The “Infringing Website List” (IWL) was launched in March 2014 as part of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s (PIPCU) efforts to combat intellectual property crime.

The IWL is a component of Operation Creative, a multi-agency initiative led by PIPCU at City of London Police, with support from partners across the creative and advertising industries.

Based on input from industry groups including the MPA, BPI/IFPI, FACT, and the Publishers Association, operators of pirate sites are engaged directly by officers from PIPCU. In most cases we’re aware of, site operators receive an email outlining their activities alongside allegations of crimes under various pieces of legislation. They are then advised to shut down before the situation gets worse.

Pirates Can Be Very Persistent

While Operation Creative has been financed from the public purse for over a decade, almost no information is made available to the public. As a result, it’s impossible to say how many sites shut down after the initial contact, or if any do at all. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that many ignore the ultimatum and carry on regardless.

Non-compliance isn’t unexpected; in many cases those behind the targeted sites don’t live in the UK, or even in Europe. Operation Creative says it responds with a multi-stage disruption process that begins with action against domains, hosting providers, and payment providers, and ends in enforcement. The details of that process and the factors used to measure success are not for public consumption.

Operation Creative Portal Set For a Makeover

Stubborn sites are placed on the Infringing Website List, primarily as a reminder for advertisers not to business. The IWL also offers a narrow window of transparency into an otherwise opaque operation. Transparency isn’t intentional but when a list containing thousands of domains is distributed to more than 700 advertisers, gambling businesses, and other interested parties, information can be hard to contain.

The 10th anniversary of Operation Creative and the all-important IWL passed silently earlier this year. In the background, however, important work was underway; the procurement of an all new Operation Creative Portal.

The process began late 2023 with a soft market testing exercise followed by the publication of the listing above mid-April 2024. The contract was eventually awarded to Bristol-based Calvium Limited, which according to its website already works with the NHS and the Department of Transport. Depending on whether extensions are granted after the initial three years, the contract is worth between £173,600 and £221,600.

The good news for the mostly overseas rightsholders set to benefit from the new portal, is that the cost of tackling the mostly overseas pirate sites on the Infringing Website List, will be paid from the UK public purse. To what extent anyone benefits from the program hasn’t been reported regularly, or even at all.

A report published last year indicated that the program prevented sites on the IWL receiving £6m in ad revenue from the UK. Averaged out, that could mean every platform lost £3000+ in revenue. For some lower end sites that could be devastating but without context, the overall effect could’ve been minimal too, there’s simply no way to tell.

Effective Or Not, The List is Quite Big

When data is withheld from the public as a matter of policy, attempting to assess that a site’s presence on the IWL is detrimental to its health amounts to a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, even without a single shred of evidence it’s safe to assume that no site placed on the list in the last decade will have drawn any benefit from that.

Subject to the caveats mentioned previously, we estimate that from the list’s launch in early 2014 to early October 2024, more than 8,130 domains have appeared on the IWL.

In some cases several domains, each with their own individual entry, relate to the same underlying platform, so 8,130 domains does not mean 8,130 sites have appeared on the list. Without access to every list ever produced, the total number of sites cannot be deduced, period.

Identifying the types of sites that have appeared on the list since the beginning faces the same issues. We can say with some certainty that at the start of October this year, the list contained ~1,800 domains. We can also confirm that new additions in 2024 are dominated by IPTV-related domains, endless web-based live sports streaming portals, the usual movie and TV show platforms, and the bane of the music industry, YouTube-ripping services.

Some Platforms Seem Immune

While the top of the IWL is subject to almost constant change, at the very bottom of the list very little seems to happen.

Without reference to domain extensions, the numbering system indicates that soccer365 was the 16th domain to be added to the IWL back in February 2014. While the 15 domains added earlier have disappeared, between July and September this year, soccer365 pulled in 45.8 million visits.

Others at the bottom include a well known file-hosting site added to the list in June 2014. Due to a UK court order, it’s been blocked by local ISPs for a decade and never appears in local search results after being deindexed by Google. Others include a handful of world-famous torrent sites (also blocked and deindexed), two music sites that simply refuse to die (blocked and deindexed), and at least one sports streaming site.

Something Everyone Could Benefit From

The IWL contains the domains of some very large sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue from the UK, or indeed anywhere else. Money is made by diverting some users of those sites to phishing portals where they’re encouraged to enter their social media and other credentials into look-a-like platforms.

That inevitably generates profit for the sites, at the expense of people in the UK. The remarkable element here is that servers connected to that activity have UK IP addresses. Just an observation really.

Finally, domains on the IWL that suspiciously divert to exactly the same website.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare provides a range of connectivity and security services to customers around the globe.

This includes millions of organizations, including 30% of Fortune 500 companies, as well as various government agencies. These customers are generally pleased with the service they receive but Cloudflare has also faced criticism over the years.

Copyright holders, for example, have pointed out that the San Francisco-based company is offering its services to pirates. Many of the world’s largest pirate platforms use Cloudflare as a shield against attacks and to save bandwidth in the process. According to the complaints, this complicates piracy enforcement.

EU Piracy Watch List

A few weeks ago, various rightsholders shared their Cloudflare concerns with the European Commission. The EU requested input for its biannual ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’, allowing stakeholders to nominate piracy-affiliated sites and services for inclusion.

In addition to traditional pirate sites, many rightsholders mentioned Cloudflare as a key problem. They accuse the company of indirectly facilitating piracy and shielding the identities of pirate site operators.

For example, music group IFPI complained that while Cloudflare discloses the hosting locations of pirate sites in response to abuse reports, it doesn’t voluntarily share the identity of these pirate customers with rightsholders.

“Where IFPI needs to obtain the customer’s contact information, Cloudflare will only disclose these details following a subpoena or court order – i.e. these disclosures are mandated by law and are not an example of the service’s goodwill or a policy or measures intended to assist IP rights holders,” IFPI wrote.

Video Games Europe offered similar criticism, informing the EU that Cloudflare continues to act as an important intermediary in the delivery of pirated content, without voluntarily sharing private customer details.

“Cloudflare does provide injured parties/trusted partners with the IP-address and name of the host ISP of an infringing website, but does not provide the contact details of the website operators nor cease to render services to these customers,” the group noted.

Cloudflare Responds to EU Commission

Cloudflare is aware of the critique. However, the company doesn’t believe that it should assume the role of anti-piracy arbiter or judge whether rightsholders complaints are valid. Aside from the legal complications, it believes that privacy rights deserve some level of protection.

Rightsholders have increasingly used the EU and US piracy watch list consultations to argue for greater cooperation from online intermediaries. That applies to sharing of customer details, as well as more advanced “know your customer” policies.

The MPA also made a point of this in its submission to the EU Commission, where it listed several key piracy enforcement points.

Cloudflare, however, believes that the EU’s Piracy Watch list should solely focus on bad actors; pirate sites and services. It should not be used as a platform to demand policy change.

“The Commission should not issue a report – even an informal one – that is simply a mechanism for particular stakeholders to air their grievances that entities are not taking particular voluntary action to meet their concerns or to advocate for new policies.”

“Our view is that the Commission’s staff document and Watch List should be limited to Commission-verified allegations of illegal behavior, based on principled and fair legal standards,” Cloudflare adds.

Cloudflare is worried that if concerns about intermediaries are mentioned in the Watch List, even when the Commission doesn’t support them, it will be seen it as an endorsement. This could be used by rightsholders to influence policy discussions elsewhere.

Piracy vs. privacy

Cloudflare warns the EU against copyright holders’ broad generalizations that only focus on the downsides of technology. Those fail to recognize the value of innovative technologies that aim to increase privacy and security for the broader public.

The video game industry, for example, complained that enabling privacy feature Encrypted Client Hello (‘ECH’) makes it hard to block pirate sites. The same technology, on the other hand, greatly benefits user privacy.

“Restricting progress and adoption of new technology tools that help protect the privacy and security of citizens operating online in order to continue the use of outdated means to combat piracy is short-sighted, and bad for Europe’s long term economic development,” Cloudflare notes.

The EU should be exceedingly wary of proposals that limit user privacy and security, to combat piracy. There’s an important trade-off to make either way, one that should not be taken lightly.

Problems still exist without Cloudflare

Concerns aside, Cloudflare stresses that it is open to collaboration with rightsholders and law enforcement. The company has a trusted reporter program, for example, which currently counts roughly 200 organizations.

When these trusted parties report copyright infringements that take place though its reverse proxy and CDN service, Cloudflare shares additional information on the targets, including the origin IP-address of sites in question.

The company doesn’t terminate customer accounts for which it receives multiple complaints. It is not legally obliged to do so and disconnecting customers wouldn’t make much of a difference, the company argues.

Ultimately, pirate sites and services are hosted by third party providers. Taking away the Cloudflare service doesn’t change that.

All in all, Cloudflare believes that sharing hosting provider details in response to piracy complaints is sufficient. It puts rightsholders in the same position they are with any other site or service that doesn’t use its service.

“We believe it is time for rightsholders to shift their comments away from policy advocacy to focus instead on the physical and online markets and websites that are the intended subject of the Watch List report,” Cloudflare concludes.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s letter to the European Commission, responding to the critique from rightsholders, 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 During 2010/2011, opportunity arose for Hollywood to convince the High Court in London that site-blocking would be a proportionate response to tackle a single Usenet indexing site called Newzbin.

As rightsholders offered assurances that the action would be carefully targeted and strictly limited in scope, the requested injunction was granted in October 2011. Within 14 days, ISP BT would implement blocking to prevent six million customers from accessing the site in the UK. That was a landmark win for the studios; it also laid the foundations for something bigger.

Whether the High Court would’ve acted any differently is unclear, but it certainly wasn’t informed in advance that its decision would effectively seed site-blocking on a global scale, while acting as an official seal of approval.

Not only did the injunction eventually lead to the blocking of tens of thousands of domains locally, the High Court’s decision was used to convince courts all around the world to do the same. Even in countries where blocking already assists mass censorship, governments are routinely encouraged to block more than they do already.

Of course, it’s never enough. Blocking is easily circumvented, which prompts calls for even more blocking. When faster blocking fails to produce results, preemptive and in some cases perpetual blocking is now accepted as normal. News that testing is underway, to block pirate IPTV devices by meddling with the internet’s core routers, is certainly depressing. What it definitely is not, however, is any kind of surprise.

Brazil Embraces Blocking

When Elon Musk and a Brazilian judge became embroiled in a bitter dispute over what can (and cannot) be said online, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered local ISPs to take action. Using tools developed in recent years to block pirate sites and piracy-configured set-top boxes, the entire X platform was rendered inaccessible in Brazil. When a blocking mechanism is so readily available, the likelihood of it being used to stifle dissent is just a button press away.

Urged on by movie studios in the United States and the global recording industry, Brazil has now fully embraced site-blocking as a convenient anti-piracy solution. Courts have been issuing orders with such frequency it’s now almost impossible to keep up. Details of the entities subjected to blocking aren’t for public consumption, a common trait of site-blocking systems which prevents accountability.

Yet, those who somehow gain access to the blocklist will discover it currently contains around 11,800 domains. The majority are related to piracy and at some others concern outlawed gambling platforms that don’t appear on Brazil’s official whitelist.

The whitelist approach also applies to Android-style set-top boxes. All such devices are now illegal by default, pending state certification authorizing their use.

Building/Blocking Communications Infrastructure

Ensuring that only authorized platforms and devices are accessible in Brazil falls to telecoms regulator Anatel.

In an interview with Tele.Sintese, outgoing Anatel board member Artur Coimbra recalls the lack of internet infrastructure in Brazil as recently as 2010. As head of the National Broadband Plan under the Ministry of Communications, that’s something he personally addressed. For Anatel today, blocking access to pirate websites and preventing unauthorized devices from communicating online is all in a day’s work.

“The topic of combating piracy has evolved significantly. We can already see the impact of this work on customer satisfaction indicators for IPTV boxes. Pirate box brands are receiving worse reviews as time goes by,” Coimbra says.

“This means that the service is getting worse, users are becoming more dissatisfied, and as a result, one day they will no longer use that pirated service. This is a great indicator of the work that Anatel has been doing.”

Automated Site-Blocking Incoming

While blocking a few sites, services, or devices can be managed manually, Coimbra says that automation is the preferred option.

“Today, orders to block pirate boxes are issued manually. We work on call and send the orders to the operators. The operators receive this and implement the IP blocking,” he explains.

“What we are going to do at this point is that these orders will no longer be manual, they will have a common system in which everyone [operators and providers] will have access to the system at the same time.”

While it can be argued that manual systems are prone to errors, automated systems are designed to need much less oversight. Whether that means fewer checks and balances remains to be seen. In general, however, limited oversight is considered a plus in the world of site-blocking.

Oversight Makes Blocking Less Efficient

After many years of putting Brazil under enormous pressure to block pirate sites, the current system involving the courts now blocks thousands of them. Yet in a typical display of incremental demands for improvement, rightsholders now want more.

In a January report to the USTR (pdf), major rightsholders urged ANATEL to “implement an effective system to tackle online piracy within Internet applications and sites based on Bill of Law #3696/2023, which was signed by the President on January 15, 2024, and sets forth an administrative site-blocking provision.”

When a country’s ISPs receive their first request to block a single pirate site, using carefully targeted, strictly limited measures under the supervision of the courts, administrative blocking of tens of thousands of sites is the long-term goal.

This often means blocking measures discussed behind closed doors between mostly commercial entities, with limited or even no oversight from local courts. This is the system preferred by major rightsholders but having inspired Brazil to do more, why should it stop there?

Targeting the Internet’s Backbone

In broad terms, the ‘internet backbone’ is the core infrastructure that combines to form the foundations of the global internet. It is comprised of the fastest, most capable networks, and data travels via high capacity fiber-optics and advanced ‘core’ routers. Operated by commercial companies, government, military and educational institutions, effective backbone networks are critical to the functioning of the wider internet.

Considering the ongoing crisis in Italy where the Piracy Shield system has already caused considerable damage with nothing like the same level of access, the idea of messing with the backbone of the internet seems like a bad dream; now it’s wake-up time.

“The second step, which we still need to evaluate because some companies want it, and others are more hesitant, is to allow Anatel to have access to the core routers to place a direct order on the router,” Coimbra reveals, referencing IPTV blocking.

“In these cases, these companies do not need to have someone on call to receive the [blocking] order and then implement it.”

Already Targeting the Internet’s Backbone

Thanks to the interviewer at Tele.Sintese pressing Coimbra after his initial response, what initially sounds like a plan for the future is suddenly revealed as already underway. Will Anatel really access core routers to block IP addresses used for piracy?

“Companies that deem it convenient can give us limited access, not full access, so that we can perform these blocks directly for non-certified and non-approved equipment. Limited access so that we can only perform these blocks remotely. It would be a kind of virtual seal,” Coimbra adds.

Recall, all devices (mostly Android devices) are illegal without certification, regardless of whether they’re configured for piracy or not. So how long before something like this is actually implemented?

“Participation is voluntary. We are still testing with some companies. So, it will take some time until it actually happens,” Coimbra says. “I can’t say [how long]. Our inspection team is carrying out tests with some operators, I can’t say which ones.”

Limited to Brazil? Or Not…

Most likely quite surprised at the revelation, the interviewer inquires whether this is also happening in other countries.

“I don’t know. Maybe in Spain and Portugal, which are more advanced countries in this fight. But I don’t have that information,” Coimbra responds, randomly naming two countries with which Brazil has consulted extensively on blocking matters.

“It’s critical infrastructure, so it has to be done with great care, with a limited scope. That’s why it has to have the support of the company that feels comfortable,” he concludes.

Blocking with great care and with limited scope are the same arguments presented in London during 2010/11. Due to a lack of transparency, how many domains and IP addresses are currently blocked around the world is impossible to say. That means that it’s impossible to say whether it’s carried out with great care or not.

As for limited scope, Brazil doesn’t appear to be targeting all core routers at the moment. Spain and Portugal, of which nothing is known, may or may not have tested anything at all. By definition, then, the scope is indeed limited and arguing otherwise risks being portrayed as an alarmist who lacks respect for the creative industries.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 The potential consequences of being associated with any aspect of a pirate IPTV operation are well known. Criminal action rarely ends well for defendants, with similar outcomes seen in private prosecutions and most civil copyright lawsuits.

However, since the odds of being investigated and subsequently prosecuted are still relatively low, there’s no shortage of people willing to roll the dice in the hope of hitting the jackpot – and keeping it.

But while some embark on a journey of meticulous anonymity, supported by knowledge of geographical complications that make others vastly easier to pursue, some prefer different approaches. These can also work quite well, at least until they don’t.

New Piracy Lawsuit filed in the U.S.

Filed at a federal court in Illinois, the complaint sees DISH Network and Sling TV target Richard Moy, the alleged owner of CLVPN LLC, which ordinarily does business as City Lights Entertainment.

According to the plaintiffs’ investigation, Illinois-based Moy claimed that his IPTV reselling business was ‘USA based’ and he personally controlled the content it allegedly made available. Advertised as a “top notch” service, in which Moy had invested considerable sums of money obtaining servers and streams, subscriptions were sold both in bulk to a network of resellers or on a singular basis direct to consumers.

The Plaintiffs cite Moy’s claim of having “over 500 sellers” in the market, but the number of subscribers isn’t a rough estimate. How DISH and Sling obtained direct access to Moy’s IPTV management panel isn’t revealed in the complaint, but it’s alleged that after seeing data for themselves, they concluded that the service had over 450,000 users.

A one-month subscription purchased direct cost customers $20. Resellers were charged just a quarter of that, ensuring that they were able to return a profit after accounting for costs. The complaint claims that Moy, at least according to his own recollection, also acted as a channel supplier to other IPTV providers.

Operations Exposed

The complaint alleges that payments for the City Lights Entertainment (CLE) service were processed through Moy’s company, CLVPN LLC. Payments were accepted through Venmo, Cash App, and PayPal, some under Moy’s real name and others under aliases including “PapitoPatron” and “PapitoChacon.” A Venmo account linked to CLE recorded over 1,700 transactions, the plaintiffs note.

“Moy instructed purchasers to disguise the purpose of their payments by claiming the payments were being sent to ‘Friends NOT [for] Services’,” the complaint reads. On various Telegram groups used in connection with the IPTV service, Moy operated under the alias ‘Holmes’ and the username ‘@PapitoPatron.’ Another ‘disguise’ allegedly deployed by Moy was much more unorthodox.

“Moy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer when selling the Service,” the lawsuit adds, referencing the images below.

“Moy’s resellers were informed that he was a law enforcement officer and that message was spread in the Telegram groups, including by group moderators working for Moy. On information and belief, Moy used his alleged association with law enforcement to market the Service to users and resellers and mitigate potential concerns over the unlawfulness of the Service,” the plaintiffs note

Other measures to avoid legal repercussions included a ban on resellers displaying “videos or pictures of channel lineups” of Moy’s service on social media, and the avoidance of “red flag keywords” such as “Tv Service… IPTV, Streams, Cable etc.”

Moy allegedly alerted resellers to legal actions against other streaming services and offered advice on how best to acquire their customers. The plaintiffs claim that Moy referred to himself and his resellers as “silent assassins.”

Claims for Relief Under the DMCA

Count I alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), which concerns circumvention of technical measures. The approach has proven successful for DISH and Sling and now appears in most reseller lawsuits.

Count II alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1), which prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of devices that have no commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing technical measures.

Claim for Relief Under ECPA

Count III alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which prohibits interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The plaintiffs allege violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c)-(d) which occur when a person –

• (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…

• (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…

While not usually seen alongside alleged violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, inclusion here suggests that the plaintiffs believe there is sufficient evidence to show that a live stream was intercepted. The interpretation of “live stream” under ECPA concerns interception of a real-time transmission, rather than a stream of a live event.

At least to our knowledge, this may be a new approach by the plaintiffs. However, the civil recovery available under 2520(a) does seem to align with existing strategy.

Claims for Damages

For Counts I and II, the plaintiffs request statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and § 1201(b)(1). Should their claim of 450,000 subscribers pass muster, in theory statutory damages could reach $1,125,000,000. An award of that scale seems highly unlikely under the circumstances but could still be significant.

Statutory damages for ECPA violations are almost negligible in comparison; $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.

The complaint makes no mention of how long the alleged offending lasted, while references to the business are made in the past tense, which may suggest it no longer exists. If the alleged offending went on for a year, statutory damages could in theory reach a relatively modest $36,500.

Insufficient Facts to Determine Actual Damages

The plaintiffs may prefer actual damages and the defendant’s profits instead, added to the punitive damages they’re claiming under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(2) for the ECPA violations, of course. Without access to specific details, such as the length of the alleged offending and how much profit was made, it’s not possible to estimate the scale of any damages.

These details aren’t provided in the complaint, nor does the complaint mention any prior communication with the defendant, such and cease-and-desist notices, that type of thing. Yet in a sentence that stands out primarily for not explaining how the plaintiffs gained access to the IPTV service’s main panel, the exact number of subscribers is revealed as 450,000.

Whether further details will emerge as part of a case contested on the merits remains to be seen, but a smooth conclusion here with damages for ECPA violations intact, may come in useful at a later date.

The complaint 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

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. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on November 04 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

While search engines are extremely helpful for the average Internet user, copyright holders have also seen a massive downside.

In addition to trillions of legitimate pages, there’s a steady supply of pirate sites. These can be hard to ignore for some entertainment-hungry users.

This problem is not new. When piracy-discovery became web-based with the surge of BitTorrent in the early 2000s, search engines were unwittingly used as pirate gateways. Luckily for rightsholders, however, U.S. law provided a solution; DMCA notices.

In the hope of steering prospective pirates away from pirate sites, copyright holders began sending DMCA takedown requests to Google. These notices flag pirate links, which Google then removes from its search index.

From Hundreds to 10 Billion

These requests have increased dramatically over the years and have just hit a new milestone. According to the official transparency report, Google search has now processed takedown requests for more than 10 billion URLs.

10 billion
 

The path to 10 billion was turbulent. When Google first made DMCA details public it was processing a few million DMCA takedown requests in a year. That number swiftly increased to hundreds of millions and eventually reached a billion DMCA requests in 2016.

The exponential growth curve eventually flattened out and around 2017, the takedown volume started to decline. The decrease was in part due to various anti-piracy algorithms making pirated content less visible in search results.

By downranking pirate sites, infringing content became harder to find. As a result, Google processed fewer takedown notices, a welcome change for both rightsholders and the search engine.

The Takedown Resurgence

Today, Google continues to make pirate sites less visible in search, but the reduction in takedown notices didn’t last. On the contrary, over the past several months, Google search processed a record number of DMCA notices.

Last summer, the search giant recorded the 7 billionth takedown request and after that the numbers shot up, adding billions more in the year that followed.

The company is now handling removal requests at a rate of roughly 2.5 billion per year; a new record. This represents more than 50 million takedown requests per week and roughly 5,000 every minute.

Google Search Takedown Notices (2012-2024)

The graph above illustrates how these numbers have grown over time, with the most recent uptick on the right.

The Content Shift

Aside from volume, there are significant changes in the targeted sites as well. Initially, torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay were frequently listed, but file-hosting services and streaming portals took over later, as these have many more indexed pages.

Studies published around 2013 showed that music companies were the most frequent senders. The labels and their representatives accounted for more than 40% of all takedown notices, followed by adult entertainment, and movie/TV rightsholders at a respectful distance.

At the time, the publishing industry accounted for less than 5% of all DMCA requests. The position is quite different today, as publishers are responsible for more than half of the URLs reported this year.

Faced with defiant pirate sites such as Z-Library and Anna’s Archive, publishers are clearly taking piracy more seriously than ever before. And in anti-piracy outfit Link-Busters, they have found a prolific takedown partner that meets their needs. That brings us to the outliers.

The Outliers

While the 10 billionth reported URL is undoubtedly a milestone, this number is largely driven by a few rightsholders, reporting outfits, and domain names. The aforementioned takedown outfit Link-Busters, for example, accounts for roughly 15% of all reported links, nearly 1.5 billion.

Similarly, the ten most prolific rightsholders, including the BPI, HarperCollins, and VIZ Media, are responsible for 40% of all reported links. These ten companies are only a tiny fraction of the 600,000 rightsholders that reported pirated links, however.

Top Rightsholders
 

A small group of domains also receives a disproportionate amount of attention. In total, 5,400,061 domains have been reported, with the top domains having dozens of millions of flagged URLs each. However, most domains have only a few flagged links, some of which are erroneous.

The WhiteHouse.gov domain name, for example, was reported 27 times. Google didn’t see any infringing material on the site, however, so none of these takedown requests were honored.

The overall number of URLs actually removed from Google search isn’t clear from Google’s transparency data. The 10 billion number includes links that were not removed by Google, as well as duplicate URLs, and those that were not indexed by Google at the time the takedown notice was received.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Last year, Braflix was added to the ever-growing list of flix-inspired pirate streaming sites.

Reportedly operating from Brazil, the site offered a clean interface, relying on third-party sources to provide a gateway to pirated movies and TV shows.

The site had no obvious connections to other large streaming cabals, such as the massive Fmovies operation. This worked to its advantage initially, as most anti-piracy resources typically go into shutting down the largest threats.

Target: Braflix

When Fmovies was shut down this summer, these priorities changed. In June Braflix was targeted in a DMCA subpoena obtained by the MPA and ACE and in August, the MPA flagged Braflix as a severe piracy threat in an EU consultation.

“Braflix.video is a popular streaming site operated from Brazil that offers a large library of titles, including movies, TV shows, live channels, anime, and K-dramas subtitled in several different languages,” MPA informed the EU.

Braflix
 

These and other enforcement efforts didn’t go unnoticed. The site, which had amassed over a million monthly visits by then, moved from its braflix.video domain to several new domain names in recent months.

In addition, Braflix was taken offline by its hosting provider following a series of DMCA complaints. The operator was able to host the site elsewhere, but the pressure didn’t fade. Switching to more new domains including braflix.ru and most recently braflix.is, didn’t help either.

Braflix Shuts Down

Early this morning, Braflix announced that it will throw in the towel. In its Discord channel, the site mentions that it received cease and desist notices from City of London Police and the MPA. No further details were mentioned.

“Braflix is officially closed. Thank you to everyone who participated in this incredible story, who helped us build a strong community,” the site writes.

At the time of writing the site remains online but, according to the Discord message, it is expected to shut down in a matter of hours. The operators say the domain transfer keys have been sent to the complaining parties, and they expect that it will soon redirect to ACE’s “watch legally” page.

“We are sorry that we can no longer continue fighting for our cause of free entertainment for everyone, but we have too much to lose, so the best option is to stop,” Braflix adds.

Shutting Down
 

Braflix notes, under pressure, that producers and the broader movie industry should be supported. It remains to be seen whether the site’s users agree with this sentiment, as many are currently actively discussing alternative options.

Whack-a-Flix?

This is not the first time that a pirate streaming site has shut down voluntarily in the face of legal pressure. While this team is not likely to use the same brand in the future, others might still hijack it to lure former users.

While Braflix’s demise is a victory for rightsholders, it’s also exemplary of the seemingly unending pirate site whack-a-mole. There always appears to be new ‘teams’ eager to fill the void.

At the same time, not everything is always what it seems. While Braflix has promised to shut down, there are other sites that look near identical, using similar code, that remain online. We don’t want to draw any conclusions based on these observations, but the ‘Whack-a-Flix’ isn’t over yet.

Users of these sites are familiar with ‘the drill’ too. Where shutdowns of pirate sites used to be a big deal, they are a common occurrence today. Most pirates simply shrug their shoulders and movee on to the next streaming portal.

“Braflix has been my go to for months now! Damn, RIP – on to the next one,” one Redditor illustratively writes.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry (RIR) for Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia, currently has over 10,000 members, typically Internet service providers and telecoms organizations.

The organization’s latest meeting, RIPE89, ran for three days last week and was open to all. A presentation by Massimiliano “Max” Stucchi titled: Blocking and Censoring the Italian Internet for Football Reasons, told the story of how “a small group of (influential) people can convince a country to implement draconian filtering rules…and how this can easily go wrong, all in the name of football.”

RIPE89

The presentation made no mention of RIPE, but Piracy Shield looks a bit like its evil twin. One of RIPE’s most important roles is to allocate IP addresses to promote connectivity. Piracy Shield has spent months attempting to render thousands of IP addresses useless.

While RIPE welcomes all in the spirit of sharing, Piracy Shield and transparency are complete strangers. This admittedly comes in handy when Cloudflare and other innocent IPs are blocked in error. The upside is that, when ISPs see an unusual blocking technique, they get to name it.

New Blunders Revealed

One intriguing example mentioned by Max is Inception Blocking and here’s how it works.

When internet users try to access a resource blocked by Piracy Shield, they are directed to their ISP’s blocking page which explains why the resource has been blocked. Inception Blocking is when the IP address of the ISP’s block page somehow finds itself on the Piracy Shield blocklist, meaning that it can’t be accessed either.

There’s no blocking page for blocking pages just yet, but should one eventually exist, it must be blocked in 30 minutes or less, presumably.

Max’s presentation further revealed that Imperva Incapsula IP addresses were also blocked as part of the blunder that blocked Google Drive on October 19th. That event, which has been confirmed as a DAZN error, has also impacted RIPE Atlas, a system designed to measure internet connectivity. There are concerns that devices attempting to access a blocked pirate site may be monitored and since fines of up to 5000 euros are said to be in the pipeline, some probe operators prefer not to take risks.

Don’t Criticize Piracy Shield Too Much?

At the end of the presentation (link below), audience members were invited to ask questions. Tom Strickx, Principal network engineer at Cloudflare, took to the mic and thanked Max for his presentation. He then made an interesting observation, before summing up the whole situation in a few words.

“Thanks first of all for talking about this. It’s probably the first time I have seen anybody talk about this,” Strickx said, making a point with this finger. “Note: this is absolute fucking bullshit,” he added to slightly nervous laughter in the room.

Max lives in Switzerland these days, not Italy, so on one level his calm response was expected. On a more unsettling level, we’ve been hearing similar comments for a while now.

“The thing is, I decided to do [the presentation] because I don’t live in the country,” Max responded. “I have a little bit more freedom.”

A similar point was raised by another speaker later on. “So this thing is obviously bad, but why are you – somebody from outside Italy – doing this presentation, why isn’t some Italian ISP? Is it illegal at this point?”

Max assured the speaker that talking about Piracy Shield isn’t illegal in Italy, and suggested that while he selected it as a topic, it may be that others did not, or just didn’t have the time.

“Because since it’s going on for almost one year,” the audience member continued, “there should be a massive..[response].”

Since the launch of Piracy Shield, at least two local people familiar with the difficulties in Italy have hinted to us that there might be implications for saying or doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. When pressed to explain, one simply asked to move on. The other refused to go into detail but briefly said that one day things may run smoothly and then by coincidence, perhaps not so smoothly in the future.

Google Drive Blunder Emboldens Critics

Who or what that alludes to is difficult to pin down, but there’s little doubt that piracy, blocking, politics, and high level sports are complicating an already complex landscape. With proponents of the project seemingly convinced that only escalation will produce results, things have been heading in the wrong direction for a while. The fact that more people are starting to speak out in opposition seems unlikely to deter that.

ISP association ASSOprovider, an opponent of Piracy Shield and those behind it since the very beginning, has been fighting for transparency and accountability through various legal routes. In April, instead of supplying the information ASSOprovider had requested, AGCOM fined the association for not providing information on the ISPs it represents, information ASSOprovider insisted was already in AGCOM’s possession.

In the wake of the Google Drive debacle, an undeterred ASSOProvider has just filed a complaint with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Auditors of Rome. The complaint hopes to “ascertain the existence of any financial damage and the appropriateness of AGCOM’s actions in the management of the economic resources relating to the Piracy Shield.”

President of Assoprovider, Giovanbattista Frontera, is calling for a full review of the Piracy Shield system and guarantees to prevent future errors.

“We ask for transparency and responsibility in the use of public resources and in the management of a system that significantly impacts the Italian internet network,” Frontera notes.

A Dissenting Voice Inside Italy’s Telecoms Regulator

An intriguing development inside AGCOM itself seems highly significant, especially as momentum builds against the platform and the support it continues to receive from government and regulator AGCOM.

Until now, comments attributable to anyone at AGCOM about Piracy Shield have been overwhelmingly in its favor, even when established facts on the ground supported a much tougher reading of significant failures.

That the first dissenting comments come from an accomplished, highly credible individual, who appears to have gone out on a limb for something she believes in, make this very interesting. The fact that these are the words of an AGCOM board member, may represent a watershed moment.

By decree of the President of the Republic, Elisa Giomi was appointed to the board of AGCOM in September 2020, yet that accomplishment is merely a footnote according to her extensive profile on the AGCOM website.

As the author of over 70 publications for major Italian and international publishing houses and for Italian and foreign peer-reviewed journals, there’s no doubt that Giomi gave this post on X considerable thought before going public (translated).

In a post on LinkedIn, Commissioner Giomi goes further still, before courageously heading out into uncharted territory.

‘Piracy Shield, Public Resources And Football Hypnosis’

Giomi reveals that after the blocking of Google Drive, she proposed a temporary suspension of Piracy Shield. One of five commissioners at AGCOM, Giomi’s proposal was voted down. Further detail appears in a Corriere (paywall) interview.

“In recent days I have had to distance myself from the position of my colleagues on the Piracy Shield platform. I did it because I found myself faced with a context of total underestimation of the very serious episode of Saturday 19 October..,” Commissioner Giomi explains.

“I asked for the immediate suspension of the operation of the platform in order to avoid worse consequences. The majority of the Council, however, chose to continue. The creation of the platform is imposed on [AGCOM] by law, but we cannot continue to hide the failure of the Piracy Shield initiative, which I had predicted, so much so that I expressed my opposition from the beginning.”

The Commissioner reveals the extent of her opposition on LinkedIn, noting that “amid the often virulent reactions of colleagues” she had voted against the platform at all stages for the last two years. Giomi also criticizes the language used to justify the existence of Piracy Shield and the regime it supports.

“I also want to distance myself from the rhetoric that continues to justify this initiative in the name of a generic imperative to legality, as if the fight against criminal phenomena in a country like ours was reduced to the (important, of course) fight against piracy and the latter was in turn reduced to preventing the illegal decryption of football matches,” Giomi notes

“Do you know how many public resources the failed piracy shield is draining in terms of time and personnel?”

Unchartered Territory

Criticism of Piracy Shield itself is perhaps the easiest way to show opposition to a broken system. Much more rare is a whole list of concerns, starting with how it came to exist, apparently without obvious consideration of alternatives.

“The ambiguity of the donation of the platform to AGCOM by [Serie A], which is a party to the matter, being one of the very few subjects entitled to report; the very hasty timing with which the Council decided on its adoption; the total lack of transparency in the attribution of external consultancy on the goodness of the initiative; the resistance to carrying out a survey of alternative solutions available on the market; the uncertain and late remedies with which they have tried in vain to resolve the continuous problems; the usual leakage of sensitive information on ongoing proceedings that now accompanies all the most important decisions of this council, moreover in the total inertia of those who should ensure confidentiality.”

Some of these concerns have been mentioned previously but never from someone in such a unique position, seemingly prepared for all the right reasons, to lay it all on the line, without commercial concerns being anywhere near the equation. Such qualities are increasingly rare and deserve every available protection.

“If we woke up from the collective hypnosis that blinds us every time we talk about football, overshadowing the real aberrations – such as fines of up to 5000 euros for a single user or the tolerance towards advertising of gambling for teams – perhaps we could bring everything back into due proportion and above all recognize that the priorities of the Italian institutional agenda are different,” Giomi concludes.

Brava

A video of the presentation at RIPE89 can be found here

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 GitHub is no stranger when it comes to DMCA takedown requests. In the first half of this year, it processed over a thousand takedown notices, removing 18,472 projects.

Put into context, however, these numbers are less spectacular. With more than 500 million open source projects, it’s no surprise that a tiny fraction break the rules.

Allegations of infringement can take different forms. In some cases, it’s claimed that code from third-party creators is being used without permission, while others target pirated files or software stored on GitHub for convenience. The latter is particularly popular with pirate streaming apps, which use GitHub to store Android APK files.

Amazon Cracks Down on Pirate Streaming APKs

This week, anti-piracy outfit MarkScan sent three DMCA takedown notices to GitHub, flagging problematic APKs. On behalf of Amazon, GitHub was asked to remove APK files related to the streaming apps PikaShow, Castle and FlixFox.

PikaShow is the most prominent target. The software has been downloaded millions of times and made headlines in 2022 as the official sponsor of the Afghan cricket team.

Whether the APK file that was hosted on GitHub has anything to do with the original app is doubtful. The popular PikaShow brand has been used by dozens of unrelated apps, who simply use the name to draw traffic.

In any event, the APK files are no longer available on GitHub today. The Castle app links to a “repository unavailable” message while the PikaShow and FlixFox apps return 404 errors.

Amazon Seller Services

There is little doubt that these apps provided access to infringing material. However, it’s worth highlighting that the takedown request wasn’t sent on behalf of Amazon MGM Studios, the division responsible for Amazon Prime content.

Instead, MarkScan sent its request on behalf of the Indian subsidiary Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd, which is involved in the retail side of the business.

The DMCA notice doesn’t mention any specific copyrighted works, however. Instead, it simply refers to Primevideo.com. That was sufficient for GitHub to honor the request.

More APK Pirates

The Amazon takedown is just one illustration of the app piracy problem. This year alone, GitHub has processed dozens of takedown notices from various rightsholders, asking it to remove hosted APKs and other software.

Hotstar, for example, flagged the HD Streamz and RTS TV apps. Paramount reported a Pluto TV player, Digiturk targeted SimsekTV, and Sony reported Multimovies and Ask4movie, among many other apps.

Earlier this week, Sky Italia also chimed in, reporting various copies of the Ola TV app, which also exists in various forms.

GitHub complied with the takedown requests and removed over a dozen APKs. However, that doesn’t completely eliminate the problem. Tellingly, the “Ola TV” website at the top of Google’s search results still links to a GitHub-hosted APK today.

As a word of caution, it’s important to note that many of these apps are knockoffs, purely created to generate profit. And since the movies and TV-series are free, users typically ‘pay’ in other ways. That’s not necessarily limited to ads.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Due to the staggering volume of content uploaded to the internet every single second, any hope that content moderation can be tackled at scale by humans alone, is already dead.

The threat of so-called ‘upload filters’ under Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive didn’t just cause citizens to be fearful of the future. Tech giants including Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon all warned of a chilling effect if the law was passed. The EU passed it regardless.

The basic premise is relatively simple; content uploaded by users should not appear on content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) unless permission has been granted by rightsholders.

With a licensing deal in force, content uploaded by users that would otherwise be seen as infringing can be monetized, for example. When there’s no deal in place, the same content is seen in a different light, in theory leaving content-sharing platforms to demonstrate that every effort was made to prevent that from happening.

Automatic Identification of Content

To determine whether content is permitted or not, it must first be identified. French elecoms regulator Arcom, which has responsibility for suppressing piracy wherever it occurs in France, previously evaluated content identification systems used by Dailymotion, Facebook, and YouTube. To build on those 2020 findings, Arcom conducted a new consultation with rightsholders mid-2023.

The regulator described the deployment of content recognition tools as encouraging but noted several areas for improvement. While the music and audiovisual sectors can block or monetize with relatively ease, rightsholders producing text and image based products (publishers and photographers) expressed dissatisfaction over lacking availability of tools to identify static images.

Citing rightsholders’ reports, Arcom suggested that one of the world’s largest social platforms may not have any content detection systems at all.

“Regarding relations with service providers, the majority of respondents confirmed being aware of the tools available to them. Rights holders have noted, however, that services such as X (formerly Twitter) do not have content recognition tools or do not implement effective measures to prevent the uploading of protected works,” Arcom reported.

Commenting on Meta’s Rights Manager tool, rightsholders reported configuration issues and also “its capacity to detect content, which seems underused and not very optimal.” Both Rights Manager and YouTube Content ID are unsuitable for written content, some rightsholders complained, while TikTok’s MediaMatch arrived late and was considered ineffective.

Following that report, Arcom issued 13 recommendations which included advice for both platforms and rightsholders.

“The Authority notes with dissatisfaction the low level of involvement of the parties in implementing these recommendations. Of these, only one was followed by the rights holders,” Arcom reveals in a new report published last week.

Permission to Test Image Detection Denied

As part of its follow-up work, Arcom says that it wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of content recognition tools, particularly in respect of static images. Noting that both claim to have the ability to identify this type of content, the regulator homed in on Pinterest’s ‘Claims Portal’ tool and on Meta’s ‘Rights Manger’, which is active on both Facebook and Instagram.

From the tone of its report, Arcom may have been taken a little by surprise when both Pintrest and Meta denied its request to carry out direct tests on their respective systems. Both gave the same reason for rejection: Claims Portal and Rights Manager are reserved for the use of rightsholders alone and since Arcom isn’t a rightsholder, no can do.

“Arcom regrets not having been able to benefit from immediate access to the interfaces of these tools, on the grounds that these are reserved for rights holders, a status which it does not have. Such access would, in fact, allow the Authority to carry out more objective and intensive assessments,” the regulator explains.

Under Article L331-18 of the CPI, Arcom has authority to assess the level of effectiveness of measures taken by OCSSPs, including their deployment and operating conditions.

“Under the assessment mission mentioned [above], the authorized and sworn agents of the Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority may implement proportionate methods of automated collection of publicly accessible data,” the law states.

“The Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority may request any useful information from service providers, rights holders and designers of protection measures.”

Arcom Resorted to Other Means

In order to evaluate Rights Manager, Arcom was forced to team up with unnamed rightsholders “benefiting from access to the tools” and conduct its technical tests through them.

“The Authority’s approach consisted of publishing, on the two services Facebook and Instagram, a selection of protected images for which it had previously obtained permission from rights holders who agreed to participate in the tests,” Arcom explains.

“Once the images were published, the Authority instructed rights holders to consult their Rights Manager interface and observe the appearance of any alerts. This process made it possible to determine whether or not the images were detected by the tool.”

Deployed on Facebook and Instagram, Rights Manager reportedly functioned differently across services and profiles.

It identified images when they were posted on public spaces with no visibility restrictions in place, and when posted from private profiles on Instagram.

However, the tool did not seem to work when images were posted in public Facebook albums rather than directly to the profile’s feed. Shared in Facebook groups, regardless of whether the group was public or private, or posted by a Facebook user to a restricted audience (only their friends), images were not detected by Rights Manager.

When restricted posts were made public, Rights Manager did not detect content immediately; in some cases, it didn’t detect content at all, even a month after the switch.

Meta informed Arcom that this was not the expected behavior of Rights Manager. They had not been previously notified of the problem and were investigating it internally.

Resilience to Image Modification

Modifying images to circumvent detection is not uncommon, neither is modifying images for any other reason. Arcom’s tests concluded that Rights Manager’s performance was somewhat of a mixed bag.

These tests therefore made it possible to note that while the tool resists certain modifications, sometimes simple and weak, sometimes complex and strong, it does, however, allow images to pass whose modifications alter human visual recognition of the image relatively little, such as the mirror effect, saturation or posterization with moderate values, or cropping.

 

The failure to detect cropped images is all the more questionable since Instagram’s interface forces users to crop the image before publishing, forcing them to crop it if it deviates too much from a square format. In this case, the image is no longer recognized, even if the cropping is only done in a very limited way.

For those interested in the details of Arcom’s technical tests, the full report is available below (French). Results are only available for Rights Manager, however.

Pintrest’s refusal to grant access led to its system not being assessed at all. Arcom couldn’t locate a rightsholder to team up with because after extensive consultation, it couldn’t find a single rightsholder actually using it.

Arcom’s 2024 report is available here (pdf) – (2023 report for reference here)

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 It’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) has anti-piracy tentacles all over the world.

The group, which is backed by Hollywood, Netflix, and Amazon, is actively involved in enforcement and policy efforts in dozens of countries.

The MPA’s work mostly takes place behind the scenes, but the results are hard to miss. This includes the Philippine pirate site blocking program, which officially launched in January this year.

The Philippine blocking scheme is the result of a memorandum of understanding, overseen by the local Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL). Under the agreement, Internet providers will voluntarily block sites that are deemed to be copyright infringing; no court order needed.

MPA-Assisted Site Blocking Agreement

While the agreement is a local endeavor, it was made possible thanks to assistance from the MPA and its affiliated anti-piracy arm ACE. Among other things, the movie industry group provided technical expertise.

For example, ACE helped with site-blocking training to equip IPOPHL employees with the technical knowledge to launch a successful site-blocking operation.

The MPA was happy to play a key role in the expansion of global site blocking efforts. Before the scheme was officially live, it marked the achievement by handing an ‘award’ to the Philippines Intellectual Property Office, applauding the country’s innovative anti-piracy effort.

The MPA itself played a major role in shaping the site blocking efforts, but its involvement is far from over.

MPA Complaint Results in First Blockades

In March, the MPA was the first rightsholder representative to file a copyright infringement complaint under the new administrative site blocking rules. The complaint identified several YTS domains, which were blocked in May after IPOPHL’s IP Rights Enforcement Office completed its review.

The review concluded that yts.mx, yts.rs, yts.do, ytsuproxy.to, yts.dirproxy.com, yts.unblocked.love, ytssss.jamsbase.com, yts.lt, yts.ag, yts.am and torrents.yts.rs, all violate local copyright law. IPOPHL then instructed ISPs to block the domains.

IPOPHL Director General Rowel Barba characterized the YTS blockade as a victory for the entertainment industries and encouraged other rightsholders to submit their own complaints.

“Millions of netizens visit this website so this a major win for the creative industry. We encourage more stakeholders to come forward, file a complaint and further disrupt access to piracy websites,” Barba said.

MPA Follows Through

In conjunction with national anti-piracy month, this week IPOPHL announced follow-up blocking action. No new rightsholders are involved since once again the instigator is the MPA.

In two separate complaints, the MPA requested blocking actions against popular pirate streaming sites SFlix and MyFlixer. This MyFlixer is not to be confused with the Fmovies-affiliated site of the same name, which was shut down this summer.

The MPA lists six domains in total; sflix.to, sflix.se, and sflix.is, plus myflixerz.to, myflixertv.to, and myflixer.today, noting that these domains shared pirated copies of many films including “Shazam!”, “Jumanji: The Next Level” and “Top Gun: Maverick”. After a careful review, IPOPHL decided to grant both requests.

“A thorough examination of the evidence presented and the evaluation report submitted reveals that all the cited websites are hosting pirated versions of movies or TV shows, allowing users to access these illegal copies by downloading or streaming them,” IPOPHL writes.

Block and Repeat

Under the voluntary agreement, participating Internet providers including Globe Telecom, SkyCable, and DITO, will implement the required blocking measures. These include DNS, URL, and IP address blocking.

We haven’t seen an official comment from the MPA on this latest achievement, but the movie industry group will likely be happy with the outcome.

Thus far, it seems that MPA’s collaboration with the Philippine authorities has been quite fruitful. And based on comments IPOPHL sent to the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this month, the partnership will continue.

“MPA committed to continue to work closely with the Philippine government and creative industry in the fight against the scourge of digital piracy,” IPOPHL wrote.

—

Copies of IPOPHL’s blocking decisions, which were published through official channels, are available here (SFlix, pdf) and here (MyFlixer, pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 The belief that somehow everything is free on the internet was widespread in the late 1990s. Sites were overwhelmingly free and if MP3 files were spotted by an alert surfer, it was almost considered rude not to download them, bandwidth permitting.

Today’s social media users see copyright conflicts on a regular basis, but probably due to the way copyright is enforced, tend to view images and text as faiir game when compared to movies and music. In Japan, where the concept of fair use isn’t recognized, there’s arguably less cause for confusion. For those who misjudge the limits, however, things can go downhill extremely quickly.

First Case of its Type in Japan

This week local anti-piracy group CODA revealed details of a copyright prosecution that’s so unusual, it’s probably never happened before.

On October 29, officers from Miyagi Prefectural Police Headquarters and Tome Police Station arrested three men on suspicion of violating copyright law. CODA says the men are suspected of transcribing the details of two or more films and then reusing that content without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

“Between January 2023 and February 2024, the men transcribed detailed information about the entire story, including the names of characters, lines, actions, scenes, and scene developments depicted in the film Godzilla 1.0,” CODA reveals.

The rights to that movie and another whose name is yet to be revealed, are owned by Toho Co., Ltd. Publishing giant Kadokawa, among others, hold the rights to the anime movie ‘Overlord III.’ It’s alleged that without obtaining permission from rightsholders, the men – who appear to work for the same company – ‘extracted’ the text and other distinuishing features from the movies, added relevant images, then displayed the resulting articles on a website.

“This case was investigated by the Miyagi Prefectural Police, and CODA coordinated with the affected rights holders, which led to this crackdown,” CODA explains.

“As a result of the police investigation, it was discovered that the company’s management and employees had conspired to systematically commit copyright infringement, and had operated the website for profit, attracting a large number of hits.”

Text Extraction, Like Spoiler Sites, Are Considered Problematic

Opinions differ on so-called ‘spoiler sites’ for reasons beyond copyright, but CODA views the publication of texts extracted from copyright works as generally problematic. While some consider this less damaging than uploading a full movie, CODA says that when use of copyrighted text goes beyond the scope of quotation, copying and distribution amount to serious crimes.

The exact nature of the suspects’ business isn’t clear but the details suggest that whatever it is, lines were crossed in pursuit of money.

“The problem with sites that extract text from movies and other content is that they reduce people’s desire to pay a fair price for content, which can lead to people not seeing the official full-length movies, causing great damage to rights holders,” the anti-piracy group explains.

“In addition, the act of infringing on content that creators have spent time, effort, and money to create and unfairly obtaining advertising revenue, is extremely malicious and should never be tolerated.”

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Since its inception in 2017, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has built a reputation for targeting online piracy operations regardless of scale and no matter where they operate.

Obtaining pirated content, whether movies, TV shows, or live streams of broadcast TV, has been a global consumer phenomenon for years. Yet despite significant civil lawsuits, arrests, and criminal prosecutions, a well-financed and centralized global enforcement strategy against suppliers and distributors, is a relative newcomer to the table.

Compared to previous efforts and considering the sheer scale of the objective, ACE is effective, certainly more than if each ACE member acted alone. Nevertheless, difficulties presented by a relatively new wave of pirate site operators in regions where attitudes to enforcement differ from those in the West, may be the biggest challenge yet.

ACE and Egyptian Authorities Shut Down Livehd7

In an announcement Tuesday, ACE said that a major sports piracy network, operating in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region but accessible globally, has been shut down. The closure of the Livehd7 network, best known for offering live matches from the Premier League (England), LaLiga (Spain), and Serie A (Italy), was the result of collaboration with Egyptian authorities.

“We applaud the excellent work of Egyptian law enforcement in protecting the intellectual property rights of ACE’s sports media company members,” said Motion Picture Association (MPA) Executive Vice President and Chief Content Protection Officer, Larissa Knapp.

“The piracy of live sports is especially detrimental and poses an existential threat to sports leagues and their distribution partners, as a live sports broadcast loses substantial commercial value once a game ends. ACE remains committed to collaborating closely with the Egyptian Police to bring illegal operators to justice.”

According to ACE, the Livehd7 streaming network launched in late 2020 and made available through “at least” 85 associated domains. In addition to content owned by the top leagues in England, Spain, and Italy, the network also provided free access to matches from Germany’s Bundesliga, France’s Ligue 1 and Portugal’s Primeira Liga, plus UEFA and FIFA competitions.

A Global Problem With Additional Local Significance

ACE says that the network of sites received around 17 million monthly visits, over a quarter billion in the last 12 months alone. While players such as StreamEast currently receive twice as many monthly visits, Livehd7 sites are mostly presented in Arabic so are directly relevant to the MENA market. That’s something of which ACE member beIN, and its Legal Director of Anti-Piracy, Cameron Andrews, are acutely aware.

“Egyptian-operated pirate websites are popular across the Middle East and North Africa and Arabic-speaking markets generally, causing detrimental harm to our industry,” Andrews says.

“According to our research, in the MENA region alone, they cost beIN over a $1 billion USD a year and threaten the viability of our business, which in turn has a direct effect on what broadcasters can pay for sports rights. We are very pleased to see action being taken and ACE continues to set a precedent in the fight against piracy.”

To mitigate the effect regional sites can have on international markets, beIN has filed applications for site-blocking measures, including action in France early 2024. However, as ACE points out in its announcement Tuesday, platforms like Livehd7 expect that kind of response and are well-prepared to counter.

“The ring operators frequently built new domains to circumvent site blocking and other enforcement measures implemented in the countries where users accessed the illicit content,” ACE explained.

ACE Has Been Here Before

Early September 2023, ACE announced the dismantling of three piracy rings in Egypt. Described as ‘commercial-scale’ piracy operations, the trio were reportedly targeted by the police following ACE collaboration with the Egyptian Ministry of Internal Affairs. During that operation, the operators of Livehd7 and another platform, 3sktv, were reportedly arrested.

Around September 18, 2023, various Livehd7-branded domain names began diverting to the ACE anti-piracy portal, including the following:

livehd7i.com, livehd77.net, livehd77.org, livehd77.tv, livehd720.org, livehd7.top, livehd7.vip, livehd7.tv, livehd7.bio, livehd7.ink, liveshd7.com, livehd7.onl, livehd7.cam, livefhd7.com, livehd7.net

WHOIS records show that almost all of these domains now use the MPA’s nameservers, presumably after they were handed over in connection with the above. Another domain, livehd7.club, began diverting in January 2024 and an outlier, livehd7.today, may have been transferred over two years ago.

So the obvious question is this: if the operator(s) were arrested last August/September and subsequently handed over their domains, how did the Livehd7 network continue to operate while receiving 17 million visits per month?

Pirate Sites With Powerful Brands Don’t Die

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but one is straightforward; pirate sites don’t stay shut down for long in Egypt; at minimum, popular brands aren’t allowed to go to waste.

One of the most famous, EgyBest, was first shut down in 2019 but found itself being called out as a ‘notorious market’ in 2023 after amassing 130 million visits per month. MyCima was famously shut down in February 2023 but was back in business a couple of weeks later. Ultimately around 70 domains were redirected to ACE but it’s trivial to buy more.

Information About Subsequent Action Rarely Appear

The other big question relates to those running the sites and what happens to them after they’re arrested. No follow-up reports indicate suspects being charged with any crimes, going to trial, or receiving any kind of sentence. Also of potential importance is what they were actually arrested for.

It’s not uncommon for site operators in various countries to find themselves in hot water (or their sites blocked), not for piracy, but for involvement in gambling ads or anything else prohibited under local law. After the government receives a helpful tip from a rightsholder and takes action, the ends probably justify the means for those sending the tips. It may not prevent another site being launched, minus the offending features, however..

Whether Livehd7 will fade away is too early to say but ACE says that “all sites will be redirecting to the ACE ‘Watch Legally’ page.”

While there are no immediate signs of that happening in respect of domains operational right now, there could be a flood everything goes to plan.

The table below shows domains already under the MPA’s control at the top (registered at MarkMonitor), prominent others that are not, plus many that are operational or in various states of limbo. A basic Google search reveals a couple of dozen working sites as the top results but whether they’re operated by the same people is hard to say.

No accident, of course.

Note: Some domains not controlled by the MPA attempt to redirect to a specific domain universally flagged as suspicious. Rest assured, visitors don’t have a virus or any malware – YET, so any software on offer is not needed. The same applies to a page that looks somewhat like Facebook. Should that appear, filling in personal details is not recommended, for any reason, ever.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Every year the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.

The report is compiled based on input from key industry players. This includes submissions from copyright industry groups, such as the MPA, that frequently highlight piracy challenges.

Most rightsholders would like foreign countries to strengthen their online piracy efforts and policies, by implementing institutionalized piracy blocking schemes, for example. These measures are beneficial to many American companies, they argue.

In response to the USTR’s most recent request, the MPA and others presented site blocking as a solution. However, not all businesses are equally enthusiastic. Several large tech companies, united in the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), signal piracy blocking initiatives as a potential threat.

I2Coalition

I2Coalition represents major companies such as Amazon and Google, but also many smaller outfits including hosting providers, VPNs, and domain name services. In the past, the group urged the USTR to recognize that its members are neutral intermediaries when it comes to piracy.

A few days ago, I2Coalition sent its latest submission for the Trade Barriers report, mentioning piracy issues once again. This time, however, the group highlights concerns with overbroad blocking efforts, such as court orders and government-imposed blocking measures.

“Such restrictions, often introduced under the guise of protecting national interests or preventing illegal content, fundamentally threaten the free and open nature of the Internet,” I2Coalition writes.

These blockades exist in various forms and not all are linked to piracy. The coalition mentions efforts in Myanmar, Iran, and Russia that restrict citizens’ access to ‘inappropriate’ information. Piracy blocking efforts in France, Italy, and India are prominently mentioned too.

Piracy Blocks Expand

I2Coalition notes that anti-piracy blockades initially only targeted residential ISPs, which were ordered to restrict consumer access to infringing sites. More recently, however, other intermediaries such as DNS providers, CDNs, and VPNs have been required to play a role.

These expansions are particularly concerning since any errors have broader consequences. A seemingly straightforward blocking order can affect systems that are used by pirate sites, as well as many legitimate parties.

“These blocking regimes often lack adequate controls or oversight by independent parties, resulting in significant amounts of collateral blocking of untargeted content with no opportunity for redress,” the coalition writes.

The coalition highlights that this has already led to mistakes, where regular businesses were adversely impacted by erroneous blocking requirements.

“There have been numerous examples, for instance, of ISPs blocking the IP addresses of cloud infrastructure in order to block a single website, even though the same IP address is used to access hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of unrelated websites.”

Italy

The letter specifically mentions Italy’s Piracy Shield, which caused a lot of controversy in recent months. This includes an incident where a blocked Cloudflare IP-address rendered many legitimate websites inaccessible. More recently, the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive.

The legislation that supports Piracy Shield requires a variety of online services to comply with blocking orders that are issued without judicial review. These services have 30 minutes to act, which leaves little room for redress. As a result, mistakes are virtually unavoidable, I2Coalition argues.

“The failure to include controls on blocking has resulted in numerous instances of blocking of large cloud providers that service significant numbers of websites, thereby causing users to lose access to large numbers of global websites with no connection to piracy.”

Instead of taking a step back to implement extra safeguards, the authorities have expanded Piracy Shield’s scope, requiring DNS services and VPNs to play a role too. This only exacerbates the problem, the coalition says, noting that some VPNs have decided to shut down their Italian servers.

“The system has led not only to frustrations amongst users and cloud providers, but has also led some VPN providers to stop operating in Italy due to the burdensome requirements of the Piracy Shield.”

France

The coalition also mentions a recent blocking development in France, where a local court updated an existing blocking order. In addition to ISPs, the court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to poison their DNS to make pirate sites inaccessible.

The tech companies presented a list of concerns and caveats, but none of those convinced the court to see things differently.

“The court ordered the blocking despite the entry of evidence in the case that the impact on piracy would be minimal, that it might require the sites to be blocked globally, and that it would require companies to build new technology on top of the global DNS systems that make up the Internet in order to comply.”

The court provided no room to delay the blocking measures pending an appeal. A refusal to comply, would simply result in penalties. Faced with this choice, OpenDNS decided to suspend its service in France instead.

USTR Can Help

In closing, I2Coalition stresses that these types of blocking measures are not only imperfect and overly restrictive, they also come at considerable technical cost, which is a clear trade barrier. The USTR should keep these harms in mind.

While blocking may be needed, the measures and procedures used should be proportional, with appropriate checks and balances and room for due process. The splintered blocking systems that are implemented today, will only “Balkanize” the Internet, they argue.

“We urge USTR to recognize the harm these restrictions can cause, not only to the global flow of information but also to trade and innovation,” I2Coalition writes.

“To counter these challenges, USTR should work with other nations to facilitate adherence to international norms that prioritize an open and secure Internet. This collaboration can help reduce the impact of site-blocking regimes, support cross-border digital trade, and prevent the Balkanization of the global Internet.”

—

A copy of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition’s submission for the USTR’s 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Identifying the anonymous operators of pirate sites and then locating them, wherever they are in the world, is rarely a straightforward matter.

Even when that is achieved, filing copyright lawsuits and then winning those cases could take years rather than months to complete.

Japan-based publishing giant Shueisha often utilizes courts in the United States to obtain information on mostly anonymous pirate site operators. These individuals can operate from almost anywhere in the world but what most have in common is some level of reliance on services offered by America companies. Whether that’s technical infrastructure or financial mechanisms, investigations regularly lead to the United States.

Ex Parte Application For Use in a Foreign Proceeding

Filed at a California court last week, Shueisha’s application seeks authorization to conduct discovery in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The company hopes to obtain evidence that will help it to identify the operators of several pirate sites so that it can file civil lawsuits for damages in Japan.

Shueisha’s application notes that around April 2024, its attorney investigated pirate sites that were offering links that allowed site visitors to illegally download its manga content. Somewhat typically the pirate sites were using the services of Cloudflare so, to move the investigation forward, Shueisha obtained a DMCA subpoena that compelled Cloudflare to hand over whatever information it held on their operators.

We reported the details of that subpoena in May this year; it covered around two dozen domains, several of which were generating tens of millions of visits every month.

Popular domains targeted in Cloudflare subpoena (click to enlarge)

Shueisha’s continuing investigation now appears to focus on a subset of the original list.

Cloudflare Produces Useful Information

According to the application, Cloudflare handed over a quantity of information in response to the subpoena, including that concerning the following piracy domains;

• mangakoma01.net • mangarawjp.asia • mangaraw.onl • mangarawjp.onl •
• spoilerplus.net • rawkuma.com • truyenqqvn.com • mangaspoiler.net •

“The material produced by Cloudflare shows that the anonymous operators of those websites…used the following email accounts that were associated with the pirate websites: (1) ‘[email protected]’; (2) ‘[email protected]’; (3)’[email protected]’; (4) ‘[email protected]’; (5) ‘[email protected]’; (6) ‘[email protected]’ and (7) ‘[email protected],” the application reads.

The site operators also left a financial trail after using four PayPal accounts and several VISA cards to settle their bills at Cloudflare.

“The material also shows that Anonymous Individuals made VISA credit card payments to Cloudflare, using accounts ending with the following four digits: xxxx, expiring in 10/2027; xxxx, expiring in 1/2022; xxxx, expiring in 11/2022; xxxx, expiring in 2/2028,” Shueisha reports.

Lawsuits Planned in Japan

The material produced by Cloudflare also included four Google AdSense accounts associated with the pirate sites. That information is readily available from public sources and appears to link the operators to other domains.

One domain in particular not only reveals significant tracking of site visitors but indicates other avenues of inquiry for Shueisha should the existing lines run out of steam.

Shueisha notes that it will be able to present a prima facie civil case against each of the currently anonymous operators because their conduct violated Article 709 of the Civil Code.

“[E]ach civil lawsuit that will be filed upon discovering the true identities of the Anonymous Individuals will withstand a motion to dismiss in Japan,” the publisher submits.

Art 709 provides that “a person who intentionally or negligently infringes another’s rights or benefits to be protected by law shall be liable for the losses caused” (Art 709). Generally, the plaintiff has to prove (i) fault of the defendant (intentional tortfeasance gives rise to less case law and debate), (ii) infringement of plaintiff’s rights or benefits to be protected by law (i.e., the “unlawfulness or illegality” of the defendant’s behavior), (iii) a causal link, and (iv) losses.

“Applicant intends to file civil lawsuits in Japan against the Anonymous Individuals seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to Article 709 of the Civil Code of Japan, injunctive relief pursuant to Article 112(1) of the Copyright Act of Japan, and damages and injunctive relief pursuant to Articles 3(1) and 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act of Japan,” the publisher continues.

“Applicant therefore seeks Court authorization to conduct limited discovery by serving subpoenas upon Google, VISA, and PayPal, all of which are located in this district, to discover personal identifying information (‘PII’) that can be used to identify the true identities of the Anonymous Individuals.”

Shueisha says the discovery sought here is “narrowly tailored” and is not unduly intrusive or burdensome.

The company aims to obtain personal information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other information such as access logs (IP addresses, ports, timestamps), all of which is stored by Google, VISA and PayPal in the ordinary course of business.

Shueisha’s application 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Movie piracy continues to present problems for Hollywood. When films are released on streaming platforms, they are copied and shared online almost immediately.

There’s one type of piracy that’s particularly concerning, however. That’s when a film leaks online before it’s widely available through commercial channels.

The problem isn’t new. Since the early 2000s, leaked copies of Oscar ‘screeners’ would circulate on pirate sites at the end of the year. This practice continued for more than two decades but stopped in recent years, coinciding with law enforcement action against a prominent release group EVO.

While the lack of screener leaks is a moral victory for Hollywood, new concerns are always lurking. A series of mysterious leaks over the past few weeks will be of particular concern.

Theater Leaks

A previously unknown group using the name ‘NaNi’ has recently released a series of films tagged ‘Theater’. The first release, a copy of the movie The Substance, appeared around October 12 and several others have followed since.

These early releases, including copies of The Empire, Jade and The Seed of the Sacred Fig were a bit confusing. In addition to the ‘Theater’ tag, the filenames also mentioned Web-DL, suggesting that they were downloaded from an online source.

For The Substance the source appears to be the streaming platform Mubi, as its logo appears in the intro of the leaked copy.

What stands out, however, is that several of these films were not available as a digital release when they leaked online, suggesting insider access. The Substance, for example, premieres online on October 31, long after pirated copies first began circulating online.

More Leaks, DCP Theater Source?

More ‘NaNi’ releases appeared last week, including a copy of Terrifier 3 which is still in theaters today. Unlike the early releases, this ‘Theater’ version didn’t come with a ‘Web-DL’ mention.

There’s a ‘REMUX’ tag instead, which means the video and audio were taken directly from a high quality source, with separate English subtitles. This was all repackaged into an MKV container without any re-encoding.

The source for the Terrifier 3 leak isn’t mentioned but at a whopping 42.6 Gigabytes, it’s high-quality indeed. This fueled the rumor mill that it may have come directly from a Digital Cinema Package (DCP), a file container used by digital cinemas.

We spoke to several sources who believe that it’s possible the leak came from a DCP source, but currently there is no definite confirmation. According to an AI-assisted technical analysis, a DCP leak is likely but again, not yet proven.

NaNi

What’s clear, however, is that ‘NaNi’ gained access to several films in advance of their official release. That alone is newsworthy, especially if more content continues to find its way online.

It’s possible that NaNi has a source with access to DCPs at a cinema, or elsewhere in the distribution chain. These packages are typically encrypted and further protected by Key Management Systems, so the source likely has the required privileges or somehow exploited a vulnerability.

Whatever the case, the mysterious releases are fuel for discussion at pirate sites.

“Wait, ‘Theater’? Like was this ripped from a movie theater hard drive? Because if that’s the case, then this is a game changer for the piracy scene,” one excited commenter wrote on a torrent site.

Over at Where You Watch, a user named BlueSkull flagged NaNi’s ‘Theater’ leak of Woman of the Hour as a DCP rip. However, the follow-up Terrifier 3 was reported with more reservation.

“Really difficult to define the source of these Nani leaks, but the quality is basically super close to the equivalent of a direct rip from a Blu-ray disc,” BlueSkull wrote.

We will refrain from drawing strong conclusions and monitor the situation as it develops. At this point, we expect that Hollywood’s anti-piracy partners are also keeping an eye on the emergence of “NaNi” and the potential for DCP leaks.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

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. “Transformers One” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 28 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

The exact launch date of the ‘BeStreamWise’ anti-piracy campaign is difficult to pin down. Often subject to intense planning and strict media embargoes, we simply stumbled across the live campaign website early October 2023.

The purpose of BeStreamWise is to raise awareness of risk associated with illicit streaming platforms. Specifically, when people subscribe to these types of services they risk fueling organized crime, quite possibly at the same time their bank accounts are being unexpectedly drained.

Whether due to malware or other unspecified vectors, the campaign message is simple: Illegal Streams Let Criminals In.

An Unusual Launch For an Awareness Campaign

The absence of a coordinated media push at launch was a little unusual, especially given the campaign’s heavyweight backing. The following partners were declared at launch (order per official website):

Federation Against Copyright Theft, Intellectual Property Office (UK gov), CrimeStoppers (charity), British Association for Screen Entertainment (home entertainment), Sky (broadcaster), Premier League (football rightsholder), Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness (IP promotion/education group), ITV (broadcaster).

The main campaign video (above) was uploaded to YouTube on September 12, 2023, and when we spotted it early October, it had already been viewed 484,000 times. At the time of writing, YouTube is reporting an impressive 4.9 million views, a very respectable total for a video of this type. However, with just 17 ‘thumbs up’ and a grand total of zero comments, these YouTube views may have been driven from elsewhere, quite possibly Facebook.

Anecdotal evidence from people who claimed to have seen the campaign in action, feel that BeStreamWise ads may have appeared after they visited pirate sports streaming sites, or after viewing pirate streams on social media. Whatever the mechanism, the campaign seems to have been well targeted.

New Additions to the Campaign Partners List

Sky’s role as the operator of the BeStreamWise campaign has been clear from the beginning. The campaign website’s privacy policy is Sky’s and the website itself is hosted on Sky’s vast infrastructure. The content in focus – illicit broadcasts of Premier League matches – narrows things down quite a lot too. Virgin Media and TNT are notably absent from the main partners list, although both are members of BASE.

The BeStreamWise news section has been updated from time to time since launch, mostly with details of arrests or sentencing of various players in the IPTV ecosystem. Topics that haven’t received any coverage in the news section include developments relating to the theme of the campaign, i.e malware/cyber-security. While there have been no specific announcements concerning new BeStreamWise partners since launch (and still no security vendors whatsoever) logos have appeared periodically on the partners page.

In January 2024, streaming service DAZN was listed as a partner, followed in February by City of London Police (Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit) and the BBC. June saw the addition of GAAGO, the official streaming platform for Gaelic Games outside of Ireland. During the same month, United States media giant Universal joined the campaign. Universal is ultimately owned by Comcast which also owns Sky.

What comes next for BeStreamWise isn’t clear. The campaign is still mentioned fairly regularly by the UK tabloids, usually in connection with various anti-piracy operations involving Sky.

That being said, enthusiasm for churning out dozens of reports each week, at times based on no discernible news or current event, appears to have waned significantly. Whether that’s linked or merely coincidental to the campaign’s first birthday is unknown.

What Happens to the Data?

For many years, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office has produced a highly detailed annual report called the ‘Online copyright infringement tracker.’ The wave 12 report was published in February 2023, so this year’s wave 13 report is already very late; it’s also possible that there are no plans to publish a report this year, which should be viewed as a loss given how detailed the report has become over the years.

What type and volume of data BeStreamWise and partners have been collecting over the past year is yet to be revealed, but it’s likely to be substantial. Whether the data will show any reduction in pirate IPTV consumption is the million-dollar question, but whatever the state of play, the job isn’t over just yet.

Indeed, this particular job, in one form or another, has been a thorn in Sky’s side for several decades. It’s not thinkable that it will remain that way for several more.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Over the past few years, Brazil has worked hard to combat the online piracy problem from various angles.

The “Operation 404” campaigns, in particular, have led to numerous takedowns and arrests, with the most recent wave completed last month.

The seventh installment of the Government-backed anti-piracy sweep, details of which were released in September, took down 675 pirate sites, 14 apps, and led to nine arrests. Meanwhile, Brazilian Internet providers now block more than 6,700 domain names.

These positive piracy developments haven’t gone unnoticed. The Motion Picture Association (MPA) acknowledged Brazil’s efforts in a recommendation to the US Trade Representative, where it discusses foreign trade barriers.

“Operation 404 is a model for effective and efficient criminal enforcement measures against piracy sites and services and should be replicated by other markets within the Western Hemisphere,” MPA writes.

Piracy Challenges Remain

Despite these successful enforcement efforts, the MPA still sees room for progress, to further clamp down on copyright infringement.

“Brazil’s legitimate online audiovisual services continue to suffer from the pervasive availability of illicit, advertising-supported services, despite the increasing availability of legitimate options,” MPA notes.

MPA says that the online piracy rate and the use of illegal streaming devices continues to rise in Brazil. This, despite a report earlier this year, suggesting that web-based piracy is declining in the Latin American country.

Among other things, MPA suggests that Brazil should enact a bill that formalizes site blocking, which is currently on the table. The movie industry group also encourages the government to approve a bill that criminalizes camcording in theaters, even when there’s no profit motive.

Account Sharing Threats

In addition to bills that the MPA would like to see approved, a proposal to outlaw password sharing restrictions is seen as a threat.

Netflix began its crackdown on password sharing in Brazil last year. This led to widespread critique, including complaints that the restrictions, such as tieing a Netflix account to a home address, went too far.

According to the government’s consumer protection agency Procon, it makes no sense to link a streaming service account to a home address, when people can use these on mobile phones as well. This critique was widely shared by other lawmakers, resulting in several bills that aim to ban these restrictions.

In the ‘trade barriers’ overview, the MPA describes the proposals as problematic. In addition to hurting revenues and limiting entrepreneurial freedom, they could weaken copyright enforcement.

“Brazil’s legislature is currently discussing bills […] that intend to limit or prohibit measures taken by online subscription service providers to prevent account sharing among their users,” the group writes.

“MPA opposes these restrictions because they would not only impact providers’ revenues and general freedom of contract but would also weaken copyright enforcement.”

Banning Account Sharing Restrictions

It’s no surprise that this pushback comes from the MPA, as the group’s members include the major Hollywood studios plus Netflix and Amazon. All have major streaming service interests and see password sharing restrictions as an effective measure to increase revenues.

Looking at the text of the most recent Bill No. 1153, we see that it aims to effectively ban any measure that restricts account sharing. When users pay for a certain number of simultaneous streams, they should be able to use these regardless of their location.

“This Law prohibits on-demand content providers from charging any additional amount or blocking access to shared accounts in a location other than the users’ domicile,” the bill reads.  

The proposal makes it clear that family members who live on opposite sides of the country, should be able to use a single streaming subscription if they please. Charging extra fees for this type of use is seen as abusive, and therefore not allowed.

“Charging additional amounts for access at an address other than the residence address is an abusive practice that limits the use of services by users, especially in cases of families with members who live in different cities or states; long-distance marriages; people who travel frequently,” the proposal notes.

It’s Streaming, Not Cable TV

The bill’s justification cites Rainer Grigolo, the director of Procon RS, who notes that streaming subscriptions shouldn’t be limited to a home address in any way. If people signed up for multiple simultaneous streams, their location shouldn’t matter.

“If a streaming service contract allows two simultaneous screens, for example, it is not up to the provider to define the degree of kinship, relatedness, and what the residential address is. After all, the contract is not linked to an address like it works with cable TV,” Grigolo explained.

The bill, and other similar proposals, are yet to be adopted, and the MPA would like to keep it that way.

MPA’s opposition, voiced in the trade barriers report, is limited to just a few sentences. However, these clearly show that the movie industry group is worried about these developments, which could potentially spread to other countries.

—

A copy of the MPA’s comments regarding the 2021 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers is available here (pdf). A copy of Bill No. 1153 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

 Having covered hundreds of arrests and dozens of convictions for piracy-related offenses over the years, news of another person going to prison is nothing out of the ordinary. See enough of these reports and in theory the impact will start to diminish.

In the media, the one-size-fits-all portrayal of those convicted can at times blur any number of cases into one. Often depicted as hard-nosed experienced criminals, torn from the same despicable cloth, nothing of importance is mentioned to separate them. A name, age, a list of crimes, and a figure indicating the damage caused, lead to the most important detail of all; how many months or years they will deservedly spend behind bars and why nobody should waste a moment’s sympathy.

For the most persistent, hardcore pirates, who understand the risks and take them anyway, prosecution is an occupational hazard and those cases are taken for what they are. Yet the same can’t always be said about those who seem to drift gradually into activities now viewed as serious crime, often on a part-time basis, alongside their otherwise productive, responsible, law-abiding lives.

When prosecutions end up in court, no matter who committed them, the alleged crimes tend to look almost the same, regardless of the specific law underpinning the prosecution. The people behind them are not, however. The prosecution of former headmaster Paul Merrell stands out as a prime example.

The Gateway Drug: Facebook

The background to Merrell’s conviction is as non-typical as these cases go. While working as a deputy headteacher at a school in Coventry, a school an hour’s drive away was sending out distress signals. In dire need of a headmaster but unable to afford one, Merrell took the job on for a £13,000 reduction in salary and started to turn the school’s fortunes around. For this he deservedly received universal praise.

In parallel, Merrell had reportedly learned about IPTV on Facebook. As a new customer, subsequently purchased a subscription from a then relatively unknown provider called Flawless TV. Had a crystal ball been available back in 2017, Merrell would’ve observed the operators of Flawless being sent to prison in 2023 for more than 30 years.

Media Maverick

Without the benefit of such foresight, Merrell continued to run a school during the day and began reselling Flawless subscriptions on the side. By now operating under the name Media Maverick on social media, customers hoping to watch Sky TV and BT Sport were in plentiful supply. And at just £10 per month, presumably more than happy with the 90% discount versus official packages.

Whether the success of the business proved too intoxicating, or extra money became too useful, is unclear. But instead of jumping off the runaway train on track for disaster, Merrell strapped in and began declaring around £25,000 in profits to HMRC each year under the heading “educational resources and online support.”

Those declarations were clearly dishonest; or maybe, given his otherwise excellent character, that was Merrell’s way of ensuring he paid at least some tax as a small token of his underlying honesty. Even in the event that was true, to rightsholders, investigators, and the police, that means absolutely nothing.

The Beginning of the End

In April 2020, an investigator made a test purchase from Media Maverick, paying £10 through PayPal to an account operated by Merrell. Three days later the investigator logged into the Media Maverick service and accessed multiple commercial channels, including streams belonging to Sky and BT Sport. Merrell suspected nothing, and when the investigator bought another subscription in November 2020, that didn’t change.

Late January, 2021, a warrant was executed at Merrell’s home, and five electronic devices were seized. In a subsequent interview Merrell admitted that he’d serviced 1,000 customers since 2017, a figure later revised to 2,000 by 2021.

An analysis of the seized devices revealed that Merrell’s revenue was more than the £25,000 declared annually to HMRC. In total, Media Maverick had generated over £400,000 in subscription payments.

On October 27, 2023, at Birmingham Crown Court, Merrell changed his plea to guilty on charges of possessing, selling, or distributing a device designed to circumvent technical measures, and for providing, promoting, advertising, or marketing a service for that purpose.

In a sea of similar prosecutions for serious criminal fraud, a prosecution for ‘circumventing technical measures’ lacks the same sinister tone, despite being directly linked to the same underlying acts. At sentencing in February, the punishment was 12 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Request for Sentence to Be Suspended

Merrell’s request to reduce the custodial sentence to 12 months suspended led the Court to examine various aspects of the offending and to consider whether the original sentence was appropriate.

From the beginning, the odds are stacked against those convicted of these types of crimes. Since this type of offending can be difficult to detect and investigate, a relatively rare conviction can be seen as an opportunity for the court to hand down a deterrent sentence, unless other aspects of the case indicate otherwise.

Too Long, Too Much

In this case the duration of the offending spanned four years and didn’t end until the search warrant was executed. During that four-year period, significant profits were made causing financial damage to broadcasters, the court said. The exact amount proved impossible to determine, but an estimate by the judge indicated that over the four years, between £2 million and £3 million in revenue was diverted away from the broadcasters.

While mindful of significant personal mitigation in Merrell’s case, the offending was not considered amateur, minor, or short-lived. That was another factor in favor of a custodial sentence, on top of the alleged damage to broadcasters.

Surely, a positive could be found in Merrell’s otherwise good character, his work at the school where he took a significant pay cut, perhaps? The Court of Appeal did consider his role as headmaster; by questioning whether the offending was compatible with the running of a school.

Risk vs. Reward vs. The Unknown

Overall, the Court found that the seriousness of the offending outweighed the arguments in favor of a suspended sentence. Only immediate custody would ensure appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.

With that the appeal was denied, but was that the right decision? Through the prism of his dedication to teaching, investment in family, a previously clean record, and the unlikely prospect of any type of future offending, probably not. From the side of the prosecution, absolutely.

News of another arrest next week or next month, of someone who knew exactly what they were doing, may not move the needle. The arrest of someone who thought they knew what they were doing, and risked a lifetime of hard work, personal achievement, and family life, before everything went wrong, isn’t a hard luck story. It’s a tragedy.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Manga and anime have become increasingly popular in recent years. These formats originate in Japan but are now popular all over the world.

Available in static and animated form, ‘hentai’ describes the adult versions of the above, which also has growing audience of many millions of fans.

As with any type of media, not all consumers are paying for access. Many people prefer ‘free’ websites instead, such as nHentai.net, which had nearly 80 million visits in June this year.

Target: nHentai

Rightsholders are not happy with these free platforms and many have classified nHentai as a brazen pirate site that shouldn’t be allowed to operate.

This summer, California company PCR Distributing, which operates under various brands, including J18 and JAST USA, took action. The company tried to obtain a DMCA subpoena requiring Cloudflare to hand over all identifying information it has on the site’s operators.

DMCA subpoenas have proven to be an effective legal tool to gather information. In this case, however, nHentai’s operators decided to intervene, asking the court to quash the subpoena. While that could have been an interesting legal battle, PCR voluntarily dismissed the matter and decided to file a full-fledged lawsuit instead.

PCR Sues nHentai

In a complaint filed at a California federal court in August, PCR described nHentai as a popular ‘pirate’ site with dozens of millions of visitors. The site shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission from rightsholders, the company informed the court.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint reads.

PCR further argues that nHentai can’t rely on a DMCA safe harbor as the operators allegedly uploaded the infringing content directly and then failed to respond to takedown requests.

Early Discovery

PCR didn’t waste any time renewing its earlier efforts to unmask the operators of nHentai. The rightsholder filed a motion for early discovery, requesting subpoenas to obtain information from NameCheap, Cloudflare, and Lanoto Solutions.

The requested information includes names, addresses, login information, billing records, server logs, IP addresses, email exchanges, and IP login information related to the NHentai.net accounts.

“Plaintiff seeks the identities of Defendants, the owners and operators of nHentai, who have taken measures to conceal their identity,” PCR wrote, noting that the subpoenas would help to establish relevant detail.

Early Discovery

nHentai Opposes

Nhentai swiftly opposed this request, citing serious privacy concerns. The site doesn’t want its login information and financial records, including complete credit card numbers, to be exposed.

As a further precaution, the site also asked the court for a protective order, to ensure that if early discovery is granted, none of the identifying information will end up in public.

While this response was expected from the site, nHentai’s memorandum adds new information that puts the copyright infringement complaint in a new light. According to the defense, PCR previously gave the site permission to use its content.

Permission Granted?

Nhentai’s attorney says that a representative of plaintiff’s brands gave written permission via email to use J18 Publishing’s content. In the same email, it also inquired about running paid ads on the site.

“Plaintiff has repeatedly given Nhentai.net permission, in writing, to use Plaintiff’s content. Plaintiff expressed on multiple occasions that it does not want Nhentai.net to stop using its content,” nHentai informed the court.

“In fact, Plaintiff wants Nhentai.net to use it so that Plaintiff can amass even more money from the sexually explicit materials Plaintiff sells. Plaintiff has even offered to pay Nhentai.net to run ads on its website to accomplish this goal.”

One of the emails in question, posted below, clarifies that “this isn’t a takedown request or a DMCA”, offering a collaboration instead.

Permission?

In another email, also cited in the legal paperwork, PCR’s representative sent a spreadsheet of over 3,300 links, which nHentai was ‘permitted’ to share. In yet another email, the company indicated that it was considering paying nHentai for banner ads.

Banner?

PCR Responds

This week, PCR responded to nHentai’s opposition and the newly revealed details. According to the rightsholders, there’s nothing that should prevent the court from granting the subpoenas.

“Plaintiff is not seeking information about end users, their credit card numbers or any of the parade of horribles cited by Defendant. All of the information sought is limited to information about the operators of this website,” PCR notes.

The response doesn’t dispute that the cited emails are legitimate but even if they are, that doesn’t establish a license or consent to use PCR’s copyrighted content.

“Here, to support their non-exclusive license, Defendants merely cite invitations to bargain and prior negotiations. Under California law, an invitation to bargain is not an offer.”

In addition, PCR points out that after the ‘unauthenticated’ emails, it sent several DMCA takedown notices that were ignored. This is why PCR decided to go to court, hoping to identify the operators.

“Plaintiff’s brief also […] ignores the fact that before this case was filed Plaintiff sent multiple DMCA takedown notices and recently served a DMCA subpoena on in an attempt to identify Defendant, thus dispensing with the notion there was some sort of ‘permission’,” PCR writes.

The court has yet to rule on the motion for early discovery, but the details released so far suggest that this case may present some intriguing twists and turns as it progresses toward trial.

—

A copy of nHentai’s motion for a protective order, citing the emails mentioned in this article ,is available here (pdf). PCR’s response can be accessed here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Source

 More than twelve years after an unprecedented law enforcement operation shut down file-sharing giant Megaupload, founder Kim Dotcom remains in New Zealand.

The battle to avoid extradition to the United States has been fought tooth and nail, year in and year out, in various New Zealand courts.

With no stone left unturned, no expense spared, and no point of leverage too microscopic to test to destruction, no person alive can claim the process wasn’t thorough.

Start to finish, less time was spent constructing Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building in Dubai, but suddenly in August, the Dotcom saga was suddenly declared over. New Zealand Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith put pen to paper and authorized Dotcom’s removal to the country he blames for almost everything.

Celebrations Start Early in the U.S.

If Dotcom’s request for judicial review means he stays a few more months in New Zealand, the entire calendar from arrest to extradition will span a Prohibition-beating 13+ years. But whatever happens, corks are already popping across the Atlantic.

At CreativeFuture, a coalition of more than 500 companies and organizations on a mission to eliminate piracy through the promotion of creativity and legitimate content, the last few gallons of moonshine clearly haven’t gone to waste.

Image credit: CreativeFuture

“In August 2024, we learned that one of the internet era’s leading jackasses will be, at long last, extradited from New Zealand to the United States,” a delighted CreativeFuture begins.

“Once here, Kim Dotcom will FINALLY face trial on charges of copyright infringement, racketeering, money laundering, and wire fraud. Dotcom is WAY overdue for a reckoning.”

Celebrating Extradition Through The Sharing of Knowledge

The theme of the CreativeFuture celebrations is clear from the image above; a decade of frustration transformed into a festival of information sharing/testing, possibly hosted by Ellen DeGeneres.

“It has been over TWELVE YEARS since Dotcom, owner of the notorious piracy site Megaupload, was indicted. Do you recall how flagrantly he stole from creatives? Are images of his mansion and luxury cars seared into your brain? They might be! They are certainly seared into ours!”

Presented in the familiar multiple choice format of The Price Is Right, the full quiz is available on the CreativeFuture website.

Everyone is invited to join in but remember: it will only be possible to win if answers conflate the allegations in the indictment with established fact. Good luck!

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

In August, Cox Communications filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a review of the Fourth Circuit ruling that held the company contributorily liable for pirating subscribers.

The Internet provider ultimately challenged the $1 billion jury verdict from 2019, which went in favor of the major record labels.

Labels Petition Supreme Court over Piracy Profits

As Cox petitioned the Supreme Court, the music companies filed their own petition, hoping to strengthen the verdict. Specifically, they argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

In this case, and similar ones filed against Bright House and Grande, courts previously rejected the vicarious infringement claims, holding that there is no causal link between the pirating activities and the financial benefits.

The major record labels, including Sony and Universal, want the Supreme Court to take a closer look at the “profit motive”. They asked the Court to consider whether an ISP must profit directly from the infringement itself, or if profiting from the overall operation in which the infringement occurs is enough.

Repeat Infringers vs. Dance Halls

The music companies argued that Cox profited from subscription revenue it would not have otherwise obtained if it had terminated the accounts of customers who were repeat infringers. Between February 2013 and December 2016, Cox received $208 million in revenue from subscribers who received three or more piracy notices.  

To support this argument, the music companies cited the dance hall cases, in which courts have held that the owners of venues can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by performers they hire.

The petition further cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Herbert v. Shanley Co. that a hotel could be held liable for the infringing performance of an orchestra it employed. The Court concluded that the hotel profited from the performance, even though visitors only paid for their meal, not the music.  

Cox Opposes Petition

In an opposition brief filed this week, Cox asks the Supreme Court to deny the petition. According to the Internet provider, the plaintiffs present a “radical new theory” that would make service providers liable, simply because they offer Internet access.

“Under this theory, the plaintiff need not prove that the ISP is in the least bit culpable, that it knew about the infringement, or that it made a single extra penny because of the infringing activity,” Cox informs the Court.

“In other words, because Cox, like any ISP, has a financial interest in offering internet service to customers, it is liable for anything those customers do online. To state the argument is to refute it. There is no such form of liability—not in copyright law or anywhere else.”

Responding to the ‘hotel orchestra’ argument, Cox notes that in that case the infringing performance acted as a ‘draw’ for potential customers. There’s no such draw in this case, as pirated content is available though all ISPs, this reasoning suggests.

Cox stresses that the Fourth Circuit correctly rejected the vicarious copyright infringement allegations. It sees no reason for the Supreme Court to consider the case, arguing, among other things, that there is no real disagreement in lower courts on this matter.

As further support, ISP cites the Supreme Court’s holding in Grokster, which stated that vicarious liability requires proof that the defendant profited directly from the infringement. That’s not the case here, it notes.  

Draconian Internet Police

In recent filings, Cox has put a lot of emphasis on the broader societal impact this case may have. If the labels have their way, it could mean that ISPs are ‘forced’ to terminate accounts of many thousands of subscribers, solely based on rightsholders complaints.

“ISPs would not only be required to execute mass internet evictions at the slightest allegation of copyright infringement, but they would need to police the internet and terminate users upon any hint or accusation of misconduct practices as invasive as they are draconian.

“That would imperil the livelihoods, safety, and social connections of a massive universe of downstream users who rely on internet connections to run businesses, pay bills, apply to jobs, read the news, connect with friends and family, petition their representatives, and attend school.”

A verdict that goes against Cox will also mean significant financial consequences for the ISP, hence the decision to fight the matter up to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court decides to take on this case, it will undoubtedly result in a landmark decision; for Cox, for rightsholders, and for the public at large. The same is true for Cox’s petition, which is still under review.

—

A copy of Cox Communications’ opposition brief, filed Monday at the Supreme Court, 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

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 two newcomers on the list. “Alien: Romulus” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 21 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.

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of September): 4,292 news posts

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend