News: File Sharing News

Registrar Suspends Domain of Popular Torrent Site YTS

Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:20:40 +0000

Registrar Suspends Domain of Popular Torrent Site YTS

YTS.mx, one of the most popular torrent sites, has lost control over its domain name which is no longer resolving. Domain registrar Gandi put the domain on 'clientHold,' a status code that's generally reserved for legal or administrative issues. The YTS status page still lists the Mexican TLD as the site's home but unless the issues are resolved, this is likely to change.

With millions of visitors, YTS is one of the most-visited torrent sites on the Internet, even rivaling the legendary Pirate Bay.

The site ‘unofficially’ took over the YTS brand when the original group threw in the towel in 2015. Since then it has amassed a rather impressive user base.

Legal Troubles

This meteoric rise hasn’t been without issues. The site’s parent company Techmodo Limited and its operator have been targeted in several lawsuits and previously agreed to pay over a million dollars in settlements. In addition, YTS has had several domain name troubles as well.

When the site first entered the scene it was operating from the YTS.ag domain name, which it traded in for YTS.am two years later. In 2019, the torrent site moved yet again to a new domain, YTS.lt, which was later switched to YTS.mx.

The Mexican ccTLD has served the site for well over a year but today it suddenly became unreachable. Users who try to visit the site will see a browser error instead, indicating that there’s no A record defined, which makes it impossible to resolve the domain.

YTS.mx on ClientHold

This issue can appear in a wide variety of cases but in this instance followed an intervention from domain registrar Gandi. A few hours ago, the French company changed the status of the YTS.mx domain to clientHold, which is a punitive measure.

In the past, the clientHold status has been used to suspended pirate sites after complaints from copyright holders. Whether that’s the case here is unknown, as the registrar didn’t immediately reply to our request for comment.

Gandi lists an “expired” domain as the most common reason, but that’s clearly not the case here. According to ICANN, the clientHold status is “usually enacted during legal disputes, non-payment,” or when a “domain is subject to deletion.”

Piracy Related?

Out of all these reasons a legal dispute seems to be most likely. This doesn’t necessarily have to be copyright-related. It’s also possible that a third party complained about the accuracy of Whois records, for example.

Regular readers may also recall that several YTS-related sites were sued in the past due to trademark disputes. The YTS trademark was officially registered by the Hawaiian company 42 Ventures last year, and the company actively enforces its rights. However, the company informs TorrentFreak that it didn’t complain to Gandi.

At this point, it’s unclear if the YTS.mx domain will become available again in the future. According to the YTS status page it’s still the official domain but that may change in the near future.

Registrar Suspends Domain of Popular Torrent Site YTS

Broadcaster Offers Pirates ‘Free’ Legal TV Box in Exchange For Giving Up Illegal Streams

Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:15:50 +0000

Broadcaster Offers Pirates ‘Free’ Legal TV Box in Exchange For Giving Up Illegal Streams

TV pirates in Singapore are being offered an interesting deal in an effort to discourage them from consuming content via illegal sources. Owners of piracy-configured devices can hand them over to telecoms company StarHub for destruction and in return receive a free legal device with Ultra HD 4K support. Of course, there are some strings attached.

On July 6, a new Copyright Bill was tabled in the Singapore Parliament. There are many amendments under consideration that are designed to protect creators and distributors of all kinds.

For example, there are proposals to ensure that creators of works are recognized as the first owners of that content, even when that work is commissioned by a third party. It will also be a requirement to properly attribute creators when content is displayed in public, such as online.

Additionally, when copyright works are accessed legally, they can be used for data analysis, without asking permission from copyright holders. It’s proposed that the current “fair-dealing” approach should be amended to “fair use” too, absent of several criteria that limited the old regime.

Other proposals on the table include a crackdown on the sale and use of set-top devices that are configured for piracy purposes. Should the proposals be accepted, such devices will become illegal to sell and to own, with companies facing fines of up to S$200,000 (US$147,000) and individuals on the hook for penalties of up to S$100,000 (US$73,475) and/or five years in jail.

The second reading of the bill is scheduled for September 2021 but in advance of that, TV pirates are being presented with an incentive to go straight and avoid falling foul of the new law.

Hand Over Your Pirate Box For Destruction

Last Friday, telecoms company StarHub launched a new offer designed to tempt pirates away from the dark side. Given that their piracy-configured boxes may be outlawed in just a few months, prospective customers are being offered the chance to hand them over to StarHub (to be destroyed and disposed of “in a responsible and sustainable way”) and in return receive an entirely legal streaming device.

“Starting [July 24], StarHub will grant a total of $120 to each customer willing to part ways with pirate set-top boxes that may not be in compliance with the proposed amendments to Singapore’s Copyright Act,” the company announced.

“In exchange, customers will get free two-year rental of StarHub TV+ Box (worth $120), a plug-and-play Android TV-based media player which offers one-screen-for-all cinematic viewing experience with Ultra HD 4K support and fast WiFi connectivity.”

To take advantage of the deal, pirate devices can be handed in at selected StarHub Shops but at the same time, consumers will be required to sign up to StarHub’s recently-launched TV+ deal which includes Disney+ until February 2023.

“StarHub is delighted to be able to support the creation of original content, uphold intellectual property rights, and make a stand against piracy by offering customers the best value yet, on our StarHub TV+ service,” said Johan Buse, Chief, Consumer Business Group, StarHub.

“There is no better time than now to cast away outmoded illegal boxes, support original, and give StarHub TV+ a go.”

A Good Deal or Not?

While any deal that can save consumers money is worth a look, the big question is whether that is indeed the case here. Looking at the device exchange itself, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Considering that most pirate boxes are Android-based, people will be handing over their devices to StarHub and getting an official box back – which is also an Android TV device, one that has been customized with a StarHub-branded Operator Tier provided by Google. This means that the device will favor StarHub channels and content by default.

However, there is a more significant issue. While pirates will be handing over an Android device and getting something back largely of equivalent value, they won’t own the StarHub device. In fact, what StarHub is offering is the device “rent-free” for 24 months, meaning that after two years, users will be expected to rent it at the rate of S$5.00 (US$3.67) per month.

Also, people who turn in pirate boxes and subscribe to the recommended packages won’t get a special deal above and beyond the deal currently being offered to regular new customers, which also includes Disney+ until February 2023.

Summary: Might Be Of Interest To Some Pirates

When everything is broken down, the deal might be of interest to pirates who are disappointed with the unreliability of pirate streams, can now afford to ‘go straight’, are concerned about what the new law may bring, and are ready to switch anyway.

Essentially, pirates will hand over a device worth about US$30 and get one back of an equivalent value. However, since StarHub values its devices at a rental value of US$3.67 per month, the company is portraying savings of US$88.00 over two years. At this point, however, the former pirate will own no boxes at all and will be required to pay US$3.67 per month to rent one, just like everyone else.

At the very least, these devices should’ve been rent-free forever, especially when one considers that the package being promoted costs S$30.00 (US$22.00) per month and requires a two-year commitment. On the flip side, anyone ready to sign up to StarHub who isn’t a pirate might be advised to grab an old Android box of any kind to redeem since that will save them a few dollars – at least for the first couple of years.

Broadcaster Offers Pirates ‘Free’ Legal TV Box in Exchange For Giving Up Illegal Streams

Akamai: Online Pirates Are Clever But Not Unbeatable

Sun, 25 Jul 2021 22:22:46 +0000

Akamai: Online Pirates Are Clever But Not Unbeatable

There's a growing number of technology companies trying to help copyright holders fight online piracy. Akamai Technologies, one of the big players, takes a multi-faceted approach to tackle the problem. In recent years the company has already reported several success stories but plenty of challenges remain.

The anti-piracy ecosystem is quite diverse. It ranges from DMCA takedown farms to more technologically enhanced companies, ones that use machine learning and advanced content protection technologies to keep pirates at bay.

While it actively supports the DMCA process, Akamai considers itself among the second group. The company, which specializes in content delivery and cybersecurity, is a partner of several streaming services that offer live or on-demand content.

Rightsholders, including major sports leagues and organizers, are growing increasingly worried. They see it impacting their revenue and are looking for possible options to stop piracy

Some of these rightsholders come to Akamai looking for solutions. To find out how the company approaches this challenge we spoke with Ian Munford, Director of Industry Strategy at Akamai.

Pirates Can Be Quite Clever

The conversation confirmed what we already knew. There is no silver bullet that will stop piracy. In fact, Munford highlights that high-level pirates – the people who actually ‘steal’ the content – are quite clever and inventive.

“No security policy or technology is infallible but by scrutinizing the entire production and delivery value chain for weaknesses, coupled with good situational awareness, you can reduce piracy significantly,” Munford says.

Akamai doesn’t believe that any in a single technology, or indeed technology alone, will solve the piracy problem. Instead, it deploys a 360-approach that focuses on three main facets: protect, detect and enforce.

The 360-Approach In Practice

This sounds pretty academic and theoretical, but Munford livens things up with a real-life example. Akamai recently worked with a leading global distributor of TV, film and sports rights, which estimated that 40% of its content views were fraudulent.

The company asked Akamai to help reduce this number, which resulted in a concrete battle plan focused on the protect, detect and enforce pillars.

There were several challenges to overcome. The client in question distributed premium live sports rights in addition to movies and TV so any anti-piracy solution had to handle typical high demand surges. At the same time, the anti-piracy measures shouldn’t hinder regular streams.

With live sports, time is of the essence, so pirated streams have to be detected and shut down in real-time with minimal delay.

Piracy Protection

These demands resulted in a detailed action plan. To stop people from circumventing geographical restrictions, Akamai implemented measures to quickly detect VPN/Proxy and Tor exit node activity and block their activity. In addition, all traffic that appeared to be spoofed was blocked as well.

Munford further explained that streaming piracy operations often try to overload APIs and DRM servers with DDoS attacks. This helps criminals to bypass restrictions or even create diversionary tactics. To prevent this, Akamai set up advanced firewall systems that absorbed the attacks and prevent any infiltration.

Finally, a special token authentication capability was rolled out to prevent people from sharing access tokens to stream content without paying.

Detection and Enforcement

During the broadcasts, Akamai kept an eye on third-party sites such as Twitch to spot and take down re-streaming activity. At the same time, the company monitored link sharing and token harvesting on sites such as Thop TV and Oreo TV.

The token detection mechanism brings us to the enforcement side. During the live broadcast, Akamai monitored for unauthorized access, which led to more than 50,000 revoked tokens in less than an hour.

Any single measure would only have a limited effect, but when combined with DRM and or Watermarking, it can be very effective.

“Defeating piracy threats requires a multi-pronged strategy – there is no single correct response and many have proven to be effective when utilized properly and under the appropriate circumstances,” Munford tells us.

The Results

According to Akamai, the anti-piracy measures put in place resulted in a 75% decrease in unauthorized streaming. At the end of the campaign, the company revoked 315,762 access tokens and more than 8 million playback sessions were blocked.

This example is provided by Akamai, so the results were expected to be positive. But the sheer volume of (anti-)piracy activity is intriguing nonetheless.

Overall, Akamai seems to have a good understanding of how the piracy ecosystem works, and not just on the streaming side. The company also knows several tactics used by The Scene to access content and it works with various rightsholders to secure their systems and mitigate such attacks.

Cooperation is Key

Munford repeatedly stressed that when it comes to anti-piracy measures, cooperation and a zero-trust approach are key. There are several security guidelines available through Movielabs and the MPA, but these are worthless if they’re not implemented broadly.

“Well-structured guidelines issued by organizations such as MovieLabs, AAPA, or the MPA are often not mandatory but if they were adhered to across the ecosystem, it would make the theft of content much harder,” Munford says

The lack of a unified response can be quite frustrating, not just for copyright holders but for Akamai too. Even flawless anti-piracy measures won’t help if a competing broadcaster or streaming service is full of leaks.

“While the TV and film ecosystems are used to competing, the potential impact of piracy is too significant for cooperation not to occur.

“The more companies and organizations that are involved, the more effective the overall solution. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. If there are weak spots, that weakness is there to be exploited.”

Munford says that a lot of progress has been made over the years but more cooperation and stricter policies are needed to make an even bigger impact.

A Gaping Hole?

It’s clear that Akamai takes its anti-piracy work seriously. It has already booked successes combating live streaming piracy and in other areas as well. However, there’s still a gaping piracy hole.

When we look at the most popular OTT streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and HBO, leaks are the rule. Just minutes after something’s put online, it’s available for free on pirate sites.

The problem is that the basic DRM protections are easy to bypass or break. This is something Akamai is aware of and preventing these leaks is the anti-piracy holy grail for on-demand streaming services.

Right now, OTT pirates have the advantage. They can grab pretty much anything they want, and share it with the world. But, with billions of dollars at stake, Akamai and its competitors will try their best to find better solutions in this area as well.

Akamai: Online Pirates Are Clever But Not Unbeatable

Studios Appear To Be Preparing an Assault on UK Movie Piracy

Sat, 24 Jul 2021 22:25:31 +0000

Studios Appear To Be Preparing an Assault on UK Movie Piracy

Several more movie studios have quietly joined a partnership with the Federation Against Copyright Theft that bears all the hallmarks of a pending major anti-piracy scheme. It will be of concern to UK-based pirates that several of the companies are already involved in broad litigation activity in the United States against both downloaders of content and those that provide it.

Last month we revealed that a coalition of known anti-piracy groups, rightsholders and related movie companies are quietly building a new coalition in the UK.

Data retrieved from the UK’s Companies House database showed that a partnership, previously known as H&B Administration, had rebranded to FACT Administration LLP with key member FACT Worldwide, a division of the Federation Against Copyright Theft.

As of June, FACT Administration LLP consisted of companies that previously sent cash settlement demands to users of ISP Sky on behalf of TCYK LLC, the owner of the Robert Redford film ‘The Company You Keep’. The partners also include H&B Administration (which previously administered that process) plus Voltage Holdings, an entity that has pursued individual BitTorrent downloaders in the United States, plus newcomer Azil Productions LLC – the owner of the movie ‘The Marksman’.

Trying to predict what these companies might be preparing for is problematic since previous requests for information from FACT were not responded to. However, since the companies own movies and are partnering with known anti-piracy groups, a new cash settlement scheme could be a reasonable assumption.

However, there is also a possibility that something bigger is on the horizon.

Several Additional Movie Companies Join Partnership

New data listed by Companies House reveal that the FACT Administration LLP partnership has significantly expanded with the addition of no less than six more movie companies, at least some of which are involved in aggressive anti-piracy lawsuits in the United States.

Wonder One LLC, for example, is a known Voltage Holdings affiliate. The company is currently involved in a lawsuit targeting VPN company LiquidVPN. In that matter, the service’s former and current owners are accused of promoting and facilitating piracy.

Wonder One LLC is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against VPN.ht, hosting provider Voxility, and a widely-used Popcorn Time app.

The same is true for After 2 Movie LLC, which in the US is also known as After II Movie LLC. This company appears to hold the rights to the ‘After’ and ‘After We Collided’ movies and is both a Voltage affiliate and involved in the same lawsuits as Wonder One LLC. Another company, After 34 Nevada LLC, appears linked to After 2 Movie LLC and may hold the rights to the forthcoming movies ‘After We Fell’ and ‘After Ever Happy’.

Cinestate Run Hide Fight LLC is also connected to Voltage Holdings and is the company behind the school-shooter movie ‘Run Hide Fight‘. We aren’t aware of the company being involved in copyright litigation in the United States but as a Voltage partner, it’s no surprise to see the Dallas-based entity involved here.

Another company to join the coalition is Right Angle Productions LLC. There isn’t much public information on the business entity but it appears to hold the rights to the Aaron Paul movie ‘Adam’. The role of Hollywood-based H Films Inc is less clear.

So What is The Plan?

As we wrote in our piece last month, it’s certainly possible that there is a copyright-troll style cash settlement scheme in the making but as the list of companies expands, other options open up to the FACT Administration LLP partnership too.

While their plans are open to interpretation in advance of any solid legal filings, the fact that some of these companies are suing VPN companies, web hosting companies, pirate sites and apps, plus other related entities in the United States and elsewhere, raises the prospect of broader action than simply demanding £500 from a downloader to make a possible lawsuit go away.

We’ll keep a close eye on developments but if anyone receives any contact from these companies anywhere in the world complaining about copyright issues, we’d certainly like to hear more.

Studios Appear To Be Preparing an Assault on UK Movie Piracy

Watch Tower Can’t Identify Defendant in ‘Dubtown’ Copyright Suit, Court Declines to Help

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:43:57 +0000

Watch Tower Can’t Identify Defendant in ‘Dubtown’ Copyright Suit, Court Declines to Help

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has run into problems in its copyright lawsuit against the pseudonymous creator of the animation series 'Dubtown'. The videos, which portray a fictional Jehovah's Witness town depicted in Lego, are created by 'Kevin McFree', but Watch Tower doesn't know who he is or where he lives, and nobody wants to help, including the court.

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, wants to put an end to the activities of a defendant known only as ‘Kevin McFree’.

‘McFree’ (which is presumably not his real name) is the creator of the ‘Dubtown’ series of stop-motion Lego animations that take place in a fictitious Jehovah’s Witness town.

In the summer of 2018, Watch Tower filed an application for a DMCA subpoena at a New York court, demanding that YouTube/Google should hand over his personal details based on allegations of copyright infringement.

The video was removed by YouTube but McFree also mounted a defense, challenging the subpoena. Arguments centered around the fair use provisions of the DMCA but three years later the matter remains unsettled. As reported in May, Watch Tower followed up with a full-blown copyright infringement complaint but that too has run into difficulties.

Who is McFree? Watch Tower Has No Idea

In a request for conference filed with the Court, Watch Tower says McFree “obtained purloined copies” of then-published videos and placed clips of those works in his video posted to YouTube. This amounts to copyright infringement and warrants a permanent injunction, Watch Tower says, but the road to that currently remains uncertain.

According to Watch Tower, it cannot ascertain the real identity of McFree.

“The true identity and physical address of Defendant are not presently known to Plaintiff. The Infringing Video and YouTube account associated therewith identify Defendant only by the pseudonym ‘Kevin McFree’ and do not provide any physical address,” Watch Tower writes.

According to the religious group, it has made numerous attempts to discover McFree’s personal details. Referencing the 2018 DMCA subpoena application to YouTube/Google that requested access to McFree’s real name, address, telephone number and other personal information, Watch Tower notes that the process didn’t lead anywhere useful.

Via pro bono counsel and without identifying himself beyond being a “British citizen residing in the United Kingdom”, McFree sought to quash the DMCA subpoena. Two years later, Judge Román issued an order allowing him that opportunity. Since the motion to quash is still pending, YouTube is refusing to hand over any information.

New Corresponence Proving Fruitless

After filing the copyright infringement lawsuit in May, Watch Tower said it contacted the pro bono counsel representing ‘McFree’ in the DMCA subpoena action to see if they are representing the YouTuber in this matter too. Watch Tower also asked whether McFree was prepared to waive service.

Counsel advised that they are not involved in this matter so aren’t in a position to waive service. McFree, for his part, refuses to disclose his identity, counsel added. This presents a problem for Watch Tower.

Google has already refused to hand over any information in the DMCA subpoena matter pending the motion to quash, so the religious group believes it would be futile to make a similar request in this matter. Furthermore, it appears the Clerk of the Court will not issue a summons in the name of Kevin McFree (or John Doe) and will only issue one once the defendant’s real name is known.

“Plaintiff believes it has strong grounds to request the Court allow service on Defendant via email and would like to file a motion therefor. However, even if the Court grants a motion to allow service via email, because the Clerk will not issue a summons in the name of John Doe or in the fictitious name ‘Kevin McFree,’ Plaintiff will have no summons to serve,” Watch Tower informs the Court.

Watch Tower Seeks Advice on How to Proceed, Court Declines

In its request, Watch Tower seeks a conference to determine “the best way for the case to proceed”. Unfortunately, Judge Cathy Seibel doesn’t believe it’s her place to issue advice and has denied the request.

“The Court is not clear on what good a conference would do. If Plaintiff has a proposal for moving the case forward, it can put it in writing,” Judge Seibel writes.

“The Court is not inclined to give advice on that subject, nor does it have any particular ideas other than awaiting the decision from Judge Roman.”

After more than three years, that decision is still pending. These matters usually take just a few days to conclude.

Watch Tower’s (denied) request for conference can be found here (pdf)

Watch Tower Can’t Identify Defendant in ‘Dubtown’ Copyright Suit, Court Declines to Help

MPA Adds New Pirate Streaming Sites to UK Blocklist

Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:42:02 +0000

MPA Adds New Pirate Streaming Sites to UK Blocklist

The MPA, which represents Netflix and the major Hollywood studios, has obtained a new blocking injunction in the UK targeting several pirate streaming sites. The court order helps to curb piracy, the industry group notes. Ideally, the MPA would like to request similar blocking injunctions in the US as well.

The list of websites that are blocked in the UK for facilitating copyright infringement is growing longer and longer.

In a new ruling issued this month, the High Court ordered the major ISPs, including Sky, BT, TalkTalk, and Virgin, to block access to over a dozen ‘pirate’ streaming sites.

UK Blocklist Expands

The new blocking request was issued following a complaint from the Motion Picture Association Europe (MPA), which acts on behalf of Netflix and several major Hollywood movie studios.

Among the new sites are the popular streaming portals Myflixer.to, Soap2day.to, Lookmovie.io and Moviesjoy.to.

With more than 60 million website visits per month, Soap2day.to is by far the largest target on the list. However, most of the site’s visitors come from the United States, not the UK.

A public copy of the injunction isn’t available yet but an MPA Europe spokesperson confirmed that it’s the requesting party. The High Court issued the injunction on July 1st and ISPs were required to block the sites two weeks later.

19 Streaming Sites

The full list of blocked sites includes 19 domain names, but since it’s a dynamic blocking order, copies and proxies of these sites can also be blocked at the request of the MPA.

Commenting on the injunction, the MPA informs TorrentFreak that it continues to use “no-fault injunctive relief’ to make it harder for the UK public to access pirate sites. Thus far, it’s happy with the results.

“No-fault injunctive relief is an effective way of curbing the spread of online piracy and supporting jobs and growth in the audiovisual sector,” an MPA spokesperson tells us.

Malware and other Threats

Netflix and the major Hollywood studios obviously have a financial interest. However, the MPA stresses that the blocking measures also help to keep the public safe, mentioning potential malware and identity theft threats.

“Piracy harms everyone involved in the creative process – from writers, directors, and producers to cast and crew. It also harms consumers by exposing families to malware, identity theft and fraud.

“We plan to continue working with authorities across the region to implement these and other appropriate legal remedies in support of a safer and healthier online environment,” the MPA tells us.

Further Expansions?

The MPA is happy with the new blocking injunction and the organization hopes that a similar measure will be available in the US in the future. At the moment, US law already allows courts to issue blocking orders, but “no fault” injunctions, where ISPs are not held liable, are not available.

In the UK, obtaining new blocking orders appears to be little more than a formality at this point. Over the years, hundreds of sites have been blocked, and the number of blocked domains names, which also includes proxies, likely runs in the thousands.

—

The full list of domain names covered by the latest blocking order are as follows: 1movies.best, azm.to, bflix.to, couchtuners.co, couchtuner.fashion, couchtuner.guru, couchtuner.stream, fmovie.sc, lookmovie.io, moviesjoy.to, myflixer.to, series9.ac, soap2day.to, vidcloud9.com, vumoo.to, watchmovie.movie, watchsomuch.tv, yesmovies.net, and yify-movies.net.

MPA Adds New Pirate Streaming Sites to UK Blocklist

OMI IN A HELLCAT Denies Copyright Crimes, Demands Cars & Millions Back

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:52:29 +0000

OMI IN A HELLCAT Denies Copyright Crimes, Demands Cars & Millions Back

Former Gears IPTV operator OMI IN A HELLCAT is fighting the US Government over the seizure of a fleet of supercars, jewelry, and millions of dollars in cash. The YouTuber has informed a Pennsylvania court that he has committed no crimes and his business activities were entirely legal. As a result, all of his assets should be returned, he argues.

In November 2019, dozens of FBI and IRS agents shut down a pirate IPTV service operated by YouTuber OMI IN A HELLCAT, real name Bill Omar Carrasquillo.

The authorities also seized a huge fleet of supercars, jewelry, and in excess of $5.2m in cash from a personal account. Those assets are now subject to a civil forfeiture process initiated by the United States Government.

It’s alleged that Carrasquillo and his business partners operated IPTV services variously branded as Gears, Reloaded, and Gears Reloaded, selling access to television, movies and sports content without authorization or license.

“Gears TV and its related entities received tens of millions of dollars in revenue, i.e., proceeds, during the period of time in which the enterprise operated the illegal video content service,” the US Government complaint reads.

Ever since the raid, Carrasquillo has insisted that his services operated legally, or at least within a legal gray area. To that end, he’s now asking a US court to return all of the seized assets.

Answer to US Government Complaint

As far as we’re aware, the US Government has not yet indicted Carrasquillo for copyright infringement, money laundering, and tax evasion offenses. He recently predicted that could be a matter of weeks away but in advance of that, the active YouTuber is continuing to protest his innocence.

In an answer to the complaint that aims to seize his assets, Carrasquillo addresses dozens of claims raised by the US Government, mostly insisting that they are “legal conclusions” to which no responsive pleading is required. As a result, he denies most of the key allegations.

Addressing more than $5.2m seized from a single personal bank account, in excess of $1.6m seized from various Gears-related accounts, and around 57 vehicles, including several Lamborghinis and a Bentley Continental GT, Carrasquillo says that since no crimes were committed, none of these items should have been seized.

He specifically denies committing criminal copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 506 or 18 U.S.C. § 2319), including infringement for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the reproduction of one or more copyrighted works worth more than $1,000, and/or the distribution via a computer network of a work being prepared for commercial release.

“(i)t is denied that the Defendant Property is subject to forfeiture because it was used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of violations of 17 U.S.C. §506 and/or 18 U.S.C. §2319, it is further denied that the Defendant Property is property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of violations of the statutes named,” the answer reads.

Carrasquillo’s Denials Continue

Addressing a list of allegations that indicate that Carrasquillo was involved in a large pirate IPTV operation that utilized ancillary companies and payment processors to stay in business, the YouTuber either denies in full, denies that the allegations “are true and correct”, or claims insufficient knowledge to form a belief whether they are true or not.

This response format continues throughout much of the answer, with the ultimate conclusion that the seized property is not subject to forfeiture because it was not connected to monetary transactions derived from unlawful activity, including breaches of the Copyright Act.

“Claimant Carrasquillo respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against the United States of America with regard to the seized property as set forth herein, returning it to Claimant,” the answer concludes, demanding a trial by jury.

Carrasquillo’s answer to the complaint containing the full list of seized items can be found here (pdf)

OMI IN A HELLCAT Denies Copyright Crimes, Demands Cars & Millions Back

Rightscorp Tracks Alleged Pirates Without a Private Investigator’s License, RCN Argues

Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:50:25 +0000

Rightscorp Tracks Alleged Pirates Without a Private Investigator’s License, RCN Argues

Internet provider RCN has modified its countersuit against the RIAA and Rightscorp. The company argues that the piracy notices sent on behalf of music labels were fraudulent and based on flimsy evidence. In addition, piracy tracking firm Rightscorp lacks a private investigator's license, which could cause further trouble.

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

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

ISPs Sued Over Repeat Infringers

Several major music industry companies including Arista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records, have filed lawsuits against some of the largest U.S. Internet providers. The list of targets includes RCN, which was sued in 2019.

The liability lawsuits are seen as a major threat to the ISP industry, as multiple companies face hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages. This is not just a hypothetical threat, as the $1 billion verdict against Cox showed.

Internet providers hope to avoid ending up in the same position as Cox so several others have gone on the offense. This includes RCN, which accused the RIAA and its anti-piracy partner of sending ‘fraudulent’ DMCA notices.

This initial attempt failed a few weeks ago. A New Jersey federal court dismissed the complaint, concluding that RCN failed to show that Rightscorp’s infringement notifications imposed any additional costs. However, the court left the door open for more detailed allegations.

RCN Strikes Back, Again

The ISP filed its amended answers to the music companies’ complaint at the federal court in New Jersey, denying the copyright infringement allegations. At the same time, RCN countersued the music companies, the RIAA, and piracy tracking firm Rightscorp for unfair practices.

“RCN’s counterclaims are based on Rightscorp’s, the RIAA’s, and the Record Labels’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in generating and sending millions of unsupported emails accusing RCN’s customers of BitTorrent-based copyright infringement,” the ISP writes.

“Defendants seek to create an environment in which ISPs, including RCN, have no choice but to indiscriminately terminate the internet access of every customer accused of copyright infringement, or face the wrath of the Record Labels and the RIAA.”

The countersuit is pretty much identical to the initial complaint, but with a few additions to address the court’s initial concerns. The court dismissed the initial claims because it didn’t include any costs that could be linked directly to the problematic notices.

Substantial Costs

RCN now points out that the problematic takedown notices directly resulted in added expenses. This includes legal costs, as well as additional resources that were put into maintaining its DMCA system.

For example, Rightscorp failed to digitally sign its piracy notices with PGP keys, as is required by RCN’s DMCA policy. As a result of this omission, RCN employees have to make significant adjustments.

“This includes expenditures of time and effort that would have been avoided if Rightscorp digitally signed the copyright infringement complaints it sent to RCN, as required by RCN’s DMCA policy,” RCN notes.

No Private Investigator’s License

The countersuit changes are not just limited to the added costs. RCN also adds a new allegation. According to the filing, Rightscorp doesn’t have a private investigator’s license, even though it acts as one.

Tracking alleged pirates without a license violates California and New Jersey law, the Internet provider notes.

“Rightscorp’s collection of evidence for use in court proceedings is an unlawful business practice because, on information and belief, Rightscorp and its representatives have been acting as private investigators without a license, in violation of California and New Jersey law.

“And on information and belief, the RIAA and Record Labels hired Rightscorp in order to benefit from its unlawful business practices despite knowing that Rightscorp and its representatives are unlicensed.”

RCN Wants Costs Covered, and More

All in all, the alleged fraudulent notices, the destruction of evidence, and the lack of a private investigator’s license is in violation of the California Business & Professions Code, RCN says.

To resolve these issues, the ISP requests an order that requires the RIAA and Rightscorp to comply with its DMCA policy and preserve all underlying evidence. In addition, Rightscorp should obtain the necessary licenses to act as a private investigator in all applicable jurisdictions.

Finally, RCN would also like the RIAA and Rightscorp to pay for all its costs, attorney fees, and other expenses related to the alleged wrongdoings.

—

A copy of RCN’s second amended answer and the updated counterclaims is available here (pdf)

Rightscorp Tracks Alleged Pirates Without a Private Investigator’s License, RCN Argues

Greece Adds OpenSubtitles to Its Pirate Site Blocklist

Wed, 21 Jul 2021 23:04:23 +0000

Greece Adds OpenSubtitles to Its Pirate Site Blocklist

Following a request from a local anti-piracy group, Greek ISPs are required to block access to dozens of new domain names. The targeted domains include Fmovies.to, zooqle.com, and several RARBG proxies. The subtitle-sharing community OpenSubtitles is also on the list.

Pirate site blocking was a novelty ten years ago, but today it’s common practice in many countries. This is also true for Greece, where the first domains were targeted in 2018.

These blocking requests are managed by the EDPPI, a special commission at the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports that acts following complaints from rightsholders.

The Greek system is different from that of many other countries because it doesn’t involve court oversight. It’s an administrative procedure that allows copyright holders to swiftly request pirate site blockades, without the need for lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

47 New Domains Targeted

The most recent blocking request was filed by the Society for the Protection of Audiovisual Works (EPOE), a local anti-piracy group that represents the interests of major Greek copyright holders. The company previously obtained a blocking order against The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and YTS, and regularly requests expansions.

The new blocking order, granted a few days ago, targets 47 domain names. Several of these are for proxies or copies of the popular torrent site RARBG, such as rarbgto.org, proxyrarbg.or, rarbgget.org, rarbgmirror.com, and rarbgmirror.org.

Other pirates sites in the list include several domains of the popular streaming sites Flixtor, Filmix, and Watchservies. In addition, the torrent sites Zooqle, TorrentGalaxy, and several KickassTorrents’ inspired sites are covered as well.

Pirated Subtitles

Pretty much all domains on the list offer access to pirated movies and TV-shows, with one exception. The blocklist expansion also targeted the long-running subtitle community OpenSubtitles, which doesn’t host or link to infringing videos.

While OpenSubtitles is the odd one out, the site has been targeted by similar blocking requests in the past. In Australia, for example, the Federal Court issued an injunction after several movie companies argued that OpenSubtitles ‘communicates a literary work to the public,’ referencing movie screenplays.

Whether a lack of (open)subtitles is going to stop the Greeks from pirating films and TV-shows is doubtful though, especially since there are plenty of workarounds.

Two Escape Routes

TorrentFreak spoke to one of the site operators affected by the blockades. They informed us that EDPPI sent an official notice before it went into effect, presenting two escape routes. Site operators can either acquire a license or file an official appeal.

“[Y]ou may voluntarily comply with the applicant’s request or obtain from the applicant a relevant license within ten working days from the date of receipt of the notification,” EDPPI wrote.

“Alternatively, you may raise your objections to the Committee within five working days from the date of receipt of the notification, sending, at the same time, all the evidence showing, in particular, that there is no infringement.”

The site operator we spoke with doesn’t intend to take any action, and we’re not aware of any others who will.

—

The full list of blocked sites is as follows: 123moviesfree.net, europixhd.one, europixhd.biz, fevgatotv-tainies.com, filmix.ac, filmix.co, filmix.me, flixtor.to, flixtor.is, flixtor.it, flixtor.nu, flixtor.one, flixtor.se, flixtor.vc, fmovies.to, gamato-movies.com, gamato-movies.gr, greek.to, greekin.info, greek-team.cc, hellasddl.eu, kickasstorrents.to , kat.am, katcr.to, kickasstorrent.cr, kickasstorrents.cr, moviez.space, onlinemovie.one, onlinemovie.gr, opensubtitles.org, promovies.pro, rarbgto.org, proxyrarbg.or, rarbgget.org, rarbgmirror.com, rarbgmirror.org, rarbgproxy.org, teniesonline.gr, tenies-online.gr, torrent4you.me, torrentgalaxy.to, torrentgalaxy.mx, torrentgalaxy.su, voody.online, watchserieshd.tv, watchserieshd.io, and zooqle.com.

Greece Adds OpenSubtitles to Its Pirate Site Blocklist

Tokyo Olympics: Sony Obtains High Court Order to Prevent Piracy

Wed, 21 Jul 2021 23:02:06 +0000

Tokyo Olympics: Sony Obtains High Court Order to Prevent Piracy

The Tokyo 2020 Olympics, postponed for a year due to the coronavirus pandemic, is being held mostly without spectators but the reach of global TV will ensure it is seen around the world. With the assistance of a High Court order, Sony Pictures wants to make sure that viewers in India enjoy the games without resorting to illegal streaming platforms.

Following massive preparations that were thrown into turmoil due to the global pandemic, this Friday the Tokyo 2020 Olympics opening ceremony will finally get underway.

For just over two weeks the sporting action will largely take place without spectators but a global audience in the billions is set to watch the spectacle unfold on TV and via numerous streaming services.

In India, Sony Pictures holds the exclusive rights to broadcast the games and with help from the court, wants to ensure that people don’t turn to unlicensed platforms instead.

Sony’s Pre-emptive Legal Action

According to an application before the Delhi High Court, Sony Pictures owns the Sony Ten Network of channels including Sony TEN 1, Sony TEN 1 HD, Sony TEN 2, Sony TEN 2 HD, Sony TEN 3, Sony TEN 3 HD, Sony TEN 4, Sony TEN 4 HD, Sony SIX, Sony SIX HD.

The company acquired the exclusive rights from the International Olympic Committee to broadcast the games in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives. However, Sony has reason to believe that the games will be broadcast illegally via dozens of unlicensed websites and wants to prevent this where possible.

Representing Sony Pictures, Advocate Abhishek Malhotra told the Court that more than 40 websites and over 30 multi-system and cable operators are likely to play a part in distributing pirated content so should be restrained, especially since these entities had been involved in similar situations in the past.

High Court Hands Down Ex-Parte Interim Order

In his submissions, Malhotra said that a case involving torrent site 1337x.to laid out the parameters for a ‘rogue website’, noting that 47 websites listed in the order fit that description so are eligible for blocking.

In its interim order handed down July 19, the Court appears to agree with this characterization.

The judge restrained the first 47 defendants (only Yallashootextra.com is specifically named) from “hosting, streamlining [sic], reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public or facilitating the same on their websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content, program and show or event in which the plaintiffs have copyright.”

The injunction also covers the possibility that mirror or proxy sites may appear to circumvent the ban. These are preemptively included too, even though they may not currently exist. Additionally, 30 service providers are ordered to block access to the 47 ‘rogue’ websites, including any mirrors or proxies they may deploy to help users gain access.

Order to Remain in Place Until September

The ex-parte interim order handed down Monday will remain in force until September 29, when the next hearing in the case is scheduled to take place. By then the 2020 Olympics will be over but considering the injunction now in force covers all Sony content, there may be issues that still need to be resolved.

The Delhi High Court order can be found here (pdf)

Tokyo Olympics: Sony Obtains High Court Order to Prevent Piracy

Google Delisted Hundreds of Thousands of URLs to Comply with Russian ‘VPN Law’

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:22:18 +0000

Google Delisted Hundreds of Thousands of URLs to Comply with Russian ‘VPN Law’

Week in and week out, the Russian telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor orders Google to remove hundreds of URLs. The requests, which are sent under the country's VPN law, target sites and services that allow access to pirated content. Over the past two years, more than half a million links were targeted through these requests.

Over the past several years, Russia has introduced various anti-piracy laws and regulations that focus on the role of online intermediaries.

App stores are required to take strict action against ‘pirate’ apps, search engines must swiftly block pirate sites, and even VPN services and proxies can be banned.

Russia started cracking down on VPNs and anonymizers in 2017, banning services that allow users to access pirate sites. A year later the legislation was updated by requiring search engines to block the URLs of services that don’t comply.

In recent years there hasn’t been much news on how often search engines are urged to take action under this “VPN law.” However, searches of the Lumen Database show that – at Google alone – dozens of requests come in every month, with some targeting thousands of URLs.

Unfortunately, the transparency stops there. Russian law doesn’t allow Google to share what URLs are blocked. Instead of sharing what is removed, Google simply reports the number of URLs that are targeted.

“Google received a request from the Russian Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) to remove over 340 URLs from Web Search in Russia,” one of the many recent requests reads.

“This request came under Russian federal law 276-FZ ‘On Amendments to the Federal Law ‘On Information, Information Technologies and Data Security’, commonly referred to as the ‘VPN law’. We are unable to publish the full list of URLs due to Russian law,” Google adds.

While details are scarce, we can expect pirate sites and proxies to be on the list of banned sites, as well as VPNs and anonymizers that are not on Russia’s whitelist.

Just recently, Roskomnadzor added Opera VPN and VyprVPN to the list of threats. That would make them likely candidates to be removed from search results, at least in Russia.

When it comes to the takedown volume, there’s another data source we can look at. Google separately reports takedown requests made by Governments and it has a dedicated page for Russia.

Just a few years ago, Russia asked Google to remove ‘only’ a few dozen links per month. However, after the “VPN law” was adopted, this number skyrocketed to tens of thousands of removed links per month.

During the latest reporting period – the six months ending December last year – nearly 200,000 items were removed. The removal reasons include “national security” and “defamation,” but the largest category by far (162,000) is “other.”

Based on the volume these “other” requests are sent by Roskomnadzor, which also covers the ‘VPN law’ takedowns. In an average week, these target thousands of links, so that fits the picture as well.

The question remains what URLs are blocked under this VPN law. When we used the Russian version of Google from a Russian IP-address, we had no trouble finding Pirate Bay proxies. The recently banned Opera VPN and VyprVPN still showed up in search results as well.

So while we can conclude that Russia’s law required Google to remove hundreds of thousands of URLs to protect copyright holders, we wonder how effective it really is.

Google Delisted Hundreds of Thousands of URLs to Comply with Russian ‘VPN Law’

UEFA Wins Two-Year Extension to Streaming Piracy Blocking Order

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:17:06 +0000

UEFA Wins Two-Year Extension to Streaming Piracy Blocking Order

UEFA, the governing body of football in Europe, has obtained an extension to a High Court injunction that requires major ISPs to block consumer access to pirated streams in Ireland. The plan is to continue blocking measures so that pirating customers of Eir, Sky, Virgin Media, and Vodafone can less easily watch UEFA Champions League and Europa Conference League matches.

When football fans choose to watch matches via pirated streams, top-tier football gets nervous. As a result, entities such as the Premier League have expended considerable resources attempting to shut down or otherwise undermine pirate streaming operations.

The key weapon of choice is server and IP address blocking. This aims to sever the link between pirate infrastructure and consumers but for that, football entities require cooperation from ISPs. That cooperation is facilitated by High Court injunctions issued in both Great Britain and Ireland that require ISPs to block access to pirate resources.

UEFA Follows The Premier League Model

After successes in the UK, the Premier League took similar action in Ireland. In 2019, the Commerical Court gave the Premier League the green light to block pirate servers until June 30, 2020. Then last year, just before that permission ran out, the Premier League obtained an extension for the 2020/21 season. It recently obtained a further extension to cover the 2021/22 season.

Following the model of the Premier League, UEFA has also sought permission from the courts to implement a blocking program. In 2017, UEFA obtained its first injunction in the UK, and in 2020 achieved similar success in Ireland.

The injunction, which covered Eir (Eircom), Sky Ireland Ltd, Sky Subscribers Services Ltd, Virgin Media Ireland Ltd and Vodafone Ireland Ltd, required the ISPs to block subscriber access to various IP addresses identified as being part of pirate IPTV infrastructure. However, that injunction only covered the 2020-21 season, meaning that UEFA needed to return to court for an extension.

UEFA Obtains Extension to High Court Injunction

The documents supporting the latest injunction are yet to be made public but if previous injunctions are any indicator, the High Court will not publish anything that details how the scheme works in practice. There are some basic details being distributed, however.

According to the Irish Times, the extended injunction targets the same set of ISPs as those contained in the original order. None of the ISPs contested the order, with Eir, Virgin and Vodafone presenting a neutral stance and Sky coming out in support.

The plan itself remains unchanged, in that it plans to give those using computers and piracy-configured set-top boxes a harder time when it comes to receiving illegal streams, by blocking them before and during live matches. These measures can be easily circumvented with the use of a VPN but UEFA clearly believes that blocking is worth both the time and effort.

Terms of Previous Injunction Remain Largely Unchanged

When the Premier League obtained its most recent injunction in Ireland, it was reported that it had been given permission to use enhanced measures to disrupt pirated streams.

The nature of those measures is not for public consumption but it was expected that UEFA would seek to follow suit with improvements to its application. However, according to UEFA lawyer Jonathan Newman SC, there is no substantive difference between this order and the previous orders, other than the injunction being sought for two seasons rather than one.

Justice David Barniville, who has handled these types of injunctions in the past, was happy with the evidence presented to the court and agreed it would be appropriate to extend the orders until the end of the 2022/23 season.

When the injunction is published by the court it will appear here

UEFA Wins Two-Year Extension to Streaming Piracy Blocking Order

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – July 19, 2021

Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:16:22 +0000

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – July 19, 2021

Every week we take a close look at the most pirated movies on torrent sites. What are pirates downloading? 'Black Widow' tops the chart, followed by ‘Gunpowder Milkshake'. 'The Tomorrow War' completes the top three.

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

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

This week we have two new entries in the list. “Black Widow” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on July 19 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Black Widow	7.0 / trailer
2	(…)	Gunpowder Milkshake	5.9 / trailer
3	(2)	The Tomorrow War	6.7 / trailer
4	(4)	The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard	6.3 / trailer
5	(…)	Space Jam: A New Legacy	4.3 / trailer
6	(3)	A Quiet Place Part II	7.7 / trailer
7	(7)	Cruella	7.5 / trailer
8	(5)	The Boss Baby: Family Business	6.0 / trailer
9	(6)	Fear Street: Part One – 1994	6.2 / trailer
10	(9)	Luca	7.6 / trailer

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

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 07/19/2021

US Copyright Groups Want ‘Adequate’ Anti-Piracy Penalties in South Africa

Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:08:56 +0000

US Copyright Groups Want ‘Adequate’ Anti-Piracy Penalties in South Africa

The IIPA, which represents the MPA, RIAA, and other entertainment industry groups, is calling for stricter anti-piracy enforcement in South Africa and a thorough redraft of the country's Copyright Act. These measures are needed to deter copyright infringement, the groups argue, noting that the country shouldn't be eligible for trade benefits if it fails to show progress.

The American copyright industry generates billions of dollars in annual revenue and is generally seen as one of the primary export products.

Whether it’s movies, music, software or other goods, US companies are among the market leaders.

To protect the interests of these businesses around the globe, copyright holder groups can count on help from the US Government. The yearly list of ‘notorious markets,’ for example, is a well known diplomatic pressure mechanism to encourage other countries to up their enforcement actions and improve laws.

The same is true for trade deals and other policies, which often require trade partners to take actions in favor of copyright holder interests.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents the ESA, MPA, and RIAA, among others, has been the voice of major entertainment industries on this front. The Alliance regularly encourages the U.S. to further the international interests of its members, Africa included.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act

A few days ago the IIPA published its views on the latest eligibility review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This process, led by the US Trade Representative (USTR), determines which sub-Saharan African countries can enjoy certain trade benefits.

The idea behind AGOA is to improve economic relations between the African region and the US. However, African countries first have to qualify and that comes with certain restrictions, including a clause that prohibits states from opposing US foreign policy.

The IIPA, for its part, would like to use the legislation to improve copyright laws and strengthen anti-piracy measures. While copyright holders support growth in African countries, they say that the growth of Internet access comes with a major downside; piracy.

“To effectively ensure a safe, healthy, and sustainable digital marketplace, AGOA-eligible countries should assess whether their legal regimes are capable of responding to today’s challenges, including rampant online piracy,” IIPA writes.

The group’s submission for the USTR’s 2022 AGOA eligibility review discusses problematic issues in a variety of countries, but most ink is dedicated to South Africa.

‘South Africa Fails to Protect Rightsholders’

The IIPA writes that South Africa must update and improve its laws to bring these in line with international standards such as the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Internet Treaties.

“South Africa’s current legal regime fails to provide adequate and effective protection of copyrighted materials. Significant reforms are needed to South Africa’s Copyright Act and Performers’ Protection Act in order to bring the country’s laws into compliance with international agreements,” IIPA notes.

This is particularly important now that the country is recovering from the COVID pandemic.

“At a time when South Africa is endeavoring to rebound from the economic impacts of the global pandemic, the stakes are extremely high. Parliament should redraft these bills to avoid destabilizing the creative industries and to support a thriving copyright sector.”

Adequate Civil and Criminal Penalties

This strong warning comes with a list of possible improvements. For example, South Africa should have stricter rules to prevent people from circumventing technical protection measures.

In addition, copyright holders should have more options to recover damages from pirates, while the authorities should be able to enforce tougher criminal penalties for copyright infringements.

“South Africa’s legal regime does not provide adequate civil remedies or criminal penalties to allow rights holders to recover their losses from infringement or to deter piracy. Without an adequate means to remedy infringement or deter piracy, the path for legitimate services to operate is difficult,” IIPA notes.

Impact of Earlier Complaints

This isn’t the first time that U.S. copyright holders have criticized South Africa’s copyright law. IIPA and others uttered similar complaints last year. At the time, they were particularly concerned about fair use provisions, which they believe are too broad.

The legislation, which was just a signature away from becoming law last year, was subsequently sent back to Parliament by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who requested a do-over.

In their recommendation, IIPA stresses that this do-over should be done carefully. “It is critical that the National Assembly does not rush reconsideration of the bills and make only cosmetic revisions,” it writes.

Among other things, the various copyright exceptions and “fair use” rules, which are largely modeled after US law, should be tightened up. This should take place “in full consultation” with copyright holders and other relevant parties.

The fact that both bills were pulled at the last minute suggests that South Africa is sensitive to these and other complaints. With that in mind, it will be interesting to see what the final versions will look like and if IIPA and others are indeed heard.

—

A copy of IIPA’s submission for the US Trade Representative’s 2022 AGOA eligibility review is available here (pdf)

US Copyright Groups Want ‘Adequate’ Anti-Piracy Penalties in South Africa

Operation Dark Stream: Police in Portugal Arrest 9 For IPTV Piracy

Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:05:02 +0000

Operation Dark Stream: Police in Portugal Arrest 9 For IPTV Piracy

Law enforcement agencies in Portugal have coordinated an operation targeting a pirate IPTV service. In addition to domestic and non-domestic searches, six men and three women were arrested. Various items of computer equipment, bank accounts, cash, and a car were seized. One of the arrested was detained for possession of illegal firearms according to the national crime agency.

Entertainment industry companies, anti-piracy partners and law enforcement groups are continuing their efforts to reduce the availability of pirate IPTV services worldwide.

This has now extended to Portugal, where law enforcement agencies have carried out a rare crackdown on a locally significant operation accused of profiting from piracy.

Operation Dark Stream

According to the Polícia Judiciária (Judicial Police), the National Unit for Combating Cybercrime and Technological Crime (UNC3T) was supported by the Northern and Southern Directorates, Évora Local Criminal Investigation Unit, and the Computer Technology Expertise Unit (UPTI) in a national operation to target illegal streaming.

The various agencies link several crimes to the operation including computer-based fraud, illegitimate access, tax fraud, money laundering and criminal association.

After carrying out a total of 13 searches – nine domestic and four non-domestic, six men and three women aged between 35 and 55 were arrested, one in connection with the possession of illegal firearms.

Equipment and Property Seizures

Information provided by the Judicial Police indicates that large volumes of property were seized in the operation, including the contents of six server rooms and other items of computer equipment linked to the operation of the illegal IPTV service.

Police agencies also seized bank accounts plus around €8,000.00 in cash and a car.

Official authorities have not named the service in question but local reports have identified it as ‘IPTV Do Sogro’ (English: IPTV of the Father-in-Law), which operates from Sogrotv.com. At the time of writing the service’s web portal appears to be functional but whether that is also true for the underlying service remains unclear.

Two-Year Investigation

According to the authorities, the investigation began in 2019. It has not been revealed which rightsholders filed the initial complaint, However, the damage is estimated to be around half a million euros, with a “telecommunications provider” with broadcasting rights cited as the main victim.

The main point of interest was the provision of illegal streams of TV shows to at least several hundred regular subscribers, a figure that is expected to grow as the investigation develops. Local media sources indicate that the service had in excess of 1,000 customers, earning profits of 150,000 euros in the last two years.

According to Sapo.pt, the illegal distribution of TV content in Portugal breaches several laws including those relating to illegitimate access and defeating technological protection measures. Penalties range from one to five years in prison. Tax fraud and money laundering offenses also carry a potential prison sentence of up to five years.

Anti-Piracy Operations Are Relatively Rare in Portugal

Portugal is no stranger to the fight against pirate sites and services. The country implemented a ground-breaking ISP blocking scheme in 2015 that is overseen by the government but has no judicial oversight. In 2017, the then-MPAA described the program as the best international example of anti-piracy practices.

Since then, reports of anti-piracy operations targeting specific operations have been relatively rare, although the country did play an important role in the March 2021 dismantling of Mobdro, one of the world’s most popular pirate streaming apps.

Operation Dark Stream: Police in Portugal Arrest 9 For IPTV Piracy

Developer on Twitch Creates Neat Tool to Prevent DMCA Notices

Sun, 18 Jul 2021 22:56:05 +0000

Developer on Twitch Creates Neat Tool to Prevent DMCA Notices

Twitch users who play copyrighted music in the background leave themselves open to DMCA notices that can result in a ban. Other than expensive licensing there has been no obvious solution to this problem but thanks to developer Peter Frydenlund Madsen, Twitch streamers can now play copyrighted music to their fans, without risking infringement complaints.

Last summer, chaos urupted on Twitch when users were suddenly bombarded with copyright infringement notices for content uploaded during 2017 and 2019.

That initial batch was the work of the RIAA and in October 2020 the problems were back again when the music industry group fired off a second wave of complaints.

In May, Twitch sent out an email noting that it had received another batch of DMCA takedown notices from music publishers, noting that the majority targeted streamers listening to background music while playing video games. But what if it was possible to stream copyrighted background music to users on Twitch, without receiving DMCA notices. And ensuring artists also get paid?

Achieving the Impossible, Simply

Unless users (or indeed Twitch) obtain licenses to stream mainstream music to the public, DMCA notices are always going to be a problem. However, with some lateral thinking, developer Peter Frydenlund Madsen, known on Twitch as Pequeno0, has come up with an elegant solution that will be useful to millions of users.

Pequeno0’s solution is SpotifySynchronizer, a Twitch extension that synchronizes the streamer’s Spotify with the viewer’s Spotify, so that stream viewers can listen to the same music as the streamer, at exactly the same time.

The beauty here is that no copyrighted tracks are distributed or recorded with or even without permission. The user simply connects to the streamer’s Spotify using the extension, executes a ‘force sync’ if necessary, and then listens to exactly the same music as the streamer, at exactly the same time, on their own machine. And because the music is being played on Spotify, the artists get paid.

SpotifySynchronizer, GTA V RP and Twitch

“I’ve watched a lot of GTA V RP on Twitch, and they used to play a lot of music, which fit the RP,” Pequeno0 informs TorrentFreak.

“When the DMCA strikes hit, they were hit hard. So it was actually with them in mind that I started the project. So I talked to a friend of mine, and we came up with this idea of synchronizing music in a way that would still pay the artists.”

Pequeno0 says he uses Spotify himself and since it’s a widely used service and accessible to millions – not to mention having a public API that is easy to use – the decision to integrate the platform was obvious. It was not without technical issues, however.

Twitch and Spotify – Please Play Nicely

“Getting to understand the Twitch API together with the Spotify API was problematic to start with. For example, it’s not possible to embed an iFrame in the Twitch extension. But usually logging in with Spotify happens in an iframe with OAuth,” Pequeno0 says.

“I had to make a popup, and figure out how to send back the results of this popup to the extension to get the token to use for Spotify. This might be changed in the future to a better system to support more platforms.”

Furthermore, Pequeno0 says that Spotify doesn’t provide any notification service when a song is changed. This means he has to ask Spotify which song is currently playing if the streamer changes tracks mid-song.

“I could have made a check every few seconds, but the Spotify API also has rate limitation, so I decided against it. To overcome these issues, I had to make the ‘Force Sync’ button. It basically asks Spotify what the streamer is currently playing, and updates it with the server.”

The developer says he doesn’t know how much time he’s spent on the project but does spend some money on a server to store a minimal amount of data. This is to make sure that viewers who log in when a track is already being played can discover the name of that track without having to communicate with the streamer’s part of the extension.

The Future: Maybe More Music Services

While Pequeno0 has been working on SpotifySynchronizer for some months now as a side project, he’s not ruling out more development. This will largely depend on how many people use the extension but he does have some early plans.

“If the extension gets very popular, it could be extended to use even more services, and maybe even lookup songs on different music services, so the viewer/streamer could use different services but listen to the same songs,” Pequeno0 explains.

In the meantime, the developer is providing instructions for those interested in testing SpotifySynchronizer on both the streaming and receiving ends. He promises there will be no DMCA notices for either.

1. The streamer installs the Extension and adds the panel to the channel.
2. Streamer starts Spotify, then starts the Live-Config panel found in the Creator Dashboard -> Stream Manager -> SpotifySynchronizer, then logs in with Spotify through the popup. The streamer then keeps this Live-Config panel open, as this is what does the synchronization.
3. If the streamer changes music mid-song, the “Force Sync” button has to be pressed to update it for the viewers.
4. Viewer opens Spotify and starts any song. This is a requirement, as the Spotify API can’t start playing if it doesn’t know which device is playing music.
5. Viewer logs in with SpotifySynchronizer below the stream on the streamer’s channel. If the viewer’s Spotify does not change to the song being played by the Streamer, the ‘Force Sync’ button can be used on the viewer’s side to get the currently playing song.

Developer on Twitch Creates Neat Tool to Prevent DMCA Notices

‘Copyright Troll’ Lawyer Seeks to Reduce 14-Year Prison Sentence Due to COVID Pandemic

Sat, 17 Jul 2021 21:52:42 +0000

‘Copyright Troll’ Lawyer Seeks to Reduce 14-Year Prison Sentence Due to COVID Pandemic

Paul Hansmeier, one of the lead attorneys behind the controversial Prenda Law firm, has asked the court for a reduction of his 14-year prison sentence. The disbarred lawyer says that he faced extraordinarily difficult living conditions in prison due to the COVID pandemic. While the measures were well-intended, they didn't prevent the lawyer from getting infected.

In 2019, a U.S. District Court in Minnesota sentenced Paul Hansmeier to 14 years in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Hansmeier was a key player at the Prenda Law firm, which pursued cases against people who were suspected of downloading pirated porn videos via BitTorrent.

While suing alleged pirates is not illegal, Prenda Law went much further. Over the years the firm faced negative court rulings over identity theft, misrepresentation, and even deception.

The Pirate Honeypot

Most controversial were the shocking revelations that Prenda itself produced adult videos and uploaded its own torrents to The Pirate Bay. In doing so, the company created a honeypot for the people they later sued over pirate downloads.

The allegations were serious enough to appear on the radar of US law enforcement agencies which launched a criminal investigation, culminating in prison sentences for the two key players.

Today, Paul Hansmeier and his former colleague John Steele are both in prison. While the latter received a reduced sentence for his cooperative stance, Hansmeier was sentenced to 14 years in prison, a verdict he appealed. To make a point, the lawyer even restarted his honeypot scheme from prison.

Lawyer Continues Fight

Earlier this year the Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling after Hansmeier’s motion to dismiss the claims was denied. In addition, the Court also confirmed that the lawyer must pay victims more than $1.5 million in restitution.

This was a clear setback for Hansmeier, but it’s not the end of his legal battle. Over the past year and a half, he filed multiple lawsuits involving several (former) law enforcement officials and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

This has reached the point where these federal defendants are clearly fed up with Hansmeier’s activities. A few weeks ago, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota Anders Folk asked the court to restrict Hansmeier’s pro se filings, fearing that even more lawsuits could come in.

Hansmeier Wants Sentence Reduction

Most recently, the convicted lawyer added a new approach to his arsenal. In another pro se motion, Hansmeier asks a Minnesota federal court to reduce his sentence, due to the hardships he endures as a result of restrictive COVID-prevention measures.

April last year, President Trump declared a national emergency and, as a result, federal prisons including the one in Sandstone where Hansmeier resides, took various restrictive measures.

Among other things, prisoners had no access to fresh air, sunlight, or exercise. They were required to stay confined 24/7 while family visits and education programs were canceled as well.

According to Hansmeier, these circumstances were much harder than the court intended. At the same time, they did very little to limit COVID infections.

“However well intentioned these measures may have been, these measures subjected Defendant to conditions that were orders of degrees harsher than what this Court could have reasonably anticipated when it weighed the 18 U.S:C. 3553 factors and sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment,” he writes.

“Moreover, these harsh conditions–which, again, were aimed at safeguarding prisoners—were, in fact, entirely ineffective in safeguarding Defendant against infection.”

The lawyer says that nearly all inmates eventually contracted COVID, he himself included. Meanwhile, the stringent preventative measures remained active for many months.

In the request, Hansmeier mentions an inmate who served 38 years in the Bureau of Prisons across the US, who said that the COVD restrictions resulted in the very worst living conditions he had ever experienced.

Through this motion, Hansmeier hopes that the court will reduce his sentence. While he doesn’t object to an immediate release, a minimum reduction of 14 months should be fair.

“Though Defendant would accept the Court’s granting of immediate release if it were to be ordered, at a minimum Defendant is requesting a 14 month reduction in sentence to account for the 14 months of extraordinarily difficult living conditions that Defendant has been subjected to during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This isn’t the first time that the lawyer has used COVID as an argument to be released from prison. When the Coronavirus outbreak started last year he requested a temporary release, fearing that the risk of infection was higher inside the prison. That request was eventually denied.

—

A copy of Hansmeier’s pro se motion to reduce the term of imprisonment is available here (pdf)

‘Copyright Troll’ Lawyer Seeks to Reduce 14-Year Prison Sentence Due to COVID Pandemic

ACE/MPA Shut Down Pirate IPTV & Card Sharing Operation

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 23:25:46 +0000

ACE/MPA Shut Down Pirate IPTV & Card Sharing Operation

Global anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has shut down and seized the domains of an entity offering pirate IPTV and card-sharing services. The Serbia-based operation reportedly offered access to more than 6,000 TV channels, 3,000 movies and 16,500 TV shows for a low monthly subscription.

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, a global anti-piracy group that counts the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and dozens more giants among its members, is continuing its drive against pirate services of all kinds.

Following the news last week that ACE and partners the MPA had been to court in the United States in an effort to identify the operators of many pirate streaming sites, just days later it appears that ACE is broadening its list of targets.

Pirate IPTV and Card-Sharing Service Shut Down

Earlier this week, TorrentFreak learned that ACE and the MPA had taken control of a number of domains that appeared to be related to both pirate IPTV platforms and so-called card-sharing services. The latter enable users of satellite services to receive premium channels over the air and then use the credentials from legitimate cards to unscramble programming.

In an announcement a few hours ago, ACE confirmed that it has taken fresh action against ‘Premiumcccam’, a card-sharing and pirate IPTV operation that operated in violation of ACE members’ rights.

According to ACE, Premiumcccam provided access to more than 6,000 TV channels and content from various satellite platforms, including Sky, Viacom Media, and Canal+. In addition, the service offered Video on demand (VOD) content from all ACE members, including 3,000 movies and 16,500 TV show episodes, at rates ranging from 7 euros per month up to 50 euros per year.

Promotional material distributed by Premiumcccam in 2020 indicated that it classed itself as “Europe’s top card-sharing provider” but that show now appears to be over.

“ACE executed a cease and desist operation near Belgrade, Serbia, followed by immediate cooperation from the operator. Currently, all domains have been transferred to ACE and are redirecting to the Watch Legally section on the ACE website,” ACE says.

Jan Van Voorn, Executive Vice President and Chief of Global Content Protection for the Motion Picture Association, welcomes the closure of the Premiumcccam service and warns that ACE can strike anywhere on the planet.

“This action marks another success and precedent in ACE’s ongoing fight against piracy across the world. Actions such as this reinforce ACE’s reach and impact and that there is no place in the world out of reach. We will continue to enforce in new territories as necessary,” he says.

Many New Domain Seizures

In addition to the Premiumcccam.net domain reported by ACE, this week the anti-piracy coalition appears to have taken control of many more – some of which are obviously related to this operation and others that are less clearly linked. They include the following:

Best-cccam-server.com, oscamserver.net, cccam-server-extra.com, premium-cccam.net, cccam-server.org, cccam-server-in-europe.com, universalcccamserver.com, cccam-reseller.com, cccamservers.net, cccamtest.net, premiumcccam.net, oscam.best and cccamline.org.

In addition, galactovision.com and loginto.tv appear to be connected to pirate IPTV operations, as does b-radtv.com, which previously advertised the availability of 3,000 channels of live tv, cable network channels, sports networks, PPV events, plus a selection of so-called 24/7 channels.

The precise use of jktv3.xyz isn’t immediately clear, although the domain did previously share a server with many pirate IPTV platforms hosted by a company in Ukraine.

All domains listed above now divert to an ACE seizure banner which in recent weeks underwent a makeover. More than 160 former pirate domains are now operated by ACE following dozens of actions against site operators.

The current list of ACE members reads as follows:

Amazon, AMC Networks, Apple TV+, BBC Worldwide, Bell Canada and Bell Media, Canal+ Group, Channel 5, Charter Communications, Comcast, Constantin Film, Discovery, Fox, Foxtel, Grupo Globo, HBO, Hulu, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount Pictures, SF Studios, Sky, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Star India, Studio Babelsberg, STX Entertainment, Telefe, Telemundo, Televisa, Univision Communications Inc., ViacomCBS, Village Roadshow, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and Warner Bros.

ACE/MPA Shut Down Pirate IPTV & Card Sharing Operation

‘Upload Filters’ Don’t Violate Freedom of Expression, Advocate General Finds

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 23:23:30 +0000

‘Upload Filters’ Don’t Violate Freedom of Expression, Advocate General Finds

EU Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe has published his advice on Poland's request to annul Article 17 of the Copyright Directive. The AG argues that the 'upload filter' doesn't significantly harm freedom of expression, but notes that safeguards are needed to prevent over-blocking.

In 2019 the European Parliament adopted the new Copyright Directive that aims to modernize how copyright is protected in the online environment.

After the directive passed, individual EU member states began working on implementing the text into local law.

This includes the controversial Article 17, which requires online services to license content from copyright holders. If that is not possible, these companies should ensure that infringing content is taken down and not re-uploaded to their services.

Many opponents fear that this language will effectively lead to broad ‘upload filters’ that will take down more content than needed. This worry has been reiterated by several experts over the years.

Polish Opposition

After massive protests failed to stop the legislation, Poland was the last beacon of hope for the opposition. The country petitioned the EU Court of Justice to annul Article 17, as it would violate the freedom of expression of European citizens.

Yesterday, this hope was quashed.

In a lengthy opinion, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe dismissed the action brought by the Republic of Poland. According to the AG, the European Commission already made it clear that Article 17 should only be used to target manifestly infringing material.

“Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 contains sufficient safeguards to delimit the scope of the limitation on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression resulting from the contested provisions,” the AG writes.

Ambigious Uploads Shouldn’t be Blocked

The text of Article 17 clarifies that online services can only block content that’s “identical” and “equivalent” to files that have been flagged by copyright holders. This doesn’t include media that only uses a short piece of copyrighted content in a broader context.

Saugmandsgaard Øe stresses that in these “ambiguous” situations where fair use and other copyright exceptions could apply, online services shouldn’t block content preventively.

“In all ambiguous situations – short extracts from works included in longer content, ‘transformative’ works, and so forth – in which, in particular, the application of exceptions and limitations to copyright is reasonably conceivable, the content concerned cannot be the subject of a preventive blocking measure,” he writes.

False Positives a Bigger Problem than False Negatives

The EU Parliament, the Council, and the Commission stressed that for online services it’s more important to prevent legitimate content from being blocked than to stop potential copyright infringements at any cost. This should properly protect people’s freedom of expression.

“In other words, the legislature considered that ‘false positives’, consisting of blocking legal content, were more serious than ‘false negatives’, which would mean letting some illegal content through,” Saugmandsgaard Øe writes.

While this sounds clear, there are still several open questions. There is no clear definition of when something is clearly infringing, and when it’s not.

The AG acknowledges this in his opinion but doesn’t provide any clear answers. What is clear, however, is that individual member states must ensure that their Article 17 implementations include sufficient safeguards to prevent over-blocking.

Early Responses

Patrick Breyer, MEP for the Pirate Party, is a fierce opponent of Article 17. In response to the opinion, he notes that upload filters may still result in a lot of errors.

“While the Advocate General calls out the Member States’ responsibility to only target illegal content, the software won’t able to recognize which content is manifestly infringing and which is not, as it is undoubtedly error-prone,” Breyer argues.

In addition, several countries have already implemented Article 17 without all the mentioned safeguards, so these could still violate freedom of speech.

“Moreover, countries which implemented the copyright directive according to the Commission’s guidelines would now be, based on the Advocate General’s opinion, violating freedom of expression online,” Breyer writes.

That last point is shared by Communia which, in an initial response, notes that several EU member states will have to go back to the drawing board.

“Most (if not all) national implementations that we have seen so far clearly fail to meet this standard and if the CJEU follows the AG they will need to go back to the drawing board (or face legal challenges,” Communia wrote.

This commentary suggests that the Article 17 uncertainties are expected to last for a while, and the finer details may have to be fleshed out by the EU Court of Justice.

The Advocate General’s advice is not binding. However, in most cases, the recommendations are followed by the EU Court of Justice, which will likely issue its final verdict later this year.

‘Upload Filters’ Don’t Violate Freedom of Expression, Advocate General Finds

U.S. Govt. Should Pay $155m in Piracy Damages, Software Company Argues

Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:37:50 +0000

U.S. Govt. Should Pay $155m in Piracy Damages, Software Company Argues

At the US Court of Federal Claims, software company Bitmanagement requests $155 million in copyright infringement damages from the US Government. The software vendor won its appeal earlier this year, which already concluded that the Navy used hundreds of thousands of software copies without permission.

The U.S. Government is known to go after copyright infringing companies and individuals, both domestically and abroad.

This doesn’t mean that there are no copyright issues within its own ranks.

Five years ago the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Software Company Sues US Navy

The lawsuit was filed by the German company Bitmanagement. It’s not a typical piracy case in the sense that software was downloaded from shady sources. However, the end result is the same.

It all started in 2011 when the US Navy began testing the company’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. After some testing, the Navy installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.

This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it heard that the Navy had installed the software on 558,466 computers, the company took legal action.

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

In a complaint filed at the United States Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Court initially dismissed the complaint but Bitmanagement appealed. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the German software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable.

This meant that the matter was reverted back to the Federal Claims court, to determine the appropriate damages amount. Over the past weeks, the US submitted several sealed filings hoping to keep the damages under control, but Bitmanagement was having none of it.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages

Unlike the Government’s arguments, BitManagement’s position is not kept out of the public eye. The company openly argues that it has the right to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages.

This figure is based on more than 600,000 copies of the software that were installed. This is multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

“The evidence at trial showed that the Navy made at least 600,000 copies of BS Contact Geo that were not monitored by Flexera. For these 600,000 copies, unrebutted expert testimony at trial demonstrated that the parties would have agreed in a hypothetical negotiation to a final negotiated price of $259 per copy,” Bitmanagement writes.

The Government’s filings are not public but Bitmanagement’s brief suggests that the Government tried to have the damages amount lowered. Among other things, it suggested that a bigger discount should have been possible.

Massive Discount Wasn’t an Option

The software company disputes that. While it did consider bigger discounts for other software, this never was an option for “BS Contact Geo.”

“[T]he Navy would not have sought, nor would Bitmanagement have accepted, a volume discount greater than 70%. Although years before the hypothetical negotiation Bitmanagement considered selling its software at more discounted prices to the Navy, those preliminary discussions and offers involved less-advanced software than BS Contact Geo”

Also, by the time the licensing discussions would have taken place, the Government indicated that the software was hard to replace, which boosted the software company’s negotiation position.

[B]y the time of the hypothetical negotiation in July 2013, the Navy had determined that BS Contact Geo was a ‘critical component’ to the Navy for which there were no viable alternatives. According to the Navy, “BS Contact Geo was the only software that could fulfill its needs.”

It is now up to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to determine if the Government must pay $155 million in damages or if a reduction is warranted. It seems unavoidable that some compensation has to be paid, however.

Interestingly this is not the first time that the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. A few years ago it was accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of Bitmanagement’s brief regarding the damages calculation is available here (pdf).

U.S. Govt. Should Pay $155m in Piracy Damages, Software Company Argues

Mass Bogus DMCA Takedowns Impersonate Reddit to Attack Downloading Tools

Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:25:39 +0000

Mass Bogus DMCA Takedowns Impersonate Reddit to Attack Downloading Tools

Reddit downloader bot SaveVideo took itself offline this week following what appeared to be a copyright and trademark complaint from Reddit. However, it later transpired that the main document was an elaborate fake designed to sow confusion. We can now reveal that an additional batch of bogus DMCA notices has been filed with Google in Reddit's name, targeting many functionally similar tools.

Earlier this week the popular Reddit downloading bot ‘SaveVideo’ unexpectedly threw in the towel.

According to early reports from the operator of the service, which in part operated from RedditSave.com, Reddit sent a rather aggressive copyright infringement complaint warning of a potential lawsuit.

Wanting to take no risks, the decision was taken to shut down the SaveVideo bot and the RedditSave website. TorrentFreak contacted SaveVideo and Reddit for comment, with both eventually responding after publication with new pieces of interesting information.

Reddit was first to confirm that whatever legal threats SaveVideo had received, the social media platform had nothing to do with them. For his part, the operator of SaveVideo shared the complaint for transparency. While certainly elaborate, many features identified the document as fraudulent and designed to deceive.

Part of the bogus complaint

Someone, somewhere, clearly has a problem with SaveVideo and by impersonating Reddit, could now have issues with the social giant too. However, with SaveVideo returning online and now back in business, it seemed like the problems would fade away. That hasn’t proven to be the case.

Imposters Masquerade as Reddit in DMCA Notices to Google

With assistance from the Lumen Database, TorrentFreak has obtained four new DMCA notices that were sent to Google this week. Each seeks to delist RedditSave.com URLs (including its homepage) from Google’s results on the basis they are infringing copyright.

Ominously (and in common with the notice detailed above) these were all sent with claims they originated from Reddit. However, Reddit informs TorrentFreak that it had nothing to do with these notices and is currently conducting an investigation.

Why RedditSave is being targeted here is unclear (its operator informs TF he has no idea who is behind the notices) but he will now feel less singled out knowing that these new bogus DMCA notices also attack dozens of similar tools with the ability to download content from Reddit. A small sample is shown below:

Trying to determine who is behind these fraudulent complaints isn’t an easy task. There are plenty of entities who would like to see downloaders out of business, not least content providers, but it is doubtful that most would be so foolish. Other options include download tool rivals looking to receive a rapid boost in traffic but, at this stage, it is far too early to say with any certainty.

One silver lining is that Google might spot the bogus nature of the complaints. At the time of writing, none of the URLs have been removed yet and most are still pending further review.

The four DMCA notices attacking dozens of download tools can be found here (1,2,3,4)

Mass Bogus DMCA Takedowns Impersonate Reddit to Attack Downloading Tools

VPN Hosting Company Asks Court to Dismiss Piracy Lawsuit

Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:39:51 +0000

VPN Hosting Company Asks Court to Dismiss Piracy Lawsuit

Cloud hosting and DDoS protection company Sharktech has asked a Colorado federal court to dismiss a 'frivolous' piracy liability complaint. Through a lawsuit, several independent film companies hold Sharktech liable for the infringing activities of the subscribers of some customers that offer VPN services.

In recent years we have seen lawsuits against people who download and share pirated material. At the same time, operators of pirate sites have been sued as well.

A group of US-based independent movie companies is trying to expand the legal reach by going after third-party intermediaries. The makers of movies such as “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Rambo V: Last Blood,” and “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” have taken aim at VPN services and their hosting companies.

Suing VPNs and Hosting Companies

Earlier this year the movie outfits filed lawsuits against VPN.ht and LiquidVPN. Not much later, they also sued the cloud hosting and DDoS protection provider Sharktech, which counts several VPN providers among its customers.

The copyright holders argue that the hosting provider contributes to the alleged movie piracy of the subscribers (VPN users) of its customers (VPN providers). Sharktech was alerted to these infringements through takedown notices but continued to do business with the VPN companies.

“Sharktech failed to terminate the subscribers or the accounts associated with these IP addresses or take any meaningful action in response to these Notices,” the movie companies complaint read. “Sharktech failed to even forward the Notices to its subscribers.”

Sharktech Returns Fire

This week the hosting provider fired back at the movie companies. Sharktech filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The filing describes the filmmakers as “opportunistic litigants” that rely on “unsupported” liability theories.

“Plaintiffs purport to be the copyright owners of various films, but are becoming better known as opportunistic litigants who have commenced a series of copyright infringement claims against online service providers on increasingly attenuated and unsupported theories of liability,” Sharktech writes.

The hosting company stresses that it’s at least three steps removed from the actual pirates. But instead of going after the infringers or sites that offer pirated content, the rightsholders choose to go after a hosting company that provides services to VPN providers.

“Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is premised on the unsupportable notion that providers of general-purpose IaaS services like Defendants should be liable because their customers provide privacy-enhancing services that sometimes – but not always – are used to help Internet infringers anonymize their identities online.’

‘No Evidence to Support Claim’

This liability theory is not recognized by any federal court, Sharktech notes. The hosting service has plenty of non-infringing uses and there is no evidence that it intentionally or actively induced copyright infringement.

If the movie companies have their way, all sorts of third-party intermediaries could be held liable simply because they offer a service that’s used by an infringer.

“Plaintiffs’ theory is akin to demanding that a commercial airline that supplies FedEx with supplementary cargo space should be required to terminate FedEx as a customer because a few of FedEx’s individual customers may use FedEx’s services for illegal purposes,” Sharktech argues.

“This is not the law. Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim for which relief can be granted, and the Court should dismiss the action with prejudice.”

Needless to say, this case will be watched closely by VPN providers, hosting companies, and other third-party intermediaries. These liability arguments are largely untested in court. While we know that a consumer ISP can be held liable for pirating subscribers, this case goes a step further.

—

The full motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, submitted by Sharktech and its owner Tim Mouhieddine Timrawi, is available here (pdf). In addition, they also filed a separate motion to dismiss the case (pdf)

VPN Hosting Company Asks Court to Dismiss Piracy Lawsuit

Spotify Blocks Users For “Improperly Downloading” Tracks With Third-Party Software

Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:37:49 +0000

Spotify Blocks Users For “Improperly Downloading” Tracks With Third-Party Software

Spotify has reportedly blocked the accounts of several customers after they "improperly" downloaded tracks from the service using a third-party software tool. Audials Music exploits Spotify to stream music to users at breakneck speed while recording tracks locally as MP3 files. This was noticed at Spotify and has resulted in users being suspended from the service for abuse.

Streaming services like Spotify have revolutionized music consumption online by offering access to massive libraries at a reasonable price.

Premium subscribers are also able to save music locally to their own devices but these tracks are only playable within Spotify itself, meaning that those hoping to amass a private collection of music – playable on any device – are left disappointed.

In an effort to fill this gap, numerous software tools have appeared over the years claiming to help users download and keep tracks from Spotify in MP3 format. While this is technically possible, users of one specific piece of software have discovered that Spotify is able to detect their license-infringing behavior and put a stop to it.

‘Audials Music’ Bills Itself as a Premium Music Downloader

Audials Music is a software tool that gives users the ability to stream and save content from a wide range of services including Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer, TIDAL and Soundcloud. It achieves this by capturing audio streams, trimming them down into individual tracks, and saving them locally as MP3 files.

According to the service, this can be achieved at breakneck speed. Indeed, Audials Music claims to download content from Spotify at 30 times the standard pace, something that allows users to quickly amass large libraries of audio material in a convenient and permanent format.

Unfortunately, users of Audials Music are discovering that Spotify knows what’s going on.

Audials Music Users Get Their Accounts Suspended By Spotify

A few weeks ago, Audials Music users began posting to the company’s official forum, noting that they had received an email from Spotify stating that since abuse had been observed on their accounts, they had been blocked.

“Spotify has determined that your account was involved in an improper use of the Spotify service that violates the terms of use, including potentially improper downloads,” the company’s email reads, as per a statement from the Audials team.

The problem, it appears, is that Spotify holds data on when and how its subscribers access audio content and as a result was able to determine that users triggered faster streaming with Audials than is usually allowed. Audials explains as follows:

“Spotify apparently stores detailed data about each user in the long term. In particular, it saves when you have heard which piece of music. Basically, this data should look identical, whether you are only playing or recording,” the company writes.

“But Audials has a ‘high speed’ function. This quasi ‘makes time pass faster’, so that Spotify plays music faster, and so the recording succeeds faster. However, this means that the data stored by Spotify could say, for example, that you have listened to music with a playing time of 50 minutes within 5 minutes.

“We strongly suspect that this is the criterion used by Spotify to select users for temporary bans. So far, we have only received reports from users who actually used the ‘high speed’ option and were blocked,” the company adds.

Audials Says That Accounts Can Be Unblocked

While users of Audials were no doubt disappointed to have their accounts blocked by Spotify, a new statement published by Audials suggests that a little groveling to the Swedish streaming platform results in suspensions being reversed.

“If you have been temporarily blocked by Spotify, it is advisable to contact them via (link) and ask them to unblock the account, which according to the reports here happens without any problems,” Audials write.

“If you want to avoid being blocked, you should especially not use the Audials ‘high speed’ option when recording, especially not after you have been unblocked.”

Audials add that the ‘high speed’ feature available at Spotify isn’t present on other streaming services so the problems aren’t experienced on Amazon Music or Deezer, for example. There’s no suggestion that Spotify is able to detect the streaming and saving of tracks played at normal speeds either, so for now no more account suspensions in this respect are expected.

Is It Illegal to Record Streams? Audials Says No

Audials says that as long as users do not circumvent the DRM that protects tracks, the recording of streams is “clearly legal under US copyright law” but cautions that sharing those tracks is illegal. However, Spotify’s terms and conditions expressly forbid such activity.

“Spotify respects intellectual property rights and expects you to do the same. We’ve established a few ground rules for you to follow when using the Service, to make sure Spotify stays enjoyable for everyone. You must follow these rules and should encourage other users to do the same,” its user agreement reads.

Copying, redistributing, reproducing, ‘ripping,’ recording, transferring, performing or displaying to the public, broadcasting, or making available to the public any part of the Spotify service or its content is expressly forbidden.

This means that if Spotify can show that any of this has taken place, it’s well within its rights to “suspend your access to the Spotify Service at any time, including in the event of your actual or suspected unauthorised use of the Spotify Service..”

Spotify Blocks Users For “Improperly Downloading” Tracks With Third-Party Software

4anime Shuts Down Abruptly Following Legal Pressure

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 22:21:46 +0000

4anime Shuts Down Abruptly Following Legal Pressure

With millions of monthly visitors, 4anime was one of the largest pirate streaming sites. The site abruptly announced its shutdown yesterday, providing no further explanation. Interestingly, this decision comes shortly after 4anime was targeted in a subpoena issued by a US federal court.

Anime is extremely popular. Early on this was mostly limited to Japan, but nowadays, it’s a global phenomenon.

In part, this worldwide success was facilitated by piracy. Some of the oldest torrent sites featured ‘anime’ categories and today this niche is serviced by dedicated piracy streaming portals.

The success of these sites, some of which have millions of users, hasn’t gone unnoticed by rightsholders. Last year, anti-piracy coalition ACE seized several anime domains. Shortly after, KissAnime.ru and KissManga.com were taken offline by force.

4anime.to Becomes a Target

When large pirate sites shut down others tend to swiftly fill the void. This included 4anime.to, which welcomed refugees from other sites in the past. This helped the platform to grow, but also made the site a target.

A few months ago, 4anime was listed in a site-blocking application in Australia, alongside other prominent pirate sites.That didn’t stop the site from operating but something that happened more recently did.

Abrupt Shutdown

A few hours ago the site’s domain name started forwarding to GitHub, which hosts a public shutdown announcement.

“Sorry for ending things this way. Due to certain circumstances we have to close the site,” the 4anime staff writes.

“[A]ll the videos and content is deleted and we encourage you to support the industry by viewing on legal alternatives or something.”

The message doesn’t say why 4anime and its sister site Simply.moe had to close shop without prior warning. However, the abrupt ending paired with the recommendation to seek legal alternatives (“or something”), suggests that there may be legal pressure involved.

Over the past several months, the ACE anti-piracy coalition and the MPA have repeatedly targeted anime-related domains, so that was the first option we thought of. However, we can’t find any information to back this theory up.

Subpoena Targeted 4anime

What we did see, however, is that 4anime was targeted in a subpoena request at a Michigan federal court a few days ago. This request came from the “Legacy Rights Group” and required CDN provider Cloudflare to hand over the personal information of 4anime’s operators.

Specifically, Cloudflare was ordered to hand over names, addresses, billing records, email addresses, IP addresses, and any other information that could help to track down the people in charge.

The subpoena was issued on July 5 with a response deadline of July 26th. Cloudflare typically complies with these requests, but whether any data were handed over already is unknown.

We don’t know for sure that this legal pressure is the reason for the sudden shutdown but the timing would certainly fit.

It’s not clear what the US-based “Legacy Rights Group” is planning to do with the information it requested. The company was founded just a few months ago, and little is known about its connections to the anime industry.

As for 4anime’s users, they now have to find an alternative yet again. Whether these people will massively flock to legal services, as the site’s operators suggested, is doubtful though.

4anime Shuts Down Abruptly Following Legal Pressure

Reddit Orders ‘SaveVideo’ Bot to Shut Down or Face Lawsuit

Tue, 13 Jul 2021 22:19:23 +0000

Reddit Orders ‘SaveVideo’ Bot to Shut Down or Face Lawsuit

u/SaveVideo was a Reddit video downloader bot that helped users download and save videos from Reddit. The service was used by millions of people but according to its operator has now shut down following an ultimatum from Reddit. "The gods of Reddit have decided and I am obliged to obey or risk a lawsuit," SaveVideo announced yesterday.

Reddit is one of the most popular sites on the Internet, ranking 19th in the world and 8th in the United States according to Alexa data.

The social sharing website is built around users submitting text, images, and videos, allowing users to vote on content and pushing the most popular items to the top. While much of Reddit’s content is hosted externally, millions of items of multimedia content are hosted locally – unless users make use of services designed to help them download it to their own machines.

Video Saving Bots Are Popular

When locally-hosted videos appear on Reddit, users can call on help from so-called ‘downloader bots’. These automated tools allow people to download videos and similar content to their own machines, meaning that they can be viewed without the use of Reddit. Once liberated, this content can also be uploaded to other platforms, if the user desires.

According to an announcement yesterday, Reddit appears to be running out of patience with these tools. The operator of a bot called ‘SaveVideo‘ said that they had been contacted by Reddit who advised that if the service isn’t shut down, serious trouble could lie ahead.

Massively Popular ‘SaveVideo’ Ordered to Close

‘SaveVideo’ (which operates from the RedditSave.com domain) is a decently sized operation by any standards. SimilarWeb stats indicate that since the start of the year, RedditSave.com has attracted a steady 10 million visitors per month. But now, however, the show is over.

“It has been a great pleasure to serve you all in the past few months. However, as they say, All good things must come to an end,” its operator writes.

“The gods of reddit have reached out to us. They do not want us to continue this service any longer.”

The operator of the bot service says they have complied and as a result, the SaveVideo and RedditSave bots have been shut down. What is more surprising is that this doesn’t appear to have been a simple request from Reddit but one that was supported by the threat of legal action.

“The gods of reddit have decided and I am obliged to obey or risk a lawsuit,” the bots’ operator explains.

Additional Information is Sparce

TorrentFreak contacted the bots’ operator yesterday but at the time of writing we have yet to hear back. Reddit hasn’t yet responded to our inquiries either so in the meantime, questions remain as to what the bots did wrong. (Update: Reddit has commented, see below)

The Reddit voting system generates ‘karma’ points for successful/popular submissions to the site and in this respect, SaveVideo certainly isn’t lacking. At the time of writing it has 354,677 comment karma and 7,479 post karma, so its popularity isn’t question. However, as we have seen with last year’s attack on YouTube-DL, tools that allow people to download content from sites aren’t always popular with rightsholders.

In this case, no external rightsholders are cited as the cause by the bots’ operator but from the information supplied, that cannot be ruled out. Most Reddit users commenting on the shutdown are taking the stance that it is Reddit’s admins who have threatened legal action but the announcement certainly leaves room for other scenarios too, including repeated complaints from copyright holders.

SaveVideo Has Been Suspended Before

Five months ago, the SaveVideo bot went down unexpectedly only to return 72 hours later with a brief message.

“I am back from a 3-day ban,” SaveVideo wrote, without providing additional details.

A month ago the bot service went down again, this time for a whole week.

“Hey, I got wrongfully suspended for 7 days. Good to be back. You can continue downloading now,” the associated account informed users.

Again, no information was provided as to why a suspension was warranted but with two suspensions already on the books, it’s open to question why Reddit indicated that legal action could be the next step rather than an outright ban. The bots appear to be run on a semi-commercial basis, soliciting donations from the page found here, but whether that played any part in Reddit’s ultimatum is unknown.

Reddit Has Been Cracking Down On Other Downloader Bots

While SaveVideo appears to have been given the opportunity to cease-and-desist, other Reddit downloader bots haven’t been so lucky.

Around a month ago, VRedditShare was also suspended, although that decision was later reversed.

However, VRedditDownloader, was previously suspended for unspecified reasons and the same applies to SaveThisVideo, which appears to be the same underlying service as RedditSave.

That account was reportedly banned following repeat DMCA infringement complaints from OnlyFans, which flagged the original posts as infringement along with the RedditSave links, which also infringed copyright.

As things stand, this type of scenario seems like the most likely candidate for the threats against SaveVideo but when its operator and Reddit respond, we will update this article.

Update: Reddit has no official comment at this stage but has informed TorrentFreak that it was “not responsible for whatever notice or litigation threat” received by SaveVideo.

Reddit Orders ‘SaveVideo’ Bot to Shut Down or Face Lawsuit