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

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “Moana 2” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on February 03 are:

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new site blocking bill in the House last week, titled: Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA).

Should the proposal become law, FADPA would enable rightsholders to restrict access to verified pirate sites, run by foreign operators. Site blocking orders would apply to both Internet providers and public DNS resolvers.

The introduction of a new site blocking bill was only a matter of time. But time it took. FADPA comes more than thirteen years after the previous SOPA bill was shut down. Since then, a lot has changed.

Instead of a relative novelty, site blocking is commonplace nowadays. The MPA claims that over 50 countries have adopted the practice although as recently as last summer, the industry group’s estimate was around 40. With no similar measures in place, the U.S. is lagging behind, but the same can’t be said about American influence.

As highlighted this weekend, movie industry group MPA has been a driving force behind global blocking efforts. The main goal has always been to protect the copyrights of its members, but the experience can also be used to bring site blocking ‘home’.

MPA’s Site Blocking Presentation at WIPO

The MPA has been closely involved in U.S. site blocking discussions for years and, shortly after FADPA was announced to the public last week, MPA Senior Executive Vice President Karyn Temple will discuss site blocking at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

This week, WIPO’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement holds its sixteenth session in Geneva, Switzerland, where Temple will share the MPA’s views on the efficacy of no-fault injunctions. This type of injunction would become available in the United States under FADPA.

A preparatory document, released early, highlights that site blocking measures, if done right, can be an effective tool to reduce traffic to pirate websites and increase the use of legitimate services in some cases.

“Countries must therefore continue to develop strong and effective enforcement frameworks to address online piracy, including the use of no-fault injunctions to block access to illegal piracy services,” Temple notes.

Site Blocking Best Practices

Besides illustrating the need and power of site blocking, aided by academic research, the presentation also provides an overview of site blocking “best practices”. Not coincidentally, many of these are covered by the FADPA bill.

Drawing from its vast experience around the world, MPA lists five pillars on which effective blocking schemes should be built.

1. Precise Targeting and Proportionality

The recommendation to ensure ‘precise’ targeting can be interpreted in two ways. The MPA notes that blocking measures should only focus on websites that are primarily dedicated to sharing pirated content. Sensible safeguards are required to prevent errors.

To achieve this, MPA advocates for the use of automated solutions which make sure that blocking measures remain strictly targeted. For example, by lifting blockades when sites change locations.

At the same time, however, these automated tools can also block new ‘pirate’ locations if these become available.

2. Balancing Fundamental Rights

The MPA’s second recommendation aims to stay ahead of critics. Specifically, it addresses the concern that blocking measures can impact freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.

“Site blocking orders can potentially affect several fundamental rights, such as Internet users’ freedom of information and expression and online intermediaries’ freedom to conduct a business,” Temple’s contribution reads.

To address the freedom of expression concern, site blocking should focus solely on structurally infringing services. These are the known pirate sites and services that have no significant legitimate use.

Potential issues concerning the freedom to conduct business can be addressed by allowing ISPs and other providers to freely choose the blocking methods they prefer.

3. Transparency

To keep the public informed and rightsholders accountable, blocking injunctions should be openly accessible. This includes the use of dedicated landing pages that explain who issued the order and on whose behalf.

According to the MPA, it is of “paramount importance that site blocking injunctions are rendered in the most transparent way possible.” Transparency is mentioned in the FADPA bill, albeit with some room to maneuver.

4. Dynamic Blockades

Pirates typically find ways to circumvent blocking orders. By switching to new IP addresses and domain names, for example. Therefore, blocking orders should be dynamic, so they can be swiftly updated.

FADPA allows rightsholders to go back to court to request amendments to existing blocking injunctions. This is not completely dynamic, as court oversight is needed, but it’s not completely static either.

Ideally, MPA would like to have effective dynamic site blocking tools. These are particularly important for live broadcasts, including sports, where a timely response is essential.

5. Safeguards and Automated Tools

That dynamic live blocking can go horribly wrong has repeatedly been shown in Italy, where the “Piracy Shield” system blocked access to legitimate sites and services.

MPA had no part in the Italian system, and is aware of its drawbacks, but believes that automated systems can be effective if they are set up correctly.

“In particular, automated communication systems have been put in place between rightsholders and ISPs that allow the first ones to swiftly communicate the updated online locations that should be blocked, subject to a dynamic court order or under the supervision of competent authorities.”

If all best practices are followed, including transparency, precision, and proper safeguards, automated tools can work, MPA’s recommendation stresses.

Blocking Collaboration

All in all, it is clear that the MPA sees site blocking as a powerful tool that, despite criticism, can be rolled out without trampling on the rights of the public at large.

The recommendations and best practices also show that MPA is mindful of opposition. While their suggestions won’t convince staunch blocking opponents, lawmakers may be more open to this approach.

In any case, MPA hopes to get ISPs and other service providers on the site blocking train. This doesn’t only apply to DNS resolvers, which are covered by FADPA, but also CDN providers.

How harmless the resulting measures will be ultimately depends on how they are implemented. These ‘best practices’, as well as the draft of the FADPA bill, are just an outline. The true effect will hinge on the technical implementation.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

The Artificial Intelligence boom promises unparalleled progress which, in theory, can change the fabric of society.

As startups and established tech giants explore their options, data has become the new oil in the race to develop AI. Archives of text, in particular, are key to training Large Language Models (LLMs).

Early on, many tech giants used shadow libraries to train their models. Rightsholders objected to this unauthorized use in various courts, transforming these repositories into ‘forbidden fruit’ in the U.S. and elsewhere. Such restrictions aren’t necessarily observed by all, creating an uneven playing field where developers in other countries gain an advantage.

Shadow libraries already clash with the law, but copyright holders want to make sure that governments don’t make exceptions for AI training. Getting all countries onboard could be a real challenge.

According to Anna’s Archive, one of the internet’s leading shadow libraries, there is a better solution. This is not so much a matter of choice, the site says, but a requirement for national security.

‘Overhaul Copyright Law to Protect National Security’

Shortly after we published an article on the AI “forbidden fruit” conundrum and potential consequences, site operator Anna Archivist published a call to action, stressing the need for a strong and urgent response.

“If the West wants to stay ahead in the race of LLMs, and ultimately, AGI, it needs to reconsider its position on copyright, and soon,” it reads.

Anna’s Archive is not just a passive observer in the artificial intelligence arena. Prominent AI companies including DeepSeek have used its library of books and articles to train their AI models.

The Race to Artificial General Intelligence

Anna Archivist says high-speed access to data has already been provided to 30 companies, most of which are based in China. These include LLM companies and data brokers.

While some U.S. and Western companies have become more cautious about copyright, others are forging ahead. That has the potential to create problems for the West, the shadow library’s operator says.

“Whether you agree with us or not on our moral case, this is now becoming a case of economics, and even of national security. All power blocs are building artificial super-scientists, super-hackers, and super-militaries. Freedom of information is becoming a matter of survival for these countries — even a matter of national security,” Anna Archivist writes.

The future of AI development won’t stand or fall based on access to a single shadow library. However, it’s undisputed that vast amounts of data have proven to be extremely helpful in getting LLM models to where they are now.

Concrete Copyright Proposals

Since copyright holders label Anna’s Archive a piracy haven, it comes as no surprise that the site is an advocate for copyright reform. Interestingly, however, the site’s proposals are not as extreme as one might expect.

“Our first recommendation is straightforward: shorten the copyright term. In the US, copyright is granted for 70 years after the author’s death. This is absurd. We can bring this in line with patents, which are granted for 20 years after filing,” Anna’s Archivist writes.

A reduced copyright term wouldn’t legalize Anna’s Archive, but it would elevate many more works to the public domain. At the same time, however, there will still be an advantage for those AI companies that don’t have to worry about copyright terms at all.

This leads to the second proposal. Anna’s Archive believes that countries should have copyright exceptions, or carve-outs, for the “mass-preservation and dissemination of texts.”

Exceptions shouldn’t necessarily apply to consumers, but LLM companies, libraries, and archives should be covered.

Diametrical Opposites

Especially when considering the source, these suggestions may seem radical. Yet text and data mining (TDM) exceptions already exist in current copyright law, and in countries such as Japan, carve-outs for AI have already been made.

Not surprisingly, these AI exceptions are a concern for rightsholders. A few days ago, the Digital Creators Coalition (DGA) informed the US Trade Representative that it’s against all AI-related copyright exceptions, period.

“We strongly oppose broad copyright exceptions for AI, including with respect to TDM, and reaffirm our position that its proponents have failed to demonstrate the need for such an exception,” DGA informed the USTR.

“However, some countries are actively considering, or have already adopted, TDM exceptions that fundamentally weaken copyright protection in favor of promoting AI at the expense of the American creative sector.”

This is the diametrical opposite of Anna’s Archive’s position, and likely against the wishes of many AI developers too.

While a shadow library’s calls for copyright reform seem unlikely to be considered, the AI copyright discussion isn’t over. We expect to see similar talking points in the future, also from other sources.

Anna’s Archive maintains that it will continue to operate, regardless of the legal implications.

“As for Anna’s Archive — we will continue our underground work rooted in moral conviction. Yet our greatest wish is to enter the light, and amplify our impact legally. Please reform copyright,” Anna Archivist concludes.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 When U.S. site-blocking proposals died alongside SOPA in 2012, major Hollywood studios and their music industry counterparts, switched up their plans a little.

A SOPA victory would’ve sent a powerful message that site-blocking is a reasonable response to infringement, and that U.S. partners overseas should follow the example. Yet even with no victory to celebrate, for more than a decade the MPA promoted site-blocking measures to any country willing to listen, anywhere in the world.

The tools envisioned by SOPA may have evaporated, but work to protect the studios’ content in Europe and beyond did not. Although it was still too soon for fresh site-blocking proposals back in the States, preparations were effectively underway already.

Where suitable legal frameworks were already in place, the studios applied experience gained from injunctions won in the UK, to explore similar options elsewhere. Successes in the EU included the countries with the largest populations; Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden. With a population of just 2.8m, Lithuania also found ways to implement site-blocking, under existing law or subsequent amendments, just like all the others.

‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’

The MPA’s site-blocking work, whether conducted directly or through local partners, has been regularly reported here on TF. Whether those who opposed SOPA considered site-blocking in Europe, Australia, India, Brazil, and Thailand, as relevant to the U.S. is unclear. Preparations for an eventual U.S. return have become increasingly obvious though.

All MPA site-blocking programs worldwide are not just relevant; together they form the foundations on which the urgent need for site-blocking in the United States has been carefully built.

Under a program known as the ‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’ the MPA selects which platforms are suitable for site-blocking based on various factors and overall benefit to the site blocking mission. Other than the usual internal political issues in a handful of countries, we’re unaware of any significant setbacks.

TorrentFreak had the opportunity to view recent data which confirms that the MPA is “involved” in 44% of all blocking worldwide, alongside an additional claim that 80% of blocking involves ‘MPA Content’. One possible reason for the discrepancy is member studios taking individual action, rather than as a single group under the MPA. As the exclusive rightsholders of the world’s most valuable video content, the studios are involved by default.

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act – Initial Impressions

The FADPA bill published this week isn’t especially complicated. While some countries accommodate blocking with specific legislation, many use interpretations of existing law instead. The FADPA bill is focused and mostly unambiguous; while not an endorsement of the content per se, it receives top marks for clarity.

Also worthy of mention is the headline commitment to transparency. “Courts must publish blocking orders on a publicly accessible website” and include details such as the petitioner’s name, the foreign website or online service being blocked, the date and duration of the order, and a summary of the court’s findings.

Good News First – Then the Bad News

While some are already calling for rejection of the entire bill, a transparency requirement under law could go some way to ensuring accountability, which in turn should limit or even prevent overreach. For the record, there are no signs that the MPA has ever abused its blocking powers. Unfortunately, the risk of others doing so can’t ever be ruled out, and that’s why the following needs attention.

Courts may redact sensitive information to prevent circumvention or risks to national security, personal safety, or an ongoing – law enforcement investigation.

The scope here effectively grants permission to redact all useful information from every order. The majority of all blocking takes place to counter circumvention and, since that alone indicates disrespect for the court’s authority, convincing the court to withhold information might be straightforward.

Personal safety could mean almost anything. There’s no shortage of claims that since pirate sites are dangerous, they need to be blocked, but to date nothing to suggest that blocking pirate sites is dangerous in itself. That may warrant an explanation, it’s certainly news to us.

The opportunity to redact due to an investigation is not unexpected. However, most major pirate sites are subjected to a police investigation before being placed on the Infringing Website List maintained by the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Sites on the list are monitored until they’re removed, which could mean all sites of significance qualify for redactions.

No Transparency, No Accountability

The prospect of less well known rightsholders entering the blocking arena at some point is a legitimate concern. For those concerned over the potential for abuse, the only practical solution is unambiguous transparency. Even in countries where blocking orders are published for scrutiny, there are numerous ways to deny access to information.

For example, the preference for dynamic injunctions allows rightsholders to add new domains for blocking by communicating them directly to ISPs, without any need to inform the court. Instead of providing the court with a list of 30 domains, providing just one in the first instance keeps everyone in the dark, since the remaining 29 are sent directly to ISPs in a ‘dynamic’ update. This example isn’t hypothetical – it happens.

Taken as a whole, there is very little to suggest that transparency is taken seriously in the majority of countries with a blocking program. On one hand blocking is used to prevent access to sites with millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of users. On the other, IP addresses and domain names are often described as sensitive information, despite being publicly available information.

Rest assured, when a site has its domain name or IP address blocked, the operators are the first people to know. Any claim that public disclosure assists circumvention suggests that blocking those assets had no effect on site availability. By definition, blocked domains and blocked IP addresses are useless and that’s worth recording, publicly, in every single instance.

No Provision to Hold Anyone Accountable

A lack of transparency eliminates risk of being held accountable for overblocking. When those who overblock have no obligation to publicly report errors or publish information sufficient for others to discover them, anything can happen. The bill offers immunity to ISPs in key areas, which confirms the risk of liability if anything goes wrong.

Indeed, ISPs are not liable for the consequences when blocking instructions are carried out in good faith. If the ISPs are immune, the section on who does take responsibility is only notable for its absence. We’ll provide new information surrounding the bill very soon but until then, two items that give pause for thought.

As far as we can determine, this bill isn’t something the MPA came up with in isolation. More likely than not, ISPs, and other intermediaries have also been involved for some time. The provisions in place to protect their interests are extremely specific and at least to our knowledge, nothing like this exists anywhere else in the world.

To the extent that cooperation on blocking effectively amounts to a shared interest partnership, particularly when ISPs act as licensed distributors of copyrighted content subject to blocking orders, it’s possible that questions concerning data privacy may enter the equation. Many ISPs hold valuable data relevant to blocking measures, arguably no better source of information exists anywhere else.

Voting aside, this may be a deal long since done; site-blocking may be inevitable and once in place, there will be no turning back.

The bill itself is a framework for a blocking program that has undergone constant tuning, so much so that it’s now governed by a set of universal ‘best practices’ that are applicable in every country the system is deployed. A review of the paperwork reveals that to be a generally positive step. Yet if a site-blocking system exists, the likelihood it will eventually be used to censor free speech, increases exponentially.

Build it and then see who comes.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Earlier this week, various rightsholder groups submitted their recommendations for the 2025 Special 301 Report.

This annual overview, compiled by the U.S. Trade Representative, highlights countries that fail to live up to U.S. copyright protection standards.

Various groups stressed the importance of copyright protection when it comes to new AI technologies. They argued that foreign governments should be mindful of potential copyright infringements.

The Chinese government is called out, for example, for considering the introduction of a text and data mining (TDM) exception for AI. Other countries, including Japan, have already written AI exceptions into law. This raises concerns. Not just for copyright holders, but also for American tech giants.

Tech Companies & Pirate Libraries

In the United States, explicit copyright exceptions for AI learning are non-existent. On the contrary, there are several high-profile lawsuits in the U.S. where tech companies including Meta, OpenAI, and Google are accused of copyright infringement.

Rightsholders accuse these companies of training their LLMs (large language models) on content obtained from unauthorized sources, including pirate libraries. These repositories turned out to be a goldmine, as they contained a vast amount of text, free for the taking. The problem, however, is that copyright holders never gave permission to use it.

The lawsuits will ultimately determine whether the tech companies are liable for copyright infringement, linked to this and other unauthorized use, or whether ‘fair use’ is a valid defense.

It will take years before those cases are decided and, meanwhile, pirate libraries such as Z-Library, LibGen, and Anna’s Archive are off limits. In countries where the law is more lenient or opaque, this might be an entirely different story. That could create a copyright schism with potentially far-reaching consequences.

DeepSeek ♡ Anna’s Archive

This week, hundreds of new articles were published on the latest AI model released by the Chinese company DeepSeek. This model isn’t just accurate, it’s also much cheaper to run, while significantly decreasing AI development costs.

According to pundits, Deepseek poses a threat to American AI dominance and leadership. While early responses are often overblown, it shows that AI development is a serious, high stakes business.

While DeepSeek’s innovation doesn’t stem from shadow libraries, the company did use them as key input. Recent publications have been less transparent about their data sources, but an earlier paper clearly mentions a reliance on Anna’s Archive.

“We cleaned 860K English and 180K Chinese e-books from Anna’s Archive,” a DeepSeek VL paper, published last March, states.

DeepSeek’s prompted love letter to Anna’s Archive

AI Teams Work with Anna’s Archive

DeepSeek isn’t alone in this. According to Anna’s Archive, many AI teams, including those connected to large U.S. and Chinese companies, have reached out to the site, looking for fast access to data.

Anna’s Archive offers to work with AI companies in return for a generous donation or a data trade. While U.S. companies typically back off due to copyright concerns, other teams gladly work with the shadow library.

“We’ve provided about 20-30 companies/teams with our entire dataset. It’s the same data as on our torrents page, but they get access to high-speed SFTP servers.”

“Usually, this is in exchange for a large monetary donation or, on occasion, in exchange for good datasets they acquired,” ‘Anna’s Archivist’ adds, noting that all data they obtain is shared publicly.

The shadow library provided copies of several redacted emails where companies requested access. We couldn’t independently verify their authenticity, but they are worth sharing nonetheless. ‘

“We are a research group from REDACTED, currently focusing on large language models (LLM) and in the process of data investigation. We are very interested in the high-quality resources you offer and would like to know more about the specifics.” – Chinese company

“We saw your Twitter post about the 7.5M scanned Chinese academic non-fiction book collection you are offering for LLM training if that company contributes to digitizing them via OCR. We at REDACTED have state of the art OCR technology we can leverage and would like to discuss this with you. We are happy to share sample results and open source all the results, but would likely ask to keep our code/pipeline proprietary.” – US company.

The “Forbidden Fruit”

Faced with multi-million dollar lawsuits, large U.S. companies are no longer eager to work with Anna’s Archive. However, AI teams in other countries are less reluctant, and that creates tension.

The allure of shadow libraries for AI development is akin to the biblical forbidden fruit. Just as Adam and Eve were tempted by the tree of knowledge, AI developers are drawn to the vast troves of ‘free’ data within these unauthorized collections.

Shadow libraries, filled with pirated works, offer the potential to train powerful AI models. However, like the original forbidden fruit, these shadow libraries come with a cost, at least for some.

In the U.S., copyright laws and pressure from copyright holders, make AI companies hesitant to bite into this fruit, fearing legal repercussions. Reluctance could therefore place American AI development at a “knowledge disadvantage”.  

Innovation: The AI Copyright Conundrum

Meanwhile, in countries with more lenient copyright exceptions for AI training, companies are free to indulge. They can feast on the knowledge offered by shadow libraries, potentially accelerating their AI capabilities and gaining a competitive edge.

This has the potential to create a “copyright schism,” where AI development in some countries surges ahead, fueled by readily available data, while others are held back by legal constraints.

Without offering a value judgement, or engaging in too much hyperbole, this situation raises complex questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering innovation.

Is it fair for some countries to have a knowledge advantage due to differing copyright laws? Could this lead to a global AI divide, where certain nations dominate the field due to their access to “forbidden” data?

We don’t have the answers to any of these questions. As highlighted earlier, rightsholders believe that more strict AI regulation worldwide is the answer. If AI companies want access, they can negotiate deals and pay for it.

However, the shadow library understandably has a quite different take.

“This could be a geopolitical argument for the West relaxing copyright rules. If the West wants to stay ahead in AI, archiving and distributing books should be made fully legal,” ‘Anna’s Archivist’ informs us.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Last September, Apple removed popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. The mounting pressure eventually paid off.

Delisting from the App Store puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors, but since the tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi took the matter to court.

Music Sues Apple over App Removal

In a complaint filed at a California federal court last October, Musi alleged that the takedown was unjustified, accusing Apple of breach of contract, among other things.

Wasting no time, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to compel Apple to reinstate the music app. While existing users still have access to the software, it’s no longer available for new users to download, which directly impacts revenue. If this continues, Musi will eventually be put out of business.

Musi argued that Apple’s decision was based on a one-sided view, leading to a “unfair” and “tainted” removal process, influenced by Apple’s alleged “backroom conversations” with key music industry players.

Apple denied any wrongdoing and pointed out that it had received complaints about Musi for a long time. Regardless, the company argued that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

Court Denies Reinstatement Request

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the request for a preliminary injunction. This means that the app won’t be reinstated while the case is pending.

Judge Eumi K. Lee ruled that the DPLA gave Apple broad discretion to remove applications from the App Store and that Musi had not raised serious questions that Apple acted unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the Musi app.

The court concluded that Musi’s proposed injunction would not serve the public interest. Musi did not present any compelling public interest arguments that outweigh the interests of copyright holders.

Not in the Public Interest

Notably, the court did not express an opinion on the validity of the complaints against Musi, including those from YouTube and the music companies. At this stage, however, the interests of rightsholders outweigh the potential harm suffered by Musi.

“Musi has not presented any compelling public interest to counterbalance the potential violation of third-party intellectual property right,” Judge Lee writes.

“Musi’s proposed injunction would require Apple to reinstate the Musi app; it would not confer any benefit on any developer other than Musi. Accordingly, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.”

All in all, this means that Musi remains unavailable in the App Store but the case itself is far from over. In the next round, Apple is expected to file a motion requesting the federal court to dismiss Musi’s amended complaint.

—

A copy of Judge Eumi K. Lee’s order, denying the preliminary injunction, is available here (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 With the original Pirate Bay generation now all grown up, those few years of pirate rebellion aired on the world stage have been fading in Sweden for quite some time. On the rapidly evolving internet, such things are inevitable.

Yet, even those most dedicated to The Pirate Bay’s downfall may take a moment to consider how things were, and how that led to the almost unrecognizable piracy arena that exists today. The Pirate Bay didn’t just survive, it continues to live, but on the way the streaming revolution changed everything.

The illegal streaming platforms and IPTV services dominating the market today are an entirely different breed. There’s no desire to level the media playing field or mobilize the masses towards any kind of change. With few exceptions, interactions with users today are almost entirely on a commercial basis.

The Pirate Pay

Paying to consume pirated content used to carry a stigma, but not anymore. In Sweden, where paying for free movies would’ve been mostly considered a joke, people seem almost eager to pay and, as a result, pirate IPTV consumption has reached record levels.

A new study from Stockholm-based consulting firm Mediavision offers little, if any good news for rightsholders.

For a government under increasing pressure to tackle the issue head on, news that pirate IPTV consumption increased by 25%, in the period bridging spring and fall 2024, the situation could hardly be worse.

More New Records, So What’s The Plan?

With a population of 11 million and an average of 2.15 occupants per household, 4.4 million homes are enough for the entire population of Sweden. By the fall of 2024, Mediavision says, an estimated 700,000 of those households were subscribing to an illegal IPTV service and happily paying for the privilege.

“This is a new record level and a significant increase compared to the spring of 2024,” Mediavision notes.

The government’s response effectively rules out any specific action for at least several months. An inquiry launched at the start of 2024 to review national film policy, was originally scheduled for investigator Eva Bergquist to report back during the next few weeks.

Instead, Bergquist will continue with an investigation and analysis centered on pirate IPTV. There will be an assessment of damage to the film and TV industries, and work to determine whether there’s a need to take action against citizens who pay for illegal services.

“Investigator Eva Bergquist will analyze whether there is a need for a ban on private individuals receiving illegal IPTV and if so, what such a ban should look like in that case,” commented Minister of Culture, Parisa Liljestrand.

In 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that consumption of pirate streams is illegal. The suggestion that a second local ‘ban’ will achieve more than the first, already declared by Europe’s highest court, seems unlikely.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

For a long time, pirate site blocking was regarded as a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This lingering remnant of the SOPA debacle drove copyright holders to focus on the introduction of blocking efforts in other countries instead, mostly successfully.

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old and momentum is shifting. Today, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which paves the way for blocking injunctions targeting foreign operated pirate sites, being implemented on home soil.

A ‘New and Improved’ Pirate Site Blocking Bill

If approved, FADPA would allow copyright holders to obtain court orders requiring large Internet service providers (ISPs) and DNS resolvers to block access to pirate sites. The bill would amend existing copyright law to focus specifically on ‘foreign websites’ that are ‘primarily designed’ for copyright infringement.

The inclusion of DNS resolvers is significant. Major tech companies such as Google and Cloudflare offer DNS services internationally, raising the possibility of blocking orders having an effect worldwide. DNS providers with less than $100 million in annual revenue are excluded.

While site blocking is claimed to exist in more than 60 countries, DNS resolvers are typically not included in site blocking laws and regulations. These services have been targeted with blocking requests before but it’s certainly not standard.

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act

Petition, Review, Block…

Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, supported by clear evidence of copyright infringement, due process, and judicial oversight to prevent censorship. Courts must also verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.

In practice, a blocking request would go through a multistep process before it is issued.

1. Petition: A copyright owner or licensee files a petition in U.S. District Court seeking a preliminary order. The petition must identify the domain name and/or IP-address.  

 

2. Notice: The petitioner must make reasonable efforts to notify both the operator of the foreign website and the service providers identified in the petition.  

 

3. Court Review: The court reviews the petition to determine whether it meets the requirements for issuing a preliminary order, including a copyright infringement check. If the court finds the criteria have been met, a preliminary order follows.  

 

4. Opportunity to Contest: The operator of the foreign website has 30 days to appear in court and contest the preliminary order.  

 

5. Motion for Blocking Order: If the preliminary order is upheld, the petitioner can then move for a blocking order. Before issuing a blocking order, the court must determine that it will not interfere with access to non-infringing content, place a significant burden on service providers, or disserve the public interest.  

 

6. Final Order: Once the court is satisfied that the blocking order meets the requirements, it will issue the final order, and service providers will be required to implement it within 15 days.

The bill requires all court orders to be accessible to the public, immediately after they are issued. The proposal does not prescribe any specific blocking measures, however, leaving room for service providers to determine the least intrusive methods to comply.

Praise and Critique

Rightsholders already have the option to request a blocking injunction under U.S. Copyright Law. However, these may trigger liability for the online service providers. FADPA clarifies that these are “no fault” injunctions, shielding ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries from legal liability.

The bill was introduced after months of discussions and negotiations with stakeholders from the content and tech industries. Whether any specific agreement was reached is unclear, but Rep. Lofgren is pleased with the result.

“The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a smart, targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused on the actual problem at hand,” Lofgren says.

Interestingly, Lofgren was one of the lawmakers who fiercely opposed the SOPA site blocking proposal to protect the Open Internet. She sees the current bill as a proper and much needed alternative.

“Now – after working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries – we’ve arrived at a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free internet except for the infringers,” Lofgren notes.

MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin thanked Rep. Lofgren for her efforts to support the creative industry, describing the bill as an effective tool to combat offshore piracy in the United States.

Not everyone is equally enthusiastic. Consumer interest group Public Knowledge was quick to condemn the “censorious” site blocking proposal.

“Rather than attacking the problem at its source – bringing the people running overseas piracy websites to court – Congress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship,” says Public Knowledge’s Meredith Rose.

In the weeks and months ahead, we expect more commentary from stakeholders, including ISPs and major tech companies. While the public outrage of 13 years ago will be difficult to top, there will likely be heated discussions before FADPA goes up for a vote.

—

Update: Re:Create opposes the bill, with Executive Director Brandon Butler issuing the following statement.

“FADPA and similar ‘site-blocking’ proposals would give Big Content the internet killswitch it has sought for decades. Copyright is hotly contested and infamously easy to use as a cudgel against free speech online.”

The Copyright Alliance, meanwhile, wholeheartedly supports FADPA.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Founded in 2018, TorrentGalaxy has grown to become a leading player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site was launched by former members of ExtraTorrent, a popular torrent site that had just shut down. The founders of TorrentGalaxy aimed to provide a home for ExtraTorrent ‘refugees’ but, over time, it evolved into one of the leading torrent sites.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Trade Representative flagged TorrentGalaxy among the most notorious pirate sites. According to the report, the site was one of the main beneficiaries of RARBG’s shutdown in 2023.

TorrentGalaxy Troubles

While TorrentGalaxy remains online today, it has faced considerable downtime after the original team sold the site to new operators last year. This change of ownership offered an explanation for the earlier ‘maintenance‘ issues, but the site’s troubles didn’t end there.

Under the new ownership, TorrentGalaxy has faced repeated outages and technical hiccups. Since the site’s operators have remained quiet throughout, the cause of these difficulties remains unclear.

Last weekend, a message appeared on the site that might shed more light on the matter. Presumably posted by the site’s operators, the notice claims that TorrentGalaxy is in financial dire straits.

TorrentGalaxy Asks for Donations

After purchasing the site from its original founders relatively recently, TorrentGalaxy’s new owners claim that they’re now having trouble paying the server bills. They’re asking users to chip in by donating Bitcoin, Ethereum, or TRX.

“Hello friends, unfortunately torrentgalaxy is in financial difficulties. We ask you to make a small donation towards the server costs,” TorrentGalaxy writes.

Chip In..
 

It’s not uncommon for pirate sites to ask users for donations to pay the bills, or to otherwise plead financial hardship. These claims are impossible to verify based on the information provided, but several of the site’s users seem willing to chip in.

Crypto Rolls In…

After just a few days, TorrentGalaxy has already received nearly 90 donations, most in Bitcoin. This is good for roughly $3,000 at the current exchange rate, a healthy amount considering that the target audience consists of pirates.

BTC donations
 

For comparison, fellow torrent site The Pirate Bay typically receives an average of roughly $10 in donations per day. However, they don’t claim financial hardship or prominently ‘request’ donations.

For rightsholders, the cryptocurrency addresses will be of interest. They present potential opportunities to ‘follow the money’ by linking the addresses to actual persons or entities.

Previously, the authorities were able to seize crypto assets from pirate services that were using centralized exchanges, as opposed to self-custody wallets. While we don’t know if that’s the case here, anti-piracy groups will likely take a closer look.

Whether TorrentGalaxy’s troubles are resolved by the outpouring of generosity isn’t clear. However, history has shown that once donation drives have proven to be successful, they tend to become a recurring phenomenon.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Lawsuits filed to address infringement can also play a key role as part of a wider deterrent messaging campaign. In the online arena inhabited by millions of pirates, dual-purpose lawsuits are especially common.

Even for Nintendo, suing every infringer isn’t just impractical. Negative exposure in the media has direct implications for image and branding. Additional risk of polluting or even displacing otherwise positive articles, could jeopardize what amounts to free advertising worth millions of dollars.

A deterrent message delivered on the back of the right case, however, could reach its target audience using the same means, with relatively few downsides. If the company had something similar in mind, a Nintendo lawsuit filed in November seems an almost perfect fit.

Targeting Jesse Keighin, aka EveryGameGuru, the lawsuit poses little risk to Nintendo’s image. It compresses many types of infringing and unlicensed activity into a single case, one so overwhelming in scope that resistance is likely to prove futile. Yet this complaint seems to offer more than just an easy win; on the deterrent front, it may offer something for everyone.

A Message For Gamers Everywhere?

Whether by pure coincidence or meticulous design, each type of offending alleged in the complaint relates to fairly common individual acts that, in isolation, millions of gamers will be familiar with already. The defendant’s potential downfall could send a message to pirates and emulator gamers everywhere: relatively minor individual acts can have serious consequences.

Live-streaming footage of games before their official release is a zero-tolerance issue for Nintendo, for example. Streaming is described in the complaint as the unauthorized public performance and reproduction of Nintendo’s copyrighted works. Live-streaming footage of any Nintendo game, regardless of date of release, using an illegal Switch emulator, is described as a violation of the company’s rights for exactly the same reason.

For those who enjoy sending links to friends or internet strangers, for the purposes of signposting locations where illegal emulators and/or ROMS can be downloaded, Nintendo alleges acts of inducement and contributory infringement. Sharing tiny files such as those carrying encryption keys, amounts to trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA.

As alleged, Keighin’s conduct was obviously much more serious than that of the average Joe. However, since relatively few gamers will be interested enough to soak up the details, any deterrent message – should Nintendo intend to send one – could end up especially broad.

That Keighin was a prolific streamer on YouTube, Discord, Twitch, TikTok, Trovo, Kick, Vaughn, Dlive, Picarto, Nimo, Facebook, and Loco, ensures social media reach with serious potential, although maybe not for a while.

Transforming a Dire Legal Position Into Something Worse

In an email dated November 8, notifying Keighin that a complaint had been filed at a court in Colorado, Nintendo expressed concern over evidence preservation, noting that things may have already gone off track.

“We have observed that, since filing of Nintendo’s litigation, you have begun deleting content you posted online, including content referenced in the Complaint. I write to remind you of your duty to preserve such evidence. Upon commencement of a litigation, litigants have a duty to preserve evidence relevant to the case,” the email reads.

“Please immediately confirm whether you have maintained copies of everything you have already deleted and that you will comply with your preservation obligations.”

Having received no such confirmation, a subsequent Nintendo email informed Keighin that efforts to serve him in person had failed multiple times already.

“We have been attempting to serve you with the summons and complaint (attached) for the above-captioned matter for multiple days, but after attempting several addresses, we have been unable to serve you personally. We believe you may be evading service. Indeed, we are aware that you have stated publicly that you are aware of this lawsuit,” the email reads.

Nintendo Not Thrilled By the Chase

In case the gamer preferred to waive formal service of the summons and complaint, Nintendo provided the necessary paperwork and offered to take care of everything upon receipt of a signature. Worth a shot, perhaps, but unlikely to succeed in light of Keighin’s response posted to X.

Court records reveal a number of failed attempts to serve the defendant at various addresses. One of those addresses appeared in five DMCA counternotices sent by Keighin, to reinstate content taken down by Nintendo DMCA notices.

An email sent to Nintendo on October 24, in connection with the suspension of an account for copyright infringement, suggested that further channel suspensions wouldn’t be effective.

According to Nintendo, it’s possible that preparations to avoid being served involved outside assistance. At various addresses, process servers found family members but no physical trace of the defendant.

To support its claim, Nintendo provided a screenshot of a Facebook post; it limited who could respond, but not who could view.

Fueling the Fire

Other evidence to show that Keighin knew about the lawsuit appears in a screenshot of a brief encounter with a 9news journalist hoping for a story. A Facebook post that used profanity to declare zero interest in the case, allegedly addressed a colleague at law firm Jenner & Block LLP using the word “BITCH”.

A friend’s post on X, suggesting that Keighin should fight the “legendary” lawsuit in court dressed as Mario, carried less weight than Keighin’s own posts three days later. They reveal a plan to “piss Nintendo off” by causing the company to waste “a ton of money” on legal fees, before ensuring that “Nintendo gets nothing” after waving “Bowser’s Bankruptcy Magic Wand.”

In his posts on social media, Keighin says that “he’s making sure there’s no precedence [sic] set here” and at minimum expects to “go down in video game history.”

The Nintendo lawsuit filed against Yuzu last year concluded with a win for the gaming company, minus any attempt to have the case settled on the merits, let alone set some type of precedent. Going down in video game history could go either way.

As the person who gifted Nintendo more than they ever imagined, in what is likely to be an uncontested default judgment, history may quickly forget. That Nintendo will emerge without even a scratch, having easily maintained the usually tricky moral high ground, is indeed one for the history books. Maybe even worthy of a memorable quote.

“Should have done more research on me,” Keighin warned Nintendo’s legal team.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets.”

The complaint and subsequent filings are available here

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Development of AI continues to progress at a rapid pace. This includes work on large language models (LLMs), which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts.

These technologies promise unparalleled progress which could benefit society as a whole. Yet despite widely recognized potential, areas of significant concern remain.

That many LLMs were trained on datasets containing copyrighted content is now widely known. This has led to numerous complaints and high-profile lawsuits, with companies like OpenAI, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and NVIDIA facing allegations of copyright infringement.

The courts will ultimately decide whether rightsholders have legitimate copyright claims, or whether technology companies can indeed rely on a ‘fair use’ defense. It will likely take many years before a final decision is reached so until then, rightsholders are doing all they can to prevent future infringements.

Books3

The Books3 dataset, used to train many popular LLMs, initially attracted significant attention. The dataset was compiled by AI researcher Shawn Presser in 2020, using the library of ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik.

Books3 was widely shared online and incorporated into other databases, including ‘The Pile,’ an AI training dataset compiled by EleutherAI. This practice remained largely unchallenged for years, but when AI entered the mainstream, copyright complaints surged.

Due to pressure from rightsholders and anti-piracy groups, Books3 was removed from numerous online platforms over copyright concerns. Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance spearheaded several of these takedown actions, while describing AI-themed infringement as a major problem.

“We have a big task ahead of us in detecting and taking down illegal training datasets like Books3, but also in dealing with AI that has already been trained on illegal content and is now spreading on the internet,” Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund said previously.

Books3 Offline

BREIN vs. GEITje LLM

In the ensuing months, takedown efforts persisted. Notably, these efforts expanded beyond datasets containing complete books, targeting the models trained on this data as well.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has been active on this front and announced that, as a result, one of the largest Dutch LLMs ‘GEITje-7B‘ was taken offline as a result of their efforts.

This LLM was trained on ‘Gigacorpus’ a dataset of books and texts previously targeted by BREIN, including a vast collection of Dutch texts and books, some of which contained copyrighted material sourced from the shadow library LibGen

“We see a worldwide trend that creators of AI models have little or no respect for copyright,” BREIN writes.

“Apparently, the thinking is that all the attention, time and money put into copyrighted works by creators and media companies are less important than the AI models,” the group adds.

GEITje Offline
 

In their defense, the LLM creator cited copyright exceptions for text and data mining for scientific purposes. However, BREIN argued that the European AI Act mandates the use of lawfully acquired content as inputs for AI models.

This disagreement wasn’t tested in court. The LLM developers lack the funds to litigate the matter so took the decision to take GEITje offline voluntarily.

Voluntary Shutdown

Machine learning engineer Edwin Rijgersberg developed the GEITje LLM as a hobby. While the 7-billion parameter model became quite popular, he is not in a position to mount a legal challenge.

Rijgersberg previously consulted copyright experts who informed him that the issue isn’t as black and white as portrayed by some rightsholders. That said, a legal battle would be expensive.

“I cannot afford to engage in a lengthy and costly legal battle to resolve these issues. After all, GEITje was a non-commercial, scientific hobby project. For this reason, I am complying with BREIN’s request,” Rijgersberg notes.

The end of GEITje 1
 

While BREIN stresses the importance of protecting copyrights, GEITje’s developer still has hope for an open-source Dutch-language AI landscape

“In my view, the future of European AI still lies in open-source AI. Only when AI is free to use, can be studied by everyone, and is freely available to modify and share for any purpose. can we truly speak of sovereign AI.”

While GEITje won’t make a comeback, Rijgersberg highlights that there are now many other Dutch LLMs available to the public. These models are trained on various datasets, which may or may not include copyrighted material.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) organized an anti-piracy symposium where several experts discussed recent achievements, new challenges, and potential solutions.

Held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, the meeting brought together public and private sector players to discuss various copyright and piracy-related topics.

For example, trial attorney Vasantha Rao, who works as the Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, discussed the Gears Reloaded case, the Z-Library takedown, plus international domain seizure actions including Operation Offsides.

Michael Christin, another trial attorney at the DoJ, went into great detail on the Jetflix case, discussing various challenges his team faced while litigating the case.

This was an openly accessible symposium, so discussion and commentary was limited to information already in the public record. That said, when discussing future anti-piracy solutions, more novel perspectives were brought up.

Piracy is ‘Maturing’

In a session on the latest trends in piracy and piracy prevention, Piracy Monitor founder Steven Hawley explained that piracy as an industry has evolved. There are many professional ‘pirate’ actors offering various services, both to consumers and aspiring site operators.

“I would say first off, the piracy in the universe has really matured, it’s metastasized, it’s a multichannel, multilevel industry, multinational phenomenon,” Hawley said.

“Market entry for a pirate is easy. If you wanted to become a pirate tomorrow, you could go online and find organizations that provide Piracy as a Service, they’ll give you content, they’ll give you a distribution platform, they’ll design your user interface, quite sophisticated.”

Marissa Bostick, Head of Global Litigation at the Motion Picture Association (MPA), also sees a combination of increased professionalism and brazenness. Interestingly, this is paired with a shift from free to paid piracy services, with Bostick mentioning ‘Magis TV‘ as one of the examples.

“Users are paying to get access to the pirated content, whether it’s IPTV, premium cyber locker accounts, illegal password services, set-top boxes, there are various forms of this. It means the pirates are actually getting direct streams of income,” Bostick said.

The fact that some pirate services don’t even try to lie low anymore is evident in examples of brazen behavior. They openly advertise themselves through billboards and register for trademarks, as Magis TV recently did.

“Piracy is really sometimes coming out of the shadows. So what we’re seeing, and we see this in Latin America, for example, billboards for piracy sites. They’re paying influencers to go on social media and promote them. They’re registering for trademarks. This is not something that’s happening on some dark web,” Bostick added.

The American ‘Site Blocking’ Dream

The speakers went into great detail on these and other challenges. This ultimately led to the question of what can be done in response. Aside from litigation, including criminal prosecutions, pirate site blocking was frequently mentioned as a solution.

MPA’s Marissa Bostick said that they have been working on this for many years and that it’s been one of the most effective anti-piracy remedies.

There are now site blocking solutions in more than 50 countries around the world, including Australia France, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea.

The United States is notably absent from this list, but that may change. Bostick said that, with bipartisan and bicameral support, site blocking legislation may eventually move forward in the United States.

The call for site blocking was supported by many other speakers, including Lui Simpson of the Association of American Publishers, who stressed that the U.S. “is lagging far behind” compared to other countries, partly because the initial SOPA site blocking proposal failed in 2012.

“We’re hopeful that this time around we’ll make progress. As you know, we tried this maybe 13 years ago. The hope now is that the misinformation will not be so much of a hindrance here to actually getting a remedy in place.”

“It is long overdue. I think we’re one of the few, let’s just say more developed countries that unfortunately does not have this remedy,” Simpson added.

Attenzione!

U.S. site blocking discussions are not new and, in a meeting dedicated to anti-piracy solutions, there was little pushback. That said, it is clear that if site blocking comes to America, it should be done right.

This means that potential errors and overblocking should be ruled out, for as far as that’s possible. This is particularly important now that the Italian “Piracy Shield” site blocking scheme is cause for continued controversy.

That hasn’t gone unnoticed by the panelists at the symposium. Steven Hawley, for example, mentioned the “Piracy Shield” has had its challenges, especially because much of the process is automated without detailed verification.

“It sounds like a great system, but it needs fine-tuning. I guess this is a message to anyone who’s developing platforms like this, watch out for false positives,” Hawley said.

Lui Simpson also stressed that the U.S. should learn from site blocking schemes in other jurisdictions. However, she was not referring to overblocking, but to the tendency of blocked sites to launch alternative domains almost instantly.

If the U.S. proposes a site blocking solution, it should be dynamic, so that new domains can be added swiftly.

Bostick acknowledged this and stressed that the MPA has more than a decade of experience with site blocking measures around the globe. So, they can use everything they learned thus far to come up with a balanced and effective solution.

“We have over ten years of experience at this point with site blocking in various countries, different parts of the world, and how it can work seamlessly and effectively. So we need to use all that and use that experience to move forward,” Bostick stressed.

All in all, the USPTO’s anti-piracy symposium offered an intriguing peek into the learnings and priorities of various key players in the public and private sector. It also revealed that despite previous successes, there are still many challenges ahead.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “Nosferatu” is the most shared title.

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

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Shorter theatrical windows and improved access to movies via streaming, aimed to address one of the reasons some people prefer to pirate movies rather than pay.

While no silver bullet, making movies available legally is crucial in the fight against piracy. Yet, for many years, avoiding the most obvious response to unauthorized distribution meant that the ‘recently released’ movie market was dominated by not only illicit, but mostly inferior products.

Each year, usually around late December through mid-January, the market received a quality boost that attracted pirates in their millions. ‘Screener Season’ began when predominantly DVD-based movies were sent to those whose votes have the potential to transform great movies, into Academy Award-winning movies. But all too often, things didn’t go to plan.

Basic security failures saw screener discs lost, misplaced, loaned or gifted to family members, sold on eBay, or simply stolen. Whatever their route to the internet, high-quality screeners represented direct competition for genuine products, that in many cases wouldn’t be legally on sale for months.

There’s no real doubt that screener leaks had a negative effect on sales of legitimate products, but it took years to migrate screener viewing online. Enforcement action against EVO, a piracy release group with a reputation for screener leaks, eventually coincided with the collapse and assumed permanent demise of the screener scene late 2022.

And Then Two Come Along at Once

Seeing the word SCREENER in a release title is rare these days, seeing two within minutes of each other even more so. A long time TF reader wasted no time tipping us off about two leaks last evening, in one case less than five minutes after initial release, the other in just under eight.

September 5 premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival late August 2024. Distributed by Paramount (IMDb), the movie enjoyed a limited theatrical run in the United States starting December 13, 2024, before a wider release on January 17, 2025.

Focused on the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972, September 5 received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

Typically distributed alongside pirate releases, the ‘NFO’ file above provides information on the nature of the screener and subsequent leak. ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the name of the group responsible for the release. The group is known for its releases on peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent; this release appeared on the private tracker iPT and at the time, there were no reports of an earlier appearance elsewhere.

The title tag ‘WEB-DL’ is an indication that the copy was downloaded (rather than ripped) from an online source, potentially an online screener viewing platform. Paramount operates a service for precisely that purpose, but there’s no information to suggest any specific origin.

The suggestion that the source of the screener was “a friend” isn’t especially helpful in its own right, but a clear mention of Portuguese subtitles is somewhat unusual. We’ll return to that in a moment.

Welcome to the MPA

For long-time MPA member Paramount, having a screener leaked online won’t come as any surprise. For Amazon MGM Studios, which became the seventh member of the MPA last September, its most recent addition since Netflix joined in 2019, the leak of a Nickel Boys screener is something new (IMDb).

Nickel Boys received a Best Motion Picture – Drama nomination at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards, and a Best Picture nomination at the 97th Academy Awards.

At least potentially, this leak may be an unfortunate one-off for Amazon MGM Studios, but still one too many.

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

The ‘NFO’ file available alongside this screener release indicates that ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the group behind it. The release was first seen on private tracker iPT with no earlier appearances elsewhere, at least as far as we know.

Made available in 1080p, it’s claimed that like September 5, the Nickel Boys screener was downloaded from an online source (WEB-DL) and distributed via P2P with English subtitles.

The inclusion of ‘remuxed’ (copied without changes) Portuguese subtitles is common to the leak of September 5. However, the Nickel Boys’ English subtitles are hardcoded, meaning that the viewer can’t easily turn them off to enjoy the switchable subtitles in Portuguese.

Given the choice, it seems likely that COLLECTiVE would have made both subtitles switchable, a strong indication that the source copy had English subtitles burned in by default.

Whether that means COLLECTiVE has a specific interest in catering to a Portuguese-speaking audience remains unclear. However, it’s an interesting coincidence when one considers that EVO, the prolific screener release group mentioned earlier, is believed to have been led from Portugal, at least until its demise three years ago.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Nearly a decade ago, the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

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. Instead, it deals with unauthorized installations.

It all started in 2008 when the US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’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 U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages for the alleged unauthorized use.

The Court initially ruled in favor of the government, but Bitmanagement appealed. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable.

This meant that the matter was reverted to the Federal Claims court, to determine an appropriate damages amount. This part of the legal battle was just as crucial, as potential damages ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100 million.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

Bitmanagement told the court that it is entitled to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages. The figure was based on more than 600,000 copies of the software allegedly installed by the Navy, multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

The U.S. Government disagreed. To counter the software company, it brought forward expert witness David Kennedy. After reviewing various log files, Mr. Kennedy concluded that the software was used by a few hundred unique users at most.

The witness further argued that a price of up to $200 per license would likely have been reasonable. The amount was lower than the $370 per install previously quoted, but warranted due to the large number of licenses involved.

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

The Federal Claims Court ultimately went along with the Government’s position, awarding $154,400 in damages.

The damages figure is based on 635 unique users and a license fee of $200. The court also awarded an additional $350 for each of the 100 simultaneous-use licenses the Navy would have agreed to.

The court stressed that its damages calculation was based on objective considerations, characterizing it as “fair and reasonable”. Bitmanagement had a different take and requested a higher damages award at the Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached its decision. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the $154,400 award was correct.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages figure, noting that the law does not require every award of copyright damages to be on a per-copy basis.

“No case that we or the parties have identified, in this or any other circuit, requires that an award of copyright damages invariably be on a per-copy basis,” the decision notes.

The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims did not err when it required Bitmanagement, rather than the Navy, to prove how much the U.S. Navy used the software. Finally, the court was within its right to admit the testimony of the government’s expert witness.

“We have considered Bitmanagement’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm,” the court concludes.

While this is certainly a unique case, it’s not the first time the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. The Government was previously accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of the verdict released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available here (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

After decades of work, supporting a stated mission to destroy online piracy, rightsholders today understand the enormous task ahead. A few prominent outliers aside, more pragmatic terms to describe ongoing anti-piracy work, may even be gaining traction.

A staple of law enforcement agencies everywhere, ‘disruption’ is perhaps the most accurate term to describe successes in the context of an expansive, oversupplied, yet adaptive piracy market. The term acknowledges hard-fought gains on one hand, yet doesn’t imply permanent damage on the other.

Japan’s manga publishers are engaged in the same fight, but from a starting position where piracy ‘damage’ was effectively almost total. The scale of ‘disruption’ required in this context takes on a whole new dimension.

For years, pirate sites obtained pirated manga, and distributed translated versions to underserved fans in the West to satisfy demand. That exploited and then exploded a market that in relative terms barely existed.

This unique position for manga publishers isn’t simply about limiting how much pirates can bite from existing business, but a fight to be properly compensated as the market leaders, in a market already dominated by their own products.

Unlicensed Distributors, Illegal Competition

Last summer, Japan-based anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) revealed that 1,332 pirate sites, most dedicated to manga, were pulling in billions of annual visits. A relatively small number of the sites dominated the market. Of that total, an estimated 294 sites were described as catering to the Japanese market.

As the latest data from ABJ shows that 2024 began well. A series of achievements had led to fewer accesses to pirate sites from inside Japan. After the appearance of multiple large sites in June, it took less than six months to wipe out the gains of the past several years, and beyond that.

Image credit:ABJ [TF translations in bold]

While events like these are not unexpected, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on morale. Yet, if that’s part of the equation in Japan, there’s no evidence of that in public, nor is there any deviation from the long-term plan.

In the meantime, pressure on pirate sites continues.

Back in Court Once Again

Any pirate site of significance will appear on the radar of CODA, an anti-piracy group affiliated with the MPA. CODA represents the largest manga publishers in Japan – Shueisha, Shogakukan, Kadokawa, and Kodansha (in no particular order) – and when investigations call for new, additional, or potential information, one company is called upon to supply it more than any other.

Cloudflare is used by millions of sites and, any sample that large, will of course contain questionable players. A subset of those sites are some of the largest piracy platforms in the world. Cloudflare’s reasons for allowing them to retain service are well known and remain a point of friction among rightsholders, including those in Japan.

Image credit: CODA/Bunka

Becoming embroiled in the disputes of a relatively small number of users, is the gateway to much more of the same, involving much bigger groups with a diverse range of motivations. As a result, Cloudflare hands over personal information in copyright cases upon receipt of a valid DMCA subpoena.

On January 22, 2025, Shueisha filed a new DMCA subpoena application at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The table at the foot of the article lists the domains for which Shuesiha is requesting a range of identifying information, as follows:

name(s), last known address(es), last known telephone and/or cell phone number(s), any and all email address(es); account number(s); billing information (including, but not limited to, names, telephone number(s), and mailing and billing address(es) of each of all of the payment methods (including, but not limited to, credit cards, bank accounts, and any online payments system), hosting provider(s), server(s), any other contact information and any and all logs of IP address(es), relating to each individual or business entity that operates or owns each of the Infringing URLs, and each individual or business entity that has hosted content, uploaded content, and/or has contracted with others to upload or host content using the Infringing URLs, from any and all sources, including without limitation billing or administrative records with timestamps from the time of the registration of each Infringing URL until the date of this subpoena.

 

2. All access log information (IP addresses, corresponding port numbers, corresponding dates and times, access type, and corresponding destination IP addresses) relating to each of the Infringing URLs listed below.

In various forms, similar requests have previously targeted linked/similar domains, possibly on two or more occasions.

With an abundance of patience and a massive market to secure, two or twenty more occasions shouldn’t be ruled out. Likewise, the chance of malware infection (or phishing attempt) upon visiting at least one but potentially any of URLs listed below, without checking first.

Domains/URLs listed for disclosure

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

The latest wave of the UK government’s Copyright Infringement Tracker study was expected a year ago. There’s still no indication when it will arrive, or even if it will arrive at all, a shame considering interest generated by previous reports.

That said, the first three weeks of 2025 has seen the publication of other IP-focused reports, including the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) 2022/23 Report and Accounts and its Innovation and Growth Report 2023/24.

Neither provide fuel for our reporting niche quite like the Infringement Tracker, but one interesting nugget concerning the funding of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) warranted a closer look.

IPO’s ‘Surplus’ Millions Fund PIPCU

The IPO’s publicatiob notes that BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ” can utilize IPO surpluses through taking additional dividends and currently does so to fund other IP related initiatives.”

The report states that the arrangement covers PIPCU’s funding requirements, as shown in the extract below.

While BEIS no longer exists, having been replaced by three new departments in 2023, PIPCU’s funding arrangement seems unchanged. City of London Police currently lists the IPO as PIPCU’s funding provider, with an annual figure of £2,053,000.

Whether that figure covers all operational costs is unclear. PIPCU launched in 2013 with annual funding of £2.56 million, with an increase to £3.39 million reported in 2019. Since City of London Police can generate income through commercial partnerships, charging for services, and recovery through the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), additional funding may be available from elsewhere (pdf).

With fraud online now at record highs, City of London Police as a whole is clearly busy. On the IP crime front lines specifically, PIPCU may be busier that its intermittent press releases seem to suggest.

PIPCU Fights Fraud First, Pirates Handled Later

Details of some PIPCU activities appear in several official reports; the National Lead Force Performance Report, and the Economic & Cyber Crime Committee’s Communications & Strategic Engagement report, for example.

From the volumes reported, tackling online scams and insurance fraud consumes significant resources at City of London Police. At least in public reporting, tackling online piracy seems to receive less attention. However, when police engage the public on issues that include piracy, a dedicated social media team monitors for engagement and the results are reported accordingly.

One example featured an appearance in the media, which aimed to highlight the dangers of illegal streaming in support of a “partner agency.”

“DCI Gary Robinson was quoted in ITV News, Independent, Express, The Sun, Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Metro, LADbible and several others after [City of London Police] contributed to a partner agency’s press announcement on the risks associated with using illegal streaming services,” a Communications & Strategic Engagement update notes.

The ‘partner agency’ goes unnamed but ‘Federation Against Copyright Theft’ seems a perfect fit for the scenario. It may also go some way towards explaining the sudden and massive interest in piracy over the past couple of years, much of it on display in the publications mentioned above.

Police Authority Board – Commissioner’s Update Reports

A subsequent Commissioner’s Update Report reveals significant action against a pirate IPTV provider. While there are similarities with reported events, we can’t be 100% sure which case this refers to, and the same goes for the other cases mentioned below. There’s no doubting their importance, however.

“The team took down a very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider alongside partners at Sky TV. This was one of the UK’s biggest illegal streaming operations,” the statement reads.

“Losses to the TV broadcaster will be counted in the millions of pounds. Over two operations there have been three arrests and large data capacity servers seized.”

A similar update three months later notes that “PIPCU attended a EUROPOL conference in Romania to discuss joint Investigations/operations against criminal activities concerning IPTV” and other illegal streaming.

“PIPCU advised on how European law enforcement authorities can enhance their response against the threat of illegal television streaming networks and to identify and tackle Organized Crime Groups behind this criminality.”

Further Updates on Pirate IPTV Cases

Subsequent reports provide additional information on what appears to be the same case. There’s no additional information available beyond the following quotes, but the combination of details sound very familiar.

“[The case is an] investigation into illegal IPTV streaming involving the top tier, which includes a father and son and an in- law. Similarly, the suspected benefit figure runs over £4m with a restraint order of £1.68m. There are 86 accounts so far identified.”

“Op Talos – Very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) illegal TV streaming and money laundering – Final restraint figure now confirmed at £1.6m, this is the biggest restraint in PIPCU’s 10 year history”

In addition to [Op]eration Talos, PIPCU also mentioned [Op]eration Delaware, which reportedly targeted what was “believed to be the UK’s largest Illegal streaming service causing losses to the industry of £17 million a year.”

This illegal TV network “had millions of global users,” the report concludes.

In another PIPCU case, the restraint and confiscation of £186,182, relating to the sale of ‘counterfeit IPTV set-top boxes’, sits among others in the shade of the cases detailed above. Nevertheless, it still carries value as a potential source of additional funding, on top of any surplus cash supplied by the Intellectual Property Office.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

1fichier
 

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new ‘infringing’ links were reported, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

Failed to comply

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Launched last year, Italy’s elaborate ‘Piracy Shield‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive, Cloudflare, and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile, calls for more transparency and accountability are growing.

Tech Industry Sounds Alarm Bell

Yesterday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) sounded the alarm. In a letter addressed to the EU Commission, the coalition of tech industry companies, including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, shared grave concerns.

The European branch of CCIA acknowledges that Piracy Shield aims to protect rightsholders. However, they argue that the ‘blunt’ DNS and IP blocking measures represent a threat to other companies and the public.

“While this approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, it relies on IP address and domain name system (DNS)-level blocking, making it a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement,” CCIA writes.

In addition, extending the blocking scheme to DNS resolvers and VPN providers is seen as a major concern. These tools are not suited to carry out blocking measures, CCIA says, as they are fundamental to the protection of free expression.

CCIA emphasizes that concerns about overblocking are not hypothetical, as the Piracy Shield is already wreaking havoc. It cites the aforementioned Google Drive blockade, which affected millions of Italians and took hours to resolve.

“On 20 October 2024, Google Drive was mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield system, causing a three-hour blackout for all Italian users, while 13.5% of users were still blocked at the IP level, and 3% were blocked at the DNS level after 12 hours.”

Overblocking

Transparency, Verification & Accountability

While European Courts have previously greenlighted pirate site blocking schemes, CCIA highlights that Italy’s implementation lacks sufficient safeguards and transparency. That makes the prevention and swift correction of errors much more difficult.

The tech group also notes that Piracy Shield was developed by a company affiliated with local football league Serie A, one of the few rightsholders currently allowed to use the system. This raises concerns of whether the system adequately considers all stakeholders’ interests.

CCIA says that AGCOM, the regulator that manages Piracy Shield, should take measures to address these concerns.

“The Italian Piracy Shield should at the very least incorporate more robust verification protocols and significantly enhance transparency, as well as adequate redress mechanisms for affected users, to reduce these negative impacts.”

Problematic Reporting Obligations

In addition to matters directly related to blocking, the tech industry is concerned about recent amendments to Italian copyright law that introduce obligations that contradict the principles set forth in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

These amendments mandate all intermediary providers to report any knowledge of illegal activity, including minor copyright infringements. Failure to comply could result in up to one year of imprisonment.

According to the CCIA, these requirements introduce new obligations for companies that simply pass on traffic. It argues that these requirements go beyond EU law and will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and innovation online.

Withdraw Piracy Shield

CCIA believes that Piracy Shield and the recent legal amendments violate several EU laws. They were not submitted under the TRIS procedure either, a key element of the European Union’s single market policy when it comes to rules regarding online services.

To properly address these concerns, CCIA urges the EU Commission to engage with the Italian Government to put a halt to the anti-piracy measures, so their lawfulness can be thoroughly checked.

“The Italian government should withdraw the above-mentioned legislation in order to go through the TRIS procedure, allowing the Commission and other Member States to review the substance of these flawed and ineffective initiatives, and address their infringement of European laws,” CCIA concludes.

Withdraw
 

—

A copy of CCIA Europe’s letter is available here (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities in August 2024 was unexpected, the basis perhaps even more so.

The mere suggestion that social media operators in the United States could face arrest overseas, for the alleged misconduct of a minority of users among more than a billion, would not be well received.

According to reports, France accused a subset of Telegram users of committing a range of very serious crimes. Extending the blame to Durov personally, inaction in the face of complaints rendered him complicit, the authorities said.

Telegram’s New Leaf?

The detail of Durov’s unplanned extended French break, and how that was received behind the usually impenetrable walls of Telegram, remains mostly unclear. However, the bottom line seems to be a more flexible, perhaps even reformed Telegram, with a much-improved attitude towards content complaints, copyright notifications included.

Last September Telegram reportedly removed allegedly-infringing messages from Z-Library’s channel for copyright infringement. Telegram struck again earlier this month, deleting channels operated by Z-Library and fellow shadow library, Anna’s Archive.

RuTracker? Surely Not..

This week Russian media outlets reported that a similar fate had befallen RuTracker, a veteran torrent index/tracker still going strong after celebrating its 20th birthday last September.

First reported by CNews, the publication said that Telegram had “destroyed” RuTracker’s channel. That sits in stark contrast to the image below, which shows an early promotion of the channel on Twitter in 2017.

The body of the article clarifies that the channel was blocked and no longer appears in Telegram’s search results. CNews further reports that subscribers to the channel, over 27,900 according to Telegram data, can no longer access the channel’s content either.

Instead, they’re reportedly greeted by a message, stating that “This channel is unavailable due to copyright infringement.” A report published at Habr.com reports along the same lines, this time with an accompanying screenshot.

RuTracker’s attitude to copyright complaints previously earned the site a place on Russia’s blocklist. Operated by telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor, the list now features RuTracker as a permanent fixture, an inevitable response to ongoing infringement and zero compliance.

Telegram Means Little to RuTracker

While there are plenty of reports in Russia media concerning the blocking of RuTracker, our tests from outside Russia failed early Tuesday but on Wednesday, passed with flying colors.

Given that site-blocking is widespread in Russia, almost anything is possible. Interestingly, the supposed reason for the block – copyright infringement, according to reports – seems highly unlikely to have been triggered by a valid complaint.

On January 19, issues with the main RuTracker site, which operates separately from Telegram, prompted RuTracker staff to post a message about the issues to the channel, followed by an update a few minutes later.

No further posts have appeared since then, but that deserves more context.

Site Doesn’t Use Telegram Very Often

The post above that begins by addressing “Friends” is preceded by another bearing good news. “The service has been restored! If you have problems accessing the forum, clear your browser cache and cookies,” it reads.

That post is dated January 27, 2023, suggesting that RuTracker made little to no use of the channel during the last two years. Two short posts further back still is another marking RuTracker’s 18th birthday. It’s dated September 18, 2022.

That celebration was viewed 286,200 times; this week’s post was viewed 6,500 times.

As a famous Russian once said: If it dies, it dies.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in ongoing piracy liability lawsuits against Frontier Communications and other internet providers.

For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors’ comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.

Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the initial attempt, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.

The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, on several occasions and for varying reasons.

Court of Appeals

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal.

In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users’ IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringements.  

“Particularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier’s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants’ Works from the IP addresses.

“Further, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier’s service and thereby rebut Frontier’s safe harbor defense,” the movie companies add.

First Amendment?

Thus far, the movie companies haven’t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a ‘de novo’ review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.

Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn’t see this as an anonymous speech matter.

“I don’t think this is a First Amendment case. It’s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,” the Judge said at a hearing.

Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn’t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts’ varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.

Reddit Responds

Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court’s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.

In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato’s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.

“The anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the ‘advocacy of illegal acts’ is ‘within the First Amendment’s core’,” Reddit writes in its answer.

Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the ‘First Amendment’ or the ‘undue burden’ argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.

“This Court should affirm the district court’s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,” Reddit notes.

EFF Chimes In

Reddit’s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for ‘undue burden’ but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.

EFF warns that Judge Donato’s remark shouldn’t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding anonymous speech.

“It is well established that the First Amendment’s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.

“It is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,” EFF adds.

Movie Companies Double Down

Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.

The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.

“The Reddit users’ comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of ‘deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,” they write.

In addition, the movie companies deny that there’s any “unmasking” involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of the referenced opening brief is available here (pdf). Here are copies of Reddit’s response (pdf), EFF’s amicus curiae brief (pdf), and the movie companies’ reply (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Over the past two years, AI development has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that many rightsholders had concerns over the unauthorized use of their copyright works. Creatives including photographers, artists, musicians, journalists, and authors, responded by filed copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of obtaining books from ‘pirate’ sources, including the controversial Books3 database and shadow library LibGen.

Meta Acknowledges ‘Pirate’ Sourcing Early On

One of the most intriguing cases, especially for those interested in the piracy angle, is the class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. The authors accuse Meta of using their work without permission.

While this may sound problematic to some, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta didn’t beat around the bush. More than a year ago the company admitted that unofficial sources, comprised of pirated content, were used as training input.

Crucially, however, Meta denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

“To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs’ registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107,” Meta said in its early response.

A Spotlight on Meta’s Torrenting Activity

The fair use defense will be central in many AI copyright infringement lawsuits. AI companies generally believe that use of ‘public’ data as training inputs is justified. They characterize the use as transformative and argue that it doesn’t compete with the original market for these works.

Whether that is indeed the case is a question that may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, rightsholders in this lawsuit have raised additional allegations of copyright infringement.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs asked for permission to submit a third amended complaint. After uncovering Meta’s use of BitTorrent to source copyright-infringing training data from pirate shadow library, LibGen, the request was justified, they argued.

Specifically, the authors say that Meta willingly used BitTorrent to download pirated books from LibGen, knowing that was legally problematic. As a result, Meta allegedly shared copies of these books with other people, as is common with the use of BitTorrent.

“By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.

“Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”

Seeded

Court Greenlights Torrent Piracy Probe

Meta believed that the allegations weren’t sufficiently new to warrant an update to the complaint. The company argued that it was already a well-known fact that it used books from these third-party sources, including LibGen.

However, the authors maintained that the ‘torrent’ angle is novel and important enough to warrant an update. Last week, United States District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed, allowing the introduction of these new allegations.

In addition to greenlighting the amended complaint, the Judge also allowed the authors to conduct further testimony on the “seeding” angle.

“[E]vidence about seeding is relevant to the existing claim because it is potentially relevant to the plaintiffs’ assertion of willful infringement or to Meta’s fair use defense,” Judge Chhabria wrote last week.

Authors Want Meta’s Torrent Client Logs and Seeding Data

With the court recognizing the relevance of Meta’s torrenting activity, the plaintiffs requested reconsideration of an earlier order, where discovery on BitTorrent-related matters was denied.

Through a filing submitted last Wednesday, the plaintiffs hope to compel Meta to produce its BitTorrent logs and settings, including peer lists and seeding data.

“The Order denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of torrenting data, including Meta’s BitTorrent client, application logs, and peer lists. This data will evidence how much content Meta torrented from shadow libraries and how much it seeded to third parties as a host of this stolen IP,” they write.

While archiving lists of seeders is not a typical feature for a torrent client, the authors are requesting Meta to disclose any relevant data.

In addition, they also want the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the crime-fraud exception. That’s important, they suggest, as Meta’s legal counsel was allegedly involved in matters related to torrenting.

“Meta, with the involvement of in-house counsel, decided to obtain copyrighted works without permission from online databases of copyrighted works that ‘we know to be pirated, such as LibGen’, they write.

Modified Settings

The authors allege that this involved “seeding” files and that Meta attempted to “conceal its actions” by limiting the amount of data shared with the public. One Meta employee also asked for guidance, as “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right.”

Meta as Distributor

With the addition of a torrent angle, the amended complaint adds a new element to the case. One that could potentially be crucial, particularly for the fair use defense.

The plaintiffs now accuse Meta of operating as a distributor of the pirated works. While that has little to do with how the works were used to train AI, it’s a copyright claim, nonetheless, and one that might be harder to defend as fair use.

Whether this will substantially change the case has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fuel for legal fireworks. That said, these torrent allegations are just a small fraction of the case, which will be fought tooth and nail by both sides.

—

A copy of the plaintiffs’motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order submitted on January 15, is available here (pdf). A copy of the third-amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Kraven The Hunter” is the most shared title.

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

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Official figures on exactly how many people have been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for piracy-linked offenses, are not easily obtained in the UK.

Indeed, disclosure in response to FOIA requests seems to become more difficult when petty offending results in no arrests, or when suspects are later released without charge.

When it comes to those who sell or resell subscriptions or operate illegal IPTV services, the last couple of years have seen a fairly dramatic uptick in successful prosecutions and convictions. At this point even the term ‘major crackdown’ is justified.

No country in Europe spends the same kind of money as the UK, either through allocation of police resources, or the refunding of millions in expenses mostly incurred by Sky and the Premier League, during numerous private prosecutions.

Man Sentenced for ‘Sophisticated’ Pirate IPTV Operation

At Birmingham Crown Court last week, Gary McNally, 55, was sentenced to two years and nine months for running a ‘sophisticated’ pirate IPTV service from his home in Acocks Green, Birmingham. The platform, identified as Each Online by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, was uncovered during an investigation by broadcaster Sky.

The platform operated between November 2017 and June 2020, capturing Sky’s attention due to McNally’s use of legitimate NOW TV accounts to obtain content straight from the source, rather than relying on a third party illicit supplier. That makes the prosecution quite rare by UK standards but also exposes people like McNally to new content-based risks, and an increased risk of being exposed elsewhere.

For example, high capacity broadband connectivity to a residential dwelling, at a cost of £400+ each month, would’ve been fairly difficult to account for. It would not, however, be too difficult to consume. Streaming Sky Sports, Sky Movies, and many other channels 24/7 may not be massively unusual as far as downloading goes, but there’s no credible explanation for upstream traffic at those levels, even with upstream servers elsewhere.

McNally Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of Fraud

McNally appeared at Birmingham Crown Court in March 2024, pleading guilty two counts of making articles for use in fraud, contrary to Section 7(1)(b) of the Fraud Act 2006.

A person is guilty of an offense if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud

McNally was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Matt Hibbert, Group Director of Anti-Piracy at Sky, thanked the police for their work and promised to continue the fight against piracy.

“We are grateful to the West Midlands Police for acting so robustly to take down a highly sophisticated illegal streaming operation,” Hibbert said. “We will continue to work with law enforcement to protect our content and help keep consumers safe from criminal piracy networks.”

A statement from West Midlands Police followed along similar lines. “We will work with partners wherever possible to disrupt criminal activity, and we hope this case sends a warning message to anyone involved in this kind of criminal enterprise.”

Initial Estimates a Little High

An interesting final note from Sky seemed to suggest perhaps a slim chance of further action.

Two other individuals were arrested alongside McNally. One person has since been released with no further action. A second person has been released pending further investigation.

When McNally was raided in 2021, two other people – a 35-year-old man and a 40-year-old woman – were detained on suspicion of copyright infringement, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

According to a BBC report at the time, West Midlands Police and FACT “spent months planning raids at two addresses in Birmingham.” The reason for such a major commitment is described by the BBC as follows:

Three people have been arrested after raids to dismantle what authorities called a major illegal streaming network.
Hundreds of thousands of people are thought to have used the service.
FACT said the streaming platform was believed to have provided more than 100 pirate TV services, allowing illegal access to premium content.

The Court heard that the number of subscribers was a bit lower than that, as FACT reveals.

“During a single world championship boxing match broadcast by Sky in February 2018, McNally claimed to have, over 2,000 subscribers to his illegal service.”

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Nearly a year has passed since Italy officially implemented ‘Piracy Shield‘, a system that aims to deter and decrease live sports streaming piracy.

Since last February, Piracy Shield has blocked access to thousands of IP-addresses and domain names associated with unauthorized broadcasts.

This massive blocking operation is seen as a grandiose success by the authorities and many participating rightsholders. There were some mishaps, including repeated instances of widespread overblocking, but these were regarded as unavoidable teething problems.

‘Piracy Shield’ Expansion

There are no signs that ‘Piracy Shield’ will lose importance anytime soon. On the contrary, there are calls to expand the system beyond the protection of live football matches to many other types of content, movie premieres and live TV, for example.

At the same time, stakeholders are working to enhance the impact of the program through various legal efforts and collaborative discussion. VPNs were brought into the mix recently, along with DNS services, Cloudflare and others. Broader blockades are better blockades, the theory goes.

Telecoms regulator AGCOM, which is in charge of the blocking system, actively reaches out to various stakeholders. Earlier this week, AGCOM spoke to Brian Turnbow of CDLAN, a technology company that operates cloud and hosting solutions, among other things.

What was said during the call has not been disclosed, but the discussion prompted Turnbow to look more closely at Piracy Shield’s achievements thus far. That led to some interesting findings.

”Piracy Shield’ Blocks, So it Works

To put these findings in context, it’s important to understand how an ‘effective anti-piracy blocking program’ should be defined.

AGCOM and other backers have pointed out that Piracy Shield works because it blocks pirate domain names and IP addresses, which decreases traffic to these sources. Therefore, it ‘lowers’ piracy by definition. Obstruo, ergo efficax sum.

However, reality doesn’t always reflect this tautological line of reasoning. While traffic to blocked services might indeed decline, people may have moved to other unblocked sources. And even if illegal traffic overall is down as an early study suggested, a drop in piracy doesn’t necessarily lead to more paying customers.

This is where Turnbow comes in again. After his call with AGCOM, he shared some data from the regulator’s own quarterly report. This can be used to argue that the success of the year-long blocking effort is less spectacular than assumed.

Skeptical Eye Spots Little Progress

Turnbow’s own ‘investigation’ isn’t complex either. But instead of focusing on the repressive elements, he checked if Piracy Shield positively impacted legal streaming services. He was particularly interested in DAZN’s viewership, as they hold the rights to Serie A content, which is a key player in the blocking program.

There was little data crunching involved, as the bar charts clearly show that the number of DAZN subscribers didn’t go up in 2024. The same applies to the hours watched, which was flat too.

“The number of users post piracy shield in 2024 is the same as 2023.. no gains. The number of hours watched in 2024 is the same as 2023, again no gain. 2024 overall is below 2022 when there was no piracy shield,” Turnbow notes.

The only noticeable increase he could find was in the subscription price, which wasn’t reported by AGCOM. That reportedly went up from €40.99 to €44.99 at DAZN.

“So after 12 months, the data says ISPs sustained costs to implement the service, no users or hours gained for DAZN, and higher prices for end users,” the LinkedIn post reads.

The data

Wanted: A Nuanced Discussion

Turnbow doesn’t claim to have shared groundbreaking conclusions. Besides, this type of cherry-picking is also selective, and opponents could argue that subscribers could have actually dropped significantly, without the anti-piracy measures.

That said, the skeptical LinkedIn post shows that online intermediaries aren’t simply going along with a broad blocking program, without taking a critical look at what they’re getting themselves into.

If the past year has shown anything, it’s that a lack of nuance, transparency, and openness to feedback, can end up being counterproductive. Extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum often block real progress.

The fact that the tip-off for this article came from a major representative of a prominent copyright holder group, shows how dire the situation is. Even those who have fought piracy for decades are divided; the Piracy Shield effect seems reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years.

News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend