For the past several years, Italian law enforcement authorities have been attempting to reduce the local availability of pirate IPTV platforms and related services.

 

In September 2019, a massive operation took down IPTV management service Xtream-Codes, which was believed to have serviced around 50 million end-users. With the outcome in that matter still pending, authorities have been concentrating on taking down IPTV services themselves and claiming grand results.

 

In February 2020, the focus shifted towards end-users of such services. An announcement from the Guardia di Finanza (GdF), the Italian police unit tasked with financial crimes, said that it had reported 223 IPTV subscribers to the authorities for the crime of “receiving stolen goods.” It now appears they are maintaining the pressure.

240 IPTV Subscribers Reported to Prosecutor’s Office

On Wednesday, several local media outlets in the city of Piacenza reported that 240 people, mostly from the city itself, had been identified as subscribers to a pirate IPTV platform offering Sky, Dazn, Mediaset Premium, Netflix and Amazon Prime content at the cut down price of just 10 euros per month.

 

The investigation was carried out by GdF and coordinated by public prosecutor Antonio Colonna. It was triggered in the early months of 2020 when the GdF of Rome identified a 60-year-old man who later admitted to be a reseller of pirate IPTV services.

 

Resellers are generally lower-tier players who sell on pirate IPTV packages from more major suppliers. However, they can keep records (such as names, physical addresses, email addresses and payment information) that allow the authorities to positively identify their customers.

 

That appears to have been the case here although the authorities also claim the use of “sophisticated tracing techniques” including financial investigations and other searches to identify the subscribers.

Subscribers Risk Fines of Up To 25,000+ Euros

Following last year’s announcement that 223 subscribers would be referred for prosecution, the authorities said that if found guilty, subscribers risked being found guilty of receiving stolen goods, 25,000 euro penalties, and even a jail sentence. While we’re unaware of information suggesting that anyone has been successfully prosecuted, the same kind of warnings were issued again this week.

 

According to PiacenzaOnline, the authorities are warning of fines ranging between 2,582 euros through to 25,822 euros, plus criminal violations relating to the use of equipment designed for the “illegal decoding of conditional access audiovisual broadcasts.” Only in the most serious of cases will the suspects be accused of receiving stolen goods, the publication notes.

 

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 as well as the Digital Services Act, which was officially unveiled last December.

 

These changes have been spurred on by major copyright holders, who have long called for stricter enforcement of pirated content online. At the same time, digital rights groups and some legal experts are concerned that fundamental rights are at risk by increased filtering.

‘Fixing’ the Digital Services Act

When it comes to the Digital Services Act (DSA) proposal, neither ‘side’ is completely satisfied. The new regulations improve the takedown process and will deal with ‘repeat infringers.’ However, there are no ‘staydown’ requirements, which was a priority item on the copyright holders’ wishlist.

 

Over the past months, various stakeholders have submitted their views to the European Parliament’s IMCO Committee, asking for tweaks and changes to the proposal. This includes the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA), whose members include Sky, BT, the Premier League, LaLiga, Discovery, Wiley, and Ziggo.

The Linking Problem

AAPA lists several concrete amendments that should make it easier to address online piracy. This includes clarifying that online content sharing platforms shouldn’t just act against infringing content stored on their own servers. They should also remove links to infringing content stored elsewhere too.

 

“One of the major issues with the online content sharing platforms is not just the illegal content stored on their platform, but rather the material posted on their platform that directs users to other places which supply illegal content,” AAPA writes.

 

This expansion effectively means that online services have to take action against things such as piracy tutorials, or links in comments that point people to pirate sites.

Staydown

As could be expected, AAPA also calls for a staydown requirement. The initial draft of the DSA doesn’t require online services to ensure that content remains offline after it’s removed. However, the anti-piracy alliance sees this as a necessity.

 

“In order to effectively and meaningfully address the proliferation of illegal products and services on intermediary services, measures need to be implemented by these services to prevent illicit content from reappearing after having been taken down,” AAPA notes.

 

This takedown and staydown approach is a priority for many rightsholder groups. They believe that the current takedown systems are ineffective because the same content can reappear elsewhere within minutes.

Terminating Repeat Infringer Accounts

The anti-piracy alliance also sees room to improve the ‘repeat infringer’ language in the DSA. The current text will require services to suspend accounts of persistent pirates, but more can be done.

 

AAPA proposes to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers. In addition, companies should ensure that these people can’t simply circumvent these measures by registering a new account.

 

“In cases of repeat suspension, providers of hosting services shall terminate the provision of their services and introduce mechanisms that prevent the reregistration of recipients of service that frequently provide or facilitate the dissemination of illegal content,” the proposed amendment reads.

 

To AAPA’s credit, the alliance also proposes stricter measures against takedown abuse. Organizations and users who repeatedly send manifestly unfounded takedown requests should have their accounts terminated as well, the group notes.

 

A complete overview of the recommendations can be found on AAPA’s website where they were published this week.

 

Earlier this year a group of programmers and Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts released ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’, a pair of reverse engineered releases of GTA 3 and Vice City.

 

The code meant that these old but well-loved games could be enjoyed with significant improvements but the fun wasn’t to last for long. In response to the projects, Take-Two and Rockstar Games filed a DMCA notice at Github where the code was stored, requesting the removal of the ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’ repositories.

 

Initially, project leader “aap” questioned the authenticity of the takedown. “It’s not impossible it’s just a troll. Hard to tell. But better to assume it’s real,” he told Eurogamer.

 

As per legal requirements, Github complied with the takedown demand but, as TF noted at the time, the team behind the projects had the option of filing a DMCA counter-notice if it was confident that its work is permitted under copyright law.

 

After assessing its options, that’s exactly what the team did, leaving Take-Two just a couple of weeks to file a lawsuit to prevent the content reappearing on Github. When that time expired, the coding platform restored ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’, as per the law.

 

“We claim that our project falls under fair use: our goal is clearly not piracy or anything as you still need the original game. Rather we want to care for the game by fixing and improving it and bringing it to new platforms,” project leader ‘aap’ informed TF at the time.

 

“This has caused many people to buy or re-buy the game from Take-Two, so it’s not like they’re losing money, quite the opposite.”

 

While Take-Two didn’t act quickly enough to prevent the restoration of ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’ to Github, the company has now followed up with a full-blown lawsuit targeting their developers.

Copyright Infringement Complaint

Filed in a California court a few hours ago, Take-Two’s lawsuit lists Angelo Papenhoff (aap), Theo Morra, Eray Orçunus, and Adrian Graber as named defendants, plus Doe 1 ‘Ash R / Ash/735’ and nine other unnamed Does.

 

“Defendants’ source code projects, known as re3 and reVC, purport to have created a set of software files (which Defendants claim they ‘reverse engineered’ from the original Game software) that allow members of the public to play the Games on various hardware devices, but with so-called ‘enhancements’ and ‘modifications’ added by Defendants,” the complaint reads.

 

“Perhaps most notably, Defendants claim that their derivative GTA source code enables players to install and run the Games on multiple game platforms, including those on which the Games never have been released, such as the PlayStation Vita and Nintendo Switch.”

 

According to Take-Two, the defendants’ conduct is willful and deliberate since they are well aware that they do not have the necessary rights to copy, adapt or distribute derivative GTA source code or the audiovisual elements of the games. The gaming giant adds that Papenhoff publicly expressed concern that Take-Two would find out about the ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’ projects.

Defendants Created Repositories on Github

According to the complaint, the defendants uploaded their projects to Github and, over time, refined and updated these repositories until a “full set” of derivative files for the games GTA 3 and Vice City had been created.

 

“These source code files not only contain the derivative software code that enables the Games to run on a player’s computer, but also contain Take-Two’s original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets. Additionally, the re3 GitHub Repositories include links to locations where members of the public can download a complete, installable build of the re3 and reVC software,” Take-Two adds.

 

The company says the derivative versions of the games are “virtually identical” to the originals in function, appearance and gameplay (except for the modifications added by the defendants) and allow players to experience the “exact same sights, sounds, story, setting, dialog, and other creative content” present in the originals.

Defendants Intended to Create and Distribute Pirated Games

Take-Two’s lawsuit claims that the defendants have made public statements that show their intent to create and distribute pirated Grand Theft Auto games by using Twitter and Discord to solicit help with the projects.

 

The gaming company also insists that the defendants have admitted that the source code is not original but intended to be copies of the originals.

 

“[D]efendants slavishly recreated the original code to play the Games by ‘decompiling’ the Games’ object (or ‘machine’) code and then working with that material to create a game experience that is identical to the original Games,” its lawsuit adds.

Addressing DMCA Notices Sent to Github

As previously noted, Take-Two submitted a DMCA takedown notice to Github in February requesting the disabling and/or removal of the allegedly infringing repositories. The company says that the counter notices sent by the defendants in response were not legitimate.

 

“In at least three separate instances between April and June of 2021, Defendants Orçunus, Morra, and Graber submitted sworn counter notifications to GitHub claiming the takedown of the repositories was mistaken or otherwise not legitimate,” the lawsuit reads.

 

“Take-Two is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that these counter notifications were made in bad faith, and knowingly and deliberately misrepresented to GitHub the contents of the re3 GitHub Repositories.”

 

Furthermore, it’s alleged that the reverse-engineering team expected a Take-Two response, noting on Discord it was a matter of “WHEN and not IF” the company would “strike back”.

Copyright Infringement Claims

Take-Two says that by willfully and maliciously copying, adapting and distributing its source code and other content, all of the defendants have infringed its exclusive rights under copyright law. As a result, the company is entitled to damages in amounts to be determined at trial or, alternatively, a maximum statutory damages award of $150,000 for each infringed work.

 

Additionally, the gaming company says that by submitting bad faith DMCA counternotices to have the projects restored to Github, three of the defendants made misrepresentations under U.S.C. § 512(f).

 

“Accordingly, Defendant Orçunus, Morra, and Graber are liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by Take-Two,” the complaint adds.

 

Finally, Take-Two is seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from continuing their allegedly infringing activities. The company wants all infringing source code and games removed from the Internet and wants the defendants to hand over all materials that infringe its rights.

 

Take-Two also wants a full accounting of “any and all sales or downloads of products or services” that infringe its rights.

 

Take-Two’s copyright infringement complaint can be found here (pdf)

 

Piracy presents a major challenge for companies across different sectors, including the software industry.

 

Many copyright holders stress that piracy hurts their bottom line. This could lead to less output and innovation. However, research has shown that this isn’t always the case.

 

Previously, studies have found that piracy doesn’t reduce the number of new films being made. Similarly, piracy doesn’t slow down music output or innovation either. In fact, it may actually encourage innovation.

