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.

$82 million Damages Award?

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 last month.

 

“Defendant’s Websites caused the Plaintiffs to lose profits and streaming revenue because of the enormous internet traffic to and use of the Websites’ stream-ripping functions,” Judge Buchanan wrote.

 

The recommendation is yet to be accepted by the court but according to Kurbanov’s legal team, this shouldn’t happen. In an opposition brief filed late last week, they point out that the Judge made several errors.

 

The default judgment confirmed that the operator of the sites is liable. However, the defense believes that this doesn’t automatically mean that the music companies are entitled to damages. They still have to prove that the songs were ripped through the sites in the United States.

No Evidence of Infringements

The music companies provided hundreds of pages of evidence and argued that 1,618 works were infringed. However, there is no evidence of any of these infringements actually taking place, the defense argues.

 

“The law on this point is exceedingly clear: regardless of the fact that the Court defaulted Mr. Kurbanov, Plaintiffs were required to prove the facts that would entitle them to recover the damages sought,” Kurbanov’s opposition brief reads.

 

“Plaintiffs provided the Court with no competent evidence from which the Court could conclude that any infringement took place at all in connection with the 1,618 works in suit, much less that such infringement took place within the boundaries of the United States.”

 

Judge Buchanan stressed that the music companies were not required to provide this evidence because it can be presumed from the default judgment. However, Kurbanov’s lawyer points to jurisprudence that contests this.

‘Proposed Damages are Too High’

Even if the court agrees that statutory damages are appropriate in this case, the suggested amount of $50,000 per copyright infringement is too high, according to the defense.

 

The opposition brief points out that 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.

 

“It is Plaintiffs’ contention that the youtube-dl software (which Mr. Kurbanov did not himself create) circumvents technological measures put in place by Youtube (and not by the Plaintiffs). It is far from clear, however, that youtube-dl ‘circumvents’ anything and, indeed, many experts have concluded that it does not.”

 

This refers to a letter from the EFF which argued that youtube-dl does not circumvent technological measures. And since Mr. Kurbanov did not himself use the software to download any songs, his infringement should be considered “innocent,” resulting in the lowest amount of statutory damages, $200 per work.

 

Meanwhile, the additional damages per DMCA violation should be scrapped entirely. These damages apply to the same works and the music companies cannot recover damages twice for the same “injury”, the defense argues.

‘No Worldwide Injunction’

Finally, the court should not accept the permanent injunction suggested by the Judge. That order would apply worldwide, which means that it would apply outside of the court’s jurisdiction.

 

“In its current form, the proposed injunction exceeds this Court’s jurisdictional powers and so, at a minimum, should only be adopted insofar as it enjoins Mr. Kurbanov and his Websites from providing certain services to visitors from the United States.

 

“And, indeed, given that Mr. Kurbanov voluntarily blocked access to the Websites from the United States, it is questionable as to whether any such injunction is necessary,” the defense adds.

 

That last comment could have broader implications. The YouTube rippers did indeed block all traffic from the United States a few months ago. This means that an injunction that’s limited to the U.S. would have no additional effect.

 

There is another complication. If the music companies are indeed required to deliver additional evidence to show that infringements take place in the U.S., they can no longer do so because U.S. traffic remains blocked.

 

We expect that the last word hasn’t been said on this matter. Before the court reaches a final decision, the RIAA is likely to have its say as well.

 

—

 

A copy of Mr. Kurbanov’s objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s report and recommendations is available here (pdf)

 

In the summer of 2017, some of the world’s largest entertainment groups formed a huge coalition with a mission to reduce online piracy.

 

Comprised of more than 30 companies, the Alliance for Creativity is now at the forefront of global anti-piracy enforcement. By combining its members’ resources to tackle infringement wherever it may occur in the world, the cross-border nature of piracy is now being addressed more effectively.

 

A new anti-piracy group set to launch this April appears to have similar goals in mind.

International Anti-Piracy Organization (IAPO)

At the heart of IAPO will sit the Japan-based anti-piracy group Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA). Director Masaharu Ina informs TorrentFreak that CODA planned the foundation of the IAPO coalition last year and talks have been held with the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the Copyright Society of China, plus other organizations around the world.

 

“Our plan is to start the new organization in or around April this year and share the information on piracy sites compiled in each country and provide same to the police of the country where the servers are located for example,” he explains.

Information shared with Nikkei indicates that copyright protection groups from around 13 countries will join together in a single international organization with the goal of disrupting piracy around the world.

Focus on Anime and Manga

In recent years, manga publications and anime content have enjoyed a massive international rise in popularity and with that a substantial rise in piracy rates. So, in common with their US counterparts that are also dealing with a global anti-piracy problem, companies in East Asia recognize that building overseas alliances is the logical step forward.

 

At the time of writing, CODA has 32 members including manga and anime giants Aniplex, Kadokawa, Kodansha, Shueisha, Shogakukan and Toei. The MPA has six members including Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros. The China Copyright Association represents 450 local content companies. These along with additional groups from South Korea and Vietnam are all expected to participate in the IAPO.

 

According to Nihon Keizai Shimbun, one of IAPO’s goals is to deal with pirates wherever they are located. While servers located in Japan can be dealt with locally, very often sites use hosts overseas. Having international partners will improve the investigation process while encouraging police to take on more cases where greater damage is being caused overseas by locally-hosted piracy operations.

 

In the event that local police responses to calls for investigations are sluggish, IAPO says it intends to escalate its requests to the relevant governments.

 

Last year, CODA member Shueisha requested help from a US court in order to track down the operator of Mangabank, a giant manga site that in the wake of the move shut down its operations.

 

Copyright infringement disputes come in many shapes and sizes. They can be entirely justified, cynically malicious but, in most cases, utterly frustrating for at least one of the parties.

 

What is rare, however, is for a copyright infringement dispute to have an air of sadness, especially when that affects both sides, albeit in different ways. I’m referring to the hugely controversial battle between Toei Animation and popular YouTuber Totally Not Mark we reported early December.

 

A short summary: Manga/anime fanatic Mark Fitzpatrick makes high-quality reviews and posts them on YouTube. To date, his channel has received nearly 40 million views. Just recently, Japanese company Toei Animation used Content ID to remove around 150 of his videos claiming that the use of Toei clips infringed their copyrights.

 

Mark believes his work is allowed under fair use but that didn’t seem important to Toei. It was important to many of Mark’s fans though, and with huge numbers flooding to social media to call for a Toei boycott, the situation had already spiraled out of control. Against this backdrop and Toei’s apparent refusal to discuss the matter, Mark posted videos that were conciliatory but were perceived by some to have counterproductive undertones.

 

This caused yet more conflict on social media with mud thrown at Toei, YouTube, Mark, and anyone else who dared to come out in support of any one of them at the wrong time or in the wrong way. It looked more like a bitter feud between mortal enemies than the usual celebrations of what manga and anime fans have in common. A quick search on Twitter today reveals that the conflict is sadly still ongoing.

 

The aim of this article isn’t to discuss the merits or failures of Content ID. Neither does it seek to provide an in-depth analysis of whether Mark’s fair use claims stand up. Or indeed whether Toei had the right to do what it did which, intended or not, seems to have seriously damaged Mark’s ability to earn a living.

 

The point is that by agreeing to let YouTube’s bots make technical decisions based on sophisticated yet somehow basic content matching, Toei allowed a piece of computer software to determine the nature of the company’s first interaction with not just an influential manga/anime fan, but a potential business partner.

 

Content ID was designed to tackle full-blown piracy but has zero ability to determine context or intent – malicious, well-meaning, or otherwise. It will grow in sophistication over time but it will never have the ability to predict the consequences of its actions. If it could it would’ve understood that Mark is an exceptional reviewer who loves manga and anime more than anything, is a wonderful promoter of Toei products, and has a loyal fanbase only too keen to empty their pockets buying Toei-like products.

 

“Are you sure you want to remove all of this YouTuber’s videos? (Y/N)”

 

But to focus on YouTube here is a little unfair since Content ID solves many more disputes than it creates. No, the real problem is the underutilization of one of humankind’s greatest gifts – that of communication. In a civilized world, there are few problems that can’t be solved or at least improved simply by talking. Apparently, that was not considered a viable option.

 

According to Mark, Toei’s first display of unhappiness was to delete his videos and ignore his appeals for discussion. Maybe the company felt there was nothing to discuss but as I mentioned in conversation with someone I respect who’s involved in the Japanese market, countless opportunities to exploit the situation for good (and for profit) were thrown away one after another, first by one side and then by the other.

 

There was a real chance for everyone to come out a winner but by not engaging in discussion, negotiation and compromise, pretty much everyone involved lost. As Stephen Hawking once said, it doesn’t have to be like this.

 

“Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind’s greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn’t have to be like this.

 

Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”

 

Happy New Year

 

With the empty bottles of sparkling liquid still on the table, TorrentFreak plans to tread into uncharted waters today.

 

We don’t make predictions every year, but when we do, they usually take a while to come true. For example, the “Pirate Coin” we envisioned in 2018 took more than three years to arrive. Sort of.

 

That said, it never hurts to let imaginations run wild for a while, so here’s what we’ve come up with this year. Needless to say, a pinch of salt is in order.

The Pirate Bay Sells Its Logo as an NFT

NFTs were all the rage last year and the months to come will offer plenty of opportunities to grab some free cash. That should be music to the ears of The Pirate Bay crew, while they are still working out what to do with their token.

 

Over the past two decades, The Pirate Bay has been the shining example of an early blockchain adopter, so NFTs would fit right in. Especially when they request payment in their own TPB token. The first offering will be an NFT for the iconic Pirate Bay logo, which will sell for roughly $19,229.

 

This NFT will come with several perks, including VIP uploader status and a counterfeit passport of the micronation Sealand. Soon after, all archived TPB doodles will be sold as NFTs as well.

 

These images that are tied to these NFTs will of course be shared freely on The Pirate Bay and elsewhere. The buyers can be assured though, no matter how many people copy the images, they still hold the unique NFT rights.

Copyright Holders Sue an Electricity Supplier

In recent years copyright holders have filed a variety of lawsuits against third-party intermediaries that allegedly facilitate piracy. This includes DNS providers, ISPs, hosting companies, advertisers, and VPN providers.

 

This year we expect to add an electricity supplier to this list. The multi-billion-dollar energy industry profits from nearly all aspects of the piracy ecosystem. And they have never disconnected a single client for copyright infringement.

 

The problem starts with the pirate suppliers, including scene groups. When they crack or rip content they always use electricity, and the same electricity is used to power the servers of their topsites.

 

Once the pirated music and movies make their way to public pirate sites – which are powered by energy – millions of people use electricity to illegally stream or download the pirated files. Despite this obvious connection, power companies are all turning a blind eye to this massive infringement.

Ultra-Niche Streaming Platforms Take Off

The success of Disney+, HBO Max, and other streaming services has inspired the movie industry to launch more ‘niche’ products for film fans. Disney is the first to start with Marvel+, which will air Marvel-themed movies and TV series six weeks before they land on Disney+. A combined subscription to both services is available at a discount.

 

Netflix soon realizes the potential of branching out. The streaming platform will move all of its exclusive content to Netflix Xtra in the summer of 2022.

 

This new service will host all Netflix originals, which will only be available for three months after their premiere on the regular Netflix platform.

 

Toward the end of 2022 independent film companies will jump on board. Millennium Films will take their Olympus/London/Angel “Has Fallen” series of all streaming services to launch HasFallen+. A lifetime subscription sells for $49 and comes with three movie posters and a sticker pack.

 

Guess what this has to do with piracy…

The First ‘Prophylactic’ Site Blocking Order

Copyright holders have managed to get pirate sites blocked in dozens of countries and this trend is not going to stop. However, simply blocking existing domain names and IP-addresses is not longer sufficient.

 

The next move is obviously to block domain names before they exist. This will ensure that 123movies, The Pirate Bay, or any random torrent site can’t simply move to a new domain to evade the blockade.

 

The High Court in Delhi, India, is the first to acknowledge this hydra monster threat. It therefore agrees to a prophylactic ‘wildcard’ order that blocks all domain names that include 123movies, tamilrockers, piratebay, and IPTV.

 

After two weeks the order is revised after several complaints from legitimate domains that use the word torrent, including TorrentFreak and the Spanish city Torrent. The High Court unblocks these domains and instates a complaint board to deal with similar problems going forward.

Premier League Introduces Anti-Piracy Time-Outs (VAR)

Piracy is a massive problem for live sporting events. Regular takedown notices need to be processed in near-real time to be effective. In 2021, sports organizers’ concerns were backed by the EU, which proposed a maximum takedown window of 30 minutes.

 

In addition, the Premier League and EUFA obtain more dynamic blocking orders, which compel ISPs to take swift action while football matches are ongoing.

 

These enforcement options are welcome but they’re not enough. To frustrate pirates even further, the Premier League will decide to buy itself some more time. At the start of the 22/23 season, all matches will have two Video Anti-Piracy Restriction (VAPR) time-outs.

 

These VAPR time-outs are essentially five-minute breaks that will buy anti-piracy specialists some extra time to take down infringing streams. To fill these gaps, TV viewers will be entertained with advertisements, while people in the stadium can get some drinks and snacks.

 

—

 

Happy 2022!

 

There is no doubt that over the past 20 years, online piracy has transformed in many ways. While still not completely dead, the original “sharing is caring” ethos is now overshadowed by what is a largely commercial web of for-profit piracy services.

 

In most jurisdictions, the operators of commercial piracy services commit crimes ranging from criminal copyright infringement to money laundering and fraud. So, by definition, pirate sites are run by criminals. Furthermore, if they do business systematically in even a small team, they can be officially labeled an Organized Crime Group (OCG).

 

This status elevation of copyright infringers is useful for rightsholders. Instead of expensive and unpredictable civil legal action, law enforcement can be encouraged to engage in criminal prosecutions with the prospect of prison sentences for offenders. None of this is particularly new but in more recent years, the opportunity to ‘upgrade’ pirates in the eyes of the public and policymakers has proven too good to miss.

 

The problem, it seems, is that Joe Public doesn’t really consider streaming a movie or TV show to be a particularly serious matter. Neither do most people feel that media piracy should be given priority over burglaries, car theft, large-scale drug dealing, violent crime, child abuse or similar exploitation.

 

But what if there was a subtle way to directly link illegal streaming to the most despicable of crimes, crimes that most people really care about?

 

The headline of a recent Forbes article promised just that: “Sweden: Up To 600,000 IPTV Users Support Human Trafficking Every Month” it declared. If you don’t worry about piracy then perhaps this will get you to change your mind, it suggested.

 

Much of the article is focused on Sweden’s problems with IPTV providers, their networks of resellers, and the users who buy their subscriptions. In a nutshell, Sweden should be harder on people who buy pirate subscriptions but it can’t because the law and funding for law enforcement are lacking. The same is true for IPTV resellers, despite the estimated $45m per year they funnel to the “organized crime groups” providing the illegal streams.

 

It’s completely understandable that Sweden doesn’t have the resources to go after hundreds of thousands of end-users but surely, funding is available to deal with the most heinous of crimes?

 

“The effects of hundreds of thousands of customers transferring funds on a monthly basis to organized crime groups is being underestimated. Due to their tremendous and continuous incoming flow of funds, those organizations support everything from human trafficking to arms trafficking,” says Anders Braf, CEO at Nordic Content Protection Agency, according to Forbes.

 

The article goes further still. It cites law enforcement sources that claim pirate IPTV providers are closely connected to other major crimes too, including child abuse and drug shipments. If true, this could be the public relations coup the entertainment industries need but, in common with the overwhelming majority of similar claims made in the past, zero evidence is provided.

 

According to Forbes, the reason for not backing up the claims is that the interviewed members of law enforcement insisted that details should not be disclosed in the article to protect “investigation tactics.” They could, of course, have cited previous public cases where pirate site operators were also jailed for arms trafficking or, indeed, those where people smugglers were also sentenced for providing pirate streams. Unfortunately, and to the extent of our knowledge, none exist.

 

Herein lies the problem. If pirate IPTV subscribers are to be convinced that their purchases are causing untold misery, they are going to need more than a few anonymous quotes to change their habits. But, more importantly, there is a much bigger picture than that.

 

Al Capone, despite a laundry list of terrible crimes, was ultimately imprisoned for tax evasion. So, given that there is no money available in Sweden for dealing with pirate IPTV providers, sellers or customers, why don’t the police concentrate on the bigger issues instead? If they can round up the arms dealers, people smugglers and child abusers (apparently already known to the country’s anti-piracy groups) and prosecute them for those crimes, pirate IPTV disruption should be a welcome by-product.

 

All of this is more easily said than done, anyone can see that. But, by attempting to link streaming to some of the worst crimes around, it actually draws even more attention to the fact that there are much more serious crimes that are deservedly given priority.

 

No one is suggesting that pirate IPTV isn’t a big problem for media companies, it absolutely is. To use their terminology, they are having their goods stolen each and every day. Anyone would say the same in their position since millions in profits are at stake, money that – by legal definition – is being unquestionably siphoned off by criminals.

 

But of course, the general public already knows that, it’s just that they don’t see their viewing as particularly serious. One day, perhaps, they will see some real evidence that will change their minds. We’ll be standing by to report on it in detail but until then, we’ll be taking all such claims with a pinch of salt.

 

Every year we write hundreds of articles here at TorrentFreak, and some are more popular than others.

 

On the brink of the new year, we look back at 2021 by going over the twelve most read news items of the last 12 months.

 

All in all, it was quite a controversial year once again. Pirate IPTV services were targeted around the globe, Yout.com managed to temporarily get itself unblocked in Brazil, and Netflix intensified its VPN ban. Of course, no list is complete with at least a few Pirate Bay mentions.

 

But what will 2022 bring?

1. ISPs Must Unblock Stream-Ripping Sites After Yout.com Intervenes in Brazil (May)

Popular stream-ripping site Yout.com is fighting legal disputes around the world, including a lawsuit against the RIAA in the US. In Brazil Yout’s operator, Johnathan Nader, scored a victory earlier this year after he successfully appealed a website blockade. However, this blockade was later reinstated after the Brazilian authorities launched a criminal prosecution.

2. Netflix Intensifies ‘VPN Ban’ and Targets Residential IP-addresses Too (August)

Netflix stepped up its efforts to ban VPN and proxy users from bypassing geographical roadblocks. The streaming service started blocking residential IP addresses since some unblocking tools use these to bypass restrictions. This decision was not without collateral damage as many regular Internet users without a VPN reported “missing content” on Netflix.

3. UK Police Shut Down Pirate IPTV Network With “Hundreds of Thousands” of Customers (September)

In September, the Federation Against Copyright Theft and West Midlands Police announced that they shut down a major illegal streaming operation in the UK. Two men and a woman were arrested on suspicion of copyright infringement and fraud-related charges. The service reportedly had hundreds of thousands of customers who were greeted by a police message instead of the expected TV content.

4. Operation ‘IPTV Special’: 49 Pirate IPTV Resellers Fined €10,000 Each (December)

In Italy, the authorities reported a follow-up to a 2020 raid that shut down a pirate IPTV provider. More than 70 people face complaints, and 49 resellers of the service are required to pay more than 500,000 euros in fines. Police may go after IPTV customers next as they reportedly have a database of 65,000 users.

5. Denuvo Cracker EMPRESS “Arrested”, Blames Repacker FitGirl & Reddit For Witch-Hunt (February)

In February of last year, the high-profile Denuvo cracker EMPRESS was reportedly targeted by the police. In an interview, the cracker pointed a finger at the popular repacker Fitgirl, while blaming Reddit users for reporting her to the authorities.

6. uTorrent Continues to be Flagged as ‘Severe Threat’ and It’s Not alone (March)

Popular BitTorrent client uTorrent was once again flagged as problematic by anti-virus vendors. Microsoft’s Windows Defender took drastic action by simply removing the application from the operating system. The software was categorized as ‘riskware,’ ‘malware,’ and ‘potentially unwanted software.’ In addition to uTorrent, rival client qBitTorrent faced similar problems.

7. Bond’s “No Time to Die” Leaks on Pirate Sites Before U.S. Premiere (October)

There were dozens of movie leaks in 2021 but James Bond’s “No Time to Die” garnered the most interest among readers. Despite the broad attention, the download numbers were relatively low for this low-quality leak that took place before the US theatrical premiere. The download numbers picked up later in the year when a high-quality copy appeared online.

8. The Pirate Bay is Pretty Broken Right Now But Can Be Coaxed Back to Life (January)

The Pirate Bay suffered a few stints of downtime last year. One quite unique issue appeared in January when the site became nearly impossible to use. These confusing technical problems had many users scratching their heads but, with a bit of creativity, it was still possible to make it work.

9. GTA Modders to Court: Our Game Fixes & Enhancements Are Fair Use, Not Piracy (November)

After a GitHub takedown battle, Take-Two Interactive sued several programmers linked to the popular re3 and reVC Grand Theft Auto fan projects. Responding in court, the programmers said that their game fixes and enhancements are fair use.

10. “The Pirate Bay Can’t Be Stopped ,” Co-Founder Says (November)

The Pirate Bay quietly turned 18 this year. The site survived several shutdown attempts and remains online. According to Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde, the torrent site simply can’t be stopped by rightsholders. “The only way for it to die is if people running it grow tired and try to kill it off. There’s no power from the movie or tech companies that can affect that,” Sunde told us.

11. Hollywood, Netflix, Amazon & Apple Sue Two Pirate IPTV Providers in the US (December)

A coalition of Hollywood studios plus Amazon, Netflix and Apple sued two IPTV providers in the US. The companies targeted AllAccessTV and Quality Restreams, which are allegedly operated by the same person. The complaint claims that sales take place through a fake VPN website and a large network of resellers who funnel customers and revenue to the platforms.

12. The World’s Oldest Active Torrent Turns 18 Soon (September)

In September, the world’s oldest active torrent file turned 18 years old. “The Fanimatrix” torrent was published in 2003 when BitTorrent was still a relatively new protocol. At the time, the torrent’s creator saw it as the only affordable option to share the Matrix fan film with the world. Fast forward to the start of 2022 and the torrent is still going strong.

 

The closing weeks of 2021 have been packed with new pirate site-blocking orders around the globe.

 

From Australia through the UK to Spain, several courts granted new blocking orders to make it harder for the public at large to access pirate sites.

 

In India, the local piracy blocklist is expanding as well. This week we reviewed a decision from the High Court in Delhi, which targets the popular torrent site RARBG.

 

The underlying case was originally filed by several major Hollywood studios including Disney, Paramount, and Warner Bros. The court granted the blocking order in 2019 but, since new domains continue to appear, it was updated this month to add “Rarbggo.org” and two IP-addresses.

Hollywood’s Hydra Headed Threat

This follow-up order isn’t particularly newsworthy as these types of expansions are quite common. However, the language used by the Indian court is quite unique and colorful, which is worth pointing out.

 

Instead of simply mentioning that RARBG is accessible through a new domain and IP-address, the court talks about “Hydra Headed Rogue websites” that mythically multiply and resurface elsewhere. Emphasis added below.

 

“It is submitted that, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to record that these websites are Hydra Headed Rogue websites who on being blocked, actually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or alphanumeric websites.”

 

The language is quoted from an earlier ruling which also adds some more background to the mythological hydra, which by itself has nothing to do with piracy.

 

“It is pertinent to mention that in Greek mythology the Hydra also called Lernaean Hydra is a serpent-like monster. The Hydra is a nine-headed serpent like snake. It was said that if you cut off one hydra head, two more would grow back”

 

At this point, the average reader of the order, who is not really up to date on the piracy lingo, might be quite confused. What does this snake with nine heads have to do with piracy? And what are those alphanumeric websites?

 

The second question is easy to answer. The term “alphanumeric websites” is the Indian court’s way of referring to an alternative URL or IP address. And indeed, these are generally made up of alphanumeric characters.

The Hydra’s Piracy Roots

The “hydra” reference also deserves some more context. In the piracy scene, this term was first made popular by The Pirate Bay in 2007. Peter Sunde, the site’s spokesman at the time, encouraged people to start their own torrent sites to make the file-sharing ecosystem more resilient.

 

“Start up your own torrent sites, make the internet the hydra it is and needs to be. If there’s hundreds of sites, they can’t all be shut down,” Sunde said at the time.

 

Later on, when more and more domain names were seized and blocked, the hydra was also used to explain the phenomenon where piracy sites would continue to add new hosting locations or domain names.

 

These proxies and mirrors became the new hydra heads. Again, it was The Pirate Bay who explicitly made this connection in 2013 and 2015, weaving it in to the site’s temporary new logo.

 

 

Apparently, this term is now in common usage at the High Court in Delhi within official blocking orders. We have to admit that it sounds pretty scary and the colorful language certainly makes a fairly boring blocking expansion sound more special than it really is.

Following a legal process that began in 2019, Spanish broadcaster Telefónica Audiovisual Digital obtained a court injunction in February 2020 that required local ISPs to block pirate sites and services.

 

Targeting Vodafone, Orange, MásMóvil, Euskaltel, Lycamobile, and also Telefónica Audiovisual Digital’s own ISP, Telefónica, the order required the service providers to block 44 identified platforms to help prevent live matches from being streamed illegally to the public.

 

The injunction allowed for so-called “dynamic” blocking, meaning that when the broadcaster observed the pirate services taking evasive action, updated blocking instructions could be issued to the ISPs.

Telefónica and LaLiga Apply For New Injunction

In a recent application for additional site-blocking measures, Telefónica teamed up with subscription platform Movistar+ and local football league LaLiga. They requested ISP blocking measures against 41 pirate IPTV and card sharing services through which matches can be viewed in breach of the companies’ rights.

 

According to court documents reviewed by CincoDías, the piracy services are “endowed with great technical resources”, meaning that simple blocking would not be sufficient to curtail their activities. As such, a dynamic injunction was requested, one that would allow the broadcasters to regularly update their blocking instructions in response to pirate countermeasures.

Court Grants Injunction

In a joint statement, Telefónica and LaLiga now confirm that Commercial Court number 6 of Barcelona has approved their request to immediately block the piracy platforms.

 

Local internet service providers including Vodafone, Orange, MásMóvil (R, Telecable, Euskaltel) Digimóbil and Telefónica Spain must make best efforts to render the services inaccessible.

 

In common with last year’s order, the Barcelona court also authorized a “dynamic” injunction. This will allow the rightsholders to advise the ISPs of any new domains or IP addresses used by the pirate sites on a weekly basis, thereby reducing their ability to circumvent restrictions.

 

According to recent LaLiga estimates, football matches were viewed illegally 71 million times in 2020. While that represents a decrease versus the total viewed illegally in 2019 (87 million), the number of consumers who accessed football through unlicensed portals remained the same.

 

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. This year alone the adult entertainment company has filed hundreds of lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

 

While many of these lawsuits have resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 also encountered pushback from some of the people it sued.

 

In the Central District of California, for example, a “John Doe” defendant denies any wrongdoing. According to Strike 3 the man pirated 54 movies and through discovery it requested permission to inspect a copy of his hard drive and cloud hosting accounts for evidence.

 

The defendant objected to this request, as handing over a hard drive copy would also reveal privacy-sensitive information such as family photos and content protected by attorney-client privilege.

Judge Agrees With Privacy Concerns

After hearing both sides, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ruled on the request this week, siding with the John Doe defendant. While the hard drive and cloud hosting accounts may offer important evidence, they could also expose sensitive personal information.

 

“There is no question that an examination of these images would reveal information relevant to either proving or disproving plaintiff’s case,” Judge Pym writes.

 

“But producing a complete forensic imaging of defendant’s hard drives and accounts will also disclose information that has no relevance to plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, including family photos and personal financial information.”

 

To resolve the dispute both parties previously suggested alternative options. The defendant offered to use simple search queries in front of a Strike 3 expert, but that wasn’t enough for the company, which noted that the original filenames could have changed.

 

Strike 3, meanwhile, proposed a protocol that would task their expert with filtering out potentially privileged information, so that this won’t be shared as evidence. However, the defendant objected to this option because it shouldn’t be up to Strike 3’s expert to evaluate potential privacy concerns.

 

Judge Pym also reviewed Strike 3’s offer but concluded that this isn’t sufficient to protect the defendant’s privacy and confidentiality rights.

 

“Because plaintiff’s protocol does not adequately address defendant’s privacy, confidentiality, and privilege concerns, a forensic examination of defendant’s devices threatens the disclosure of irrelevant and privileged information,” Judge Pym writes.

Not Proportional

All in all, the court concludes that, in this case, it is not appropriate or proportional to give Strike 3 access to a copy of the hard drive and data stored on cloud hosting services.

 

“Undoubtedly, a complete forensic examination would be a more reliable and thorough way for plaintiff to ensure it has obtained all relevant information. But given what is at issue in this case – the alleged infringement of 54 movies – requiring defendant to turn over images of his hard drives and cloud accounts to plaintiff is not justified,” Judge Pym concludes.

 

In essence, the court prioritizes the privacy and confidentiality rights of the defendant over Strike 3’s piracy concerns. This means that Strike 3 will have to find other types of evidence to back up its copyright infringement claims.

 

—

 

A copy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym’s order on Strike 3’s request to compel discovery responses is available here (pdf).

 

There are lots of pieces of information that can help anti-piracy groups form a strategy to deal with an infringing site or service.

 

Things like IP addresses, domain details, hosting companies and payment processor accounts all play important roles but of them all, real-life names and physical addresses are considered investigation gold.

 

With these details in hand, a targeted and strongly-worded cease-and-desist notice may be all it takes to remove a service from the internet. Of course, these pieces of information aren’t usually left lying around.

 

With some luck, they may be available from companies providing services to pirate sites. Domain companies, Cloudflare and similar entities can be forced to supply this information in response to a DMCA subpoena filed by copyright holders. As a result, the studios of the Motion Picture Association and anti-piracy partners ACE regularly go to court in the US to obtain intelligence for use in investigations and legal action.

New DMCA Subpoena – Pirate IPTV

Filed just before Christmas by the MPA and ACE, the first application seeks cooperation from Cloudflare to hand over all information held by the company relating to five domains linked to pirate IPTV operations.

 

“[Y]ou are required to disclose to the Motion Picture Association, Inc. (on behalf of the ACE Members) information sufficient to identify the infringers. This would include the individuals’ names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history,” the subpoena reads.

 

The targeted domains include hypersonic-tv.com which at the time of writing appears to be offline. Whether this is related to an MPA/ACE investigation is currently unknown. What is clear from documentation filed with the court is that the movie companies have accessed Hypersonic’s VOD library and confirmed that two movies (2 Fast 2 Furious and Joker) are being offered illegally.

 

Another target, apollogroup.tv is the domain for provider Apollo Group TV, a rather expensive service that starts at $24.99 per month and claims to offer a “VOD library over 5000 commercial-free movies and tv shows on demand.” Once again, MPA/ACE have access to the service and have confirmed that the movies Soul and Fast & Furious 9 are being offered illegally.

 

Beastiptv.us is the domain for Beast TV, which claims to offer over 9000 channels and a library of 3000 channels on its VOD service. Again, the studios have access to the platform and have informed the court that the Netflix movie Extraction is being made available without permission.

 

Topdhosting.com is the domain used by IPTV provider Topdog TV and fitiptv.com is operated by FitIPTV. The latter not only sells subscriptions to end-users but also offers reseller accounts in addition to a restream service that can be used to supply streams to an app, for example.

 

Time will tell whether Cloudflare does indeed have any useful information to hand over but the subpoena is further evidence that VOD services are a magnet for legal action and certainly help the studios prosecute cases more effectively, particularly in the United States.

 

Supporting document can be found here (1,2,3, pdf)

New DMCA Subpoena – Illegal Streaming Sites

The final DMCA subpoena filed against Cloudflare in the week before Christmas targets more than two dozen domains related to more traditional web-based pirate streaming portals.

 

Accusing the platforms of breaching copyright law by facilitating access to movies including Godzilla vs Kong, The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, Tenet, Joker, and The Flash, MPA/ACE again seek the CDN company’s assistance to unmask those behind the domains.

 

Whether any of the sites will be subjected to direct legal action is currently unknown but there is a pattern forming. In certain regions where website blocking injunctions are available, the applicants (the studios) have to show they have made good faith efforts to contact site operators in advance.

 

Obtaining contact information from Cloudflare could enable them to do that and what we have seen is a trend of site domain names appearing in DMCA subpoenas before they are blocked by ISPs in places such as the UK Australia.

 

Of course, the information can be used for other purposes too, including full-blown lawsuits, such as the one recently filed against PrimeWire.

 

The full list of domains is as follows: tvhai.org, motchill.net, watchsomuch.org, flixtor.to, noonoo1.tv, afdah.video, ilgeniodellostreaming.re, ilgeniodellostreaming.si, ilgeniodellostreaming.cat, ilgeniodellostreaming.moe, ilgeniodellostreaming.mba, igds.se, seriesonlineweb.com, pobreflix.online, superflix.plus, torrentdosfilmeshd2.net, seriesflix2.com, cooz.co, assistironline.net, comoeubaixo.com, megaseriesonline.org, amazflixhd.com, temseries.online, filmesonlinehd1.org, pianku.li

 

Supporting documents available here (1,2 pdf)

 

 

MPA/ACE: Dozens More Pirate IPTV & Streaming Domains In The Crosshairs

 

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

 

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

 

This week we have four new entries in the list. “The Matrix Resurrections” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on December 27 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	The Matrix Resurrections	5.8 / trailer
2	(1)	Spider-Man: No Way Home	9.0 / trailer
3	(…)	Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City	5.2 / trailer
4	(2)	Venom: Let There Be Carnage	6.1 / trailer
5	(…)	Don’t Look Up	7.3 / trailer
6	(4)	No Time to Die	7.5 / trailer
7	(…)	Encanto	7.4 / trailer
8	(7)	Dune	8.3 / trailer
9	(5)	The Last Duel	7.5 / trailer
10	(8)	Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings	7.7 / trailer

 

 

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

 

After eight months, Triller’s legal campaign against sites that allegedly streamed the Jake Paul vs Ben Askren boxing match on April 17 is still ongoing.

 

Named in its initial $100m lawsuit and described as “cyber-criminals”, one of Triller’s early targets were the operators of Online2LiveStreams.us. The platform was accused of diverting a share of 2,000,000 streams away from Triller’s legal services.

 

The case didn’t go well with all but one of the defendants (FilmDaily.co – a case that is still pending) later dismissed by a judge who found the lawsuit to be overbroad. A month later, Triller responded by filing individual lawsuits against some of the previously-dismissed defendants. Among them was alleged Online2LiveStreams.us operator Robiul Awal and ten doe defendants.

 

Triller’s lawsuit alleged copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act, conversion, and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The suit also included a claim of false advertising after Online2LiveStream transformed itself into a scam site, offering events in exchange for credit card details but failing to deliver.

Court Warns Case Could Be Dismissed

On August 30, 2021, three months after the latest case was filed, a California district court ordered Triller to explain why the case should not be dismissed based on the failure of the plaintiff to properly serve the defendant.

 

“[F]ailure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of the action without further warning,” the order read.

 

Triller informed the court that it had experienced problems serving the defendant as they believe he resides in Bangladesh. As a result, Triller had contacted a third-party vendor to assist and was otherwise “making a good faith effort” to effect service.

 

On September 17, the court issued a minute order directing Triller to file either a proof of service or a status report by December 17, 2021. That date came and went but Triller remained silent.

Insufficent Due Diligence – Court Dismisses Case

In an order dated December 21, 2021, United States District Judge Otis D. Wright, II explained that despite his instructions, Triller had failed to comply with the requirements of the court.

 

“As of today’s date, and despite having been granted four months to do so, Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service or any other response to the Court’s September 17, 2021 Minute Order. Thus, although the case has been open for over six months, the Court remains without any indication that Plaintiff served Defendant or that Plaintiff has made timely, substantial efforts to serve Defendant,” the order reads.

 

“Plaintiff was warned that failure to effect service and to respond to the Court’s orders would result in dismissal of the case, and Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with an update regarding service as ordered.”

 

Noting that the due diligence standard and dismissal factors support dismissal of the case, the Judge did just that.

 

“Resolution on the merits is not possible due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant, and the seven-month passage of time without service of process increases the risk of prejudice to Defendant,” Judge Otis Wright notes.

 

“Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to exercise sufficient due diligence, and dismissal of the action without prejudice is warranted.”

 

Since the case was dismissed without prejudice, it can be refiled, albeit for a third time. But, given the difficulties serving the defendant the first time around, it seems reasonable to conclude that the job won’t have become any easier with the passing of time and is unlikely to come back from the dead.

 

The order can be found here (pdf)

 

In a summer 2020 lawsuit, Amazon Content Services, publisher Penguin Random House and several authors including John Grisham and Lee Child, accused several pirate eBook sites of infringing their copyrights.

 

The sites, which operated under the ‘Kiss Library’ brand, were available from domains including Kissly.net, Wtffastspring.bid, Libly.net, and Cheap-Library.com. Together they provided access to copyrighted works at “unbeatable prices”, largely due to the eBooks being pirated, the plaintiffs said.

 

The lawsuit aimed to put the sites out of business and also claw back damages from Ukrainian nationals Rodion Vynnychenko and Artem Besshapochny, who were said to be behind the platforms.

 

A preliminary injunction was quickly handed down by a Washington court which prevented payment processors, domain registrars, hosts, back-end service providers, affiliate program providers, web designers, and search engines from doing business with the sites. The court also ordered assets to be restrained.

 

Early on it became clear the case was unlikely to be straightforward. Judge Marsha J. Pechman acknowledged that the defendants had “gone to great lengths” to frustrate the plaintiffs and the court by using “multiple false identities and addresses” and “purposely-deceptive contact information.”

 

What followed was a voyage through a clearly compromised Ukrainian legal system with a local court admitting that it lacked basics such as postal stamps and envelopes.

Defendants Failed to Participate in Lawsuit

According to a judgment recently handed down by the Washington court, neither of the defendants participated in the lawsuit but have taken efforts to avoid accountability. They did not respond to a motion for a temporary restraining order and Vynnychenko twice refused to accept service. He also failed to appear at a proceeding required under Ukrainian law.

 

They were served in compliance with Hague Convention rules, however, so the plaintiffs moved for and obtained default against the defendants. All that remained was the question of damages and a permanent injunction.

 

Judge Pechman notes that there is “little doubt” that her court has jurisdiction, in part due to the defendants directing their piracy scheme at residents of Washington, where Amazon Publishing has its headquarters.

 

“Defendants advertised and distributed the copyrighted works at issue to Washington consumers in violation of the Copyright Act, duping consumers and interfering with the Author Plaintiffs’ licensing relationship with Plaintiff Amazon who suffered a loss of sales in Washington,” she writes.

 

“Second, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement arise from and relate to Defendants’ forum-related activities, given that Defendants knowingly and intentionally infringed on a Washington-based company’s copyrighted works and compete with the company in Washington.”

Court Awards $7.8m in Damages

Since the defendants failed to appear, the court accepted as true the plaintiffs’ allegations that 52 copyrighted works were willfully copied, displayed and distributed. They asked for $7.8 million in statutory damages, the maximum available for the works in suit.

 

This large figure gave the court reason to “pause” but following consideration, the Judge found the amount to be appropriate under the circumstances.

 

“[G]iven the extent of the piracy scheme, Defendants’ efforts to fight or participate in this lawsuit, and the seriousness of the misconduct, the Court finds that the requested damages are reasonable,” the judgment reads.

 

“The Court therefore awards Plaintiffs’ the maximum statutory amount of $150,000 for each of the [copyrighted works].”

 

Noting that the damages award alone would be insufficient, Judge Pechman also issued a permanent injunction against defendants Kiss Library, Rodion Vynnychenko, Artem Besshapochny, their agents, and any persons acting in concert or participation with them.

 

The order can be found here (pdf)

 

At the end of every year, we take a look at the most-downloaded TV episodes among torrenting pirates.

 

For several years in a row the list was headed by Game of Thrones but that reign came to an end last year after the series ended.

 

This changing of the guard coincided with the launch of several Disney+ exclusives, which do particularly well among the pirating public. Last year ‘The Mandalorian’ was the most pirated TV series and in 2021 another Disney title tops the list.

 

‘Wandavision’ seamlessly took over the top spot in a list that is dominated by Marvel series. The series was a hit on Disney+ and on pirate sites, with each episode being downloaded millions of times.

 

The competition for the top spot was fierce with four titles clearly standing out among the rest. Disney’s “Loki” eventually settled for second place, one spot higher than Netflix’s “The Witcher.”

 

‘The Falcon and the Winter Soldier’ settled for the fourth spot but wasn’t too far off in popularity compared to the top three.

 

What stands out most is that all Disney+ series of Marvel’s “Phase Four” are listed in the top 10. In addition to the titles already mentioned, also included is ‘Hawkeye’ in fifth spot and ‘What If…?’ in sixth.

 

With the current streaming landscape being so fragmented, it appears that many people prefer to pirate instead of paying for ‘another’ subscription. That definitely applies to Marvel fans.

 

Interestingly, Netflix’s ‘The Squid Game’ wasn’t a big hit among pirates, despite doing very well on the streaming service itself. In fact, Netflix’s ‘La Casa de Papel’ generated more interest among pirates. However, that didn’t make it into the top 10 either.

 

It’s worth noting that BitTorrent traffic only makes up a small portion of the piracy landscape. Most people use streaming sites and services nowadays, which generally do not report viewing stats.

 

—

 

Below we have compiled a list of the most torrented TV shows worldwide (single episode). The ranking is based on sample data from several sources, including statistics reported by public BitTorrent trackers.

 

Most downloaded TV-shows on BitTorrent, 2021

rank	last year	show
torrentfreak.com
1	(…)	Wandavision
2	(…)	Loki
3	(…)	The Witcher
4	(…)	The Falcon and the Winter Soldier
5	(…)	Hawkeye
6	(…)	What If…?
7	(…)	Foundation
8	(6)	Rick and Morty
9	(…)	Arcane
10	(…)	Wheel of Time

 

 

While most piracy activity has shifted to streaming in recent years, U.S. courts have still been overloaded with BitTorrent related piracy lawsuits.

 

This phenomenon, often dubbed “copyright trolling,” started over a decade ago and remains ongoing, in large part thanks to one company.

 

In the past, there were multiple rightsholders that sued hundreds of people but this changed. After Malibu Media backed out, apparently ‘due to Covid‘, Strike 3 Holdings was the only mass filer of piracy lawsuits this year.

 

This doesn’t mean that things have quieted down in court. The company filed hundreds of cases across the United States, targeting people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Strike 3’s Legal Efforts Continue

In the case of Strike 3, this refers to adult videos that are made available via the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen websites, but ended up on pirate sites.

 

Earlier this week we looked at all the cases Strike 3 filed this year, which add up to a total of 1,900. These cases typically target one defendant and we can’t rule out that more will be filed before the new year.

 

More than half of these cases are already closed. This often means that Strike 3 signed a settlement with the alleged pirate out of court, after which the case is voluntarily dismissed.

Sue and Settle Tactic

The settlement amounts are not disclosed but will likely range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. None of the cases has gone to trial, as far as we know.

 

The relatively high settlement count may in part be explained by the fact that some defendants are guilty. However, even for those who haven’t done anything wrong, paying a settlement can be cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

 

Strike 3 is not the only company that has filed lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates. There have been a handful of other cases as well, particularly from independent movie companies. However, these numbers are much lower, and the lawsuits are often used as collateral for legal action against intermediaries such as VPN providers and hosting companies.

 

This means that Strike 3 can be considered the only prolific “copyright troll” standing in US Courts in the file-sharing space.

 

There has been some pushback against Strike 3’s legal tactics. Some courts no longer allow these types of cases or add significant roadblocks. However, these can easily be avoided and other options remain.

 

For now, there is no reason to believe that the company will stop filing lawsuits any time soon. This means that they are getting something out of it, with money being the most likely option.

 

Over the past several years Nintendo has been pouring resources into its fight against those who help to bypass security measures in its Switch console.

 

Earlier this month Nintendo celebrated a win in a civil case against former Team-Xecuter member Gary Bowser, who agreed to pay the gaming giant $10m in damages.

 

Nintendo also obtained a UK High Court injunction to block four Team-Xecuter-related websites back in 2019 but that did little to stop pirated game ROMs from being shared online. As a result, Nintendo recently returned to the same court asking for more domains to be blocked.

Application Targets NSW2U and NSWROM Domains

In an injunction application dated December 2, 2021, Nintendo requested a website blocking order under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It targeted six major ISPs (BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media) demanding that they block subscriber access to five domains carrying NSW2U and NSWROM branding.

 

According to Nintendo, nsw2u.xyz, nsw2u.org, nsw2u.com, nsw2u.net and nswrom.com make available a substantial number of pirated Switch ROMs including Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and Miitopia.

 

Clickable download links are displayed on the sites alongside copyrighted cover artwork displaying Nintendo trademarks.

 

Nintendo informed the Court that the platforms are commercial in nature since they generate income from advertising via “click-through” arrangements with third parties. Aside from the for-profit motive, Nintendo voiced concerns over explicit adult content appearing during the download process, something that could negatively affect children which make up a substantial part of its target audience.

 

Nintendo said that its solicitors had made extensive efforts to contact the operators of the NSW2U sites and have its social media pages taken down. The company was unable to locate any contact details for the NSWROM sites. Nintendo believes that all sites are under common control and are still in operation, with none of the company’s content having been removed.

Order Handed Down By High Court

In an order handed down by Justice Joanna Smith this week, it is acknowledged that the domains make Nintendo copyrighted content available to internet users and that a large number of downloads are likely to be from the UK. On that basis, Justice Smith found that the sites infringe Nintendo copyrights in the UK by offering, for profit, its Switch game titles for download.

 

The Judge also found that the sites infringe Nintendo’s trademark rights contrary to the Trade Marks Act 1994, noting that: “[T]here is no plausible basis to suppose that the use of the marks is merely descriptive; they are being used to denote (falsely) the origin of the games and thereby to drive traffic to the websites for the purposes of making a profit. This is not in accordance with honest practice.”

 

Given that no alternative measures are “realistically available” to Nintendo to curtail the infringement and that blocking injunctions are generally accepted to be effective in reducing traffic to pirate sites, the Judge found that awarding an injunction would strike a “fair balance” between protecting Nintendo’s rights, those of the public, and ensuring that the ISPs can carry on their business unaffected.

 

“Any interference with the rights of the public and the ISPs is justified by the legitimate aim of preventing such infringement. No complaints were made under the previous Nintendo v Sky order and there have been no reports of over-blocking or other difficulties. For these reasons, the injunction is proportionate,” Justice Smith writes.

 

The order, which has a “sunset clause” of two years, requires the ISPs to block access to the domains listed above. Similar blocking is also underway in Spain, Italy and Portugal.

 

In October, the Entertainment Software Alliance reported the same sites to the US Government in response to the United States Trade Representative’s call for comment on ‘Notorious Markets’.

 

The High Court order can be found here

 

Following its launch in 2016, pirate manga site Mangamura grew to become one of the most successful sites of its kind. With this growth, however, massive pressure from copyright holders and anti-piracy groups wasn’t far behind.

 

According to Japan-based anti-piracy group CODA, over a period of just two years Mangamura caused around $2.91 billion in losses to the industry but in April 2018 the site’s progress came to a juddering halt when the platform shut itself down.

 

It transpired that a criminal investigation was underway into the site’s activities which eventually led to the arrest of operator Romi Hoshino in Manilla.

 

Hoshino was later deported to Japan where he was arrested by local authorities who put him on trial. On June 2, 2021, he was sentenced to three years in prison and fines in excess of US$650,000, much of it representing a clawback of revenue generated by advertising.

 

Now, more than six months later, two of the agencies involved in placing ads on Mangamura have been found liable for assisting the site in a way that helped to cause losses to a local artist.

Agencies Participated in Mangamura’s Infringement

According to a report from Anime News Network, manga creator Ken Akamatsu (Love Hina, Negima!, UQ Holder!) filed a lawsuit against MM Lab and parent company Global Net.

 

Akamatsu alleged that his manga titles were illegally posted on Mangamura and since the advertising companies supplied ads and were involved in generating revenue for the site, they should be held liable for his losses.

 

This week at the Tokyo District Court, Judge Koichi Tanaka found that the two companies can indeed be held liable for their part in the Mangamura platform. The Judge said that the operator of Mangamura committed copyright infringement and the agency that paid the advertising fees to the operator helped to fuel that infringement.

 

MM Lab and Global Net were ordered to pay 11 million yen (US$96,184) to Akamatsu, whose attorney noted that this is the first time that an advertising agency has been held liable for placing ads on pirate manga sites.

 

A year ago, Senator Thom Tillis released a discussion draft of the “Digital Copyright Act” (DCA) a potential successor to the current DMCA.

 

The DCA envisions thorough changes to the way online intermediaries approach the piracy problem. Among other things, they would have to ensure that pirated content stays offline after it’s taken down once.

 

This takedown and staydown approach would rely on technical protection tools, which include upload filters. This is a sensitive subject that previously generated quite a bit of pushback when the EU drafted its Copyright Directive.

 

Senator Tillis believes that automated tools have potential nonetheless. Together with Senator Patrick Leahy he wrote a letter to the U.S. Copyright Office this summer, asking it to look into the matter.

 

Specifically, the Senators asked the Copyright Office to “convene a representative working group of relevant stakeholders to achieve the identification and implementation of technical measures.”

Copyright Office Zooms in on Anti-Piracy Tools

This suggestion was picked up and this week the Copyright Office announced that it will launch a series of consultations on the various technical tools that can help to detect and remove pirated content from online platforms.

 

These solutions are by no means new. The Copyright Office mentions that platforms such as YouTube, Dropbox, and Scribd have already developed their own tools. At the same time, commercially available solutions such as Audible Magic are available too.

 

“Some technical measures to identify and protect copyrighted works online have been developed and deployed by or for online service providers and other stakeholders,” the Office notes.

 

“Proprietary systems used internally by platforms to identify and filter potentially infringing uploaded material include Scribd’s BookID, Dropbox’s unique identifier system, and YouTube’s ContentID.”

Pros and Cons

The goal of the consultations, which will start with a plenary session in February, is tobring various stakeholders together to discuss the advantages and drawbacks of these tools.

 

The problem with proprietary systems is that they are not widely available. In addition, not all stakeholders have input into these systems. Through the consultation, the Copyright Office hopes to discuss the strengths and weaknesses in an open setting.

 

To get an impression of the various viewpoints the Office is asking to input ahead of the first meeting, the consultation announcement includes various questions that should serve as a starting point for the discussions.

Starting Questions

These questions consider both the positive and negative consequences, as the examples below show.

 

“To what extent would the adoption and broad implementation of existing or future technical measures by stakeholders, including online service providers and rightsholders,
be likely to assist in addressing the problem of online copyright piracy?”

 

“Would the adoption and broad implementation of such existing or future technical measures have negative effects? If so, what would be the effects, and who would be affected?”

 

The Copyright Office doesn’t take a stance when it comes to potential Government interventions, but through its questions, it hopes to weigh stakeholders’ opinions.

 

“Can the government facilitate the adoption or implementation of technical measures, and if so, how?” the Office asks.

 

Needless to say, the consultation will probably trigger a heated debate about the pros and cons of upload filters, much like the one we saw in Europe roughly three years ago.

 

All stakeholders, including members of the public, are invited to have their voices heard. More details, including all questions, are available in the Copyright Office’s official announcement that was published a few hours ago.

 

In December 2016 and after substantial work to amend the law, an Australian court ordered the blocking of several pirate sites headed up by the infamous The Pirate Bay.

 

Over the five years since, movie companies including Roadshow Films, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Universal, Warner, and more recently Netflix have returned to court time and again to have hundreds more sites blocked. The aim, as always, is to slow down rampant movie and TV show piracy.

New Application for Blocking Injunction

Back in September 2021, these companies along with Television Broadcasts Limited and TVBI Company Limited filed a new application at the Federal Court, seeking the blocking of more than 100 domains under Section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968. The application targeted 48 ISPs operated by Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG and Vodafone corporate groups.

 

The applicants claimed that the 101 domains relate to 63 ‘pirate’ sites that either infringe or facilitate the infringement of copyright in large numbers of movies and TV shows owned by them. They further reported that since the sites (full list below) are operated from outside Australia, they are eligible for blocking.

Court Issues Judgment

In an extremely thorough judgment handed down this week, Justice Nicholas largely found in favor of the applicants. He acknowledged that the copyright holders had made reasonable efforts to identify the people behind the sites and that none of them had applied to be joined as a party in the proceedings, despite being notified of the legal action.

 

“The evidence satisfies me that each of the target online locations identified in the applicants’ proposed orders infringes or facilitates the infringement of the applicants’ copyright in various well-known cinematograph films,” he wrote.

 

“I am also satisfied that the target online locations have the primary purpose, or the primary effect, of infringing or facilitating an infringement of copyright in large numbers of commercially released cinematograph films.”

Dynamic Injunction Applies

When blocking injunctions are handed down in Australia against specific domains, targeted sites sometimes choose to change the way they operate. This can include changes to domain names and/or IP addresses in the hope that blocks can be evaded.

 

To counter this threat, so-called ‘dynamic injunctions’ allow copyright holders to notify ISPs of the changes and if no objections are received, sites made available through modified means will also be blocked, if the copyright holders have a good faith belief they are the same platforms.

 

That is also the case here but in this application, the movie and TV studios also attempted to expand their ability to block sites that aren’t necessarily part of the original order.

Studios Attempt to Block ‘Pirate Brands’

In recent years there has been a trend of pirate sites launching with the same naming conventions as others, in an attempt to attract users who may be familiar with a specific ‘brand’. A good example is that of ‘123Movies’ which can be found repeated across numerous competitors that aren’t necessarily connected to the original site.

 

An expert for the applicants told the Court that when a ‘branded’ pirate site is blocked, new websites appear with the same functionality under similar but different domains. A solicitor for the applicants argued that new iterations of “online locations” can sometimes look substantially similar to the original blocked sites, but with aesthetic or structural differences such as layouts or different categorizations for content.

 

It seems that the copyright holders would like functionally similar websites with similar names to be blocked under the original order. However, the Judge wasn’t satisfied with the approach. A site with a different domain, IP address and different URL is not the same “online location” under copyright law, even when its branding is similar to that of a blocked domain.

 

Reaching a middle ground, the Judge offered a compromise whereby copyright holders can make further applications in the proceeding to extend existing orders to include new target “online locations” that appear to be associated with already blocked “online locations”, providing the former makes available substantially the same content as the latter.

 

If there are no objections filed by ISPs or site operators, the Court will consider the application.

 

The list of domains to be blocked in the first instance reads as follows:

 

flixtor.to, flixtor.se, flixtor.vc, flixtor.it, flixtor.nu, flixtor.gy, cipflix.to, 123movies.directory, 123movies.tools, 123movies-one.com, fmovies.gallery, watchsomuch.org, watchsomuch.tv, snahp.it, f2movies.to, emovies.io, 0123movies.net, 0123movies.cat, bflix.to, tornadomovies.co, ev01.to, ev01.net, zoechip.com, himovies.to, gotohub.com, theofficetv.com, movgotv.com, hdmovie5.com, hdmovie2.com, dhmovie5.net, hdmovie5.co, hdmovie5.in, new-movies123.link, movieorca.com, streamm4u.com, unblockninja.com, attacker.tv, topnow.se, torrentbay.to, 123movies.market, 1-23movies.cc, 123moviesgo.tv, 123moviesgo.ac, real-123movies.best, 123movies.coffee, 123movies.review, 123movies.online, 123movies4u.li, 123moviesfun.ch, 123moviesme.online, watchseries.ninja, putlocker123.me, 123movieshub.tc, 123moviesub.io, 123movies.autos, yify-torrent.cc, 123moviesgoto.com, cineb.net, yifymovies.tv, yifytv.top, gogomovies.to, hurawatch.com, hurawatch.ru, the123movies.eu, the123movies.stream, sflix.to, x265.club, psa.one, psarips.uk, psarips.xyz, psarips.com, psarips.one, psarips.in, psarips.net, psarips.org, psarips.eu, psarips.top, movies7.to, kisscartoon.uk, kisscartoon.love, watchcartoononline.bz, dandanzan.com, dongphym.net, dongphym.com, tvhai.org, 1337x.gd, xmovies8.io, myflixer.ru, flixtor.video, flixtor.one, bflix.watch, 94itv.net, 94itv.app, tangrenjie.tv, dramacool.bz, dramacool.vc, dramacool.fm, dramacool.ai, dramacool.bid, kissasian.la, kissasian.video

 

The Federal Court’s judgment can be found here

One of the key anti-piracy strategies of the movie and TV show industries is site blocking, whereby internet service providers are compelled via court order to deny subscriber access to specified domains.

 

Due to limited transparency, it is difficult to say exactly how many domains are blocked by ISPs in the UK but they could run into the thousands after more than a decade of legal action. What is becoming ever more evident is that this still isn’t providing the desired results. Blocking does reduce traffic to targeted domains but replacements appear extremely quickly.

 

To counter this threat, Hollywood studios including Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Universal and Warner, accompanied by relative newcomer Netflix, regularly return to the UK High Court asking for more domains to be blocked. Their latest application, which has now been granted, shows that even relatively obscure sites can accrue staggering levels of traffic in a relatively short time.

High Court Injunction Application

The latest application covers 15 sites operating from 17 domains (detailed below). None of the sites carry infringing content on their own platforms but aggregate links to pirated movies and TV shows hosted on third-party providers.

 

This content is made available via an embedded player on each of the domains so, from the perspective of the user, the fact that content is hosted elsewhere is not immediately apparent. All of the sites were served with copyright infringement notices before the application was filed but none of them responded.

The Domains to Be Blocked

0123movies.net: This streaming platform currently enjoys around 1.6 million visits per month according to SimilarWeb stats, with around 40% of visitors coming from the UK.

 

1-2-3movies.com: Back in the summer, this site was enjoying around 7 million visits but for reasons that aren’t immediately clear, traffic tanked to just 1 million before recovering to the 3 million mark more recently. Roughly 12% of the site’s traffic comes from the UK.

 

123moviesfree.love: This movie and TV show streaming site’s traffic appeared to peak at 14 million visits per month in September but dropped by almost half recently to ‘just’ 7.7 million. Around 14% of the site’s visitors come from the UK.

 

cmovies.ac / cmovies.online: Back in August this platform was servicing around 7.5 million users but since then traffic has tailed off significantly to almost nothing.

 

flixhq.ru: At the time of writing this streaming portal appears to have around 4.2 million visitors per month but that represents just a fraction of the traffic pulled in thus far this year. In the summer the domain was receiving a staggering 31 million visits with around 5% coming from the UK

 

fmovies.co: This domain’s traffic over the past several months has been steady at around the 8 million visits mark. It is most popular in the United States, with around a third of its visitors hailing from the country. However, the UK appears to be increasing its share and while that accounts for just 10% of overall traffic, that’s up more than 50% on the previous month.

 

gototub.com: This domain is also on a downwards trend, from 7.5 million visits in the summer to around 6 million now. It is most popular in the US with the UK accounting for 8% of traffic.

 

hurawatch.ru: Surprisingly popular with around 30 million visits per month in August, this is another domain losing traffic for reasons unknown. Currently pulling in 7.6 million visits per month, around 28% are from the US with the UK and Australia trailing behind with 12% and 9% respectively.

 

sflix.to: This is a pretty big one. The movie and TV show portal describes itself as “not technically a legal site” on its main page but that doesn’t seem to act as a deterrent. Last month the site enjoyed 25 million visits, with around 19% coming from the United States and 12% from the UK.

 

soap2day.video: This site has familiar branding which has probably contributed to its success but from 28 million visits per month in August, now enjoys ‘just’ 13 million. With just over a fifth (22%) of its traffic coming from the UK, the site is equally popular in India.

 

tvshows88.com: From 20 million visits in June to just 3 million now, this streaming site is clearly on a downwards trend. Popular anti-malware tools flag the domain as problematic, which may have contributed to its decline.

 

watchserieshd.ru: With 27 million visits every month, 17% from UK, this is an extremely popular domain. It also triggers malware warnings which may represent a risk for users. Nevertheless, the studios want it blocked in the UK, to prevent any further growth.

 

zoechip.com: This site is the last of the high-traffic domains with around 8 million visits per month. Just over a quarter hail from the US (28%) with 12% coming from the UK. 123movies.vu, 123-movies.gy, and onionplay.se complete the list, all with fairly limited traffic.

Injunction Application Granted

In a decision handed down by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, the High Court found that all of the sites infringe copyright by communicating copyright works to the public, contrary to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988. The Court also found that the operators of the sites carry out their business on a for-profit basis, putting them at odds with a 2016 ruling from the EU Court of Justice.

 

Furthermore, the Court found that the websites infringe copyright by authorizing the infringing acts of copying by their users.

 

“That is because the streaming process causes the user’s computer or device to create copies of the content in the memory of the device, which is an act of infringement under section 17(1) CDPA,” the decision reads.

 

ISPs BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky UK, TalkTalk and Virgin Media are now required to block the domains.

 

The decision can be found here

 

Next month, a full decade will have passed since the file-storage empire of Kim Dotcom collapsed after Megaupload became the prime target in a high profile law enforcement operation.

 

Despite all the time that since passed, the New Zealand-based entrepreneur and his former colleagues are still waiting to hear whether they will be extradited to the US where a criminal prosecution is pending.

 

With the stakes this high, no legal resources are being spared. Several millions of dollars have been poured into this legal battle since 2011 and the end is still not in sight.

 

Last year, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that Kim Dotcom, Bram van der Kolk and Matthias Ortmann can indeed be extradited to the United States. However, this still wasn’t set in stone, as judicial reviews and appeals were still pending.

Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal

One of the potential appeals was rejected today, which brings bad news for Dotcom and his former Megaupload colleagues. The defendants requested to challenge an earlier Court of Appeal decision, where a judicial review appeal was dismissed.

 

Dotcom and the other two defendants characterized that dismissal as a miscarriage of justice. It would be of public importance to challenge it further, they argued.

 

Among other things the Megaupload defendants believed that the Court of Appeal didn’t properly assess whether the provided evidence was sufficient. In addition, Dotcom challenged the Court’s refusal to enforce his Privacy Act requests.

No Miscarriage of Justice

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, Supreme Court Justices Winkelmann, O’Regan, and France denied the request for further appeal on these grounds. The Supreme Court concluded that no grave mistakes were made.

 

“We are satisfied that nothing raised by the applicants gives rise to the appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the Court of Appeal’s factual assessment,” the order reads.

 

“Nor do we see any error in the approach of the Court of Appeal to the question relating to the enforcement of Mr Dotcom’s Privacy Act requests or Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk’s application to adduce further evidence on the remitted appeal.”

 

The Supreme Court acknowledges that the three Megaupload defendants raised a variety of issues during the court hearings. Not all were disregarded but the Court doesn’t believe that the arguments are sufficient to justify an appeal.

 

“We do not consider there is anything more that this Court needs to do in relation to the proposed appeals, given our conclusion that no miscarriage has arisen,” the Justices write.

Megaupload’s Legal Fights Are Not Over

While the Supreme Court’s decision is a setback for the Megaupload trio, it is likely not the last legal battle they will fight in this case. Meanwhile, the criminal and civil cases against Megaupload remain on hold in the US.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to Kim Dotcom who didn’t immediately reply. On Twitter, the entrepreneur mentions that he’s “unfazed,” inviting people to tune into his Twitch streams early next year.

 

“I’ll start live streaming in January. Join me. 2022 will be fun,” Dotcom says.

 

 

 

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

 

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

 

This week we have four new entries in the list. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on December 20 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Spider-Man: No Way Home	9.0 / trailer
2	(1)	Venom: Let There Be Carnage	6.1 / trailer
3	(…)	French Dispatch	7.4 / trailer
4	(3)	No Time to Die	7.5 / trailer
5	(2)	The Last Duel	7.5 / trailer
6	(…)	Antlers	6.1 / trailer
7	(4)	Dune	8.3 / trailer
8	(5)	Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings	7.7 / trailer
9	(…)	Rumble	5.9 / trailer
10	(7)	Free Guy	7.4 / trailer

 

 

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

 

The major record labels believe that YouTube rippers are the most significant piracy threat on the Internet.

 

These sites, which can be used for a variety of purposes, are used by some to convert free YouTube videos into MP3s.

 

The RIAA and several of its members have taken legal action to curb this threat. They previously sued YouTube-MP3, the world’s largest ripping site at the time, which resulted in the site shutting down in 2017.

FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com Lawsuit

A year later, the music industry hoped to achieve the same with FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com. The sites’ Russian owner Tofig Kurbanov was taken to court in the United States in 2018, accused of facilitating mass copyright infringement.

 

Kurbanov was convinced that his sites operate legally and fought back in court. However, after several setbacks, including a discovery order that required the YouTube rippers to log user data, the Russian operator decided to back out of the US court process.

Default Judgment

Kurbanov’s failure to comply with the discovery order and his decision to step away from the US lawsuit cleared the path for the RIAA. And indeed, the music group was quick to request a default judgment, which was granted earlier this year.

 

The RIAA was pleased with this win but the final payoff had yet to be determined. In a follow-up filing, the music companies demanded more than $82 million in damages for copyright infringement and DMCA violations.

 

Kurbanov’s legal team opposed this massive damages request and argued that $200 damages per infringement would be sufficient if the court chose to award any. In addition, the defense argued to limit any blocking measures to the United States, instead of applying them worldwide.

$82 Million is Appropriate, Judge Recommends

Late last week Virginia Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan issued a report, recommending the court to grant RIAA’s requested damages award. After reviewing the positions from both parties, she concludes that Kurbanov is liable for copyright infringement and violating the DMCA by circumventing YouTube’s technical protection measures.

 

The RIAA listed 1,618 copyrights and argued that $50,000 per copyright infringement is appropriate. In addition, it asked for $1,250 per DMCA violation, bringing the total to $82,922,500.

 

Judge Buchanan concludes that these amounts are appropriate, given the music companies’ lost profits and advertising revenue, as well as the finding that the YouTube rippers willfully and repeatedly facilitated copyright infringement.

 

“Defendant’s Websites caused the Plaintiffs to lose profits and streaming revenue because of the enormous internet traffic to and use of the Websites’ stream-ripping functions,” Judge Buchanan writes, noting that FLVTO and 2Conv are two of the most popular stream-ripping platforms.

‘Significant Profit’

Kurbanov previously refused to provide all the financial details of the sites during discovery, so it’s impossible to precisely calculate how much revenue they generated. However, the Judge finds it reasonable to conclude that they generated significant profit.

 

The copyright infringement complaints were not new either. The sites in question have been blocked through court orders around the world and the RIAA sent several complaints prior to filing its lawsuit.

 

“Defendant has a storied history of infringement. Multiple courts have found that Defendant’s Websites are illegal for their stream-ripping functionality. Plaintiffs also sent infringement notices and cease-and-desist letters to Defendant, yet he has continued to infringe their copyrights,” Judge Buchanan writes.

Registered DMCA Agent

In his defense, Kurbanov argued that he doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of US law, as he’s a Russian citizen. However, Judge Buchanan doesn’t agree. The RIAA made it clear on several occasions that the site was infringing under US law. The stream-rippers themselves also cited US law on their websites and had a registered DMCA agent.

 

Finally, the Judge concludes that Kurbanov had “actual and constructive knowledge” that his activities are not permitted under US law.

 

“Defendant’s Websites explicitly encourage Users to download Plaintiffs’ copyrighted audio recordings for free. And Defendant has received actual notices from the RIAA, instructing him to disable from the infringing functions of the Websites, yet he continued,” Judge Buchanan writes.

 

In addition to the nearly $83 million in damages, the RIAA can also be compensated for attorneys’ fees and costs. On top of that, an injunction to stop the infringing activity going forward is appropriate too.

 

These recommendations have yet to be adopted by the court, which is expected to issue a final ruling in the near future. Before that happens, Mr. Kurbanov and his legal team have two weeks to object to the findings, which they likely will.

 

—

 

A copy of Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan’s Report and Recommendation regarding RIAA’s request for damages and a permanent injunction is available here (pdf)

 

When Fakku launched 15 years ago, it was an aggregator for unlicensed scanlations of adult manga, also known as hentai.

 

The site’s founder, Jacob Grady, studied computer science in Massachusetts at the time and used student loans to pay the server bills of a site that was essentially a pirate operation.

 

Fakku never sought trouble with rightsholders though. It simply wanted to expand the manga niche to a broader audience by aggregating translations. That worked well as the platform kept growing.

 

As the years passed things got more serious and Fakku slowly but steadily signed deals with rightsholders. By the end of 2015, it had completed the transformation from a ‘pirate site’ into a licensed publisher, which is a laudable achievement.

 

This new role in the manga ecosystem also meant that Fakku became interested in protecting its rights. After all, you don’t want other people to profit from ‘your’ content. This meant that the publisher started to send takedown notices to pirate sites, and more.

 

Over the past few months, Fakku has repeatedly gone to court trying to unmask the operators of sites such as Hentai.cafe and HentaiNexus. These two domains have since disappeared.

 

At the same time, the publisher is sending millions of takedown notices to various online platforms. Google alone has received over 45 million takedown requests from the company since early this year. Unfortunately, not all of these are correct.

 

A few days ago the company sent a DMCA notice to Google asking it to remove 1,110 URLs from its search results. Most of these point to pirated content, but TorrentFreak was listed among these sites as well.

 

In fact, Fakku suggests that our news article covering the legal action against Hentai.cafe is somehow copyright infringing. We’re not aware of any wrongdoing, of course, and the “commutative” [sic] episode list provided in the takedown notice doesn’t ring any bells either.

 

Mistakes can happen, of course, and luckily Google stepped in and decided to keep the article in its search engine. We don’t want to make a big deal out of it really, but it would be great if Fakku could be a bit sharper going forward.

 

TorrentFreak asked Fakku for a comment on our findings but the company didn’t immediately reply.

 

Our news article isn’t the only unusual URL in the takedown notice though. We also spotted a blog post from Doujins.com, which reports on a row between Fakku and Hentai Heaven from two years ago, which appears to have been sorted out later.

 

That post was removed from Google’s search results, but a copy under another URL is still indexed.