In the late 2000s, music fans were delighted by the news that record labels and Apple had agreed to remove all DRM from music files downloaded through the iTunes Store.

The music industry had initially insisted on strong copy protection to make it harder for music pirates to share these files. However, legitimate consumers were inconvenienced by these measures too.

The removal was a breakthrough for anti-DRM advocates and a big step for the music industry, which has become more streaming-focused since. However, well over a decade after the iTunes DRM removal decision, the issue is being revisited in a high-profile piracy case.

Record Labels vs. RCN

Three years ago, several major music labels including Arista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records, filed a lawsuit against U.S. Internet provider RCN. The music companies accused the company of failing to take action against subscribers who were accused of repeat copyright infringements.

There are a few of these piracy liability lawsuits ongoing at the moment. These are not trivial legal battles as there are hundreds of millions of dollars in damages at stake. Therefore, RCN is using all available options to fight back.

After attempts to dismiss the lawsuit and dispute the piracy evidence failed, the Internet provider is now exploring other options to aid its defense.

ISP Zooms in on DRM Removal

To this end, the company would like to know more about the decision to remove DRM from iTunes downloads. Specifically, it asked the music companies during discovery to disclose who were involved in the DRM decision.

“(i)dentify all persons who participated in Plaintiffs’ decision in or around 2009 to remove Digital Rights Management (‘DRM’) from sound recordings sold through the iTunes Store,” the request reads.

The ISP notes that DRM was supposed to make it harder for people to share iTunes tracks illegally using BitTorrent. So, in theory, removing this protection could have increased the piracy numbers.

“It is certainly reasonable to infer that this decision—along with Plaintiffs’ continuing decision not to re-impose the use of DRM—has affected the frequency with which Plaintiffs’ music is shared over peer-to-peer networks,” RCN writes.

RCN previously asked the music companies for information about its use of DRM but the labels replied that they couldn’t find any matching documents. So, talking directly to the people who were involved in the DRM removal decision is their only option.

‘DRM is Irrelevant’

The ISP suggests that the labels themselves could have done more to stop piracy and that removing DRM was counterproductive. However, the music companies don’t want to share any names and refuse to point out who was involved in the DRM discussions.

In a letter to the New Jersey federal court, the labels point out that the entire DRM issue is irrelevant for this case. It was taken in 2009, which is years before the alleged infringements at the center of the lawsuit took place.

“RCN is seeking information on measures taken (or not taken) in 2009, two years before the first of the infringements identified by Rightscorp’s notices and seven years before Plaintiffs knew about any of those infringements.

“Thus, any alleged decisions Plaintiffs made regarding DRM are necessarily limited to pre-injury conduct that is irrelevant to RCN’s failure-to-mitigate defense,” the labels add.

Memories Have Faded…

Aside from the judicial arguments, the music companies also point out that, after thirteen years, it might not even be possible to find out who was involved. And even if they do, the key players might not accurately recall what happened at the time.

“At this point, it may prove difficult to identify relevant individuals. Further, the identification of such persons is of minimal value in that their memories of this issue will undoubtedly have faded,” the companies argue.

It is now up to the court to decide whether the labels must comply with the discovery request or not. If the removal of DRM indeed resulted in more piracy, it doesn’t change how RCN responded to it. However, the ISP does believe that it’s relevant for the potential damages that are claimed.

—

A copy of the music companies’ request to sustain their objections to the DRM removal interrogatory is available here (pdf)

Early this week news broke that major manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa were about to sue Cloudflare in Japan. The basics are relatively straightforward.

The publishers believe that since Cloudflare is structurally involved in the presentation and delivery of pirate sites that use its services, the company should do more to help copyright holders when Cloudflare’s services are used to infringe copyright. Up until now, Cloudflare’s responses haven’t been considered sufficient.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday at the Tokyo District Court is yet to be made public but in a joint statement, the publishers now lay out their grievances against the US company.

Publishers Demand an Injunction and Damages

According to the four publishers, their lawsuit represents only a “partial claim” against Cloudflare. In total they are demanding 460 million yen (around US$4 million) in damages for copyright infringement in four copyrighted works, one representing each company, and an injunction to restrain the company moving forward.

The publishers say that Cloudflare has violated their copyrights in “nine cases”, a reference to nine pirate manga sites that use the company’s services. They explain that after identifying the sites to Cloudflare and asking the company “to explain” the infringing content stored on those sites, they demanded action from Cloudflare to bring the infringements to a halt.

Demands Issued to Cloudflare

“With regard to the infringing content illegally stored on the sites, we asked Cloudflare to stop the temporary reproduction (cache) on the company’s servers in Japan [and] terminate their contracts with pirate sites that are clearly illegal,” the companies say.

The publishers’ version of events has Cloudflare responding that they had “taken the necessary measures” against the sites in question but refusing to provide any details on what measures had been taken against which sites. Following a technical analysis, the publishers’ experts concluded that the pirate sites were still using Cloudflare’s services and caches.

“Based on the above background and recognition of the current situation, the four publishing companies have filed a lawsuit against Cloudflare, seeking an injunction against the public transmission and reproduction of pirated content and compensation for damages,” they report.

Publishers: Cloudflare is Strategically Important to Pirates

Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa acknowledge that CDN providers including Cloudflare are a vital part of today’s internet ecosystem. However, they complain that while other major CDN providers properly identify site operators when they sign a service contract (to ensure the site is not illegal), Cloudflare’s free service can be accessed and used without “sufficient verification of identity”.

This has reportedly led to abuse. The publishers claim that as of December 2021, Cloudflare was supplying services to “9 of the top 10 malicious piracy sites with the highest number of accesses” while keeping pirate site server origins and IP addresses confidential.

“Because of these characteristics, many pirate site operators who do not want their identities to be identified are turning to CloudFlare’s CDN service,” the publishers add.

In addition to some level of anonymity, the publishers claim that Cloudflare enables pirate sites to stay online when their own infrastructures are incapable of handling high levels of traffic. The suggestion is that if it wasn’t for Cloudflare, they might not be financially viable.

“The origin servers and other communication infrastructure used by pirate sites must be able to handle more than 100 million transactions per month [but the] communication infrastructures used by pirate sites do not have the capacity to handle more than 100 million accesses per month from an operational cost perspective,” they note.

“Therefore, if Cloudflare stops providing CDN services, it will be impossible or extremely difficult to operate many malicious pirate sites. In other words, Cloudflare’s CDN service has become indispensable for the operation of many malicious pirate sites.”

Lawsuit Aims to Question What Behavior is “Appropriate”

In closing, Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa say the overarching purpose of the lawsuit is to determine whether the position taken by Cloudflare over the past few years in response to anti-piracy requests is appropriate for a company in such a powerful position.

“Through this lawsuit, the four companies and their legal advisors would like to question whether the uncooperative stance Cloudflare has shown over the past few years in response to requests for cooperation in the fight against piracy is appropriate for a company that provides a public service such as telecommunications infrastructure,” they conclude.

For several decades, The Scene has been the main source of all pirated content made available on the Internet.

Technically, release groups operate in a closed ecosystem, but the reality is different. The vast majority of the files published on private Scene servers eventually find their way to public pirate sites.

Feds Bust SPARKS Group

The secretive nature of The Scene has been a major challenge for law enforcement but in the summer of 2020, the US Department of Justice made a major breakthrough. Following a thorough investigation, three members of the illustrious SPARKS group were indicted.

One of the defendants, British national George Bridi, was apprehended in Cyprus and eventually extradited to the United States. The Brit pleaded guilty to being part of a criminal copyright conspiracy. Among other things, he obtained pre-release Blu-ray discs from distributors in New York, several weeks before their retail release dates.

While Bridi pleaded guilty, he stressed that there was no financial motive. The real goal of SPARKS was to get the newest releases out first, thus beating other Scene groups. It was all about internal competition and the prestige that came with winning these races.

“It became like a race, we had to win because there were other groups buying from the same distributor,” Bridi said previously, explaining his involvement.

Defense Asks for Reduced Sentence

Later this month Bridi will be sentenced and based on the guidelines that were agreed upon in the plea deal, a 27 to 33 months prison sentence is the starting point. This is substantial but lower than the potential maximum of five years imprisonment.

In a letter to the court, Bridi’s attorney Louis Freeman argues that a lower sentence is warranted. Due to various personal and health issues, as well as the low likelihood that his client will make the same mistake again, a “time served” sentence should be sufficient.

Thus far, 52-year-old Bridi has spent 17 months in prison and prolonging this term is not beneficial, according to his attorney.

“[A time served] sentence provides Mr. Bridi with specific deterrence to not commit any future crimes and also provides the public with a message of general deterrence to not commit crimes of this nature,” Freeman argued in his letter.

U.S. Attorney Weighs In

This week, the U.S. Government shared its thoughts on the matter. In a detailed sentencing letter, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams starts off by stressing that Mr. Bridi was part of a serious and sophisticated criminal conspiracy that actively defrauded movie distributors.

“The defendant had multiple functions in the Sparks Group. He defrauded a disc distributor based in Brooklyn and New Jersey to obtain DVDs and Blu-Ray discs prior to the retail release date. He arranged for the discs to be delivered to other members and associates of the Sparks Group, who then ‘cracked’ the discs using special software that compromised the copyright protections on the discs.

“He then arranged for the copyrighted works to be uploaded to servers controlled by the Sparks Group, where the movies and television shows were disseminated across the Internet. Over the course of the conspiracy, the Sparks Group successfully reproduced and disseminated hundreds of movies and television shows prior to their retail release date,” Williams adds.

The U.S. Attorney notes that the government previously agreed to a reduced sentence for Mr. Correa, another defendant in the SPARKS conspiracy. However, Mr. Bridi’s role was larger and the sentence should reflect that.

Among other things, Mr. Bridi served as a manager and supervisor in the SPARKS Group. He purchased the discs from the distributors, coordinated shipments to lower lever members of the group, and urged at least one other individual to upload discs as soon as possible.

The SPARKS group itself wasn’t a minor player. The group was the driving force behind hundreds of movie and TV show releases, which also came out under related tags such as “DRONES,” “ROVERS,” “GECKOS,” and “SPRINTER.”

‘Significant Prison Sentence is Justified’

Taking the seriousness and economic harm of the defendant’s conduct into consideration, the U.S. Attorney argues that a sentence within the guideline range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment is sufficient, but not greater than necessary.

“[T]he Government respectfully submits that a significant sentence here is necessary in the interests of general deterrence. Copyright infringement causes millions of dollars in losses to movie production studios on an annual basis, which ultimately harms the individual employees who depend on this industry for their livelihood.”

A significant sentence will also act as a deterrent to other pirate groups, who often operate from outside of the United States. This includes the third indicted member of the SPARKS group, Norway resident Umar Ahmad, who is still considered a fugitive.

“Indeed, one of the co-defendants in this case remains at-large in Norway. As a result, a significant sentence is needed here to promote respect for the copyright laws and to protect the producers of creative content in the United States,” the U.S. Attorney writes.

Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York will now have to weigh the sentencing arguments from both sides. The Court is expected to announce the final sentence later this month.

—

A copy of the U.S. Government’s full brief with the sentencing proposal is available here (pdf)

It’s one of the oldest methods for sharing large files online but despite advances in modern technology, Usenet (also knows as newsgroups) still has a considerable following among enthusiasts.

While it can be used for a multitude of other things, Usenet’s popularity and longevity have certainly been boosted by the mountains of copyrighted content that exist on the sprawling system. Over the years, finding such content has been made more simple with the assistance of indexing sites, which in broad terms operate like torrent portals, offering links to content without actually storing it.

Popular with users, these sites can also attract the attention of anti-piracy groups, Netherlands-based BREIN in particular.

BREIN Took Down Five Indexers in 2021

Unlike the majority of enforcement entities, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has maintained its interest in tackling piracy on Usenet and in 2021, that position remained unchanged. The group says that last year and following consistent pressure, a number of uploaders and site administrators decided to “quit their illegal practices”. In total, five Usenet indexes shut down.

BREIN rarely names the sites it takes offline but due to their profile, some are particularly visible. In August 2021, for example, Usenet indexer NZBXS agreed to shut down and as part of a confidential settlement, agreed to hand over the personal details of some of the platform’s users.

These kinds of deals are important since at least in part, obtaining sensitive site and user data gives BREIN the opportunity to support and escalate existing investigations or even launch new ones.

In the same month, Newzbin – another portal popular with Dutch users – took the decision to shut down, citing a wariness among uploaders of linking to copyright material. There can be little doubt that BREIN’s actions played a major role here too and the group warned that it would keep pursuing Newzbin’s operators, despite the shutdown.

Targeting Uploaders

While BREIN doesn’t have a strong reputation for targeting low-end consumers of pirated content, those that become part of the ecosystem by uploading or even linking to copyrighted material can become a target.

BREIN says that following its investigations, in 2021 it identified and approached 38 uploaders, some of whom took the option to settle their cases by agreeing to pay a cash settlement. In total, BREIN says that during the year it collected more than 260,000 euros (around $290k) in settlements from pirates, who are usually required to cease-and-desist from the activities moving forward to avoid further action.

The overall amount suggests an average payment to BREIN in excess of 6,800 euros per uploader but in some cases it’s clear that some people can be asked to pay more. The amount depends on what evidence BREIN holds on pirates’ offending but also their status in the ecosystem, with the latter having the potential to push settlements higher.

As an example, BREIN mentions a specific case against a man from Alkmaar in the province of North Holland. According to the anti-piracy group, the man was active for years under various aliases as an uploader on Usenet and as an administrator of various sites with links to illegal content. He did not earn money from his activities but BREIN says the damage he caused was considerable.

“BREIN addressed the man after an in-depth investigation yielded his identity and name, address and place of residence. Following BREIN’s legal action, the man chose to settle by paying 10,800 euros and provide information about other parties involved. For the future, a penalty clause has been agreed of 2,500 euros per day (or part thereof) that infringement occurs, with a maximum of 50,000 euros,” BREIN reports.

In terms of overall importance in the global piracy ecosystem, Usenet isn’t as significant as it once was but in the Netherlands at least, BREIN is set to ensure the copyright infringement free-for-all doesn’t go unchecked.

Five years ago, the torrent community was hit hard when the popular torrent site ExtraTorrent suddenly shut its doors.

The site provided a safe harbor for millions of file-sharers and was also the birthing ground for several popular releasers and distribution groups. This included ETTV, which is short for ExtraTorrent TV.

With its home gone, ETTV decided to carry on independently by launching its own website. Over the past years, this had grown out to become a medium-sized torrent site with a dedicated and vetted group of regular uploaders.

ETTV Goes Down

Over the past few days, however, ETTV has disappeared. The official site and its backup domain now show a Cloudflare error message, which indicates that the site’s server is offline. The same is also true for the status page (archived), which is hosted on yet another domain.

All of this is happening without an official word from the site’s ‘operator’. TorrentFreak reached out to a contact at the site before the weekend but we haven’t received a response. This means that it’s possible that the site is not coming back at all.

Troubled Past

This isn’t the first sign of trouble at ETTV. The site has suffered downtime in the past and behind the scenes, there were plenty of problems as well. The internal issues started roughly two years ago when the main ETTV operator who controlled the domains, servers, and ads, suddenly went missing.

With the ETTV ship adrift, administrator ‘sidekickbob’ stepped in and took the helm. At the time, he told us that it wasn’t the plan to keep managing the site permanently due to a lack of time. Selling it to a third-party with a good track record seemed to be the preferred option.

“Ultimately my intention is to sell it to somebody that wants to run the torrent site. Preferably somebody that has experience in running a medium-traffic torrent site. I’m not going to give it to some random kids,” sidekickbob said at the time.

Uncertain Future

As far as we know the site was never sold. Sidekickbob didn’t respond to our requests for comment on the current downtime so the future of the site remains uncertain.

In addition to the site, ETTV’s upload bots are also offline. These are scripts that pull videos from private sources to make them available to the public, also on external torrent sites such as 1337x.org. It’s an effective system but one that relies on central servers as well.

The ETTV bots started having issues last year. The last upload on 1337x was more than three months ago and things have gone quiet since then. Perhaps that was already an early sign of the trouble ahead.

CDN company Cloudflare provides its services to millions of websites all around the world, enabling them to stay online with enhanced performance and better protection from attacks.

In recent years pressure from copyright holders has seen Cloudflare labeled a piracy facilitator. The CDN company does cooperate with rightsholders and insists that its services and processes meet the criteria laid out in the DMCA. But for some companies, Cloudflare doesn’t go far enough and according to a report coming out of Japan, will soon face a new lawsuit related to manga piracy.

Major Manga Publishers Prepare to Sue Cloudflare

Major manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Shogakukan and Kadokawa are no strangers to legal action against pirate sites and their operators. They were famously linked to the dismantling of Mangamura, a now-defunct site blamed for causing billions of dollars in losses to the Japanese manga industry. In that case, the site’s operator was jailed for three years but since then other pirates have moved in to fill the void.

In many cases, these pirate sites use the services of Cloudflare and over the past year we’ve reported on various DMCA subpoenas obtained by the publishers in the United States that require Cloudflare to reveal the identities of their customers. In the meantime, Cloudflare invariably continues to offer services to pirate sites, arguing that it’s a neutral technology intermediary.

It now transpires that assertion will be tested – not in the United States but on Japanese soil.

According to Asahi sources, the publishers will team up to file a lawsuit against Cloudflare in the Tokyo District Court next month, demanding 400 million yen ($3.48 million) in damages and an end to the “delivery” of pirated content to internet users.

The publishers say that their works, including the massively popular “One Piece” and “Attack on Titan”, are regularly offered on pirate sites via Cloudflare’s services causing them billions of yen in losses. Having previously filed a similar lawsuit in the United States, the fight will now be brought home to Japan.

Pirate Sites Not Yet Formally Identified

Since the lawsuit is yet to be filed, it is currently unclear which pirate sites the publishers are complaining about. However, there are tentative signs that the action could be related to a DMCA subpoena applications filed by Shogakukan, Shueisha, Kadokawa and Kodansha in a California district court in late 2021.

As noted in our report, the publishers asked Cloudflare to hand over the personal details of the operators of manga1000.com and manga1001.com.

At the time, manga1000.com was pulling in around 110 million visits per month, making it the 160th most popular domain in the world and the 17th most popular in Japan. With 180 million visits per month, 92% of them from Japan, manga1001.com was even bigger. Also targeted were manga1002.com and other platforms operating in the same niche.

In early December 2021, we estimated that when combined manga1000 and manga1001 were good for at least 290 million visits per month. The news coming out of Japan indicates that the publishers are targeting a platform with 300 million monthly visits, suggesting perhaps that they consider these domains to be linked.

Will Targeting Cloudflare in Japan Bear Fruit?

According to Asahi, since 2020 the publishers have been asking Cloudflare to stop “delivering” pirated content from unlicensed sites but under US copyright law, that was unsuccessful. Moving the battle to Japan now seems to be the preference since according to the publishers, Cloudflare has servers in Japan to service local users. This angle isn’t entirely unexplored, however.

In 2018, the publishers filed a motion at the Tokyo District Court demanding that Cloudflare stop providing services to several pirate sites. That matter was apparently concluded via a settlement, with Cloudflare agreeing to “stop the replication” of the sites on its Japan-based servers, if a court declares them illegal.

Another interesting angle is that Cloudflare traditionally defends itself under US copyright law, something it did successfully last year after being sued by wedding garment companies including Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs. In that matter, Cloudflare emerged victorious with the judge noting that a “reasonable jury” would not conclude that “Cloudflare materially contributes to the underlying copyright infringement” carried out by pirate sites.

In this matter, Cloudflare also feels confident in its position.

“Cloudflare’s CDN and pass-through security services do not meaningfully contribute to infringement,” a statement from the company reads.

After well over a decade of rightsholders using the legal system to compel ISPs to block sites on copyright infringement grounds, thousands of domains are blocked by national service providers.

According to rightsholders, this type of action is necessary to prevent unauthorized access to pirated movies, TV shows and music, thus boosting legitimate consumption. The downside is that the associated court processes are complex, expensive, and not particularly timely.

The answer in some regions has been the introduction of voluntary agreements between rightsholders and ISPs to block allegedly infringing sites without the need for a court process.

Spanish Companies Sign Protocol in 2021

In April 2021, the Coalition of Content Creators and Industries, an association representing the local entertainment sector, plus partners including internet service providers (98% of ISPs in the country), signed a voluntary protocol designed to protect intellectual property rights.

The agreement, which was formulated with oversight from the government’s General Directorate of Cultural Industries, Intellectual Property and Cooperation, was the product of meetings that began taking place in March 2020. The final text, reviewed and approved by the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC), was aimed at websites declared to be involved in serious copyright infringements.

The agreement was to block these sites, to prevent internet users from gaining access to them, at least using ordinary means. After nine months of operations, Spain’s Ministry of Culture and Sports says that hundreds of domains and subdomains have already been blocked under the protocol.

869 Domains and Subdomains Blocked

According to an earlier report published in September 2021 (pdf), in the first six months of the protocol 500 domains and subdomains, together making available hundreds of thousands of infringing files, were blocked by ISPs. That number has since expanded.

“A total of 172 Internet domains and 697 subdomains have been blocked in 2021 to prevent illegal access to millions of works (books, musical or audiovisual works, video games) protected by intellectual property rights,” the Ministry reports.

“The blockades are the result of the work of the Ministry of Culture and Sports, through the General Directorate of Cultural Industries, Intellectual Property and Cooperation, the right holders and the internet service providers that have signed the Protocol for the reinforcement of the protection of intellectual property rights.”

The government describes the protocol as operating well and working in favor of a digital ecosystem that respects content creators and telecoms companies, while also benefiting consumers, employment, the economy, plus “society as a whole”.

Fast Responses to Complaints, Tackling Mirror Sites

In 2021, the ‘Technical Committee’ representing the parties to the protocol submitted 32 blocking consultations, almost on a weekly basis. Each time it accurately complied with the submission requirements which involve verification processes. The Ministry of Culture and Sport says that in all cases it responded within 72 hours and in many cases within 36.

In common with other countries implementing blocking, Spain also has a problem with blocked sites reappearing in new locations. According to the Ministry, this is being tackled under the agreement.

“Among other measures, it has been agreed to regulate a global response to judicial and administrative resolutions on offending pages to their ‘mirror web’ or replicas, created under other domains or subdomains to elude current legislation and judicial blocking orders,” the government department adds.

Rightsholders and related groups participating in the agreement include AIE (Artists, Interpreters and Performers), AEVI (Spanish Association of Video Games), AGEDI-PROMUSICAE, SGAE (General Society of Authors and Publishers), CEDRO (Spanish Center for Reprographic Rights), EGEDA (Audiovisual Producers Rights Management Entity), FEDICINE (Federation of Film Distributors) and FGEE (Federation of Publishers Guilds of Spain).

Expanding the agreement to encompass other players in the content industries is also underway.

“At this time, the Ministry of Culture and Sports is promoting other agents in the digital ecosystem to join this Protocol, which makes it possible to realize a great agreement for the reinforcement of the protection of fundamental rights on the Internet that benefits the whole of society,” the Ministry concludes.

Takedown notices are a vital tool for copyright holders who want to make sure that infringing copies of their work are not widely distributed.

Every week, millions of these requests are sent to hosting platforms and third-party services, including social media networks.

Twitter is certainly no exception. In fact, quite a few high-profile DMCA takedown notices have been sent to the platform, including several that targeted tweets from former U.S. President Trump.

This week, Twitter published a new update to its transparency report, highlighting the latest takedown volumes and trends. It reveals that the number of copyright notices received during the first half of 2021 increased slightly compared to the six months before.

Takedown Notices Increase

When combining the numbers of Twitter and Periscope, there’s a 6% increase in DMCA requests, from 169k to 179k. However, if we zoom in, it becomes apparent that notices sent to Periscope were down by roughly 80% while Twitter’s numbers increased by more than a third.

The number of processed requests only tells part of the story though. One notice can flag dozens of tweets and media files, or just one. Also, not all reported content is removed or withheld by Twitter. In fact, most takedown requests processed by Twitter now result in no action.

Most Notices Result in No Action

Twitter’s transparency report shows that the compliance rate dropped to an all-time low in the latest reporting period. For Twitter, only 31% of all takedown requests resulted in ‘removals,’ which is down from 59% during the previous reporting period.

For many years there have been established processes for removing infringing content and links to infringing content from the internet. The US is famous for its DMCA legislation, for example, and EU countries have similar rules in place.

At least in theory, these laws can be used to take content down but pirate sites tend not to be particularly compliant. This often pushes rightsholders down the path of court-ordered site blocking which compels local ISPs to deny subscriber access to domains and/or IP addresses.

Local law sometimes needs a tune-up to provide the best results and in October 2021, France did just that with the passing of new legislation that in addition to laying the ground for a new anti-piracy agency called Arcom (launched on January 1, 2022), also deals with pirate sports streaming sites.

beIN Becomes First Broadcaster to Use New Law

beIN has a long history of tackling piracy of its broadcasts, most notably in its battle against Saudi-backed pirate TV service beoutQ. In France, the company previously booked a major success in an earlier case where five men who operated a ring of streaming sites were found guilty of criminal offenses.

Utilizing Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code, which provides access to an accelerated legal process for the purpose of implementing “proportionate measures” to prevent infringement “against any person likely to contribute to remedying it”, beIN has now become the first company to obtain a blocking injunction under the new legislation.

Earlier this month beIN summoned several ISPs including Orange, SFR, Free, Bouygues Télécom, Colt and Outremer Télécom before the Paris Court of Justice. The company requested the blocking of almost 20 domains that allow consumers to access beIN content without paying for it. They read as follows:

beinmatch.tv, beinmatchtv.tv, kooora4live.net, kooora4lives.com, kora-online.tv, kooraonline.tv, yalla-shoot.us, cloud.yalla-shoot.us, tv.kora-star.com, Livetv.sx, Cdn.livetv491.me, sekdrive.net, sportnews.to, fcstream.cc, freestreams-live1.com, fc.freestreams-live1.com, aflam4you.tv, can2021.aflam4you.tv (List via NextInpact)

Blocking Injunction Granted

In an announcement this week, beIN revealed that a decision in its favor was handed down by the Paris Court of Justice on Thursday 20, 2022.

“As part of the new legislative system aimed at combating the piracy of sports content, beIN SPORTS France, a pioneer in the fight against the illegal distribution of sports content and events, has obtained the first court decision requiring the blocking of previously identified fraudulent addresses and sites,” beIN says.

It’s been reported that the beIN complaint may have been filed as recently as January 11, so by any standard the response from the court is impressive. ISPs are reported to have acted quickly too, with beIN noting that their customers are no longer able to access “illegal live broadcasts”.

Of course, this statement relates only to these specific pirate streaming services, not the thousands that remain unblocked. That being said, the new legislation gives the new Arcom anti-piracy agency the ability to block any new domains that may spring up to mirror or facilitate access to the sites listed in the order.

beIN Pleased With the Process and Outcome

“beIN SPORTS commends the speed of the procedure and the diligence with which the blocking measures were put in place,” says Caroline Guenneteau, Deputy Secretary General of beIN Media Group.

“This very first court decision is the result of years of work and the fight against piracy carried out by beIN MEDIA GROUP, and by beIN SPORTS France, in order to protect the intellectual property of broadcasters and rights holders, and to preserve the ecosystem of the sport.

“It concretely records the entry into force of the new legal system aimed at simplifying and accelerating the blocking and inaccessibility of fraudulent sites and/or addresses, broadcasting illegal content via streaming or IPTV.”

Despite the growing availability of legal options, online piracy remains rampant. Every day pirate sites and services are used by millions of people worldwide.

This is a serious problem for major content producers, Hollywood included. At the same time, it’s also seen as a threat to the broader economy, which generates hundreds of billions of dollars from video entertainment.

The piracy landscape is still vast and complex, despite the fact that there are more legal options than ever before. A new report published by the cybersecurity firm Akamai and piracy tracking outfit MUSO attempts to put a number on it.

Both companies are known to have a fairly nuanced view of the piracy problem. They don’t only see it as a threat but also as a massive opportunity, as many pirates can potentially be converted into paying customers.

132 Billion Visits

The “State of the Internet” report that was released by Akamai this week shows that there is plenty of potential. According to their data, provided by MUSO, the number of global visits to pirate sites rose significantly over the past year.

During the first nine months of 2021, they recorded 132 billion visits to pirate sites. This includes websites that are commonly dedicated to TV-show, movie, music, software, and publishing-related copyright infringement. That includes The Pirate Bay, Fmovies, but also Sci-Hub.

132 billion is a 16% increase compared to the first nine months of the year before, which included the piracy peak of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, it’s also more than the number of visits for the whole of 2020.

TV Piracy Dominates

Looking at the various content categories, it’s clear that TV-related piracy is dominant. The report shows that there were over 67 billion TV piracy visits, which is roughly 50% of all pirate site traffic.

The publishing category is in second place with 30 billion visits (23%), followed by films with 14.5 billion (11%) and music with 10.8 billion (8%). Software piracy closes the ranks with a ‘measly’ 9 billion visits (7%).

These numbers are global and it is no surprise that there are quite a few regional differences. The United States remains the global piracy leader with over 13 billion visits, followed by Russia, India, China, and Brazil at a respectable distance.

The dominance of these countries can be in part be explained by their Internet populations, which are also among the largest in the world. That said, it’s surprising to see that 10% of all pirate site visits worldwide come from the US.

Akamai also shares some content-related data. Based on streaming and torrent data, they report that “Godzilla vs. Kong”, “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” and “Black Widow were the most pirated films.

In the TV category, “Loki”, “Wandavision” and “Rick and Morty” are the most pirated titles. These shows also appeared in our own ranking a few weeks ago.

Up or Down?

Piracy statistics can be quite confusing at times. We have published several reports which showed that piracy is declining. Just a few weeks ago an EU study, also based on MUSO data, showed that pirate site visits in Europe have roughly halved between 2017 and 2020.

This isn’t as conflicting as it may seem, as global piracy traffic also dropped previously, according to MUSO data. In 2018, for example, there were 190 billion visits for the entire year. And in 2017, MUSO first reported that there were 300 billion visits, a number that was later adjusted to 206 billion.

The new data suggest that pirate site visits are not as numerous as they once were. However, compared to 2020, they are certainly rising again.

“When examining piracy globally and across the film, TV, software, publishing, and music industries, the vast scale of piracy is clear. Perhaps more concerningly, in many areas, piracy is still a growing problem, with an overall 16% increase on the previous nine-month period,” James Mason, CTO of MUSO says.

Piracy: A Complex Puzzle

It’s worth noting that the numbers reported above only apply to regular pirate sites visits. This means that a large and growing part of the piracy ecosystem, including dedicated piracy boxes and illegal IPTV offerings, are not included.

The complexity is also apparent on the anti-piracy enforcement side. Steve Ragan, security researcher at Akamai and author of the report notes that there’s no silver bullet to address each type of piracy online. However, a combination of measures can certainly make a dent.

At the same time, Akamai also found that not all pirates refuse to pay. Many of them already have subscription services, but use unauthorized sites to complement their entertainment consumption.

“Many of the conversations that Akamai researchers observed online related to piracy show that while a given show or movie is being pirated, those looking for this content pay to access other streaming services.

“The reason — outside of criminal enterprise — that many are pirating the content that they do is lack of access and availability,” the report adds.

This means that, while it’s vital to crack down on the criminal side of piracy sites and services, there’s still some progress to be made at the supply aide as well. That is, if the subscription fatigue hasn’t kicked in yet.

In 2020, authorities in Italy revealed the existence of ‘Operation: The Net’, a broad investigation targeting the supply and sale of pirate IPTV services.

Initial interventions took place in September 2020 and in December that year, authorities announced the takedown of a 50,000 user platform following an investigation carried out by Sky and football league Serie A.

Authorities Dismantle “500,000 Subscriber” Network

According to an announcement from the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office, on Wednesday officers from the Guardia di Finanza executed warrants across Italy that dismantled a very large pirate IPTV network said to have serviced 500,000 customers.

The targeted network is described as being supported by a “complex technological infrastructure” operating at a national level to illegally supply pay TV channels to the public.

Authorities say they carried out searches in Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna, Campania and Calabria, targeting the homes of 20 suspects who in various ways were involved in the supply and distribution of illegal streams. All are under investigation for breaches of copyright law.

ISP and Stream Source Identified

Other than its obvious scale, the operation is particularly interesting given some of the identified targets. In Campania, authorities say they were able to identify the administrator of ‘CyberGroup’, a service well known in pirate IPTV circles for facilitating access to illegal streams. The Guardia di Finanza of Milan says that CyberGroup is a “real” internet service provider whose servers were used by a number of illegal IPTV services.

Also in Campania, authorities further identified an entity responsible for the management of payments relating to pirate Sky TV subscriptions. In Tuscany, a search was carried out against a suspect who reportedly used 50 mobile devices to illegally distribute Sky TV content.

Rightsholders and Anti-Piracy Groups Welcome The Action

Sky TV, one of the rightsholders affected by the illegal operation, was quick to praise the authorities.

“The Guardia di Finanza has Sky’s full support in its work to combat audiovisual piracy and we welcome today’s operation, the latest in a series of increasingly effective actions aimed at putting an end to this illegal phenomenon. Audiovisual piracy not only finances organized crime and adversely affects creative industries, but also poses real risks for end users,” the broadcaster said.

Federico Bagnoli Rossi, Secretary General of anti-piracy group FAPAV (Federation for the Protection of Audiovisual Contents and Multimedia) noted that the dismantling of the network will help legitimate content providers.

“The operation coordinated by the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office and conducted by the Guardia di Finanza, to whom our applause and thanks go for the constant work carried out to protect audiovisual content, led to the dismantling of a complex criminal network operating at national level and dedicated to the illegal dissemination and sale of pirate subscriptions for the use of television content,” Rossi said.

“We once again thank the Police Forces and the competent Authorities for the work carried out which proves to be fundamental and decisive for protecting an industrial sector, such as the audiovisual one, fundamental for the economy and employment of our country.”

In the hope of accessing YouTube’s Content ID system, in 2020 musician Maria Schneider launched a class action lawsuit that alleged mass infringement and serious deficiencies in YouTube’s copyright enforcement measures.

She did so with the support of a shadowy company called ‘Pirate Monitor’ but an in-depth investigation by YouTube later revealed that the entity was up to no good.

In order to build its case against YouTube, Pirate Monitor had uploaded around 2,000 movie clips to YouTube and then filed fraudulent takedown notices to have that content removed. It later admitted it didn’t hold the copyrights to the works it asserted in the case.

YouTube went on to file a counterclaim and named Hungarian film director and California resident Gábor Csupó (who previously worked on The Simpsons, Rugrats, Duckman, Stressed Eric, and Aaahh!!! Real Monsters) as the person presiding over Pirate Monitor.

With allegations of fraud threatening to bring the class into disrepute, Pirate Monitor voluntarily dismissed its claims against YouTube but the video platform refused to back down, keeping the allegations of a “wide-ranging fraud” in its counterclaim intact.

In the wake of Pirate Monitor’s withdrawal, Schneider filed a first amended complaint that added two new parties to the action – Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC and AST Publishing. Yet again (and as it did earlier with Schneider and Pirate Monitor) YouTube pointed out huge deficiencies in the claims of the new companies and in December asked the court to dismiss the entire complaint.

Plaintiffs Want Counterclaim Handed Separately

In the meantime, however, Pirate Monitor and its behavior are back at the forefront of the case after the plaintiffs asked the court to sever YouTube’s counterclaim from the case so it can be handled separately. Predictably, YouTube is having none of it.

In its opposition to the motion to sever, YouTube says that after “handpicking” Pirate Monitor to lead the putative class action based on claims that it was suffering in the same way as other copyright holders around the world, Pirate Monitor was held up as a “perfect example” of a copyright holder wrongly denied access to Content ID. With its “fraudulent” actions showing otherwise, the opposite was evident.

“Pirate Monitor has instead proven to be a perfect example of why YouTube does not — and cannot — offer Content ID to everyone,” YouTube’s response reads. “Giving Pirate Monitor the power to control and block videos based on bogus copyright claims like those it asserted here could have visited significant hardship on countless YouTube users.”

YouTube says that when the plaintiffs could no longer deny Pirate Monitor’s misconduct, the company dismissed its own claims with prejudice. This demonstrates that the plaintiffs only wish to sever YouTube’s counterclaims against Pirate Monitor because its own actions support YouTube’s position that Content ID access will be abused if they allow anyone to use it.

“It is hard to imagine a better embodiment of YouTube’s concerns about Content ID misuse than Pirate Monitor. Its baseless assertion of copyright ownership and its fraudulent infringement claims would, if made through Content ID’s automated machinery, wreak havoc on other users and YouTube itself. As a result, the presentation of YouTube’s counterclaims against Pirate Monitor will confirm the need for Content ID access restrictions and refute Plaintiffs’ charge that the restrictions are intended to enable ‘copyright piracy’,” YouTube writes.

“Plaintiffs chose Pirate Monitor as their standard bearer at the start of this case,” the video platform continues.

“They understandably now wish to distance themselves as much as possible. But the overlap between Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims, YouTube’s counterclaims, and Pirate Monitor’s defenses is plain, and no legitimate interests would be served by severing the counterclaims at this point.”

“YouTube Believes Pirate Monitor Sullys The Case”

In their reply in support of their motion to sever, the plaintiffs frame things very differently. They argue that the idea of severance is to promote judicial economy and to avoid prejudice. They note that YouTube is seeking $20,000 in its counterclaim against Pirate Monitor but that has already resulted in “significant waste and prejudice.”

According to them, YouTube has already spent in excess of $100,000 in attorney’s fees litigating its counterclaims, an “exponential disparity” that makes a settlement “the only rational path” to resolve the claims. Indeed, the plaintiffs claim that severance would facilitate such a settlement but they believe YouTube isn’t interested in the money.

“The sole justification for this waste is YouTube’s improper desire to distract from the claims brought by Plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, and AST Publishing in their pursuit of class-wide relief,” they inform the court.

“If the cases are not decoupled, however, YouTube will continue to press the claims against Pirate Monitor for the simple reason that YouTube believes these claims sully the class and will unduly influence the decision-maker — inappropriate reasons to contest severance.”

The plaintiffs further state that YouTube is using its counterclaims against Pirate Monitor as a “guilt-by-association weapon to be wielded against Plaintiffs and the putative class,” adding that severance would not prejudice YouTube.

The related court documents can be found here (1,2 pdf)

Founded more than 16 years ago, Rojadirecta is one of the oldest and most popular linking sites for sports streaming events.

The site, which is operated by the Spanish company Puerto 80 Projects, has built a loyal user base over the years. At the same time, it has fought quite a few legal battles too.

Copyright holders have repeatedly accused Rojadirecta of facilitating piracy because users share links to unauthorized broadcasts. This has landed the site in court on more than one occasion and also drew the attention of the US Department of Justice.

In 2011, Rojadirecta’s domain name was seized by U.S. authorities as part of “Operation in Our Sites.” While that would be the end of most linking platforms, Rojadirecta challenged the domain seizure with success. After eighteen months, the domain was returned.

Criminal Prosecution

In the years that followed legal trouble kept coming back, however. Today, the site is blocked in several countries including the UK, Denmark, and Uruguay. Perhaps even more worryingly is that on its home turf in Spain, a criminal trial is about to start.

The legal issues in Spain are far from new. Years ago the site won two lawsuits in Spain, which declared the site as operating legally under local law. However, in 2016 the tide started to turn. A local court ordered the site to stop linking to unauthorized streams and, around the same time, a criminal investigation was launched.

Rojadirecta’s operator was arrested soon after the investigation began. He was later released but the authorities didn’t let the case go. This week, a La Coruña court announced that the matter will go to trial as there is now sufficient evidence.

Potential Prison Sentences

Local news outlet Marca reports that the prosecution will seek a four-year prison sentence for Rojadirecta founder and operator Igor Seoane, who must post bail of four million euros. A trial date has yet to be scheduled.

In addition to the operator, the prosecution will also go after five accomplices who face potential prison sentences of between three months and two years. Naturally, a site shutdown is also on the line, if the defendants are found guilty of copyright infringement.

Spanish football league LaLiga and rights owner Mediapro are listed as victims in this case. They seek a six-year prison sentence for Seoane and more than six million euros in damages.

Blocked in Spain

It is worth noting that Rojadirecta already started blocking Spanish visitors years ago following the aforementioned blocking order. The site now receives most traffic from the US, Mexico, and Latin America, and remains up and running.

TorrentFreak reached out to Rojadirecta yesterday with a request for comment. The operator said that he was not in the position to comment immediately. If a response is received we will update the article accordingly.

In an effort to control what its citizens can access on the internet, over the past several years Russian authorities have stepped up their blocking and censorship efforts.

Some initiatives, such as the blocking of websites and URLs to reduce copyright infringement, are commonplace outside Russia but local authorities have also begun defining additional content categories, including some political dissent, as illegal. As a result, not only is this content blocked by ISPs but those who provide means to unblock it can also find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

This has sucked some VPN providers into the debate and after they failed to comply, Russia blocked them too, with the inevitable fallout and collateral damage.

Tor Becomes the Next ‘Logical’ Target

In the weeks leading up to the new year, reports indicated that Russia was taking action against Tor nodes, most likely by deploying the same Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) system it previously used to throttle Twitter and to silence the Smart Voting website developed by jailed opposition politician Aleksei Navalny.

The efforts didn’t appear to affect the whole of Russia but many ISPs were affected. Soon after, Russian politicians began openly criticizing Tor as a tool for criminals, with one going as far as labeling it “an “absolute evil”. Soon after, problems hit the Tor Project’s main domain.

Following a warning from local telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor supported by a decision from the Saratov District Court dating back to 2017, Russian authorities ordered local ISPs to block TorProject.org.

Fighting Back

Since then, Tor supporters have been working to mitigate the blocking measures, which include attacks on Tor bridges or relays that are not listed in the public Tor directory.

This cat and mouse game could go indefinitely so in the meantime, the Tor Project has decided to take legal action in Russia to contest the blockade.

In partnership with digital rights activists at Roskomsvoboda, an organization that champions privacy, anonymity, freedom of information and prohibition of censorship, on January 11, 2022, The Tor Project, Inc. filed an appeal at the Saratov District Court against Russia’s blocking measures.

Without naming any specific content at all, Russia says it took action to prevent access to Tor’s “anonymizing browser” in order to restrict access to sites that host content included in the “Federal List of Extremist Materials”.

Roskomsvoboda believes that the Court acted illegally and the order should be overturned.

“Order Violates Constitutional Rights”

According to the digital freedoms group, the decision of the Court should be canceled on the basis that it violates the constitutional right to freely provide, receive and disseminate information and protect privacy. The blocking decision was also handed down without the participation of Tor representatives, which violated their procedural rights and the fairness of the process.

“The decision of the court is contrary to the law and already established practice. According to the position of the Supreme Court, any decision made without the participation of the owner of the site is unjust and violates the rights of this owner,” says Roskomsvoboda legal representative Sarkis Darbinyan.

“In addition, we have the decision of the ECtHR [European Court of Human Rights] in the Engels v. Russia case, which states that blocking a technical network tool is no different from trying to restrict access to printers and photocopiers, since they can also be used to reproduce extremist materials.”

Tor Project Executive Director Isabela Bageros is hopeful that the process in Russia, which began with the filing of an appeal on January 11, 2022, will lead to a positive outcome both for Tor and Russian netizens.

“With the help of Roskomsvoboda lawyers Sarkis Darbinyan and Ekaterina Abashina, we will appeal the court decision and hope to correct this situation and help create a precedent for the protection of digital rights in Russia,” Bageros says.

Separately, Russian telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor, which oversees blocking in Russia, sent a complaint to YouTube this week demanding the restoration of two channels operated by a music group and a local radio station that were suspended by YouTube due to copyright infringement complaints.

“Roscomnadzor believes that such actions on the part of the YouTube video hosting administration violate the key principles of the free distribution of information, unimpeded access to it, and are an act of censorship, which is prohibited under the Russian Constitution,” the watchdog said.

The joint Tor/Roskomsvoboda campaign website can be found here

Last October, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com, and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov.

A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of several prominent music companies after the defendant walked away from the lawsuit.

According to the order, there is a clear need to deter the behavior of Kurbanov who failed to hand over evidence including server logs. “A less drastic sanction is unlikely to salvage this case,” the Judge wrote.

Following this win, the RIAA asked for an injunction to stop the sites’ worldwide stream-ripping activities. In addition, the music group demanded $82 million in damages. Both of these requests were taken up in a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Buchanan in December.

YouTube Rippers Oppose Potential $82M Damages Award

Kurbanov’s legal team opposed this recommendation a few weeks ago. Through his lawyers, the operator argued that the Judge’s findings are in direct contravention of the law because the music companies failed to provide evidence of any infringing activity taking place in the United States.

In addition, the defense argued that, if damages are needed, these should be substantially lower as Mr. Kurbanov himself is not accused of downloading any songs. He simply built his site around the open-source software youtube-dl that is freely available to anyone on the Internet.

The opposition brief pointed out that it’s far from clear that youtube-dl ‘circumvents’ anything. It specifically referenced a letter the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sent to GitHub after it removed the youtube-dl software from its platform following an RIAA takedown notice in 2020.

EFF’s letter made GitHub reconsider its decision and soon after, the youtube-dl repository was restored.

RIAA Responds

Late last week, the RIAA responded to Kurbanov’s arguments, including the use of youtube-dl and EFF’s letter. According to the music group, it is irrelevant whether the stream-rippers relied on the open source software or not.

“Defendant is no less responsible for his violation of Section 1201 simply because he built his illegal Websites by incorporating some software developed by others instead of building the Websites from scratch.”

The music group points out that the Court has already established that Defendant is liable for circumvention. In addition, the music companies’ own experts testified before the court that youtube-dl software circumvents technological measures.

EFF ‘Sides with Infringers’

That the EFF holds a different view is true, but the letter wasn’t presented as an official expert report. In addition, the RIAA also questions the objectivity of the group, noting that it “regularly sides with infringers.”

“The EFF letter is no substitute for an expert report. EFF is a partisan advocacy group that regularly sides with infringers but has not submitted a declaration in this case,” RIAA’s response reads.

“Nor does the EFF letter speak to Defendant’s state of mind or knowledge; he provides no declaration to suggest that he relied on (or was even aware of) EFF’s opinions,” it adds.

Mr. Kurbanov also pointed out that the music companies failed to provide any evidence that FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com were used to download infringing music in the United States. As such, it would be impossible to conclude that infringements actually took place.

The RIAA counters this argument as well. The music group points out that, for a default judgment, there is no need to “prove” or “show” that the defendant is liable. Instead, they only have to show that the infringement claims are plausible, which the Magistrate Judge agreed on.

‘Geo-Blocking is No Escape’

The stream-rippers also argued that an injunction is no longer needed as they have already blocked traffic from US visitors.

While the RIAA doesn’t contend that the sites have blocked US traffic, the music group notes that an injunction is still needed as this voluntary blocking decision can be easily reversed in the future.

“[T]he law is clear that Defendant’s eleventh-hour geo-blocking effort does not vitiate the need for injunctive relief. An injunction is necessary because Defendant could flip a switch tomorrow and re-enable access to the Websites by users in the United States,” it concludes.

The above is just a selection of the various points that are contested in the RIAA response brief. A copy of the music companies’ full response to the stream-rippers objections is available here (pdf).

Due to the way many pirate IPTV services are structured, top level suppliers often rely on a cascading marketing system whereby subscriptions are sold and resold through a network of so-called resellers.

This type of arrangement allows lower-level individuals to sell subscriptions to their own customer bases while also helping to shield providers from unwanted attention from copyright holders and authorities. Of course, this can also draw attention to the resellers who end up shouldering the blame when investigations get underway.

Investigation in Sweden

In 2018, a representative of several Swedish copyright holders began an investigation into one such individual and in October that year, bought a set-top box from the man that came loaded with a one-year pirate IPTV subscription that boasted “ALL sports and movies”.

According to Aftonbladet (paywall), police raided the man’s house in November 2019 and found IPTV devices that were being sold through a website he had owned since 2009.

A financial investigation revealed that the 58-year-old had sold IPTV boxes and subscriptions on at least 119 occasions during the previous year, earning him up to SEK 300,000 (US$ 32,900). Police also retrieved data from storage and communications devices revealing sales of pirate IPTV subscriptions plus emails and text messages to customers.

Not Me, Man Claims

Two days after the initial house search the listings for IPTV devices were removed from the man’s website and according to Aftonbladet, the man provided details of his activities under questioning. During his court hearing, however, he denied wrongdoing.

The man claimed that the sales had been carried out by a third party in his name. He declined to name the person but the Stockholm District Court wasn’t convinced. He was sentenced for aiding and abetting violations of the Copyright Act and was considered for a four-month prison sentence. However, since the Court found that he was unlikely to re-offend, the sentence was suspended and he was handed a relatively small fine.

Damages to TV Companies

After finding the man guilty of copyright infringement the matter of damages payable to the four large TV companies behind the action remained. Aftonbladet reports that the damages were calculated based on the 119 illegal subscribers that gained unauthorized access to 56 channels for a period of a year. That means that the man must now pay damages of SEK 1.5 million (US$164,460) to the TV companies.

According to a 2021 survey from research company Mediavision, an estimated 225,000 Swedes subscribe to illegal IPTV services but according to the authorities, suppliers and resellers are their main targets – end users are not a priority.

“Customers are not prosecuted, they do not make copyrighted material available, which is one of the requirements to be a violation of copyright law,” says Brita Wallström who works with the police’s National Operational Department (NOA). Instead, Wallström says that for users, it’s a moral issue.

“You give your hard-earned money to someone who does not tax their income or contribute to society in general, so of course you should think before you buy this type of service. There is also a risk that the service will be shut down.”

Other countries around Europe do not adopt the same stance against end-users. In the UK, buyers of pirate IPTV subscriptions have been warned they could be committing fraud and in Italy, users face fines for receiving stolen goods.

In reponse to rampant cheating in Call of Duty games, earlier this month Activision filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against cheat maker EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A.

The complaint also named six individuals (Valentin Rick, Leonard Bugla, Leon Frisch, Ignacio Gayduchenko, Marc-Alexander Richts, Alexander Kleeman) and added 50 ‘Doe’ defendants.

Activision explained that to combat cheating it had previously deployed its RICHOCET Anti-Cheat system and since EngineOwning tools bypass that, these defendants are in breach of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

Activision Investigation Has Been Running Since 2017

According to new filings with the court, Activision’s investigation into EngineOwning has been live since 2017. Carried out with the assistance of a cybercrime investigative service (Activision declines to name it on security grounds), Activision managed to identify a small number of defendants. In 2017 and 2018, its lawyers wrote to them several times, demanding that they cease and desist.

That reportedly had no effect and it’s alleged that EngineOwning’s response was to broaden its operations by rolling out updated products to counter Activision’s anti-cheat systems while expanding its reseller network and staff. And that wasn’t all.

EngineOwning Mocked Activision, ‘Trolled’ Lawyers

“Defendants (or other anonymous individuals employed by EngineOwning) also began actively mocking Activision, such as by heavily promoting its Call of Duty Cheats and ‘trolling’ me and my firm with fake online groups and user profiles,” Activision lawyer Marc Meyer writes in a declaration to the court.

Meyer, a partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (MSK), says his company still needs to identify at least 15 individuals, currently known only by their online aliases – Bonsai, Agriolo, Chronos, Deutschlander, Enceladus, Homie, Jeuwifghue, LogicX, LuoZheng, mortyy, NOL3X, SlapstiK, Croatle, Speedi13, and Requi.

“[T]he Doe Defendants certainly are aware of this lawsuit. In fact, we are aware that at least one of the Doe defendants posted a message online bragging about being named as a Doe Defendant and claiming that Activision will never find him,” Meyer informed the court.

Since Activision says it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to put real names to aliases, assistance is now needed from the court. The details of the discovery request filed in recent days suggest that Activision will leave no stone unturned in naming the defendants, including the person who believes that he or she won’t be caught.

Activision Subpoenas….Everything

In order to function, EngineOwning uses a number of services including internet service providers, payment providers and social media websites. Activision says that by compelling these services to hand over the details they hold on the defendants, the company will move closer to identifying them. Without a doubt, the list of companies is extremely broad.

For example, it’s believed that Google-owned YouTube holds information on the operators of several channels that are used for marketing and advertising EngineOwning products. Twitter is believed to hold information on at least 11 of the 15 ‘doe’ defendants while Tucows and Namecheap hold information on the people who registered the deactivision.com, dn-spoofer.com, keller-elite.com and garnatz.bz domains.

On the payment processing front, PayPal, Stripe, Amazon and Coinbase are all said to have done business with EngineOwning and could hold valuable information on the defendants. Drilling down into social media, several defendants including Bonsai, LogicX, and Speedi13 reportedly operate Reddit accounts while EngineOwning has at least three accounts on Instagram – Activision wants whatever data the services hold on the defendants.

Whoever created the ‘MSKCrime’ community on Steam could also be identified via a subpoena to Valve, in particular the person who created a user account in Activision’s lawyer’s name. Rounding off the list Activision also seeks cooperation from Discord to identify a number of defendants who hold accounts there, Cloudflare which provided services to the EngineOwning website, and even Trustpilot.

The subpoenas have been authorized by the court but whether they will lead to anything concrete remains a question. Nevertheless, Activision appears determined to unmask its adversaries.

Supporting court documents here (1,2,3, pdf)

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

This includes the Copyright Directive which passed in 2019. A year later, the EU proposed more copyright regulations as part of the Digital Services Act, which was up for a vote this week.

Big Tech and Takedowns

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the official successor to the E-Commerce Directive. The new package aims to bring EU legislation into line with the current state of the digital age, which has changed dramatically over the past several years.

The official text includes new rules for big tech and also touches on some copyright issues. These include several passages that can change how online services handle takedown notices, without being held liable for user uploads.

Not all copyright holders were pleased with the first draft, as some believed that it didn’t go far enough. They proposed to further increase liability for online services providers, for example, to ensure that infringing content can’t reappear online after it’s been removed.

Others believed that the DSA proposals already went too far. For example, several digital rights groups called for a ban on voluntary upload filters that can’t take context, such as fair use, into consideration.

EU Parliament Adopts DSA

This suggestion was turned into an amendment by the LIBE Committee which was on the line yesterday when the European Parliament voted on the final text of the Digital Services Act.

The DSA itself was approved by a broad majority. However, the amendment which would have effectively banned dumb upload filters, did not pass. With 242 votes in favor and 434 against, the proposal was rejected.

This decision came as a major disappointment to the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, including Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer.

“Internet corporations use unreliable upload filters against supposedly illegal content – with much collateral damage. The majority won‘t even limit automated censorship to content that is manifestly illegal irrespective of its context,” he tweeted.

Site Blocking Ban Strands

The LIBE Committee also submitted an amendment that should put an end to court orders that require ISPs to block websites, including pirate sites. These broad blockades can potentially harm free speech, it argued, adding that content should be removed from the source.

This proposal didn’t get approval in Parliament either. The overwhelming majority, 524 of all MEPs, voted against the anti-blocking amendment while only 146 were in favor.

These setbacks aside, the LIBE Committee also booked some major successes. For example, an amendment to protect people’s right to use and pay for online services anonymously passed with a small majority.

This anonymity right doesn’t apply to porn platforms, however. These will face stronger regulation with the requirement to verify the phone numbers of uploaders and commenters.

The DSA text adopted by the European Parliament is not final yet. It will serve as the starting point for the trilogue negotiations with the European Council and Commission, which could result in further changes.

Under US copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.”

In the past such drastic action was rare, but with the backing of legal pressure, ISPs are increasingly being held to this standard.

Billion Dollar Lawsuits

Several major music industry companies including Artista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records, have filed lawsuits against some of the largest U.S. Internet providers. This also includes Bright House, which is owned by Charter.

Through legal action, the music companies hope to win hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. These are not just theoretical claims as a federal jury handed down a billion-dollar award in a lawsuit against Cox Communications two years ago.

Bright House would like to avoid this fate at all costs. The ISP previously hit back accusing the record labels, the RIAA, and their anti-piracy partner MarkMonitor of sending inaccurate and deceptive takedown notices. This is in violation of the DMCA, the ISP argued.

A few months ago the Florida federal court dismissed this counterclaim. While the court didn’t rule on the alleged evidence shortcomings, it pointed out that Bright House didn’t terminate any subscribers as a result, so no real harm was done.

‘Destroyed Evidence’

This dismissal came as a disappointment to Bright House, which hopes to have some leverage when the case goes to trial. However, the ISP is not giving up on contesting the evidence just yet. In a new filing submitted a few days ago, the company asks the court to sanction the record labels for allegedly destroying piracy evidence.

The motion for sanctions and curative measures is heavily redacted but it’s clear that Bright House believes that crucial evidence was destroyed. This information was central to (part of) the piracy notifications on which the repeat infringer claims are based.

“While 110,000 of these notices provide the foundation for Plaintiffs’ $1 billion damages claims against Bright House under Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, [REDACTED],” Bright House writes.

Most exhibits are redacted as well, which makes it hard to grasp exactly what was deleted. The readable parts suggest that evidence related to the reliability and accuracy of notices that were sent out between 2012-2015 is no longer available.

This information applies to MarkMonotor’s piracy tracking system as well as Audible Magic’s services, which are used to verify that shared files are indeed copyright infringing.

“Bright House sought this information from Plaintiffs, RIAA, MarkMonitor, and Audible Magic during fact discovery. But it is no longer available, in material part, because [REDACTED],” Bright House writes.

Scantions and Surative Measures

The record labels previously argued that takedown notices themselves are sufficient to prove direct infringement, but the ISP clearly disagrees.

“Plaintiffs’ destruction of evidence has unduly prejudiced Bright House’s ability to challenge Plaintiffs’ direct infringement case — the bedrock of the entire lawsuit. In these circumstances, curative measures and sanctions are warranted.”

If the court agrees that sanctions are appropriate, it doesn’t automatically mean that the missing evidence can’t be cited during an eventual trial. This also became apparent when record labels were previously sanctioned in the Cox case.

However, in addition to sanctions, Bright House also requests curative measures, which could be more helpful if they’re granted.

The ISP specifically calls for the exclusion of evidence, special jury instructions that highlight the alleged errors, as well as permission to present information and raise arguments regarding the loss of evidence during trial.

—

A copy of Bright House’s motion for sanctions and curative measures is available here (pdf)

The Domain Name System has been an essential component of the Internet since the mid-eighties.

DNS resolvers make it possible to map a human-readable domain name to an IP-address, so a website or service can be easily located. Older people also call it the Internet’s phone book.

Nowadays, there are several large DNS resolvers. Many ISPs operate their own but third-party DNS services are very popular too. The most used third-party options include Google, Cloudflare, OpenDNS and Norton, which are all US-based. This large foreign footprint has the EU worried.

DNS4EU

To offer some balance to the American dominance in the DNS industry, Europe is proposing its own alternative titled DNS4EU. Last week the European Commission published a call for proposals, which also describes in detail what features the government-controlled DNS resolver should offer.

The project overview makes it clear that DNS4EU is meant to protect the privacy of end-users and keep them secure.

“DNS4EU shall offer a high level of resilience, global and EU-specific cybersecurity protection, data protection and privacy according to EU rules, ensure that DNS resolution data are processed in Europe and personal data are not monetised,” the EU writes in its overview.

In addition to serving individuals directly, the resolver will also be available to Internet backbone networks that handle traffic in, from, and to Europe. These backbones are part of global traffic routes which means that millions of people could potentially be impacted.

Many of the proposed DNS4EU features aim to protect EU citizens. For example, the DSN resolver is not allowed to monetize user data and has to comply with applicable privacy regulations including the GDPR.

At the same time, there is also a heavy focus on filtering. DNS4U should help to block malware and phishing, for example, and protect against other cybersecurity threats. These are quite common features for DNS services nowadays.

Blocking Unlawful Traffic

The EU initiative goes a step further though. While details are scarce at this early stage, the language in the official documentation suggests that “illegal content” could be blocked as well.

“Filtering of URLs leading to illegal content based on legal requirements applicable in the EU or in national jurisdictions (e.g. based on court orders), in full compliance with EU rules.”

The above suggests that pirate sites can be blocked by DNS4EU as well, if there’s an applicable court order. These sites will then be blocked for all users in the region. At the same time, it could also affect traffic that passes through the Internet backbones that use the DNS resolver.

Without knowing the full technical setup we’re cautious not to draw strong conclusions. That said, backbones generally operate across borders and continents, so potential overblocking is a serious concern.

The project overview stresses that filtering and blocking measures should be in line with national rules so we assume that the DNS resolver may treat traffic from individual member states differently if needed.

Censorship Risk?

Patrick Breyer, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Pirate Party, believes that the project is unnecessary. The current DNS solutions work fine and adding government-run filtering and blocking tools is dangerous.

“A government-run DSA scheme comes with the risk of online censorship,” Breyer tells TorrentFreak, while adding that DNS blocking itself is easily circumvented.

“Access blocking leaves content online and therefore can easily be circumvented and often results in overblocking and collateral suppression of legal speech hosted on the same website, by the same provider or via the same network.”

This type of collateral damage is not just hypothetical. Breyer notes that, in 2020, the public domain library Project Gutenberg was blocked in its entirety in Italy because some content allegedly violated local laws.

Borderless Backbone

That blocking won’t always stop at borders is also well known. In 2017, several websites were blocked around the world because Internet backbone provider Cogent blackholed several Cloudflare IP-addresses in response to an Italian court order.

According to Breyer, infringing content should be removed, not blocked. Otherwise, there’s always the risk of overblocking.

“Illegal content should be removed where it is hosted,” Breyer says, adding that this is why the civil liberties committee will ask the European Parliament to scrap blocking orders from the Digital Services Act.

The DNS4EU also raises other issues. For example, it will offer better security options for “customers” who pay, which seems strange for a government-backed service.

As said before, the project is still in its early stages and a lot of details have yet to be fleshed out.

According to Breyer, this DNS solution shouldn’t turn into a “Chinese-style Euro-Net.” It’s important that people are aware of these plans and that they are amended where needed, in order to maintain an open Internet.

In order to finance their operations, millions of websites rely on advertising to generate revenue. For some readers, however, excessive or obtrusive advertising is something to be combatted, often through the use of adblocking tools.

Developed by German company Eyeo GmbH and available on Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Android and iOS, one of the most popular tools is AdBlock Plus. It’s able to drastically reduce the volume of advertising seen by its users but that didn’t sit well with publishing giant Axel Springer.

The publisher, which owns Bild and Die Welt, among others, claimed that AdBlock Plus and its users interfere with its business model so in response took legal action to bring that to an end. However, after trips through regional courts and eventually Germany’s Supreme Court, in April 2018 Adblock Plus and Eyeo came out on top having been found not in breach of competition law.

Axel Springer Claims Adblocking is Copyright Infringement

After its defeat in the earlier action, in 2019 Axel Springer filed a new lawsuit on new grounds. This time around the publisher claimed that AdBlock Plus “changed the programming code of websites thus directly accessing the legally protected offer of publishers.” In other words, AdBlock Plus breaches copyright law.

Eyeo immediately dismissed the allegations as “almost absurd”, noting that its browser-side tool does not attempt to modify anything on Springer’s servers. Nevertheless, Springer pressed ahead with its legal action, claiming that by interfering with website delivery to viewers, that constituted copyright infringement and was worthy of an injunction.

Springer Likens Adblocking to Videogame Cheating

In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed code in memory to facilitate cheating was infringing. In that case the court found that the temporary modification of the software constituted a revision of the software, something which requires permission from rightsholders.

In this case, there were no claims that AdBlock Plus changed or manipulated any copyrighted works. Instead, Springer claimed that the software interferes with how copyrighted content is displayed in a browser. According to a judgment handed down by the Hamburg Regional Court, that in itself is not enough to determine copyright infringement by AdBlock Plus, or its users.

Court Dismisses Lawsuit

In a decision handed down Friday, the Court finds that Axel Springer is not entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Section 91 (1) UrhG since there was no unauthorized duplication and/or reworking of copyrighted computer programs as defined in copyright law.

“[T]he defendants have not infringed the plaintiff’s rights to the programs for creating the web pages. The defendants are not – together with the respective user – accessories to a copyright infringement,” the decision reads.

According to the Court, the HTML files and other elements are loaded into the user’s main memory when Axel Springer-controlled web pages are accessed, but that takes place with the publisher’s consent. Users who access those pages and also use AdBlock Plus are also entitled to store those files since when the files are transferred, there is an implied agreement for the user to do so.

Furthermore, while AdBlock Plus changes the structure of how websites are presented in a browser, the tool does not change any code, only how that code flows.

Ultimately, the Court found that the processes carried out by AdBlock Plus following the local saving of the website do not constitute a “reworking” under copyright law. Only a change in the program substance can be considered as infringing.

The Court notes that ruling otherwise would represent a “disproportionate encroachment” on users’ freedoms to make various choices, including not to load images to save bandwidth, to deactivate Javascript, or block pop-ups or tracking elements. It would also render translation tools and aids for visually impaired people as copyright infringing.

Eyeo Welcomes Victory, Springer Set to Appeal

In a statement published this morning, Eyeo says that it has repeatedly defended the rights of internet users, software developers and publishers and is happy that the decision represents a win for a free and secure internet.

“The Hamburg Regional Court sets an important precedent here: No company has the right to prohibit users from setting their own browser settings. The ruling also gives many companies the legal certainty they need to continue developing applications that change users’ lives for the better,” says Eyeo CEO Till Faida.

While the case is now dismissed, Axel Springer has already announced its intention to appeal the decision. That will take place before the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court which previously ruled on the Playstation Portable cheating case.

In common with all communications systems such as telephone networks, internet service providers and even email, VPN services can be used by honest citizens and criminals alike.

In terms of staying within the boundaries of the law, the important factor is whether the communications provider or service actively and knowingly encourages or facilitates illegal activities. According to an announcement by Europol, VPN provider VPNLab appears to have overstepped the mark.

VPNLabs Domain Seized, Service Shut Down

Historical visitors to the VPNLab.net website were previously greeted with the kind of message associated with many privacy-focused services.

“VPNLab is a service providing your security on the Internet by encryption of original traffic. Our service is designed for a broad spectrum of clients: webmasters, SEO-optimizers, traders, businessmen and people, who care about their personal security,” the site read.

“Average users don’t see the necessity of the described procedure and may even find it useless, however the latest featured legal proceedings involving people who were just expressing their opinions in their own web-diaries show the seriousness of Internet security issue.”

Following a long-running international investigation by authorities in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Latvia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States, a new message is visible – one that suggests that the service was more than just a vehicle for enabling free speech.

VPNLab – 2008 to 2022

According to a Europol announcement, VPNLab began its operations in 2008, offering an OpenVPN-based service designed to provide online anonymity for as little as $60 per year. Exactly when the service came to the attention of law enforcement isn’t currently being made clear but according to Europol, at some point VPNLab became popular with cybercriminals.

“Law enforcement took interest in the provider after multiple investigations uncovered criminals using the VPNLab.net service to facilitate illicit activities such as malware distribution. Other cases showed the service’s use in the setting up of infrastructure and communications behind ransomware campaigns, as well as the actual deployment of ransomware,” Europol says.

The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation adds that as a result of the VPNLab investigation, more than 100 businesses have been identified as “at risk of cyberattacks” with law enforcement agencies currently working with these potential victims to mitigate their exposure.

International Cooperation

There seems little doubt that law enforcement authorities viewed VPNLab as a major cybersecurity problem.

In Germany, the Hanover Police Department played a key role and in the Netherlands, the country’s Hi-Tech Crime Unit was called upon. Also taking part in the operation were the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Czech National Organized Crime Agency, the UK’s National Crime Agency, the FBI in the United States, plus specialized agencies across Europe.

“On 17 January, disruptive actions took place in a coordinated manner in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Latvia, Ukraine, the United States and the United Kingdom. Law enforcement authorities have now seized or disrupted the 15 servers that hosted VPNLab.net’s service, rendering it no longer available,” Europol adds.

Criminals “Running Out of Places to Hide”

According to Edvardas Šileris, Head of Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre, the action against VPNLab shows that bad actors can’t take anonymity for granted.

“The actions carried out under this investigation make clear that criminals are running out of ways to hide their tracks online. Each investigation we undertake informs the next, and the information gained on potential victims means we may have pre-empted several serious cyberattacks and data breaches,” Šileris says.

An important feature of the announcement lies in the description of VPNLab. Rather than simply just another VPN provider offering anonymity on the regular internet, the service is claimed to have advertised itself on the dark web. While that certainly isn’t a crime in itself, Chief of Hanover Police Department Volker Kluwe suggests an unacceptable level of participation in the illegal activities of VPNLabs’ customers.

“One important aspect of this action is also to show that, if service providers support illegal action and do not provide any information on legal requests from law enforcement authorities, that these services are not bulletproof,” Kluwe says.

“This Operation shows the result of an effective cooperation of international law enforcement agencies, which makes it possible to shut down a global network and destroy such brands.”

The action against VPNLab follows a similar operation in June 2021 that targeted DoubleVPN. In that matter the VPN provider was also claimed to be complicit in the actions of its users, not simply by providing anonymity, but by advertising itself on cybercrime forums as a means for ransomware operators and phishing fraudsters to hide their locations.