Piracy Shock and Innovation

This idea is supported by a new working paper published by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The research was carried out by Wendy Bradley, Assistant Professor at SMU Cox School, and USPTO economist Julian Kolev.

 

The research looks at the effect of the “piracy shock” that was introduced when BitTorrent was first launched 20 years ago. The then-new file-sharing technology made it much easier to pirate software and was swiftly embraced by millions of people.

 

This ‘natural experiment’ is used to measure how large software companies changed their research and development (R&D) budgets in the following years. By comparing companies that face more piracy risks to those with a lower risk profile, the overall piracy effect is estimated.

 

According to the researchers, the launch of BitTorrent is ideally suited to measure the effect of piracy. Its introduction in 2001 was sudden, the technology is ideally suited for software piracy, and it wasn’t notably interrupted during the sample period which ends in 2007.

BitTorrent Piracy Triggered Innovation

The overall results suggest that companies that are more at risk from piracy appear to innovate more following the launch of BitTorrent.

 

“We find that rising piracy increases subsequent R&D spending, copyrights, trademarks, and patents for large, incumbent software firms,” the researchers write, suggesting that the piracy shock pushed firms to innovate more.

 

“Firms in our sample exhibited a strong rise in innovative activity following the piracy shock, but they also shifted their IP strategies to pursue a more diversified portfolio through increased filings of copyrights and trademarks.”

 

Translating these findings to hard figures would suggest that a 10% increase in piracy leads to a 2.8% increase in R&D spending.

 

Subscriptions

The research doesn’t look into specific types of innovation. However, it mentions that in more recent years the subscription model has been embraced by an increasing number of software companies.

 

This includes software giants such as Microsoft and Adobe, whose software has been pirated millions of times in the past.

 

Interestingly, this subscription model has its own drawbacks. The paper mentions “subscription fatigue” as a risk, one that also applies to movie streaming platforms. Too many subscriptions could eventually drive people back to pirate sites

What About Revenue

Today, more than twenty years after BitTorrent was invented, piracy levels remain high. However, initial data suggest that software companies have been able to increase revenues through new products and other innovations.

 

“While firm performance is outside the scope of this study, initial estimates show firms in our sample experienced significant increases in both revenue and profit after the piracy shock,” the paper reads.

 

“Our findings suggest that strategies encouraging new product development and a continuous commitment to innovation may offset the negative effects of digital piracy in certain industries.”

 

Finally, the researchers stress that while BitTorrent’s launch is described as a piracy shock, the technology itself is not to blame. It’s a file-sharing technology that can and is used for legal purposes as well.

 

A copy of the working paper is available through the USPTO website and SSRN. It should be noted, however, that the views expressed in the paper do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Office of the Chief Economist or the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Over the past few years, copyright holders have asked Google to remove billions of links to allegedly pirated content.

 

Most of these DMCA notices point to infringing material but occasionally mistakes are made, which can do serious harm. Even worse, the DMCA is also abused by scammers for personal gain.

 

Over the past weeks, we have seen a new wave of suspicious takedown requests. These notices are not standard DMCA notices but point out links that supposedly bypass DRM restrictions, which violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention policy.

 

Google handles these ‘Section 1201’ notices outside of the regular takedown system, which means that they’re not listed in the public transparency report. However, they are sent to Lumen’s takedown archive, where we spotted dozens of these dubious takedowns.

“Video Industry Association of America”

Two weeks ago we saw several notices that listed the “United States Copyright Office” as the sender, supposedly acting on behalf of the “Video Industry Association of America.” At the time, the Copyright Office confirmed that these were sent by an imposter.

 

In recent days we have seen several similar notices and this time the Video Industry Association of America is listed as both the sender and the copyright holder. However, plenty of questions remain.

 

First of all, we’re not aware of any legitimate organization that calls itself the “Video Industry Association of America.” But even if we were to believe that, the takedown request itself is rather confusing, as this example shows.

 

 

The ‘American’ organization starts one request off in Russian and finds it hard to construct proper English sentences. In another notice, it complains of sites and apps that circumvent the copyright protection of streaming services, while classifying these as “software cracks.”

 

Things get even more problematic when we look at the URLs that are reported. While these include tools such as DVDFab and YouTube-rippers, which some rightsholders see as problematic, various legitimate sites are targeted as well.

Targets Include Verizon, The Verge, and Quora

For example, this notice includes the homepages of Internet providers such as Spectrum, Xfinity, and Verizon, as well as the news sites Wired, The Verge, USA Today, and Techradar.

 

 

In some cases, the notices list articles that explain how people can download content from streaming services such as Netflix. However, those mostly point to legal options, such as this Wired article about Netflix’s offline viewing feature.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We have also seen Engadget, CNBC, CNET, and many other news sites targeted. Even Quora, PureVPN, and Pinterest can’t escape the wrath of the Video Industry Association of America.

 

Legitimate Sites Removed from Google

The good news is that Google took no action in response to most of these takedown requests. However, not all sites were that lucky. The smaller news outlets Fossbytes.com, Techloot and Robots.net had their homepages wiped from Google’s search results.

 

 

TorrentFreak spoke to Fossbytes’ co-founder Adarsh Verma, who said that these claims damage the publication’s reputation and lead to a reduction in traffic.

 

In addition to Fossbytes’ homepage, an article explaining how people can legally download videos from Netflix has been removed from Google’s search results as well.

Google is Aware of the Problem

Fossbytes reported the issue to Google, which informed the site that there is no official counter-notification process for these anti-circumvention takedowns. As such, the URLs remain deindexed for now.

 

“There is no formal counter notification process available under US law for circumvention, so we have not reinstated these URLs,” Google replied, requesting a detailed explanation from the site.

 

The response above comes from an email Fossbytes shared with TorrentFreak. This reveals some interesting details that are not available in the Lumen database, including the name, email address, and geolocation of the ‘Video Industry Association of America’ representative.

 

 

As can be seen above, the sender is actually located in Russia and identifies itself as “Wolf Fang,” which isn’t a typical name, not even in Russia. The email address, which we won’t publish, comes from Gmail and references another animal’s fangs.

Google is Aware of the Problem

Speaking with TorrentFreak, a Google spokesperson says that the company is aware of the fraudulent activity and is taking action.

 

“We are aware of these fraudulent notices. We have a number of mechanisms in place to detect abuse, and are always making improvements to our approach. Our transparency efforts are designed to help third parties, including journalists, identify these types of issues, and when they come to light, we reinstate URLs as appropriate,” Google says.

 

Based on Google’s response, it seems likely that Fossbytes, Robots.net, and other wrongfully flagged sites, can expect their links to reappear in Google’s search results eventually.

 

For now, it remains a mystery who’s behind these notices. It wouldn’t surprise us if the “Video Industry Association of America’ is actually a direct competitor of the stream-ripping and DRM circumvention tools that are reported.

 

This is a strategy we have seen several times in the past. A competitor targets URLs from competing apps and sites, so their own site will end up higher in Google’s search results.

 

In this case, however, the person in question is drawing quite a bit of attention, by adding hundreds of perfectly legitimate URLs to the takedown requests.

 

Back in August 2020 the piracy world went into meltdown. Various raids, targeting so-called ‘Scene’ groups, turned the international file-sharing ecosystem upside down.

 

Shortly after law enforcement took action around the world, a US judge ordered a previously sealed indictment to be made public. Among other things, it revealed that British man George Bridi, who reportedly resided on the Isle of Wight, was accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy identified as the SPARKS release group.

 

According to the documents, the aim of the SPARKS group (which was active between 2011 to early 2020) was to fraudulently obtain DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for copyrighted movies and television shows prior to their retail release date, remove the copyright protections, and distribute the files via SPARKS-controlled servers.

 

Gaining access to Bridi wasn’t straightforward, however. After being arrested in Cyprus on an INTERPOL Red Notice, the then 50-year-old would need to be extradited to the United States. After more than a year, that has now happened.

U.S. Attorney Announces Bridi’s Extradition

According to an announcement today by Audrey Strauss, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Bridi was extradited to the United States from Cyprus on August 31, 2021.

 

He faces charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement (maximum five years in prison), wire fraud conspiracy (20 years in prison), and conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property (five years in prison). It’s alleged that the SPARKS group caused tens of millions of dollars in losses to film production studios.

 

The case is being prosecuted by the Department of Justice’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. The investigation was supported by the execution of dozens of mutual legal assistance requests in 18 different countries including Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

 

“As alleged, George Bridi was a member of an international video piracy ring that circumvented copyright protections on nearly every movie released by major production studios, as well as television shows, and distributed them worldwide on the Internet,” says U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss.

 

“Thanks to the assistance of our law enforcement partners, the piracy ring has been busted and Bridi is now in U.S. custody.”

Fate of Bridi’s SPARKS Co-defendants

The alleged ‘SPARKS Conspiracy’ runs much broader than Bridi alone. Jonatan Correa (aka ‘Raid’) was arrested in Kansas on August 25, 2020 but was released the very same day. During an appearance in court on September 1, 2020, he pleaded not guilty but as part of a plea deal with the US Government, Correa later changed his mind.

 

Noting his cooperative stance, limited involvement in the SPARKS group, and his standing in the community, in May US District Court Judge Richard M. Berman sentenced the former Scene member to time served plus 27 months of supervised release. Correa was also ordered to pay $54,000 to the Motion Picture Association.

 

Umar Ahmad (aka ‘Artist’) is proving to be more elusive. Last year the then 39-year-old Norwegian somehow managed to evade arrest and according to the Department of Justice, remains at large today.

 

The raids against SPARKS and other groups in The Scene initially triggered an immediate and historic drop in pirate releases. However, as reported this January, the ecosystem eventually recovered, with content availability virtually back to normal around five months after the initial international law enforcement action.

 

After raids in November 2019 that shuttered his Gears-branded IPTV services, Bill Omar Carrasquillo (Omi in a Hellcat) is inching closer to discovering his fate at the hands of the federal government.

 

As previously reported, IRS and FBI agents seized “at least” $5.2m from his bank accounts along with a laundry list of supercars and other vehicles, alleged to have been purchased with ill-gotten gains.

 

At the time of writing, a civil process to officially take possession of Carrasquillo’s seized assets is underway but he is yet to be officially indicted. When that will happen remains unclear but Carrasquillo is now shining more light on the process.

Discussions Underway With US Government

In a series of new interviews with YouTube channel ‘Say Cheese!“, Carrasquillo talks openly about matters that aren’t usually for public consumption, including the basics of discussions with the government that may lead to some kind of deal.

 

“My lawyers went in but God willing, everything turns out good and positive. If it got to be a quick in-and-out [of prison] hopefully I can continue. Because at the end of the day, to me it’s more about the restitution I owe,” Carrasquillo says.

 

“There’s gonna be a lot of money. Me sitting in there for too long it’s going to cancel out their restitution I gotta pay back. More important to me is paying back their restitution. It’s gonna be eight figures of course. Over eight – pushing nine.”

Big Money, Long Time in Prison

While Carrasquillo seems keen to pay what he owes, the starting point for the discussions appears to have centered around a proposal for an extremely long time in prison – wowards two decades in fact.

 

“They went through the whole thing it was like 210 months [in prison]. And my lawyer is like, man, it doesn’t make any sense. If you look at anybody who’s been through the same type of situation that I’ve been through – it is not scamming, it was more of a copyright infringement case that turned into ‘Oh shit, you didn’t pay your taxes’ – you know, tax evasion. But now they’re just trying to bend it – it’s a long story,” he says.

 

“I said, if we can get that shit all the way down, to where I can pay them and work it out somehow on the back end, I’ll do that but I can’t take [210 months in prison]. Listen, if we can get down to that number, I’ll take it gladly.”

 

According to the interviewer, that number is two years in prison, something confirmed by Carrasquillo. But that would be accompanied by another problem – the feds taking everything.

The Feds Want to Keep Everything

“Everything. Like all the cars. The money. Things that they already seized. It is what it is, I’ve been living without it already,” Carrasquillo says with a shrug.

 

“But at the end of the day, I feel that I’m taking it just to get it over with. But I have no problem fighting this shit at trial because I know for a fact that nothing I did was illegal.”

 

Time and again, Carrasquillo has insisted he committed no crimes, although he has previously admitted that not paying his taxes was a mistake. After the money started rolling in, he says he took the time to consult a lawyer who assured him that he was not breaking the law.

 

“[The attorney] is going to come and testify later on in court but it feels like damn, he should’ve had my back a bit more because I did confide in counsel. I was ready to give it up because i’d seen people starting to get in trouble in that field but what they were doing was movies,” he says.

 

“I had a little app that did movies that was 100% free, I never profited off it. And when I see that people were getting cracked I turned it off immediately saying, ‘I don’t want no problems’. So when I went to the lawyer he said you’re not doing anything illegal so two years later when they come knocking on my door. I didn’t even see these people following me. I had no hints whatsoever. These m***** f****** are good.”

Chances of Winning at Trial – 50/50

While Carrasquillo says that he’s prepared to go to trial if necessary, he rates his chances of winning at no more than 50/50. He believes that the accusations of criminal copyright infringement are false, which means that the money-laundering accusations are on thin ice too. He does, however, acknowledge issues with his taxes.

 

“There’s an argument either side, I feel like this is a coin toss, [a trial] can go either way. I feel that what I did wasn’t against the law, honestly, but at the end of the day my kids…I just want to get this shit over with, come back, pay my debt to society. It is what it is.”

 

At the moment Omi has one lawyer working on his case but he wants to hire entire firms. He says that people who’ve looked at the case are strongly advising him to take the trial but for his kids’ sake, he really wants to get it over with so he can move on. However, he won’t be seeking the benefits of a 5K motion.

 

This type of motion is filed by a prosecutor under §5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines indicating via letter to the court that the defendant has cooperated. Carrasquillo says he wants no part in that.

 

“What I did was what I did. It got nothing to do with other people,” he says. “The investigation kept going and going until I left the window open for taxes. I left a couple of things open for them. We’re quick to blame them, ‘Oh f*** the feds’ but in reality, we f*** ourselves over.”

 

For more than seven years, Popcorn Time has been a thorn in the side of movie studios large and small.

 

The ‘Netflix for Pirates’ offers an easy-to-use application that opens the door to a library of thousands of streamable movies and TV shows.

Legal Issues

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) recognized this threat early on and pressured the original developers to throw in the towel. That worked, but it came too late as the open-source project was swiftly revived by others.

 

Popcorn Time lived on through many project forks, including PopcornTime.app, which carried on from where the original developers stopped. However, the fork’s developers haven’t been spared from legal pressure.

 

Last year, Hawaiian anti-piracy attorney Kerry Culpepper registered the “Popcorn Time’ trademark, which he used to get Popcorn Time’s Twitter account suspended. Around the same time, Github removed the Popcorn Time repository following a complaint from the MPA, a decision that was later reversed.

Movie Companies Sue Popcorn Time

A few months ago, a group of independent movie companies, including the makers of “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” and “London Has Fallen,” increased the pressure. The filmmakers sued the anonymous PopcornTime.app operator, together with the VPN service VPN.ht.

 

According to a recent court filing, VPN.ht and the filmmakers are close to signing a settlement agreement. However, the same can’t be said for the anonymous “Popcorn Time” operator, who failed to respond in court.

 

Soon after the lawsuit was filed, the official PopcornTime.app site disappeared. The official Reddit community also went private, but not before one of the moderators posted a message, pointing people to popcorn-ru.tk/build/, which remains online today.

Millions in Damages

The movie companies kept a close eye on these developments and remain determined to shut the fork down once and for all. Without a formal response from the developers, they are now asking the court to issue a default judgment, awarding millions of dollars for various copyright and trademark violations.

 

The list of demands is long. Among other things, the filmmakers demand the maximum statutory copyright infringement damages for 21 movie titles. This adds up to a healthy $3,150,000.

 

That’s not all, Popcorn Time trademark owner 42 Ventures joined the lawsuit as well. The company, which lists lawyer Kerry Culpepper as its director, demands $2 million in damages for trademark infringement.

 

The requested damages amount is sufficient to bankrupt most people. However, the default judgment also comes with a request for an injunction, which could potentially have much broader consequences.

Site Blocking and More

The proposed injunction would require ISPs to block access to several Popcorn Time domain names, including popcorn-ru.tk. Thus far, no federal court has issued such a blocking order in a piracy case, but the filmmakers argue that this is an option under the DMCA.

 

Specifically, Section 512 of the DMCA allows for an order that required Internet providers “to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.”

 

The movie companies believe that such a blocking order is warranted in this case. In their proposed order, which has yet to be approved by the court, they use the following terminology:

It is ORDERED that, within 60 days receipt of this order, all Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) subject to personal jurisdiction of the United States use their best technical efforts to BLOCK access on their servers or servers under their control to the following Target Domain Names at which Defendant’s movie piracy app Popcorn Time is distributed: http://popcorn-ru.tk; https://popcorn-time.tw/; and https://popcorntime-online.ch/.

The targeted ISPs, which could include Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, can use a variety of blocking options, according to the rightsholders. This includes blocking domain names and IP-addresses.

 

The requested injunction doesn’t stop there. The movie companies also want third-party service providers such as Cloudflare and Google to stop people from accessing Popcorn Time domains. This includes the removal of all search engine results.

 

In addition, the rightsholders seek an order that requires the developer platform GitHub to take the Popcorn Time repository and various related accounts offline.

 

Movie Studios’ Proposed Order  

 

As mentioned before, these requests are made as part of a motion for a default judgment. This means that the defendant is not represented in court, which makes it more likely that the court will approve the request.

Unavoidable Blocking Battle?

Given what is at stake here, however, it’s certainly possible that – if the order is granted – some of the third-party intermediaries will object. After all, some of these requests are quite novel.

 

The movie studios’ site-blocking request is not entirely new. Over the past weeks, the same companies have listed similar demands in lawsuits against Internet providers such as Grande Communications, RCN, and WOW!.

 

All in all, it seems likely that the site-blocking issue will be properly tested in U.S. courts in the near future.

 

—

 

A copy of the motion for a default judgment, submitted at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is available here (pdf)

 

There is an old adage in piracy circles suggesting that when one piracy service is shut down, several more appear in their place. This so-called ‘hydra’ analogy is often cited to suggest that enforcement is futile but that doesn’t deter anti-piracy groups.

 

In particular, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the global coalition featuring some of the world’s most powerful movie, TV show and content distribution companies, is continuing its quest to shut down as many unlicensed streaming services as it can. As result, new casualties are reported almost every week and sometimes several at a time. The past week runs true to form.

ACE Shuts Down IPTV Provider Iconic Streams

ACE has the stated aim of protecting the legal marketplace for movies and TV shows and as a result, regularly targets illicit IPTV providers. Around a week ago the domain Iconicstreams.com was taken over by the Motion Picture Association, a sure indicator that the supplier had been targeted. Enforcement action has now been confirmed.

 

 

“Iconic Streams offered over 3,500 channels, with a specific focus on premium sports channels. After successful outreach and action executed by ACE with the service’s operator in Dresden, the service has not been available to consumers since June,” an ACE statement reads.

 

While the service was reportedly closed a couple of months ago, there are reports online that Iconic Streams continued to sell subscriptions, meaning that some prospective customers were left disappointed. On Trust Pilot, for example, many people accuse the service of taking their money and running.

 

Several posters also claim that the service has continued to operate at a new domain but at the time of writing, that hasn’t been officially confirmed.

ACE Closes MyTVBoss and EZTV Streaming

In common with the closure of Iconic Streams, the domain for MyTVBoss (mytvboss.com) was also taken over by the Motion Picture Association in recent days. According to ACE, MyTVBoss and EZTV Streaming were popular IPTV providers, operated from the United States.

 

“MyTVBoss was an IPTV subscription service with 7,000 live channels. ACE outreached directly to the Arkansas-based operator and the service is now offline. All MyTVBoss domains have been transferred to ACE and are now redirecting to the Watch Legally section on the ACE website,” an ACE statement reads.

 

 

While the closure of MyTVBoss was apparently actioned in the usual way, it appears that EZTV Streaming was contacted by ACE and decided to close down of its own accord.

 

“EZTV Streaming was an IPTV subscription service with 3,400 live channels. ACE identified the operators in Alabama and following direct communication, the service went offline,” ACE reveals.

ACE Shutters Flixanity

There are several sites and services using the ‘Flixanity’ branding online today but those that previously operated from flixanity.com, flixanity.mobi, flixanity.in, flixanity.watch, and flixanity.app appear to be no more. ACE says that after a successful operation and communication with the domains’ operators, this particular variant has been shut down.

 

“Flixanity was a popular streaming site that had been operating since 2015 through various domains,” ACE reports.

 

“In recent years, the operation was expanded to include several domains that bear names similar to other popular pirate brands to attract more visitors. Over the last year, traffic to the Flixanity-connected sites had grown tenfold with 29 active domains connected to the service.”

Other Domains Seized But Not Directly Confirmed By ACE

Recent searches of domains falling under the control of the Motion Picture Association reveal other entities not directly referenced in ACE announcements. Whether these will be confirmed in due course or were taken as part of other operations is currently unknown. We report here for reference.

 

Dastreamz appears to have been another unlicensed IPTV provider offering broadly the same services as others operating in the same niche. Publicly known as Double Agent IPTV, the dastreamz.com domain is now Hollywood-controlled along with doubleagensee.com, which appears to have acted as the service’s billing portal.

 

Other domains seized by the MPA include stremio.app, cyberflix.app and showbox.works. All play on familiar branding so could have been part of the Flixanity seizures, as mentioned by ACE.

 

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. “Snake Eyes” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 30 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Snake Eyes	5.4 / trailer
2	(3)	The Suicide Squad	7.6 / trailer
3	(2)	The Green Knight	6.9 / trailer
4	(7)	Reminiscence	6.0 / trailer
5	(…)	Respect	6.7 / trailer
6	(4)	Jungle Cruise	6.8 / trailer
7	(…)	The Protege	6.2 / trailer
8	(5)	Stillwater	6.7 / trailer
9	(6)	F9: The Fast Saga	5.3 / trailer
10	(9)	Black Widow	7.0 / trailer

 

In piracy circles, ‘FitGirl’ is a very well known brand, especially for gamers looking for the latest titles without the usual price tag.

 

Operating from the domain fitgirl-repacks.site, platform operator FitGirl is perhaps the most well-known ‘repacker’ online today due to her/his ability to compress full-size games into more manageable packages.

 

The resulting smaller file sizes are useful for people who want to download pirated games but don’t have (or don’t want to use up) lots of bandwidth. And according to traffic data, that’s a lot of people.

 

After FitGirl Repacks became one of the most-visited torrent sites last year, TorrentFreak was able to interview FitGirl who was happy to explain how the site began and more details about its rise to fame. Now, however, the site may be facing a more stormy period with its main domain under threat.

“Prepare For a Crash”

In an announcement posted Sunday, FitGirl warned that the site could face some downtime or may even have to change domain altogether.

 

“Due to some troubles with my domain name, this site may go down soon for unknown period of time or forever,” FitGirl explains.

 

“In the latter case the new domain (which name I didn’t think of) will arise and information about it will be posted on sites I upload to. Fingers crossed none of the above events will happen, but fasten your seat belts and prepare for a crash.”

 

FitGirl is a popular uploader on fellow torrent site 1337x.to so whatever happens to the main FitGirl domain, at least in theory uploads should continue unhindered. However, the FitGirl torrent site itself is extremely popular so getting the issues fixed will be a priority in the next few days.

 

So what are the issues exactly?

Fitgirl-repacks.site Accused of Having a Spam Problem

In an announcement on an unofficial Discord channel, Hermietkreeft, the sysadmin of the FitGirl site, puts a little more meat on the bones. (Correction: An earlier version of this article attributed the quotes to FitGirl)

 

“Our domain registrar took the fitgirl-repacks-site domain hostage, meaning we are unable to modify or change anything,” Hermietkreeft writes.

 

“The registrar has decided that we are sending spam emails, kinda funny for a domain without MX records or any email servers. Transferring the domain to another registrar is also impossible due to the imposed limits by the registrar.”

 

Public DNS records support the site’s claims of having no MX (mail exchange) records that are able to direct email to a mail server. However, checks at Spamhaus – an organization that tracks email spammers and spam-related activity – reveal that the group has blacklisted FitGirl’s domain.

 

Blocklist Inclusion Could Have Been Triggered By Third-Party

Spamhaus advises that the Fitgirl-repacks.site domain may have been added to the blocklist due to a “poor sending reputation” but there are other factors too. The organization notes that anonymized Whois records should be avoided (FitGirl has these) and advises that poor IP address reputation can play a part too. This may be an important factor.

 

The IP address used by the Fitgirl-repacks.site belongs to Russian DDoS mitigation company DDoS-Guard. While it serves many ‘ordinary’ customers, the company also services more questionable ones too. FitGirl shares an IP address with more than 6,000 other domains, any one (or more) of which could have been responsible for serving up spam.

FitGirl Will Need to Exhaust an Appeals Process

To be removed from the Spamhaus list, these issues and more will have to be addressed before filing an appeal with the spam mitigation organization. And then, presuming the issues are linked, FitGirl will also need to convince its domain registrar PDR Ltd that there’s nothing further to worry about.

 

If this process fails a new domain will be required. It is likely to be announced on torrent site 1337x.to but in the meantime, if the main site goes down, people should be cautious to avoid imposter sites that could seek to infect users with malware.

 

Update: FitGirl’s sysadmin informs TF that the domain is now being moved to a new registrar

Amidst growing concerns about online privacy and security, VPN services have become increasingly popular in recent years.

 

Millions of people use VPNs to stay secure and prevent outsiders from tracking their online activities. As with regular Internet providers, a subsection of these subscribers may be engaged in piracy activities.

 

Over the past years, we have seen copyright holders take several ISPs to court, accusing them of failing to disconnect repeat copyright infringers. These lawsuits have expanded recently, with VPN providers as the main targets.

 

The VPN lawsuits are filed by a group of independent movies companies that also go after piracy sites and apps. They include the makers of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Dallas Buyers Club, and London Has Fallen.

 

Last week, these companies filed a new lawsuit at a federal court in Virginia, targeting four VPN services. In their complaint, the filmmakers accuse Surfshark, VPN Unlimited, Zenmate and ExpressVPN of being involved in widespread copyright infringement.

Bypassing Netflix Restrictions

The complaint sums up a long list of alleged wrongdoings. This includes allowing VPN subscribers to bypass the geographical restrictions of streaming services such as Netflix.

 

“Defendants advertise their service for allowing their subscribers to bypass regional restrictions of streaming platforms to stream copies of copyright protected content including Plaintiffs’ Works from locations Plaintiffs have not authorized the platform to stream the Works,” the lawsuit reads.

 

The filmmakers list various examples of promotional pages where the VPN providers claim that their services can bypass blocking efforts and other restrictive measures. In some cases, these are fairly outspoken, as the following announcement from UnlimitedVPN illustrates.

 

BitTorrent Piracy

In addition to bypassing geographical restrictions, the filmmakers also list various examples of VPN subscribers who are directly involved in sharing pirated movies via BitTorrent.

 

While BitTorrent can also be used legally, the VPN companies allegedly promote their service as a tool to download copyright-infringing material anonymously.

 

“Defendants promote their VPN services as a tool that can be used to pirate copyright protected content without getting caught,” the complaint reads.

 

“The records show Defendants’ subscribers downloaded the torrent files for reproducing Plaintiffs’ motion pictures such as The Brass Teapot, Hellboy, Rambo V: Last Blood, Angel Has Fallen, London Has Fallen, 2 Guns, And So It Goes, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt…”

 

The filmmakers argue that some VPNs “partner” with notorious movie piracy websites to promote their service. For example, the site YTS.movie encourages the use of ExpressVPN. It’s not immediately clear whether ExpressVPN is aware of that, however.

 

 

The movie companies further allege that VPN customers are engaged in other types of “outrageous conduct” under this privacy shield, including racist comments, child pornography, and even committing murder.

Logging Repeat Infringers?

The rightsholders have sent thousands of copyright infringement notices to hosting companies, which were reportedly forwarded to the VPN defendants. However, based on these notices, the accused VPNs can’t pinpoint individual subscribers.

 

Most VPN users are connected to shared IP addresses that can’t be directly tied to single users, so the VPN companies simply don’t know which subscribers are flagged. According to the movie companies, VPNs can easily overcome this problem by logging user data.

 

“Defendants have the capability to log their subscribers’ access to their VPN service but purposely delete the logged information or set up their system so that the logged information is deleted so that they can promote their service as a means to pirate copyright protected Works anonymously.”

Damages, Site-Blocking, and Logging

Based on these and other claims, the filmmakers argue that the VPN services are liable for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement. Through this lawsuit, they request compensation for the alleged damage.

 

In addition to money, the filmmakers also request that the VPN services start blocking known pirate sites such as The Pirate Bay and RARBG, which have been listed in the notorious markets list of the US Trade Representative.

 

 

Furthermore, they request an order that required the VPN companies to terminate the accounts of subscribers for which they receive three unique copyright noticed within 72 hours, unless the subscriber appeals.

 

Needless to say, these are broad allegations that will likely be contested in court. At the time of writing, the VPN providers have yet to file an official response.

 

This isn’t the first time that VPN providers are facing copyright infringement allegations. Previously, VPN.ht was sued as well, while Private Internet Access and TorGuard were recently added to previously filed lawsuits against Quadranet and LiquidVPN respectively.

 

—

 

A copy of the complaint against Surfshark, VPN Unlimited, Zenmate, and ExpressVPN, which the movie companies filed at a federal court in Virginia, is available here (pdf)

 

High Court injunctions that order ISPs to block certain websites deemed to be infringing have been in existence for around a decade in the UK.

 

Obtained by entertainment industry companies, largely in the movie, TV and music sector, traditional orders target torrent, streaming and file-hosting platform websites, with ISPs taking measures to prevent subscribers from accessing them by ordinary means.

 

More recently, sports companies such as The Premier League, Matchroom Boxing, and Queensbury Promotions have obtained injunctions to block live sports broadcast by unlicensed streaming providers, mostly IPTV services.

 

While the aims of these injunctions are broadly similar, blocking pirated IPTV broadcasts is a more complex affair since the targeted servers and systems are less static than traditional websites. Nevertheless, the anti-piracy vendors involved in these projects enjoy a level of success but how they actually achieve this is largely shrouded in mystery.

 

Today we can reveal one interesting aspect that has been hinted at previously but never fully explored – the cooperation of at least one major ISP in the UK.

Court Documents Provide a General Background

As far back as 2017, there were indications that despite being defendants in blocking injunction legal action, one or more ISPs actively helped the sports company applicants in their quest to have pirate streams blocked in the UK.

 

Then, two years ago, we reported on comments made by Friend MTS, a UK-based anti-piracy company that works with the Premier League and ISPs, which also confirmed a level of ISP cooperation.

 

However, limited information made available as part of a blocking injunction obtained by UEFA in 2020 put even more meat on the bones, suggesting that Sky had been monitoring the traffic of subscribers accessing pirate servers.

Codename: RedBeard

In recent weeks, an anonymous source shared a small trove of information relating to the systems used to find, positively identity, and then ultimately block pirate streams at ISPs. According to the documents, the module related to the Premier League work is codenamed ‘RedBeard’.

 

The activity appears to start during the week football matches or PPV events take place. A set of scripts at anti-piracy company Friend MTS are tasked with producing lists of IP addresses that are suspected of being connected to copyright infringement. These addresses are subsequently dumped to Amazon S3 buckets and the data is used by ISPs to block access to infringing video streams, the documents indicate.

 

During actual event scanning, content is either manually or fingerprint matched, with IP addresses extracted from DNS information related to hostnames in media URLs, load balancers, and servers hosting Electronic Program Guides (EPG), all of which are used by unlicensed IPTV services.

Confirmed: Sky is Supplying Traffic Data to Assist IPTV Blocking

The big question then is how the Premier League’s anti-piracy partner discovers the initial server IP addresses that it subsequently puts forward for ISP blocking.

 

According to documents reviewed by TF, information comes from three sources – the anti-piracy company’s regular monitoring (which identifies IP addresses and their /24 range), manually entered IP addresses (IP addresses and ports), and a third, potentially more intriguing source – ISPs themselves.

 

“ISPs provide lists of Top Talker IP addresses, these are the IP addresses that they see on their network which many consumers are receiving a large sum of bandwidth from,” one of the documents reveals.

 

“The IP addresses are the uploading IP address which host information which the ISP’s customers are downloading information from. They are not the IP addresses of the ISP’s customer’s home internet connections.”

 

The document revealing this information is not dated but other documents in the batch reference dates in 2021. At the time of publishing date, the document indicates that ISP cooperation is currently limited to Sky Broadband only. TorrentFreak asked Friend MTS if that remains the case or whether additional ISPs are now involved.

 

“While the details of our content protection technology engagements with our customers are strictly confidential, we can confirm that neither Sky nor any other ISP provides Friend MTS with any customer data, and they never have done so,” a spokesperson said.

 

It appears that instead of monitoring customer IP addresses, Sky is compiling data on which IP addresses subscribers are pulling most data from during (and potentially before) match or event times. Sky then uploads the highest-trafficked IP addresses along with the port the traffic is streamed on to the S3 bucket mentioned above, every five minutes. It is then accessed by the anti-piracy company which, every five minutes, extracts the IP, bandwidth rate, and the port number that bandwidth is on.

 

At the time of the document’s publication, the Sky ‘Top Talker’ threshold for the Premier League’s ‘RedBeard’ module was 100mbps. The IP address information provided by the ISP that exceeds this limit then appears to be cross-referenced by IP address and port number with data obtained during game week scanning at Friend MTS. It is then processed accordingly.

Sky today, more ISPs tomorrow?

While the documents indicate that ISPs (plural) provide ‘Top Talker’ IP address lists, as far as we can see only Sky is cooperating at the moment. However, the Premier League is reportedly seeking cooperation from additional ISPs too. This would prove obviously helpful in identifying potential ‘pirate’ servers and infrastructure so they can be tested and subjected to blocking, when appropriate.

 

In summary, it appears that Sky subscribers aren’t being directly monitored per se, but the servers they draw most bandwidth from are being noted by Sky and that data is being forwarded for anti-piracy enforcement. This means that Sky subscribers’ piracy habits are directly providing information to support Premier League, Matchroom Boxing, and Queensbury Promotions blocking efforts.

 

Whether that will affect IPTV providers’ attitudes towards Sky customers moving forward remains a question.

 

Movie studios are increasingly experimenting with shorter release windows, or even no windows at all.

 

During the COVID pandemic, studios including Disney, NBCUniversal, and Warner Bros have premiered titles on streaming services and at the box office at the same time.

 

This is good news for consumers, who have more choice. However, not everyone is happy. Movie theaters, in particular, are terrified that the new release strategy will cannibalize their revenues.

‘Consumers and Movie Studios Benefit’

This discussion isn’t new. Release windows have been a topic of debate for decades. Back in 2005, then Disney CEO Bob Iger went on the record stating that his company and consumers would actually prefer shorter release windows.

 

“We’d be better off as a company and an industry if we compressed that window. We could spend less money pushing the box office and get to the next window sooner where a movie has more perceived value to the consumer because it’s more fresh,” Iger said.

 

“The problem is the theater owners threaten that if you do that, then you’re not going to run your film on as many screens,” Iger told WSJ, which brings up a point that’s still relevant today.

Pushback from Theaters

The recent wave of simultaneous releases is being met with massive pushback from movie theaters. AMC, for example, announced earlier this year that it would no longer screen movies from Universal at its theaters. This decision was ultimately reversed after both parties agreed on a 17-day window.

 

The uproar is understandable, but one can wonder whether theaters should be the ones deciding here. While they have been a loyal Hollywood partner for a century, they are not necessarily entitled to exclusive releases.

 

A quick comparison to the music industry makes this clear. Imagine a world where you’d have to wait six weeks to hear the latest album from your favorite artist because auditoriums have the exclusive rights to the premiere. That wouldn’t go over well.

The Piracy Angle

It is still early days for ‘simultaneous releases’ and it will take months or years to figure out how this model impacts the broader movie industry revenue-wise. What’s clear, however, is that it’s already changing the piracy landscape.

 

One of the direct consequences is that high-quality pirated copies are available much sooner, as the WSJ highlighted this week. Previously, pirates had to wait weeks or months following a theatrical release, but this window disappears when streaming releases are pirated instantly.

 

As we have shown in our earlier coverage relating to Mulan and Wonder Woman 1984, this results in massive piracy surges. With the movie PR at its peak, millions of pirates flock to illegal download and streaming sites right away.

 

Wonder Woman 1984 (c. Warner Bros.)

More & Less Appealing

This ‘instant’ availability makes piracy more appealing to some. People who were planning to pirate movies anyway can access them earlier. However, it’s only one part of a much more complex puzzle.

 

We can just as easily argue that simultaneous releases make piracy less appealing. For years, people used release windows as a reason to explain why they pirated movies. With the new release strategy, this reason is gone.

 

This means that some people may actually choose to watch a movie legally – instead of pirating it – because they can see it whenever and wherever they want. It allows them to see the movie legally while it’s still fresh, without being ‘forced’ to go to a movie theater.

 

But what about that massive piracy surge then? Well, as we stressed in our earlier coverage, a more concentrated piracy peak doesn’t necessarily mean that more people end up pirating a movie. It may simply be more concentrated.

Extensive Research

With the information we have now it’s impossible to tell how the movie industry is impacted. That said, we’re fairly sure that studios wouldn’t experiment with this model if they have nothing to gain. They will guard every penny closely.

 

Detailed research will eventually shed more light on the new release strategies. This is already taking place behind closed doors at the studios but academics have shown an interest as well.

 

A few weeks ago we covered a Korean study that looked into significantly shorter release windows. The research concluded that pirated titles indeed become available quicker. However, the overall piracy numbers don’t change.

 

The research also found that box office revenue is unaffected by earlier releases. At the same time, there were more on-demand streaming sales, so revenue for movie studios increased.

 

The Korean research can’t be one-on-one applied to the ‘simultaneous’ release model we see today, but it clearly signals that early releases may have positive effects, even when piracy is pushed forward.

Mixed Signals from the Movie Industry

This week, MPA CEO Charles Rivkin, who represents the major Hollywood studios, was also positive about the new developments. During his ‘State of the Industry’ speech at CinemaCon, he briefly touched on the issue.

 

“Recent studies have confirmed that streaming and moviegoing are not zero-sum. They are not in competition,” Rivkin said, suggesting that streaming and box-office premieres can co-exist.

 

At the same event, John Fithian, CEO of the movie theater industry group NATO, shared an entirely different opinion. Simultaneous releases simply do not work.

 

“Exclusive release periods remain vital to the survival and success of the industry. They won’t be what they were before, but they can’t be what they were during the pandemic,” Fithian said.

 

These comments were backed by AMC CEO Adam Aron, who stressed that exclusive theater premieres are the only way to prevent massive piracy.

Jumping to Conclusions

We don’t want to take sides in this internal movie industry battle. However, it’s probably wise to do proper research and let the data decide what works and what doesn’t.

 

There are still dozens of questions to answer. Will some people stop pirating because they have a legal streaming option? Will others cancel their theater visits because they can pirate?

 

Movie theaters could be impacted by the simultaneous release model, but that’s not a given. And even if they are, do their profits have priority over the advantages movie studios and consumers may experience?

 

There is one conclusion we can draw though. Whatever the future release strategy will look like, piracy doesn’t appear to go away. Pirates will get their fix sooner or later. Release windows are simply not the answer to that problem.

 

Global entertainment coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment is engaged in perhaps one of the most far-reaching anti-piracy operations the internet has ever seen.

 

The group, which has the key Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon and dozens of major content creators as members, has carried out many highly-publicized takedowns. Streaming platforms, IPTV providers, file-hosting platforms and torrent-related entities have all been targeted but that is the tip of a very large iceberg.

 

At the time of writing, ACE and partners the MPA have seized more than 200 domain names connected to pirate services large and small, a list that is growing every week. These seizures are often proceeded by investigations that involve Cloudflare handing over identifying information after being served with a DMCA subpoena.

 

As a result, a new pair of subpoenas obtained in the last few days by ACE/MPA may give an indication of which sites and services could soon find themselves in the firing line.

Subpoenas Target Sites With More Than 1.3 Billion Annual Visits

While ACE/MPA regularly target smaller operations, it makes complete sense for larger platforms to get most of the attention. The new pair of subpoenas cover a range of sites and when their traffic is combined, the reason they are being targeted is clear. The 23 domains listed in the subpoenas together pull in more than 1.3 billion visits per year according to SimilarWeb stats.

 

At the top of the list in pure traffic terms with around 26.5 million visits per month is torrent site EZTV.re. This index grabbed eighth place in our 2021 report of the world’s most-visited torrent sites. The TV-focused platform proudly displays the well-known EZTV branding but the original team was forced out following a hostile takeover several years ago. It now appears that ACE/MPA could be planning a takeover of their own.

 

Had it not witnessed an unexplained plunge in traffic over the past few months, KissAsian.li would’ve topped EZTV’s traffic in this latest batch of ACE/MPA subpoenas. However, after dropping from 46 million visits per month in May, by July the streaming site was pulling in ‘just’ 24.7 million visits, the majority of that traffic from the Philippines. However, sites of this size are always of interest to the largest producers of movies and TV shows in the world, so this drop in traffic keeps it on the radar.

 

Another large player, Olevod.com, seems to be on an upwards trajectory. The service appears to cater to a large Chinese audience and was enjoying around 11.2 million visits during February. By July, however, traffic had rocketed to nearer 19 million visits per month, progress that ACE/MPA will be keen to curtail. The same can be said of Dandanzan.com, which also targets a Chinese audience and is currently enjoying around 5.7 million visits per month.

 

‘WatchSeries’ branded sites have always been a thorn in the side of movie and TV show companies and Watchseries.ninja is no different. The site appears to be decreasing in popularity over recent months but with 5.7 monthly visits in July, is still a significant player.

Spanish Language and South American Sites

Another highly-trafficked site targeted in the subpoenas is Hackstore.net. It currently enjoys around 10.2m visits per month according to SimilarWeb, with 27% of that traffic coming from Mexico. Somewhat ironically, perhaps, our attempts to access the site were thwarted by a Cloudflare blocking message but with in excess of 125 million visits per year, the site is clearly of interest to the entertainment companies.

 

With around 8.6 million visits per month, Cuevana2.io is next on the list and provides a clear indication that ACE/MPA want to finish a job they started some months ago. Back in May, ACE announced that it had won a major battle against Cuevana-branded sites, which had dominated the pirate streaming arena in Latin America.

 

What ACE didn’t report, however, is that the most popular Cuevana domains, including Cuevana2.io and Cuevana3.io, were still in business pulling in tens of millions of visits every month. Cuevana3 was targeted in an earlier subpoena against Cloudflare and now Cuevana2 also finds itself in the crosshairs.

 

Other Spanish-language and South American-focused sites include Assistirseriados.net (4.3m) and Gofilmes.me (2.75m) which are both popular in Brazil and Megadede.se (1.1m), popular in Spain. Fanpelis.org, Repelis24.info, Pelispe.com and Pelismegahd.pe have a few million visits between them and are all popular in Mexico.

 

Finally there are a few dead or dying domains in the list. Pelisplus.movie did have 20 million visits per month in February but traffic has since fallen off a cliff. Hdfull.cx had 3 million visits in February but has now nosedived to almost nothing. Other sites with low traffic reports include Reboot.tube, Duboku.fun and Embedforfree.co, although the latter may be more significant than reports suggest.

 

The new ACE/MPA subpoenas against Cloudflare can be found here and here (pdf)

 

Hosting providers are generally seen as neutral intermediaries, but some copyright holders believe that these companies should bear more responsibility.

 

This isn’t a new idea. Back in 2015, leaked documents from the Motion Picture Association revealed that the Hollywood group had considered taking legal action against a hosting provider. At the time it mentioned Leaseweb as an example.

 

The hosting company already entered the spotlight a few years prior. It was one of the hosting partners of Megaupload, which rented 630 servers from the company. This association also triggered a separate lawsuit by magazine publisher Perfect 10, but that was eventually settled.

Movie Companies Sued Leaseweb

Earlier this year, Leaseweb was targeted in a copyright lawsuit once again. This time, a group of filmmakers, including Dallas Buyers Club LLC and Rambo V Productions, accused the hosting company of failing to take action against copyright infringing customers.

 

These customers are VPN providers such as LiquidVPN that, in turn, have customers who allegedly shared pirated movies. The movie companies argued that they sent thousands of takedown notices to alert Leaseweb of this activity, but the hosting company allegedly failed to take action.

 

“Leaseweb continued to provide service to the subscribers such as LiquidVPN and DOES 1-10 despite knowledge that its subscribers were using the service to engage and facilitate massive piracy of copyright protected Works including Plaintiffs’,” the complaint read.

Leaseweb Must Expose ‘Pirating’ Customers

This lawsuit is still ongoing and Leaseweb has yet to respond to the allegations in court. However, it appears that the movie studios are keeping the pressure on, as they have just obtained a subpoena that orders the company to hand over customer data.

 

A few days ago, attorney Kerry Culpepper obtained a DMCA subpoena on behalf of dozens of movie companies. It specifically requests the personal details of Leaseweb customers connected to 456 IP-addresses.

 

Since it’s a DMCA subpoena, the court doesn’t have to decide over the request and it was quickly signed off by a court clerk.

 

 

This means that Leaseweb is required to hand over documents that can identify the customers connected to these IP-addresses. That includes all contact information and payment records it has on file.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to Leaseweb asking how the company plans to respond but we have yet to receive a reply.

More Pressure, More Defendants?

It is likely that the movie companies plan to use Leaseweb’s customer data to advance their legal efforts. This could include adding additional VPN defendants to the ongoing lawsuit.

 

Interestingly, the legal paperwork also sheds some light on the pressure Leaseweb faced before that lawsuit started. It includes a letter the movie companies sent last October, where they offered the hosting company an option to settle the matter outside of court.

 

This would involve terminating accounts of various customers who are deemed repeat infringers, as well as paying a sum of money to compensate for the piracy damages claimed by the movie companies.

“To do so, we request that: (1) Leaseweb agrees to immediately terminate all Internet service to the subscribers at the above IP addresses; (2) Leaseweb agrees to take the appropriate action to terminate subscriber accounts in response to all further copyright notifications received from my | clients’ agent; and (3) Leaseweb agrees to pay a portion of my clients’ damages,” the letter reads.

Leaseweb apparently declined this offer as the company was sued by the same movie companies a few months later. And with the recent DMCA subpoena, the legal pressure has only intensified.

 

Despite being one of the oldest file-sharing methods still around today, Usenet (sometimes known as newsgroups) has continued to play a role in the sharing of copyrighted content.

 

While largely fast and efficient, by today’s standards obtaining content such as movies and TV shows from Usenet feels a little archaic. There are plenty of tools around to make the process more straightforward but for years, users have continued to rely on so-called .NZB files.

 

In basic terms, these are somewhat like .torrent files in that they point to locations where specific content can be found on Usenet. Once loaded into an appropriate client, content is easily downloaded.

 

As a result, sites like Newzbin.org (not to be confused with an infamous but long-shuttered site of the same name) have appeared online to act as communities for people who find (or ‘spot’) content on Usenet and then share the relating .NZB files. Newzbin has been in operation for around eight years, touting itself as the spiritual successor to FTD, a major NZB site that lost legal battles with BREIN more than a decade ago and was forced to shut down.

 

Ten years later, Newzbin – which is estimated to serve around 150,000 users – has suffered the same fate.

Newzbin Announces it Will Shut Down

A few days ago, the operators of Newzbin published an announcement to its platform, declaring that the service would be shut down after many successful years in operation.

 

“We regret to inform you that we will be discontinuing Newzbin. In short, the plug goes out and Newzbin goes black after more than 8 years. It has been a very difficult decision for us, but with the current status of Usenet and the offer, we are forced to stop.”

 

Newzbin’s operators reported that “things are getting quieter” with more uploaders choosing to act cautiously due to the pressure of the current legal environment and the risk of getting caught. Newzbin’s team also said that the joy they once had operating and developing the site had also disappeared

Newzbin Permanently Shuts Down

In a final farewell message published late Tuesday night, Newzbin said that after taking over from another site (NZBEE) on the first day of 2014, its goal was always to become a worthy successor to FTD. Over the years that appeared to be on the cards as more users came to rely on the site for their Usenet downloads.

 

“Thanks to our good team of moderators, the posters, spotters, translators, but above all the members who were willing to help others, Newzbin had grown into the great safe Usenet home for everyone,” Newzbin’s operators.

 

But the good days were numbered.

 

“Despite the enormous growth in popularity, we unfortunately also saw a decrease in posts in recent years. Of course this also has to do with the advance of [Dutch OTT online service] Videoland, Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video etc. and probably also the coronavirus period we are in,” the site explained.

 

“But posters have also become frightened by recent news reports from the BREIN Foundation.”

The BREIN Effect

With most other anti-piracy groups concentrating on web streaming, IPTV services, torrent sites and file-hosting platforms, BREIN has continued to focus on these and more.

 

BREIN regularly announces action against people involved in Usenet posting and indexing and was even successful in forcing a Usenet provider offline.

 

Just this week, BREIN said that indexing site NZBXS had shut down and settled with anti-piracy group. That included an agreement to hand over user details, users that may find themselves contacted by BREIN in the future due to their utilization of NZBXS’ API to power software including Sickbeard, RADARR, and CouchPotato.

What Next for the Newzbin Database?

When major indexing sites shut down, there are always calls for indexes and databases to be shared with others to assist in a comeback or third-part resurrection. Newzbin is currently on the fence and has not yet decided what to do.

 

“We understand better than anyone that it would be a shame if [the database and NZBs] were completely lost, but unfortunately we have no plans to transfer this or release the database for the time being,” Newzbin’s operators report.

 

According to BREIN, however, Newzbin’s operators aren’t out of the woods yet.

 

“It is true that we are identifying and tackling more and more illegal uploaders and spotters,” says BREIN director Tim Kuik.

 

“We are also chasing the sites they use, such as Newzbin. Those who follow us know that we are getting closer each time and that things will get pretty expensive once we get you. We’re not done with that, not even with the people behind Newzbin.

 

“The development of legal supply is always the best way to combat the extent of illegality. We never made a secret of that. But to reach full maturity, that legal offering also needs continued protection against illegal competition that is offered for free or at much lower prices,” Kuik concludes.

 

In 2018, Canada’s Federal Court approved the country’s first pirate site-blocking order.

 

Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to the domains and IP-addresses of pirate IPTV service GoldTV.

 

There was little opposition from Internet providers, except for TekSavvy, which quickly announced that it would appeal the ruling. The blocking injunction threatens the open Internet to advance the interests of a few powerful media conglomerates, the company said.

 

After a long appeal process, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal concluded earlier this year that the blocking order can stay in place. According to the Court, site-blocking injunctions are an available option under the Copyright Act and they don’t violate freedom of speech or net neutrality.

Supreme Court Application

The decision came as a disappointment to TekSavvy, which hasn’t given up the fight just yet. A few hours ago, Andy Kaplan-Myrth, vice-president of regulatory affairs, announced that his company had asked Canada’s Supreme Court to hear the case.

 

The ISP stresses that the issues at stake are too important not to appeal. The company is not trying to defend pirate sites or services in any way. It simply wants to protect the neutral role ISPs have had for decades.

 

“TekSavvy has no sympathy for copyright infringing sites. They shouldn’t do that; copyright owners should enforce their copyrights. Our opposition is about protecting the neutral role of ISPs, who provide the pipes and carry the bits,” Kaplan-Myrth notes in a series of tweets.

 

The blocking order applies to all large Internet providers in Canada but TekSavvy is the only one actively protesting it.

Slippery Slope

TekSavvy previously warned that the blocking order could open the floodgates to similar or more far-reaching demands. And indeed, less than a month after the appeal was finalized, rightsholders were back in court to demand further blocking measures.

 

This move surprised the ISP, as it hadn’t given up on the original case just yet. But it confirmed the ‘slippery slope’ fears.

 

“That’s the slippery slope that net neutrality advocates warn about — block a small number of sites with court oversight (GoldTV), and next leap to blocking an unlimited number of sites on demand with no oversight,” Kaplan-Myrth comments.

 

With its Supreme Court application TekSavvy is the only ISP to take a stand. This is in part due to conflicting interests in the telecoms industry. For example, Bell and Rogers are linked to both plaintiffs and defendants in this case.

Crucial Questions

With the application, TekSavvy asks the Supreme Court to shed its light on two crucial questions.

1. Can the Federal Court exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant a site-blocking order in proceedings undertaken under the Copyright Act?

2. If a site-blocking order is an available remedy, what analytical framework governs its use, and how must this framework account for the impact of such an order on freedom of expression?

TekSavvy believes that site-blocking shouldn’t be used as a remedy because it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Copyright Act. But, if that is an option, clear guidelines are needed to protect freedom of expression.

 

Kaplan-Myrth hopes that TekSavvy will have the opportunity to expand on these issues if the Supreme Court decides to hear that case.

 

This is much needed, he notes, as companies such as Bell and Rogers can’t be trusted as custodians of the open Internet.

 

—

 

A copy of TekSavvy’s memorandum in support of its motion for leave to appeal and the Supreme Court is available here (pdf)

 

With both Google and Amazon rejecting or banning piracy apps from their stores, Android and Fire TV users with a penchant for piracy need to sideload apps from third party sources.

 

Sideloading isn’t particularly difficult but it is a fairly cumbersome process. However, apps like Filelinked provided a solution by indexing hundreds of apps stored outside official ecosystems while making them easy to install. While this is not necessarily illegal, Filelinked attracted lots of users interested in downloading piracy apps. As a result, this became one of the main drivers of its popularity.

 

In June, Filelinked disappeared without warning or subsequent announcement, with its silence bearing all the hallmarks of a hostile anti-piracy takedown. Earlier this week that theory was proven correct when Filelinked’s main domain (Filelinked.com) and its former domain (DroidAdmin.com) fell under the control of the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

Filelinked Takedown Was Carried Out By ACE

In an announcement yesterday, the powerful Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment confirmed that it was indeed behind the closure of Filelinked.

 

“Once a popular bulk downloader tool for Amazon Fire TV and Android devices, the Filelinked app was used to sideload applications. More specifically, users could install pirate applications on their Android devices via unofficial sources,” ACE reports.

 

“This service was popular in both the US and in Europe, running operations out of Freising [Germany].”

 

ACE provides no specific details on the terms of the shutdown but, if similar actions are any yardstick, a cease-and-desist notice and some kind of settlement were likely involved. That could include monetary compensation but, an agreement to throw in the towel and hand over domains was clearly part of the deal.

What Now For Filelinked Replacements

Since the closure of Filelinked, several similarly functional apps and services (Unlinked, FileSynced and Applinked) have been gaining traction. That’s to be expected due to the effectiveness of Filelinked and the gap it left in the market. But it also raises questions of how sustainable the replacements will be given what happened to Filelinked and whether the new kids on the block learned any lessons from Filelinked’s demise.

 

Without being privy to the details of the cease and desist sent to Filelinked, it’s difficult to know on what basis ACE claimed the operation to be illegal. These services don’t link directly to copyrighted content such as movies and TV shows. Neither do they (usually) host the apps that ACE is so concerned about. That is taken care of using hyperlinks to online sources, many of which are provided by app users.

 

However, those are not the only issues at play here.

Intent is Significant

An important factor that regularly raises its head in copyright cases is that of intent. To provide a loose example, when the RIAA had LimeWire shut down in 2010 it was declared to have “intentionally encouraged infringement” by LimeWire users, was used “overwhelmingly for infringement” and the company knew about the “substantial infringement being committed” by its users.

 

In contrast, the massively popular uTorrent application (which, like LimeWire, has significant non-infringing uses yet is widely used for piracy) remains untouched because it has never been promoted for piracy purposes. That’s something the Filelinked replacements would have been wise to factor into their operations right from the beginning.

 

Whether that’s indeed the case will be for ACE to determine but, without any doubt, they will already know. These apps/services are widely promoted and/or mentioned on sites like YouTube and there are already dozens of tutorials on the web explaining how they are used. These are pretty high-profile tools already.

 

All of that being said, the intent angle represents just one of the attack vectors available to ACE but, in reality and simply being pragmatic, none of them are especially pivotal until a case goes to court. For good reason, that rarely happens. Even more rarely does a case go to a full trial.

 

What ACE has shown, even among the bigger players in the piracy ecosystem, is that it is prepared to settle disputes quietly without the need for legal action. Importantly, though, it does that with the unprecedented financial backing of the world’s most powerful media companies supported by the best lawyers money can buy.

 

Not many people fancy such a lopsided fight, even Fire TV developers.

 

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has targeted pirates of all shapes and sizes over the past two decades.

 

It’s also one of the few groups that systematically tracks copyright infringers on Usenet, one of the oldest file-sharing systems which still has millions of users.

 

BREIN has a long track record of going after Usenet indexing sites. These portals don’t host any infringing material on their servers but, much like torrent sites, they offer NZB files or ‘spots’ that make infringing material easy to find on Usenet.

NZBXS ‘Hobby Project’ Shuts Down

This week the anti-piracy group reports another victory in this battle. BREIN tracked down the operator or NZBXS.com who agreed to settle the matter out of court and shut down the website.

 

NZBXS.com was a small site with ‘just’ a few thousand visitors per month. The site’s operator said that the site was merely a hobby project. However, BREIN stresses that such hobbies can be problematic.

 

“It was supposed to be a hobby project, but with thousands of visitors per month, there is still considerable damage. As a judge previously ruled: an illegal hobby is also illegal,” BREIN notes.

 

NZBXS in better times  

 

This type of enforcement action is nothing new for BREIN. The organization, which represents rightsholders for various industries, is the driving force behind hundreds of shutdowns every year. That said, this one comes with a surprise for the site’s users as well.

BREIN Has User Details

As part of the settlement, the operator of NZBXS.com agreed to share information about the site’s users.

 

The site allowed users to register an account so they could access the API, which hooked into external media downloading tools and PVRs such as Sickbeard, RADARR, and CouchPotato. These users can expect to receive a message from BREIN.

 

“We will send a message to the few hundred members that had an API key,” BREIN director Tim Kuik says.

 

Kuik didn’t share any details on what this message will look like, as it may differ depending on the evidence. However, NZBXS users can – at a minimum – expect a warning their records will also remain on file for a year, to check if they continue any illegal activities.

 

At the time of writing the NZBXS.com website is indeed offline. There’s no official shutdown notice. Instead, the domain shows a Cloudflare error, indicating that the server is unreachable.

 

The U.S. Copyright Office is seen as the authority on intellectual property issues in the United States.

 

Just a few months ago, the Government body released a thorough review of the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, to see if these can be improved to better suit today’s online environment.

 

During meetings with various stakeholders, DMCA takedown notices were also discussed in detail. Many rightsholders believe that the current system is flawed, while digital rights organizations warned of abusive notices.

‘Copyright Office’ Takedown Notices

The Copyright Office is not supposed to take sides in these matters. So, we were quite surprised to see its name on several takedown notices that were sent to Google over the past few days.

 

The takedown requests are not typical ‘Section 512’ notices. Instead, they point out sites that circumvent technical protection measures, which is in violation of the DMCA’s ‘Section 1201.’ That’s also how Google processed them.

 

Below is one of the takedown requests which clearly lists the “United States Copyright Office” as the sender, supposedly acting on behalf of the “Video Industry Association of America.”

 

But not all is as it seems.

 

 

A detailed look at the notices shows that they are similar to the ones we have covered a few days ago. These were sent by “The American Society of Composers” and listed various DVDFab-related results, including a perfectly legitimate news article from TorrentFreak.

Targeting Stream-Rippers and More

The ‘Copyright Office’ notices flagged DVDFab-related links too, but also URLs of stream-ripping services and sites that merely mention stream-ripping services. These targets include several TorrentFreak news articles, as can be seen below.

 

 

This small snapshot also flags a page from Google’s Transparency Report. This profile summarizes the takedown efforts of APCM Mexico, which happens to target quite a few stream-ripper services itself.

 

Needless to say, this dubious type of enforcement isn’t something the Copyright Office should concern itself with. And paired with the similarly-styled notices that came in earlier, we suspect that there’s an imposter at work.

Imposter At Work

This suspicion was confirmed by the U.S. Copyright Office. A spokesperson informs TorrentFreak that the notices in question were not submitted by them.

 

This doesn’t mean that the takedown requests were ignored by Google. While our links are still indexed, several of the URLs listed in the notices have indeed been removed because of the notices, which is a problem.

 

While we don’t know who impersonated the U.S. Copyright Office, it’s possible that it’s someone who operates sites or services that directly compete with the flagged links.

 

This is a strategy we have seen several times in the past. A competitor targets URLs from competing apps and sites, so they end up higher in search results themselves. A classic example of abusive behavior.

No Appeal Option (Yet)

Unfortunately, there is no counter-notification option for ‘Section 1201’ takedown notices. This means that sites and services that are affected by these bogus notices have no official appeal process they can use.

 

But perhaps the U.S. Copyright Office can help with that?

 

While we had the Office’s attention, we pointed out this omission in the current DMCA law. Perhaps that could set some wheels in motion, so that this series of bogus takedown notices lead to something constructive in the end.

 

In April 2020, a coalition of entertainment companies headed up by Universal, Paramount, Columbia, Disney and Amazon filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the operators of ‘pirate’ IPTV service Nitro TV.

 

The lawsuit alleged that Nitro TV offered subscription packages consisting of thousands of “live and title-curated television channels” available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, throughout the United States and abroad.

 

Naming Alejandro Galindo as the alleged administrator of the service, the lawsuit also identified family members Anna Galindo, Martha Galindo, and Osvaldo Galindo as defendants.

 

The main focus of the lawsuit was Nitro’s VOD offering and so-called ’24/7′ channels, which are only possible to offer after content is copied and stored, contrary to copyright law. YouTuber ‘Touchtone’ (Raul Orelanna) was later added as a defendant in an amended complaint alongside accusations he was paid $500,000 to market the service.

 

That particular lawsuit is still active with the studios now claiming that Alejandro Galindo deliberately destroyed evidence to hinder the case. However, Alejandro Galindo, Anna Galindo and Martha Galindo are now facing more headaches after the trio were sued again in the United States, this time by broadcaster DISH Network and NagraStar.

Lawsuit Summary

According to DISH, Nitro illegally accessed both DISH satellite programming and Sling programming and distributed it to subscribers paying $20 per month to $170 per year.

 

“Nitro TV was advertised as a subscription-based streaming service providing 7500 high-definition channels, movies and television series on demand, pay-per-view events, and sports programming, among other content, all for a low monthly fee. Nitro TV advertising emphasized converting customers from cable or satellite television services such as those provided by DISH,” the complaint reads.

 

Nitro allegedly sold these subscriptions (described as ‘device codes’) into the market either directly or via its network of resellers, with the latter buying “reseller credits” at a discount so they could be sold at a profit.

 

“[D]efendants received millions of dollars from the sale of Device Codes using merchant services accounts and bank accounts held in the name of Alejandro, Anna, Osvaldo, and Martha, including accounts at PayPal, Stripe, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, and Woodforest National Bank,” the lawsuit adds.

 

“Statements on Nitroiptv.com touted having ‘a large number of satisfied members,’ with ‘[o]ver 45,000 customers activated in the last 12 months,’ and ‘96% of the clients renew’.”

Lawsuit Alleges Different Type of Copyright Infringement

The earlier lawsuit filed by the studios alleges willful direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. The DISH lawsuit goes in a different direction by alleging violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions and breaches of the Federal Communications Act, with the former relating to its online Sling service and the latter relating to its satellite broadcasts.

 

In respect of the Federal Communications Act count, DISH alleges that Nitro accessed its satellite broadcasts and distributed them to its subscribers, knowing that breached 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4).

 

The DMCA violations count is more complex.

Breaches of the DMCA’s Anti-Circumvention Provisions

According to DISH, Sling’s internet transmissions are protected by a number of DRM technologies including Google’s Widevine DRM, Apple’s FairPlay DRM, and Microsoft’s PlayReady DRM. Each system has a key-based encryption and decryption process designed to restrict playback to only authorized Sling subscribers.

 

It’s claimed that Nitro TV either directly carried out (or aided and abetted others to carry out) circumvention of Sling’s DRM in order to retransmit Sling programming.

 

“The DRMs are believed to be circumvented using either a differential fault analysis attack where faults are injected into the DRM to disrupt its operation and create pathways to extract the keys necessary to decrypt Sling Programming, or a man-in-the-middle attack whereby customized software is used to bypass the DRM by intercepting Sling Programming passing from the DRM’s decryption library to the user’s viewing platform,” the broadcaster says.

 

This amounted to violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), DISH notes, adding that the violations were “willful and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain.”

DISH Demands Broad Injunction

DISH demands a permanent injunction that prohibits the defendants from receiving or assisting others to receive DISH content without permission, including via the Nitro TV service. The broadcaster also wants to prevent the sales of subscription and reseller credits for Nitro and any similar service. It further seeks to restrain the defendants from circumventing its DRM.

 

In keeping with its usual strategy, DISH also wants to take control of all hard copy and electronic records relating to Nitro TV. This type of data is often used to support DISH legal action against other players in the IPTV scene.

 

On top, DISH demands a damages award of up to $100,000 for each breach of the FCA, $2,500 for each breach of the DMCA, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The full amount is yet to be determined but it could run to tens of millions of dollars.

 

The DISH complaint against the operators of Nitro TV can be found here (pdf)

 

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. “Snake Eyes” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 23 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Snake Eyes	5.4 / trailer
2	(…)	The Green Knight	6.9 / trailer
3	(1)	The Suicide Squad	7.6 / trailer
4	(2)	Jungle Cruise	6.8 / trailer
5	(…)	Stillwater	6.7 / trailer
6	(3)	F9: The Fast Saga	5.3 / trailer
7	(…)	Reminiscence	6.0 / trailer
8	(5)	The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard	6.3 / trailer
9	(4)	Black Widow	7.0 / trailer
10	(8)	Cruella	7.4 / trailer

 

 

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

 

In 2013, several popular torrent sites added the option to donate via Bitcoin.

 

The Pirate Bay was one of the first to jump on board and within a day the site’s users had donated a total of 5.5 bitcoins.

 

At the time one bitcoin was worth $125. This means that the site earned roughly $700 in 24 hours, which looked promising. At today’s exchange rate we can even call it spectacular, but more on that later.

 

While Pirate Bay users quickly embraced Bitcoin, copyright holders were rather concerned. The RIAA even informed the U.S. Trade Representative about this looming threat that could make it harder to crack down on pirate sites.

 

“In April 2013, the site started accepting donations from the public by Bitcoin, a digital currency, which operates using peer-to-peer technology,” the RIAA wrote, adding that “there are no central authority or banks involved which makes it very difficult to seize or trace Bitcoin funds.”

 

As time went by, the TPB donation rate started to drop off from its early highs. In the years that followed the daily average hovered around $10 worth of bitcoin per day. The torrent site also added Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash, but those didn’t really move the needle.

 

Earlier this month, the Bitcoin Cash option was swapped for Ethereum. In addition, The Pirate Bay added a new Bitcoin address to its homepage, which prompted us to take a look at the current donation rate.

 

 

After reviewing dozens of transactions that came in over the past year, we found that the total amount in donations was roughly 0.07 BTC. This, once again, is the equivalent of roughly $10 per day.

 

The average donation amount per day is nowhere near the hundreds of dollars that came in on the first day. However, Bitcoin has become much more valuable over time. The $125 from 2013 has grown to more than $50,000 at the time of writing.

 

This means that if The Pirate Bay has HODLed all the donations, it’s sitting on a massive pile of cryptocurrency today.

 

Between 2013 and 2015, Custos Media Technologies estimated that the torrent site earned a massive 126.64 in Bitcoin donations, and a year later we reported that another 8.21 had been added. From 2017 onwards the Bitcoin price rose quickly and roughly one whole coin came in since.

 

Based on this quick calculation, which isn’t exhaustive or perfect, we can conclude that The Pirate Bay has earned about 135 in Bitcoin donations over the years.

 

If the people behind the site have kept all these coins, which is highly unlikely, this would now be worth $6.8 million. That would translate to more than $2,000 per day over the past 8 years. The 5.56 BTC in donations that came in on the first day back in 2013 is worth more than $278,000 today.

 

If anything, this hypothetic windfall shows how well Bitcoin’s value has grown over the years. The same can’t be said for The Pirate Bay’s own TPB coin launched earlier this year, which has significantly gone down in value since.

 

—

 

*The calculations above are based on transactions to TPB’s public Bitcoin wallets. There is no way to verify that these all come from outsiders.

 

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is at the forefront of the battle against unlicensed services in the Netherlands.

 

In the last year alone, BREIN conducted 479 investigations which resulted in the shutdown of 466 illegal sites and services, including torrent and streaming sites, IPTV providers, and platforms that distribute music without an appropriate license.

 

While BREIN has been hinting at criminal prosecutions for a while, the anti-piracy group tends to focus on civil actions. BREIN certainly doesn’t shy away from taking matters to court but whenever it can, settlements and an agreement to cease and desist can be enough to ward off more serious action.

BREIN Targets a 350,000 Track DJ Record Pool Service

Late last week, BREIN revealed an investigation into the operator of an online service that provided access to an illegal DJ record pool. Providing such a service requires extensive licensing from authors and neighboring rightsholders but according to BREIN, the man had not obtained the necessary permission.

 

The service was fairly comprehensive. BREIN estimates that the platform offered around 350,000 tracks for download but, unlike a regular pirate site, users were charged a subscription of 250 euros per year. This made it a for-profit enterprise not dissimilar to those offered by illicit IPTV providers, for example.

Operation Shut Down, Settlement Reached

It is unclear whether the DJ service met the threshold for criminal enforcement measures in the Netherlands but the for-profit distribution of copyrighted content certainly raises that prospect. In the event, however, BREIN decided to tackle the matter on its own and as a result, evidence and hardware (including digital storage devices) were seized from the operator’s home.

 

Ultimately, BREIN agreed to settle its differences with the operator outside court.

 

“After consultation with his lawyer, the man chose to settle the case by means of a settlement,” BREIN reports.

 

“He has signed a declaration of abstention with a penalty clause in the event of future infringements of 2,500 euros per day (or part thereof) with a maximum of 50,000 euros. He also allowed access to the seized digital documents. Finally, he paid 20,000 euros in final discharge.”

 

While the penalties for non-compliance are harsh and the 20,000 euros settlement not insignificant, had this taken place elsewhere in Europe a few years ago, the outcome could have been very different.

DJ in the UK Jailed for Operating a Similar Resource

Back in 2015, Liverpool DJ Wayne Evans (known online as OldSkoolScouse) was raided by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit following an investigation carried out by licensing outfit PRS for Music. Evans had uploaded music to torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents but also ran DeeJayPortal, a download site specializing in acapella versions of music tracks.

 

“We’re committed to partnering with PIPCU to enforce against illegal services that are not willing to work with us towards a legitimate licensed model, and which continue to exploit our members’ work without permission,” PRS said at the time.

 

After entering a guilty plea in October 2016, Evans was later sentenced on two counts of distributing an article infringing copyright and one of possessing or controlling an article for use in fraud. Fraud typically carries a harsher sentence in the UK and prosecutions under this legislation are now favored by copyright holders.

 

Police originally claimed that Evans was making considerable amounts of money from his enterprise but at his sentencing, Judge Robert Trevor-Jones accepted that Evans hadn’t been motivated by personal gain. This stands in contrast to the BREIN matter where profit was clearly the driver. Nevertheless, Evans was sentenced to 12 months in prison, despite having no previous convictions.

Outcomes Depend on The Mood of Rightsholders

While the alleged scale of offending certainly plays a key part, the outcomes in these two cases raise interesting questions. BREIN was obviously keen to shut the unlicensed DJ service down, something it achieved without police involvement while also winning a settlement. The news of the outcome also sends a deterrent message since few people have 20,000 euros kicking around to pay off rightsholders.

 

PRS, on the other hand, clearly wanted to send a more forceful deterrent message so instead of a cease-and-desist, took the decision to go for the jugular, resulting in the closure of the service but also a prison sentence for Evans. It’s unclear what BREIN would’ve done had his offending have been in the Netherlands but cases thus far suggest that particular outcome would’ve been unlikely.

 

Evans, it appears, was doing the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong place with the wrong adversary. Had he been elsewhere in Europe at the time, things may have gone quite differently.

 

The overriding message is that in the current environment, operating piracy services in the UK has a greater chance of attracting the attention of the police than ever before. And when rightsholders want to send a public message of deterrence, outcomes can be serious.