convinced that when Google Drive was cut [by Piracy Shield] in Italy, it was with Google’s awareness. With real Google awareness, and I’m going to tell you why it’s like that.”

CDN77: Like Cloudflare But Smaller and Cooperative

CDN77 is a well-known CDN that specializes in live video and VOD. It may be smaller than Cloudflare but still claims to deliver 300 PB of video daily. Tebas doesn’t mention the circumstances that led to its cooperation with LaLiga, but he does seem satisfied with the arrangement.

“We have a company that’s much smaller than Cloudflare, but it provides the same services. It’s a Dutch company, it’s important, but it’s not. It’s called CDN77 and it does the same thing [as Cloudflare] it anonymizes [users]. Well, we have an agreement with them,” he explains.

“During the the game, when we detect CDN77 IP addresses, we don’t block them, we notify [CDN77]. They directly remove the IP address that is sharing the illegal content, and replace it with another IP and then cut it off, that’s it, it can be done technologically.”

LaLiga: No Large-Scale Overblocking

Since early February, fundamental disagreement has persisted over a) the scale of overblocking and b) whether LaLiga’s blocking can be described as indiscriminate.

To the extent that indiscriminate suggests a random, scattershot approach, LaLiga’s objections do seem reasonable. LaLiga says it targets specific IP addresses used by identified IPTV services; it’s well understood that other services may be present on the same IP, but if the judge who issued the order saw no problem, who can insist otherwise?

In the eyes of LaLiga, the scale of the overblocking isn’t significant, but the numbers do seem to lack clear definition. That being said, Tebas is very clear on what it is not.

“It’s not true that there are millions of [blocked] users, as Cloudflare put it. If there are millions of users, and the judge himself says, you haven’t proven it, and they have had the opportunity to prove it, we are the ones who have proven that it’s not true. In other words, they had to prove it, because it’s not true,” Tebas explained.

Opposing View – Overblocking is Massive

Regular updates posted to X by sysadmin @jaumepons aim to document overblocking in Spain. According to their research, the scale is enormous but given the numbers and technical issues involved, independent verification from outside the country presents challenges.

Claims on X from within Spain

From a base of almost no overblocking according to LaLiga, to the massive overblocking alleged in these reports, it’s clear that both extremes can’t exist at the same time.

According to Cloudflare, various experts, and people whose websites become inaccessible in Spain when football airs on TV, feel that the evidence is on public display. LaLiga’s position is that since evidence wasn’t produced to the standard required by the court, claims of overblocking remain unproven; presumably that also extends to the IP addresses in the image below.

All were reportedly blocked by LaLiga, all belong to CDN provider CDN77 whose cooperation may not have provided immunity from blocking as initially envisaged.

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

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed