As Italy’s measures continue against pirate IPTV providers and any entity directly or indirectly associated with them, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that those who carry out infringement exist in the physical world.

Until suspects are confronted in this environment, the risk of recurring infringement never really goes away. Law enforcement in Italy will be hoping that an investigation in the city of Lecce will produce lasting results after uncovering a “sophisticated fraud scheme.”

Multi-Agency Investigation

Coordinated by the public prosecutor’s office, the investigation aimed to uncover the identities of those behind a pirate IPTV reselling scheme.

The Economic and Financial Police Unit and digital forensics experts from the Guardia di Finanza were reportedly able to shine light on a complex operation. Content illegally obtained from legal platforms operated by Sky, DAZN, Netflix, and Mediaset, was bundled into packages for resale in Italy at a fraction of the usual price.

Law enforcement targeted four individuals, including a man who they believe is the main suspect behind a fairly large reselling operation. Dealing with the providers themselves or potentially someone else close to them, resellers buy subscription ‘credits’ (1 month of viewing = 1 credit) mostly in bulk at a lower price than generally available to the public.

This allows the reseller to make a profit when selling subscriptions on to their own customers, although downsides include greater exposure to risk and in many cases the need to provide customer service.

The main suspect is said to have “managed an internet platform through which he rebroadcast encrypted content without any agreement with the legitimate distributors.” That appears to be a reference to the web interface (panel) used by resellers to manage customers, including the content they receive in their packages and for how long.

Follow-the-Money

According to investigators, the safest but less convenient option of receiving subscription payments in cash gave way to the suspects’ use of prepaid Postepay payment cards. The Postepay service is provided by the Italian post office, Poste Italiane, which is controlled by Italy’s Ministry of Economy and Finance through its majority shareholding.

Postepay cards must be registered to a person and a phone number and can’t be bought for the use of a third party, at least in theory. Those who purchased pirate subscriptions from the suspects allegedly topped up the sellers’ prepaid cards directly. Police say they were able to trace payments back to those selling the subscriptions.

Funds Were Reinvested

Investigators used banking records and other searches to quantify the sums involved in the operation, arriving at a figure in excess of 500,000 euros. These funds were reportedly reinvested in various assets to hide connections to illegal streaming subscriptions, but that doesn’t appear to have been entirely effective.

At the Court of Lecce, a judge ordered the preventative seizure of five “immovable assets” and two vehicles, one of which is reported as “vintage.” All four suspects were reported for alleged violations of copyright law and related money laundering offenses.

The Guardia di Finanza says that its investigations will continue to identify other parties involved in the distribution network. Whether that is a strict reference to those explicitly involved in distribution is unclear but under new law passed in 2023, consuming/purchasing pirate subscriptions is illegal.

The possibility that a subscriber list will be surfaced, coupled with recent statements that consumers of illicit IPTV are set to receive fines, the potential for wider fallout can’t yet be ruled out.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Last month, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The removal is rather significant because the app has millions of users.

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

Why action is being taken now remains a mystery. None of the parties involved have commented in detail on the reason for the removal. Musi, in response to the takedown, acknowledged the problem and said that it hoped to resolve it.

However, with Apple seemingly unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi has now opted to pursue legal action.

Musi Sues Apple

In a complaint filed at a California federal court, Musi sues Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the takedown was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it.

“This case arises from Apple’s abrupt removal of Musi’s mobile software application from the Apple App Store, based upon an unsubstantiated third-party complaint, and in violation of the parties’ contractual agreements,” the complaint begins.

“Despite its obligations to investigate complaints in good faith, Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi.”

Musi vs. Apple
 

Existing users who already installed Musi can continue to use Musi. However, the app can no longer be downloaded, effectively preventing new users from accessing the service. This puts the future of the software company in jeopardy, as Apple is the only platform where it’s available.

Complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’

In our initial coverage of the removal, we cited information which suggested that YouTube was involved in the matter. The complaint confirms that’s indeed the case. According to Musi, Apple’s action was triggered by a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ which was sent to Apple late July.

The takedown notice from YouTube Legal merely states that Musi is “violating YouTube Terms of Service”, without any concrete allegations.

Apple email, YouTube complaint

While YouTube is known to take action against external software that abuses its API to offer competing services, Musi maintains that it doesn’t rely on YouTube’s API and is unaware of any TOS violations.

In response to the notice, Musi’s attorney tried to obtain more details from YouTube, but according to the complaint, the requests went unanswered.

‘Musi Remains Unheard’

In addition to reaching out to YouTube, Musi also tried to engage with Apple. Instead of more clarity, however, Musi’s calls went unanswered, and the matter remained unresolved.

According to an email YouTube sent to Apple on September 6, Musi didn’t reach out to its legal team. Citing continued Terms of Service violations, YouTube therefore requested Apple to remove the app.

YouTube’s email on September 6
 

Musi responded directly to YouTube’s email, noting that they had contacted YouTube and remained eager to resolve the issue. However, this had no effect on Apple’s decision, and on September 24th, the company informed Musi that the app would be removed.

The removal email specifically cites “intellectual property infringement” as the reason to remove the app.

“Apple informed you of the claim, and of your responsibility to resolve the matter directly with the Claimant, or risk removal of your app from the App Store. We regret that the dispute could not be resolved amicably. As a result, your app will be removed from the App Store on the basis of intellectual property infringement,” Apple wrote.

Removed

Unjustified Removal?

Despite Musi’s repeated attempts to obtain clarification, the specific YouTube terms violated remain unclear. According to the complaint, Apple was aware of this lack of clarity but proceeded to remove the app anyway.

“Apple nonetheless suddenly and unjustifiably removed the Musi app from the App Store on the basis of the July 2024 complaint. To date, the Musi app has not been restored,” Musi writes.

“The removal was all the more galling in light of the fact that Apple threatened to remove the app if Musi did not try to resolve the alleged complaint with the Complainant, and Apple was fully aware that the Complainant had elected not to communicate in any way directly with Musi.”

Email correspondence reveals that YouTube first complained to Apple in March 2023, and sent repeated notices after that. These notices didn’t result in any action, but Apple eventually removed Musi following the July 2024 notice.

Musi Demands Restoration and Damages

Musi ultimately claims that the removal was unjustified, as Apple removed the app based on an unsubstantiated third-party complaint without a thorough investigation. Musi says that it didn’t get a fair chance to explain the supposed misunderstanding of the app’s functionality.

As a result, the complaint accuses Apple of contract breach and violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Through the lawsuit, the company hopes to set the record straight.

The main goal is to obtain an injunction that requires Apple to restore Musi in the App store. In addition, the company also seeks compensation for all damages it suffered as a result of the ‘unjustified’ removal.

This case is likely to be closely watched by the tech and music industries, as it could set a precedent for future app takedown disputes, as well as potential disputes about the third-party use of YouTube content.

—

A copy of Musi’s complaint against Apple, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available musi-apple

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 For the UK’s Premier League, the United States is still a relatively untapped market but given the potential, growth is being taken very seriously indeed.

As highlighted in its submission to the United States Trade Representative for its 2024 Review of Notorious Markets, in 2023 the Premier League opened an office in Manhattan, New York. This is the second international office for the UK’s top football league after opening in Singapore in 2019, primarily for the purpose of fighting piracy.

The Premier League’s submission to the USTR is significant in that the same platforms and services causing problems for the Premier League today are already similarly troublesome for live sports in the United States. With site-blocking looming in the United States, it’s worth highlighting that no rightsholder anywhere has more experience blocking live sports streams than the Premier League.

Dedicated Server Providers (DSPs)

The Premier League begins its submission with ‘Dedicated Server Providers’ because without them, no mainstream live video piracy would be possible. Premier League says its focus is on DSPs that (i) have been responsible for thousands of infringing live streams in the 2023/24 season and (ii) have not taken any meaningful action to prevent the infringements, “either in real-time or subsequently against the infringing customer(s).”

Amarutu Technology Ltd (“Amarutu”) – AS206264

Amarutu claims to have offices in Hong Kong and Seychelles but according to the Premier League, its datacenters are located in the United States and the Netherlands. Cloudflare data shows that U.S. traffic accounts for less than 10% of the total with over 62% linked to the Netherlands.

“[Amarutu] consistently ignores the takedown notices it receives from the Premier League every week,” the submission reads. “Amarutu was named in the USTR 2023 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy…but has continued to allow large scale infringement of Premier League copyright through its services.

The Premier League says it has detected over 5,000 infringing streams already this season, in addition to over 5,000 during last season.

Amarutu says it forwards DMCA notices to its clients for resolution “but in most cases action is not required,” an assertion the Premier League strongly disputes. Exactly how many IPTV providers Amarutu has for clients would take some time to determine but just one of its allocated IP addresses is linked to 59 IPTV-related domains.

Reports suggest there are over 20,000 domain names hosted on Amarutu’s AS but describing it as predominantly infringing operation would be incorrect. Almost 16,000 of those domains are allocated to elearningontario.ca, which is operated by the government of Ontario in Canada.

Other reportedly problematic DSPs listed by the Premier League:

AS-Istqservers / Istqserverses (“Istq”) – AS212042 / AS211826

Istq is an allegedly Jordan-based DSP “that operates multiple ASNs, seemingly in order to evade efforts by legitimate copyright owners to enforce their IP rights.”

It previously appeared on the 2022 EU Commission’s Piracy Watchlist and in the 2023/24 season was reportedly responsible for 12,000+ infringing live streams. The submission claims that Istq “failed to take any meaningful action upon receipt of takedown notices.”

Best DC – AS216014

The Premier League says that provider PEENQ.NL (AS212370) was recently dissolved, and its IP addresses were allocated to BEST DC. However, they conclude that the same operator is responsible for both. PEENQ.NL was responsible for 14,000 infringing streams during the 2023/24 season, the Premier League notes.

HostPalace Web Solution PVT LTD (“Host Palace”) – AS134512

HostPalace is based in India and reportedly operates data centers located in the U.S., Europe, and India, and also runs a second host “apparently based in the UK.”

The Premier League is particularly scathing in its commentary, noting that Host Palace “takes no action whatsoever to cease the copyright infringement that it is well aware occurs across its network every week.”

Host Palace appeared in the EU Commission’s 2022 Watch List and was reportedly responsible for 20,000 infringing streams during the 2023/24 season.

Other DSPs reported by the Premier League: NetSolutions – AS47674, Pulsarnet – AS400409, Squitter-Networks – AS213371, AS27161 (previously Litnics / now unreserved), Virtual Systems LLC (“Virtual Systems”) – AS30860 and AS6698, ZETNET RO – AS25198

Streaming Platforms

Aliez.tv is described as a hybrid site that operates as both a streaming platform and a user generated content upload site. The Premier League believes it is closely linked to livetv.sx, a site that has caused problems for sports rightsholders for years.

“Over 3,000 infringing streams of Matches were detected on Aliez over Season 2023/24. A large percentage of the streams were delivered primarily by Squitter,” Premier League reports.

Other sites nominated by the UK’s top sports league clearly demonstrate that even when placed under huge pressure, including surprise domain seizures and widespread site-blocking measures, sites are capable of adapting and countering the threat.

Streaming Websites: Resilient, Even Under Pressure

Late 2022, Freestreams-live1 was targeted by U.S. law enforcement in a sweep designed to protect the FIFA World Cup. On that occasion Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) seized the streaming platform’s .com domain but with a switch to freestreams-live1.tv, it remained operational.

The Premier League’s submission states that the domain “continues to be a major source of live piracy” with four million visits during the 2023/24 season. True to form, however, the site appears to have dumped that domain a while back, having moved on to other TLDs.

Also under scrutiny is Footybite, part of a larger ring of sites covering various sports including NFL(bite) and NBA(bite). The Premier League believes that the sites fall under common ownership, with footybite.to accounting for almost 550 million visits alone during the 2023/24 season.

Public data from SimilarWeb, used by the Premier League in its submission to the USTR, currently reports just short of three million visits per month, 36 million visits per year. That falls short of the claimed half billion so whether that’s a reference to all ‘bite’ traffic combined or an error remains unclear.

Mentioned earlier in connection with Aliez.tv, the unquestionably notorious livetv.sx also receives an individual mention. Available in a dozen languages across multiple domains, the submission estimates traffic of 100 million+ visits per year. That’s despite the site being blocked in multiple countries due to Premier League injunctions.

In Italy, where site-blocking is increasingly the weapon of choice for Premier League rival Serie A, livetv.sx traffic increased by 259% last month alone.

Other streaming websites reported in the submission: Pirlo TV, Sportshub, Sportsurge.club, Streameast.app, Totalsportek, VIPBox, Xoilac

Subscription-Based IPTV Services

The Premier League nominates the usual suspects in this category, many of which have appeared in earlier reports submitted to the USTR or European Commission, either by the Premier League or other rightsholders involved in live sports.

The full list reads as follows: BingSport, EVPad, Family Box, Gazal, Globe IPTV, Lemo IPTV/IPTV Trends, Redline, Spider, SVI Cloud, Yacine TV

“As demonstrated throughout this submission, IP infringement through online piracy is a complex issue that involves many different intermediaries and forms of technology,” the Premier League notes in closing comments.

“The entities identified above, however, are all playing an integral role in the direct offering of high volumes of infringing live streams of Matches (as well as,in many cases, other copyright protected content) and are therefore recommended for inclusion on the Notorious Market List.

The full Premier League submission to the USTR is available here (pdf)

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Nintendo is doing everything in its power to stop the public from playing pirated games on the Switch console.

The Japanese gaming company has won several lawsuits in recent history, including shutting down websites that distributed pirated ROMs.

Most notably, perhaps, was the criminal referral that resulted in the demise of the infamous hacking group Team-Xecuter. The group had previously released several ‘jailbreak’ hacks for gaming consoles and was widely regarded as Nintendo’s main nemesis.

With the win against Team-Xecuter, Nintendo hoped that the modding scene would fade into oblivion, but that’s not what happened. In recent years, new tools and hardware solutions were released, requiring Nintendo to step up its enforcement efforts once again.

For example, recently Nintendo went after various Switch piracy related tools, including the Yuzu emulator, Lockpick, and MIG Switch.

Nintendo vs. Modded Hardware

In June of this year, Nintendo filed additional lawsuits in U.S. courts to further intensify the crackdown. One of these complaints targets Modded Hardware and its alleged operator, Michigan-resident Ryan Daly, who’s also known under the alias “Homebrew Homie”.

Nintendo and Daly were no strangers at the time. In March, Nintendo threatened Daly with a lawsuit; both parties agreed that the allegedly unlawful activity, which includes selling MIG devices and modded consoles, would stop.

That didn’t happen, however, so Nintendo sued Daly at a federal court in Seattle instead.

Mod Chips, MIG Switch, and Pirated Games

In the complaint, Nintendo alleged that Modded Hardware sells several pieces of hardware that circumvent its piracy protections. These include Mod Chips and the “MIG Switch,” a memory card that allows people to play pirated copies of Nintendo Switch games on authentic consoles.

Modded Hardware
 

In addition to selling hardware hacks, the defendant also offered mail-in modding services and modded versions of Switch consoles, for the less technically inclined. These were reportedly loaded with pirated games, according to the complaint.

“Defendant not only offers the hardware and firmware to create and play pirated games, but he also provides his customers with copies of pirated Nintendo games,” the complaint reads.

“Typically, when a customer purchases a Hacked Console or the Circumvention Services, Defendant preinstalls on the console a portfolio of ready-to-play pirated games, including some of Nintendo’s most popular titles such as its Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and Metroid games.”

Overall, Nintendo alleges that Modded Hardware trafficked in circumvention devices by selling mod-chips and MIG devices. That violates the DMCA, for which Nintendo demands damages. In addition, the gaming company seeks damages for direct and contributory copyright infringement, accusing the defendant of adding pirated games to consoles.

Modded Hardware Denies any Wrongdoing

This week, Ryan Daly filed an answer to the complaint. The alleged Modded Hardware operator goes up against Nintendo without an attorney and denies any wrongdoing. This includes the claim that Daly is the owns and operates the Modded Hardware business.

Denied

The answer doesn’t include much substance. It mostly repeats Nintendo’s claims, simply responding with the word “denied”. In response to more general allegations, Daly replies that he lacks “sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations,” which are therefore denied as well.

Lacks information
 

These types of responses are not uncommon in answers to a complaint. What is unusual, however, is that the defendant is not represented by a lawyer. Without making any inferences about the validity of Nintendo’s claims, it’s generally not easy for a ‘pro se‘ defendant to counter a seasoned team of Nintendo lawyers.

Fair Use and Other Defenses

In addition to the denials, Daly presents a list of seventeen affirmative defenses. These include fair use, invalid copyrights, a lack of standing, fraudulent inducement, an arbitration clause, failure to state a claim and unjust enrichment. The answer doesn’t elaborate on any of these defenses at this point.

Defenses

Now that Daly has answered the complaint, the lawsuit can move forward to the discovery process. At this stage, both parties can gather evidence, which typically includes depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents.

Whether the alleged Modded Hardware operator will continue solo isn’t entirely clear. Last month, Nintendo informed the court that it was in contact with the defendant’s attorney. It’s unknown what happened since, but it’s possible that Daly will seek legal assistance again in the future.

The Modded Hardware website, meanwhile, is no longer publicly available. It now requires a password to access.

—

A copy of Ryan Daly’s pro se answer to Nintendo’s complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court in Seattle, is available here (pdf)

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Fresh amendments to Italian law were passed by Senators this week and their effects will soon be felt on the IPTV piracy battlefield.

Covered in detail in our earlier report, this advanced legal weaponry is incapable of dealing with distant pirate IPTV services. Instead, it mainly targets communications infrastructure, much of it operated by rightsholders’ supposed allies – ISPs – who were given no say in the matter.

Clever Amendments, Guilt-Free Friendly Fire, and a Year Off Work

VPN and DNS services anywhere on planet earth will be required to join Piracy Shield and start blocking pirate sites, most likely at their own expense, just like Italian ISPs are required to do already. And remember the uproar when Cloudflare was wrongfully blocked in a case of shared IP address collateral damage? Well, a preventative fix arrived this week thanks to a clever amendment.

Moving forward, if pirate sites share an IP address with entirely innocent sites, and the innocent sites are outnumbered, ISPs, VPNs and DNS services will be legally required to block them all.

Since nobody ever passes bad law and good laws hurt no one, blocking innocent sites can be conducted guilt-free from the moral high ground.

And since the law applies worldwide, regardless of where a VPN or DNS is located or operated from, the moral high ground can be enjoyed in China or even North Korea.

Limitless Blocking, Unlimited Liability

Limits on the volume of domains and IP addresses previously agreed with ISPs, to prevent their systems collapsing and taking the rest of the Italian internet down as well, are suddenly no longer required. At least according to those who came up with a legal amendment that strongly suggests that.

Admittedly, there is the small matter of the agreement on limits previously reached with ISPs, to prevent their platforms from collapsing under the strain, but ask yourself this: What use is an ISP to its owners when they’re in prison for failing to immediately report all known infringements on their platform to the authorities? Exactly.

That’s just one example of the genius behind the amendment that provides ISPs with up to a whole year of involuntary confinement, hard bunks, and a much deserved break from family and friends. It also offers up to a year off work and much longer if there’s no business left to come back to afterward. Indeed, that’s yet another example of how the amendment thwarts pirates.

Despite Obvious Benefits, ISPs Absolutely Hate The Amendments

Giovanni Zorzoni, President of the Italian Internet Provider Association (AIIP), slammed the amendments this week and identified the forces behind them.

“Irresponsible initiative that, in the sole interest of the football lobby, tramples on operators, [AGCOM] and the Internet ecosystem,” he said.

“Thanks to the new law, they will be able to block sites that are no longer exclusively, but also ‘mainly’ used to distribute illegal content, substantially widening the scope of [rightsholders’] discretion. It may therefore happen, much more frequently, that even legitimate addresses that are only accidentally used for the transmission of pirated content are blocked,” Zorzoni added.

“This is also a serious matter for [AGCOM], which will find itself having to manage a possibly infinite mass of appeals compared to just as many reports that will correspond to false positives.”

Zorzoni views the prospect of going to prison in Italy, for failure to promptly report illegal conduct by users to the judicial authorities or the police, as more of a negative than anything else. Interestingly, complying with Italian law could mean violating laws elsewhere too, raising the prospect of being punished in two places at once, for engaging in an activity that is not required under EU law and undermines ISPs’ safe harbor protections.

“The indirect consequence of this provision will be to burden Internet access operators with the active surveillance of traffic, risking violating both national and European regulations, and putting at risk the principle of ‘mere conduit’ on which our activity is based,” Zorzoni predicted.

Money, Money, Money

Who knows why these things always seem to come down to money, but apparently the ISPs are out of pocket right now after investing “significant” economic resources to get Piracy Shield up and running. The amendments, it seems, will require even more expenditure.

“[ISPs] are now called upon, once again, and unfortunately exclusively, to make further efforts without there being a minimum provision for compensation, promised several times but never materialized,” Zorzoni complained.

On LinkedIn, Filippo Ciringione, Chairman of the Board of Directors at the non-profit Wireco Project, pointed out a glaring double standard. If cracking down on piracy is about protecting people’s ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor, why are Italy’s ISPs working for nothing?

“A very questionable law that forces ISPs to pay significant costs without any kind of compensation for the costs incurred. The costs of this law are only borne by the telecom operators. It does not seem fair to me,” he said.

It doesn’t sound fair to Matteo Fici either. He wrote one of the first Italian manuals on TCP/IP, launched one of first Italian ISPs, before founding Italian ISP association Assoprovider in 1999.

“A very wrong and exaggerated rule, it only serves to protect the interests of the world of professional football and puts the digital transition in Italy at risk by hitting operators of various types,” he wrote.

Google is Worried About the Judicial Authorities

Also on LinkedIn, Diego Ciulli, Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Google in Italy, expressed concern over the likely effect on the justice system in Italy should Google be required to comply.

Under the label of “fighting piracy”, Ciulli said that digital platforms will be required to notify the judicial authorities of ALL copyright infringements – present, past and future – when they become aware of them. That could be a problem.

“Do you know how many there are in the case of Google? At the moment, 9,756,931,770. In short, the Senate is asking us to flood the judicial authorities with almost 10 billion URLs – and provides for prison if we miss a single notification. If the law is not amended, the risk is to do the opposite of the spirit of the law: clog up the judicial authorities, and take resources away from the fight against piracy,” he warned.

More Significant Damage Cannot Be Seen But Will Be Felt

The new law isn’t unfixable, but given the stubborn approach to advice in recent months, not to mention attempts to mislead, there’s a tone of defiance among Italy’s blocking proponents; at times, perhaps even an air of the unstoppable.

Whether this lies at the heart of the most significant damage done by these amendments isn’t clear, but it’s damage that cannot be repaired by showering ISPs with money. Known to be one of the most powerful emotions humans ever experience, which not uncommonly ends in regret, the betrayal ISPs spoke of this week is extremely serious.

Someone appears to have decided that ISPs aren’t important enough to be consulted or, given the nature of the prison threat, should be excluded to prevent dissent. The comments below suggest that betraying ISPs was a serious miscalculation, perhaps the worst ever seen since site-blocking began.

Poor Reception Everywhere

Giovanbattista Frontera, president of Assoprovider: The introduction of the risk of imprisonment for ISPs is a draconian and disproportionate measure. This rule not only jeopardizes the personal freedom of operators in the sector, but risks paralyzing the entire telecommunications system in Italy.

Antonella Oliviero, CEO of ISP Consulservice: Predicting prison for operators does not stop piracy. It only represents an unprecedented threat to [telecoms] in Italy. Operators were born to bring the Internet everywhere and give customers the opportunity to use the network for all services, even to follow football. Today they find themselves having to act as the police of the network, for free to protect the interests of others.

Antonio Bartolini, CTO and Chief Infrastructure Officer at ISP Connesi S.p.A.: [T]he relationship between AGCOM and the operators who have collaborated up to now and have taken on obligations not foreseen by their profession and which they have been forced to perform for free is only exacerbated. I fear that this will only have the opposite effect.

Asstel-Assotelecomunicazioni: Holding telecommunications operators liable at a criminal level is not useful in fighting piracy.

Of course, there’s always an option to start suing ISPs into submission, at the same time as fining football fans, which is apparently ready to happen too.

What could possibly go wrong?

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has been a key player in the anti-piracy fight for decades and this position has only strengthened in recent years.

As the driving force behind the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the MPA finds itself at the center of an international enforcement apparatus.

A few weeks ago, ACE helped to shut down Fmovies, the largest pirate streaming conglomerate. While this was a hard fought and important achievement, Hollywood’s piracy problem hasn’t disappeared.

MPA Flags Piracy Challenges

This week, MPA sent its latest submission to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in response to the annual inquiry on notorious piracy markets. The movie industry group, which counts the major Hollywood studios, recent addition Amazon, and Netflix among its members, still sees plenty of challenges.

The submission describes piracy as a global problem that requires cooperation from the broader Internet ecosystem. Services that see themselves as neutral intermediaries, operating parts of the core Internet infrastructure, should take responsibility.

“(i)t is imperative that all global stakeholders in the fight against online piracy — including hosting providers, Domain Name System providers, content delivery networks, reverse proxy and other anonymization services, registrars, registries, cloud services, advertising networks, payment processors, social networks, and search engines — work together to reduce support for notorious offenders.”

Cloudflare and DDos-Guard

Proxy services and CDN providers are called out specifically. They reportedly frustrate rightsholders enforcement efforts by adding an anonymity layer, which helps to avoid detection.

The MPA names Cloudflare and DDos-Guard in this category, stating that these companies offer their services to a wide range of pirate sites.

“Cloudflare’s customers include some of the most notorious, long-standing pirate websites in the world, including the massively popular streaming sites vegamovies[.]im, cuevana[.]biz, and The Pirate Bay, whose current domain, thepiratebay[.]org, has been identified as infringing rights holders’ copyrights more than six million separate times.”

From MPA’s submission
 

The notorious markets list is limited to non-U.S. operations, so Cloudflare itself isn’t one of the MPA’s targets. However, as a foreign entity, DDos-Guard is flagged as a notorious hosting company later in the submission.

The Notorious Piracy Markets

MPA’s submission continues with a detailed overview of notorious pirate sites and services. This non-exhaustive list includes many of the names mentioned in previous years, combined with several new additions. A full list is available at the end of this article.

Most of the mentioned sites are streaming and linking portals. While Fmovies fell off the list after shutting down, many other prominent targets including Vegamovies, Cuevana3, Animeflv and HiAnime remain.

The Pirate Bay gets a mention in the torrent site category, alongside competitors such as 1337x, RuTracker, and YTS.

“While the TPB founders were criminally convicted for large scale copyright infringement, TPB remained operational via multiple alternative domains hosted in various countries over the years,” MPA writes, adding that the site is currently blocked in 22 countries.

Other categories include apps and piracy devices, such as Pikashow, EVPAD, and LokLok; IPTV services including MagisTV and Gogo IPTV; ‘Piracy as a Service’ providers such as 2embed, Rewall, and WHMCS Smarters; and direct download portals including Doodstream and Mixdrop.

The popular communication app Telegram, whose CEO was arrested recently, is also flagged as a problematic ‘download’ portal. While the service isn’t specifically targeted at pirates, its features appeal to copyright infringers, the movie industry group notes.

Hosting Providers and Domain Registries

The rest of the MPA’s submission highlights third-party intermediaries, including hosting providers and domain name registries. These are not the source of any piracy activity but play a crucial role in keeping services afloat, the anti-piracy group argues.

For example, MPA writes that the .CC, .IO, .TV, .RU and .TO domain registries continue to provide their services to pirate sites “despite notification and outreach.”

“A registry — directly or via its contractual relationship with its registrars — can withdraw or disable domain names used by websites engaged in massive copyright infringement,” MPA clarifies.

Rogue registries?
 

The same reasoning could also apply to U.S. based .com and .org registries, which are not mentioned. Notably, the Public Internet Registry (.org) previously declined to cut off The Pirate Bay, as it prefers not to act as piracy police.

Intermediary Pushback

Hosting service and domain registries are not typical pirate sites. While MPA would like to see them listed among other notorious services, the USTR seems more reluctant to include these companies in its overviews.

The most recent notorious markets report included some hosting providers, but no domain name registries, for example. This may be partly due to pushback from intermediary organizations, such as the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition).

i2Coalition also submitted a filing to the USTR this week, applauding it for being mindful of the ‘neutral’ role some intermediaries play.

“The i2Coalition applauds the USTR’s evolving perspective on what constitutes a notorious market and the acknowledgment of neutral intermediaries’ roles. The recent lists’ recognition of the complex Internet ecosystem and the misuse of intermediaries, rather than categorizing them as notorious markets, is a significant step forward,” i2Coalition writes.

The USTR will review these and other stakeholder comments in coming months and is expected to release a new version of its “notorious markets” overview early next year.

—

A list of all sites and services highlighted and categorized in the MPA’s 2024 notorious markets submission (pdf) can be found below. For additional context, we highlight the new entries, while also indicating those from the 2023 report that have since been removed.

Linking and Streaming Websites

Priority sites
– Fmovies.to
– Vegamovies
– Cuevana3.biz/eu
– Animeflv.net (new)

Additional sites
– Aniwatch.to
– Cda.pl
– Bs.to (new)
– Buffstreams.app (new)
– Diziwatch.net
– Dramasq.com (new)
– Dytt8.net, dytt89.com, dy2018.net, dy2018.com, dydytt.net, and ygdy8.com
– Futemax.app (currently, Futemax.to) and Futebolplayhd.com
– Gimy.ai (new)
– Goojara.to/levidia.ch/to (new)
– Hianime.to (new)
– Indoxxi Network
– Librefutbol.su (new)
– Librefutboltv.net (/new)
– KatmovieHD
– Librefutboltv.com
– Myflixer.to
– Rezka.ag
– S.to (new)
– Soaper.tv (new)
– Solarmovie.to (new)
– Tamilblasters / Streamblasters
– TV**.wiki (e.g., tv51.wiki) (new)
– Veronline.in (new)

Direct Download Cyberlockers and Streaming Video Hosting Services

Priority sites

– DoodStream
– Telegram
– Mixdrop.co
– Streamtape.com

Additional sites

– HQQ/WaaW/Netu
– Baidu Wangpan
– Rapidgator (new)
– Uloz.to
– VK.com

Illegal IPTV Services

Priority services

– MagisTV
– Gogo IPTV (new)

Additional services

– Apollo Group TV
– Crystal OTT (new)
– BestBuyIPTV.biz
– GenIPTV
– Iptv.casa
– Spider Receiver
– TheKing365tv.site
– TVExpress.pro (new)
– IcutCord.net
– King-IPTV.net
– SatCon Africa

Piracy Devices and Apps

– EVPAD
– LokLok
– Movie Box
– PikaShow
– Shabakaty
– SVI Cloud
– TVMob
– Unblock Tech (unblocktech.com & ub1818.com)

Peer-to-Peer Networks & BitTorrent Portals

– 1337x.to
– DonTorrent.com
– Rutracker.org
– ThePirateBay.org
– Ygg
– Yts.mx
– Zamunda.net

Hosting Providers

– Amaratu/KoDDos
– Ddos-Guard.net
– Private Layer, Swiss Global, and affiliated companies (new)
– Mnogobyte
– Squitter, ABC Consultancy, Peenq, ESTOXY, BestDC, SERDECH
– Veesp
– Virtual Systems, V-Sys (new)

Registries

– .IO Registry
– .CC Registry
– .ME Registry
– .RU Registry
– .TO Registry
– .IV Registry (new)

Payment Processors

– Wise

Ad Networks and Online Advertisers

– Propeller Ads

Piracy-as-a-Service (PaaS)

– 2embed.me
– Collaps.org
– Rewall.in (new)
– Fire Video Player (new)
– GDrivePlayer
– HDVB
– Njalla
– WHMCS Smarters
– Pelisplus.icu
– XFileSharing/XVideoSharing

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 When news broke in August that Telegram founder Pavel Durov had been arrested after his private plane touched down in France, speculation on the reasons behind that were in plentiful supply.

After letting the rumor mill boil for a few days, French authorities said they had charged Durov with criminal offenses related to his role at Telegram and the platform’s “near-total absence” of cooperation with French authorities. After initially being quite bullish, Durov appeared to adopt a more conciliatory tone, noting that staff had deployed AI tools in an effort to remove problematic content.

Telegram Promises to Comply With Valid Legal Requests

Another supposed change was an update of Telegram’s terms of service and privacy policy, to make it clear that in response to valid legal requests, Telegram will in future hand over alleged infringers’ personal details, including IP addresses and telephone numbers.

“We won’t let bad actors jeopardize the integrity of our platform of almost a billion users,” Durov said.

While Telegram has a reputation for failing to live up to rightsholders’ standards, the platform has blocked many piracy-related channels in recent years. On the user data front, in 2022 a court in India ordered Telegram to hand over information to identify alleged infringers. The company appeared to drag its feet, but there were clear indications that the platform eventually complied.

As previously reported, Telegram recently took action against Z-Library’s channels on copyright grounds, although who or what prompted that is still unclear. In any event, it appears that Telegram’s approach to moderation is changing, including reports from France that rightsholders have witnessed a shift too.

Takedown Speed Increases Considerably

Following Durov’s assurances that Telegram would start cooperating more with the authorities, reports began to emerge that some pirates, who presumably (and naively) considered Telegram a safe haven, are now feeling a little spooked.

Indeed, in an interview with Le Figaro, the CEO of anti-piracy company LeakID confirmed that for some football-focused streamers, the pressure was beginning to show.

“We have learned from concordant sources that at least three major streamers are stopping,” Hervé Lemaire told the publication, adding that Telegram also appears to be more responsive to takedown requests.

“We noticed that Telegram closed illicit streams more quickly, in 10, 15, 20 minutes, whereas this was not the case before,” Lemaire added. “Previously, Telegram generally took 24 to 48 hours to close these pirate links.”

Similar changes were also observed at beIN Sports, a company that sees most of its content pirated on a continuous basis, with Telegram-based pirates typically playing a role in illicit distribution.

“We have indeed seen a significant drop in streams of pirated content on Telegram in recent days,” confirmed Sarah d’Arifat, legal director at beIN Sports. “However, it is still too early to draw any conclusions, even if we hope that this improvement will be confirmed over time.”

“Mafia Groups” on Telegram

The Association for the Protection of Sports Programs (APPS) counts several major rightsholders and broadcasters among its members, including Canal+, beIN Sports, the Professional Football League (LFP) and the French National Olympic and Sports Committee (CNOSF).

In an August interview, APPS president Xavier Spender described IPTV providers and illegal streamers operating on Telegram as organized criminals, and Telegram as falling short on cooperation.

“What you have to keep in mind is that today the players on these platforms are real mafia groups. They make a significant profit from this activity of pirating content, whether it is sports content or other types,” Spender said. “Telegram is not very responsive when asked to cut off streams, that’s clear.”

So with the more recent changes, are rightsholders optimistic for the future?

Luke-Warm Reception From Other Rightsholders

“Telegram’s announcement of increased moderation and collaboration with the French justice system also appears to concern illegal sports broadcasts: blocking and announcements of the cessation of illegal broadcasts of sports content by streamers,” Spender confirmed to Le Figaro.

For the Professional Football League, which suffers high levels of piracy along with its football counterparts all over Europe, any positive change is welcomed. In Telegram’s case, however, much more will be needed to effectively tackle the unique problems associated with piracy of live sports, in particular the need for ultra-fast takedowns.

“Telegram’s initial efforts are interesting but not sufficient,” the LFP said. “The removal times observed on Telegram remain random and can still extend to several hours. These times are therefore unfortunately still not, overall, compatible with the effective protection of content broadcast live.”

Hervé Lemaire at Leak ID prefers to see how Telegram handles big events before drawing any firm conclusions. But of course, he’s seen it all before and understands the brutal reality of fighting piracy online, even if Telegram suddenly meets demanding industry standards.

“If it is no longer Telegram, the streamers will go to something else,” he said. “All platforms must play the game. Telegram is a step. But it is not the end of the war.”

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

In recent years, the European Commission has proposed and adopted various legislative changes to help combat online piracy.

They include the Copyright Directive which passed in 2019 and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which followed not long after.

These measures have been spurred on by major copyright holders, who have long called for stricter enforcement of pirated content online. At the same time, there are continued calls for additional legislation, particularly in respect of live-streaming events, including sports.

Last year, The European Commission adopted a recommendation to combat online piracy of sports and other live events. This non-binding measure encourages member states to take action against illegal live-streaming. According to many rightsholders, however, that’s not enough.

AAPA Demands Action

The legislative process in the EU is complex and according to the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA), time is running out. The European anti-piracy group, whose members include Sky, BT, Irdeto, the Premier League, LaLiga, Viaplay, Wiley, and Vodafone, has just released a new manifesto in which it calls for concrete measures.

AAPA Members
 

AAPA’s Executive Director, Miruna Herovanu, says that it’s time for EU lawmakers to make a change, so online piracy and the associated criminal networks can be properly dealt with.

“After years of laying the groundwork to combat online piracy it’s time for EU policymakers and beyond to fully acknowledge that decisive, targeted measures are needed at the European level. The rise of digital theft demands action,” Herovanu says.

“We call for strong political resolve to end the theft of our members’ content. We’re ready to support every stakeholder—law enforcement, policymakers, and industry representatives—to dismantle criminal networks and protect European consumers from harm.”

2025-2029 Manifesto

In its manifesto, AAPA advocates for stronger protections for audiovisual content, including live sports and other events. The group outlines their policy priorities for 2024-2029, which includes five main points:

– Introduce innovative data-driven legislation to combat live content piracy in 2025.
– Promote the enforcement and expansion of the Digital Services Act to ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online.
– Harmonize EU-level protection for audiovisual content to enable robust investment in original content and grassroots sports.
– Expand the reach of legislation to address piracy facilitated and engaged in by key intermediaries, including Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and reverse proxies.
– Continuing to represent a unified voice on anti-piracy for intermediaries willing to engage towards the betterment of the online environment.

The most broad suggestion calls on the EU to propose new legislation that builds on insights it received though the DSA, while also implementing some of the key measures from its earlier recommendation to combat live-streaming piracy.

This new framework should be specifically targeted at the characteristics of live-streaming piracy. That includes near-instant takedowns of allegedly infringing content.

“The European Commission should propose legislation which ensures near immediate take down of live content, at the latest in November 2025, at the end of the data-collection exercise jointly run by the EU Intellectual Property Office and European Commission.

“Such an approach would further enhance the EU’s capability to effectively combat online piracy and protect both content creators and consumers,” the manifesto adds.

Expanding the Anti-Piracy Toolbox

The other key points also focus on optimizing anti-piracy capabilities. For example, by expanding the DSA to include robust ‘Know Your Business Customer’ requirements. That should help to identify operators of pirate sites and services.

In addition, more rightsholders should be allowed to act as “trusted flaggers” under the DSA. At the same time, the takedown notices of these trusted flaggers should be followed up “near immediate”, instead of “with priority”, as it is now.

In another recommendation, AAPA specifically mentions shortcomings related to hosting companies, who often don’t respond properly to takedown notices. The manifesto does not specify how AAPA would like this addressed, but the shortcoming isn’t limited to services that store content.

From the manifesto
 

AAPA also includes Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and reverse proxies. This includes Cloudflare, which is used by many pirate sites, although the US-based company isn’t specifically mentioned.

Expanding Site Blocking to VPNs and Internet Browsers

The hosting and CDN comments begin with mentions of general shortcomings related to takedown notices. Two paragraphs later, however, there’s a rather broad call to expand site blocking measures, far beyond regular Internet providers.

In essence, AAPA would like to formally expand the current ‘site blocking’ injunctions to search engines, VPNs, DNS resolvers, domain registrars, and even Internet browsers.

“Per codification of existing CJEU case-law that injunctive relief under Article 8.3 Info Soc Directive is available against all intermediaries whose services are used to infringe intellectual property rights, including (but not limited to) payment providers, advertising companies, search engines, Internet browsers, VPN (Virtual Private Network) providers, alternative DNS resolvers and domain registrars.”

The suggestion is quite broad, but several of these recommendations are already in play. For example. Cloudflare has been ordered to block pirate sites in the EU, and the same applies to DNS resolvers. Meanwhile, Google, payment providers and advertising services block pirate sites though voluntary initiatives.

Earlier this week, Italy also approved legislation that requires VPNs to block pirated content, so that’s no longer a novelty either.

Officially codifying the extension of these measures to other intermediaries, including web browsers, follows this trend. If it’s up to the AAPA, Europe will formally write this into law, so that future injunctions can target Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Brave, and others.

Whether any of these recommendations will be followed up has yet to be seen, but the 2025-2029 manifesto, which is available here, gives a good idea of where major rightsholders will focus their policy lobbying efforts in the years to come.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 When a Nintendo lawsuit targeted the people behind the Yuzu emulator in February, leading to its shutdown just a few weeks later, dark clouds appeared over the future of Switch emulation.

With momentum on its side and tacit acceptance of its core claims via settlement agreement with Yuzu, Nintendo targeted key software tools underpinning emulation of its copyrighted games. Takedown notices eliminated dozens of repos containing tools designed to provide access to Switch encryption keys, those who linked to similar tools were targeted too.

Ryujinx Alone in the Wasteland

As Nintendo systematically removed thousands of code repositories attempting to keep Yuzu’s public profile alive, an important player in the emulation scene continued seemingly intact.

Launched in 2017 by developer ‘gdkchan’, open source Switch emulator Ryujinx began life as an ARM64 emulator and now runs on Windows 10/11, macOS and Linux-based systems.

Continuously developed over the past seven years by a core team, assisted by dozens of contributing developers, Ryujinx was made available via a GitHub repo under an MIT license and was funded by donations. The reasons for Nintendo not targeting it sooner are unclear but on Monday, everything changed.

Ryujinx Given an Opportunity to Agree With Nintendo

In a Discord post subsequently posted to the official Ryujinx ‘X’ account last evening, development team member ‘riperiperi’ suggests that Nintendo outreach on Monday amounted to an ultimatum. The gaming giant and its lead developer could agree on a course of action to end the project, or presumably other options would be explored.

“Yesterday, gdkchanwas contacted by Nintendo and offered an agreement to stop working on the project, remove the organization and all related assets he’s in control of,” the announcement reads.

“While awaiting confirmation on whether he would take this agreement, the organization has been removed, so I think it’s safe to say what the outcome is. Rather than leave you with only panic and speculation, I decided to write this short message to give some closure.”

The post goes on to thank everyone who contributed code to the project, the moderation team, and all supporters throughout the emulator’s development.

Immediate Effect On Emulation Project

At the time of writing the official project homepage remains up, but there doesn’t appear to be an official notice or explanation. Importantly the download page has been wiped clean while links to other pages hosted in GitHub now return 404 errors.

The reason for that is the disappearance of the entire project from GitHub and with it all repos, code, and related history. There’s no DMCA takedown page due to the approach taken by Nintendo and the subsequent response; voluntary deletion of the project.

Voluntary takedown

Content that remains intact includes the Ryujinx account on X, plus accounts on YouTube and Patreon.

The project’s Discord channel is also operational, at least for now. It has 100,665 members of which 22,059 are currently online.

What happens next, if anything, is hard to predict. The decision to comply with Nintendo’s offer is controversial, as these things usually are. For some the disappointment was inevitable following the shutdown of Yuzu; for others, this is a battle to be fought to the bitter end.

That’s much easier said than done but since this is an open source project, someone may still decide to bring Ryujinx back to life. Nintendo, of course, is already watching.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

Tackling online piracy is a complicated endeavor that often starts by identifying the operators of infringing sites and services. This is also where the first hurdles show up.

Many pirates keep their identities concealed. This applies to the operators of sites and services as well as their users.

This relative anonymity is a nuisance to anti-piracy groups, including the RIAA and MPA. While most online services refuse to voluntarily hand over user details, there are some legal tools that can help rightsholders move forward.

In recent years, DMCA subpoenas have established themselves as a key anti-piracy enforcement tool. These requests don’t require any oversight from a judge and are typically signed off by a court clerk. This makes them ideal to swiftly identify online pirates.

DMCA Subpoenas at Risk

Both the RIAA and MPA have used these subpoenas to identify owners of pirate sites, as well as individual infringers. The groups would like DMCA subpoenas to remain in their toolbox, but they fear that their effectiveness may be hindered by a recent court order.

The case in point doesn’t involve the RIAA or MPA. Instead, it’s a dispute between several independent film companies and Internet provider Cox. The latter successfully objected to a DMCA subpoena which sought identifying information of several alleged BitTorrent pirates.

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to residential Internet providers. Cox argued that they don’t, describing itself as a mere conduit provider benefiting from DMCA’s §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, because the ISP doesn’t store content.

For background, a brief summary of the four types of ISPs under 17 U.S.C. § 512.

 

– §512(a): transitory digital network communications; services that merely pass on bits and bytes
– §512(b): system caching; services that temporarily store (cache) data
– §512(c): storage of information on systems; services that host data
– §512(d): information location tools; services that connect users to online locations (e.g. social media, search engines)

Earlier this year, a magistrate judge followed Cox in this reasoning and recommended quashing the subpoena. The court concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.

The filmmakers didn’t give up, however, and filed a motion for reconsideration. They argued that Cox also falls under DMCA §512(d), as it can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content. Therefore, a DMCA subpoena should be valid for Cox.

RIAA and MPA Intervene

The motion for reconsideration didn’t help. The district court maintained that section §512(d) doesn’t apply to the ISP. This prompted the filmmakers to file an appeal last month. While this case has yet to get started, it has already attracted the interest of two anti-piracy heavyweights.

The MPA and RIAA joined the action by filing an amicus brief in support of neither party. Instead, they are wary of dangerous precedents as DMCA subpoenas are vital to their anti-piracy efforts.

“Section 512(h) subpoenas are particularly important for combating piracy given the anonymity the internet otherwise provides to infringing sites. Section 512(h) subpoenas are an effective, and often the only, practical means of identifying online copyright pirates,” they write.

“For example, infringing sites utilize reverse-proxy services and content-delivery networks to mask their IP address and the hosting provider of their website,” the brief adds.

Amicus Curiae
 

RIAA and MPA typically target third party services such as Cloudflare, domain name services, and social media platforms. These can be categorized in different ISP classes, but the groups are mostly concerned with the court’s interpretation of DMCA §512(d).

Too Broad

The brief notes that the district court simply had to answer whether a DMCA subpoena applies to Cox in this specific case. However, the court went further than that, interpreting DMCA §512(d) in a way that the RIAA and MPA disagree with.

Specifically, the court suggested that IP addresses may never function as links, within the context of the section 512(d) safe harbor. RIAA and MPA say this conclusion is wrong.

“The district court’s bright-line rule erroneously indicated that IP addresses never constitute ‘links’ within the meaning of section 512(d). The court’s conclusion was overbroad and unnecessary, and likely wrong..,” the brief reads.

From the brief..
 

The entertainment industry groups argue that section 512(d) services, which could cover reverse proxy providers such as Cloudflare, can link to pirate websites through IP-addresses.

“For example, many pirate websites utilize reverse-proxy services, which provide a server with a ‘proxy’ address (akin to an IP address) that then links to the pirate website’s own server. These services maintain an index or reference for the proxy, and parties engaged in illegal infringement use them to conceal the identities of the website operators.

“In fact, Congress specifically intended for an ‘information location tool’ under section 512(d) to include ‘a pointer that stands for an Internet location or address’,” the brief adds.

If the district court’s order stands, the validity of MPA and RIAA DMCA subpoenas may be in question. For this reason, the brief urges the court to limit its findings to the evidence at hand, without the contested and presumably unneeded IP-address interpretation.

Anti-Piracy Threat

The brief further notes that, contrary to the district court’s suggestion, ISPs can fall into multiple categories. In fact, Congress specifically highlighted that a service provider could qualify for multiple section 512 safe harbors.

In this case, the court concluded that Cox qualifies as a 512(a) provider. Therefore, it can’t also qualify as a 512(d) service. The RIAA and MPA disagree, and stress that the categories are not mutually exclusive.

In conclusion, the case deals with detailed and technical aspects of the DMCA, which can have far-reaching effects. Not only for the privacy of alleged pirates, but also for the RIAA and MPA’s future anti-piracy efforts.

“[T]he district court’s holding on section 512(d) could prevent copyright owners from issuing section 512(h) subpoenas against yet other kinds of intermediary services, such as reverse proxies and other registrar tools, that are now often the best or only sources of information about direct infringers of their works.

“The Court should limit its holding to the specific facts at issue in this case,” the brief concludes.

—

A copy of the amicus curiae brief, filed at the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court by the RIAA and MPA, is available here (pdf)

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 In 2023, the Italian government passed new legislation that aimed to rid the country of illegal IPTV services and web-based streaming platforms. At least in part, this would be achieved by blocking their domain names and IP addresses via the now-infamous Piracy Shield system.

To drive the message home, the law also introduced tougher criminal sanctions at the supply end of the market, with increased fines and custodial sentences on the table. For consumers, it meant that those pirate IPTV users face fines of up to 5,000 euros, and authorities suggest that automated fines might be just around the corner.

Last week, it was revealed that the tough new law (Law 93/2023), introduced last year and already amended once, was about to find itself amended again. Set to benefit top-tier football league ‘Serie A’ most in the short term, the original proposals can be summarized as follows:

• Compel VPN and DNS services to block pirated content, not just ISPs

• Allow blocking of IP addresses and domains, even if legal content is present

• Remove limits on the volume of domains and IP addresses ISPs must permanently block

• Compel service providers to report suspected crime, or face up to a year in prison

Amendments Approved, After a Series of Amendments

The proposals were signed by Senator Dario Damiani of the Forza Italia party on the input of Senator Claudio Lotito, also of Forza Italia. Senator Lotito understands football and lives and breathes Serie A. As the majority owner and president of Serie A football club Lazio, he’s uniquely positioned to take part in the lawmaking process and then benefit from the outcome.

The Senate Budget and Finance Committees have now approved the proposals we reported late last week but only after further amendments. The first set of changes are shown in the image below, with unchanged text in white, red representing the earlier text, and green the now-approved text; summarized as follows:

Amendments (6.0.35) (Law 93/2023)

• Incidental blocking of non-infringing sites and services permitted as long as shared server/resources “predominantly” used for infringement.

• New provision allowing those negatively affected by blocking to request revocation.

• “Alternative DNS services” clarified as “publicly available DNS” (Pi-Hole users can therefore relax).

• Proposal to block unlimited domains/IP addresses left intact.

• Introduction of provisions for domain registries / IP assignment services to unblock domains / IP addresses six months after initial blocking, providing illegal use has been discontinued.

• Introduction of provisions for domains / IP addresses to be removed from the Piracy Shield platform. Current law provides no mechanism for revoking domain or IP address blocks, leading to concerns IPv4 addresses could eventually run out.

Amendments 6.0.35 (Law 93/2023)

Original documents (old text / approved text) (Italian)

Amendments (6.0.36)

• The requirement for providers of network access services, search engines, ISPs, VPN providers, CDN services, DNS providers and reverse proxy services, to report suspected criminal activity has been withdrawn.

• A replacement requirement specifies that when any of the above “become aware” that “criminal conduct is underway or has been committed or attempted” they must immediately report the circumstances to the “judicial authority” or “judicial police” providing all relevant information.

• A new requirement for online services to register a point of contact for direct communication with the authorities, for the purposes of tackling crime

• A prison sentence of up to one year, for failure to comply with the reporting requirements listed above, remains intact.

Amendments (6.0.36)

Original documents (old text / approved text) (Italian)

What Happens Next

A vote is scheduled for today and, if that goes to plan, the amendments will head immediately to the Chamber of Deputies (lower house of parliament) for a second reading before the measure expires on October 8, 2024.

The proposals, should they become law, could trigger a legal challenge. In an article published last Friday, the president of AIIP – the Italian Internet Provider Association – described the amendments as “an initiative that betrays two years of commitment and loyal collaboration in the sector.”

Giovanni Zorzoni says that the amendments run contrary to the conclusions reached following an AGCOM technical table last year, while introducing “new and dangerous surveillance obligations” on communication operators, supported by threats of imprisonment under criminal law.

In our article last weekend we mentioned an amendment in 2023 that allowed rightsholders to block domains without AGCOM oversight; that was considered a betrayal, Zorzoni’s public comments go much further than that.

Keeping ISPs Happy Seems Less of a Priority

Confirmation that ISPs feel let down doesn’t come as a surprise. Assurances previously given to ensure full cooperation appear to have been forgotten once the critical phase ended. From the outside looking in, ISPs’ concerns never seemed likely to get in the way of the mission.

Months before Piracy Shield began blocking IP addresses in February, ISPs and other experts warned that permanently blocking IPv4 IP addresses would be unsustainable. Running out of viable IPv4 addresses was a real concern, but one that continually fell on deaf ears. In parallel, fears over the scale of blocking and the financial burden on ISPs led to an agreement which limited how many domains/IP addresses could be blocked.

The arbitrary removal of those limits via the amendments led Zorzoni to decry the method of their introduction in his article on Friday. Buried in an unrelated financial bill and handled by committees with no competency in the electronic communications sector, Zorzoni said the ruling majority appear set authorize limitless blocking, regardless of agreement and contrary to expert advice.

Tweaked Amendment Throws Zorzoni a Bone, It May Not Be Enough

Whether intentional or not, the approved amendments contain changes that may be intended to steal Zorzoni’s thunder, arriving as they did after his article was published last Friday. Limitless blocking has already been approved but as detailed above, measures to unblock IPv4 addresses suddenly appeared over the weekend, perhaps as an implied quid pro quo.

Whatever the circumstances, the second set of amendments that threaten to criminalize ISPs remain, albeit with a tweak that removes “suspicion” and replaces it with “awareness” of actual criminal conduct. Why ‘mere conduit’ ISPs are suddenly required to police the internet while rejecting the “innocent until proven guilty” standard, is certainly controversial.

Zorzoni describes the proposal as “an unconstitutional, indeterminate provision, which would impose generalized surveillance obligations on Internet operators, following a model that is outside the democratic West.”

“As AIIP, but I am sure that we will not be the only ones, we will oppose these changes in every Italian and European forum, if they are approved,” he concluded.

It’s true that Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31 prohibits the imposition of an obligation on an ISP to carry out general monitoring of information that it transmits on its own network. The rightsholders who came up with this provision understand that, and already have a solution.

After identifying problematic platforms as part of their regular piracy monitoring, they will write letters to service providers detailing the criminal behavior taking place on their networks. After helping ISPs meet the “awareness” standard – which immediately triggers the reporting requirement – ISPs could be left in an impossible position.

When news of the vote breaks later today (Tuesday), an update will appear here.

Update: The Senate has given the green light to the Omnibus Decree, in the form detailed above. 98 senators voted in favor, with 88 against. The text will now head to the Chamber for a second reading.

Giovanni Zorzoni of the Italian Internet Provider Association (AIIP): “An irresponsible initiative that, in the sole interest of the football lobby, tramples on operators, the Authority and the Internet ecosystem.”

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

The DMCA takedown process allows rightsholders to request the removal of infringing material from online platforms.

It’s a powerful, widely-used tool that results in millions of URLs and links being taken down daily. While often justified, some DMCA takedown requests are questionable or even outright abusive.

Google Sues DMCA Scammers

Google is no stranger to DMCA abuse. The company has processed more than 9 billion takedown requests over the years and, while most notices are legitimate, scammers regularly try to game the process to gain an unfair advantage.

Last November, Google decided to take action against the rampant DMCA abuse. In a lawsuit filed at a federal court in California, it accused Nguyen Van Duc and Pham Van Thien of sending over 100,000 fraudulent takedown requests. Many of these notices were allegedly filed against third-party T-shirt shops.

The scammers used fabricated names and also impersonated celebrities such as Elon Musk in their takedown efforts. This could very well include the unusual Elon Musk t-shirt takedown action that was uncovered last year. At the time, we already hinted at foul play.

One of the Reported T-shirts
 

Google’s complaint against the two alleged DMCA scammers specifically mentioned Musk, among other celebrities such as Taylor Swift and Kanye West, alleging that the DMCA abuse was part of a scheme to gain a competitive advantage.

“Defendants appear to be connected with websites selling printed t-shirts, and their unlawful conduct aims to remove competing third-party sellers from Google Search results. Defendants have maliciously and illegally exploited Google’s policies and procedures under the DMCA to sabotage and harm their competitors,” Google wrote.

Default Judgment

Following the complaint, the defendants, who are believed to reside in Vietnam, were summoned via their Gmail accounts and SMS. However, the pair remained quiet and didn’t respond in court.

Without the defendants representing themselves, Google requested a default judgment. According to the tech giant, it’s clear that the duo violated the DMCA with their false takedown notices. In addition, they committed contract breach under California law.

“Defendants have weaponized Google’s DMCA notice-and-takedown systems and procedures and used them not for their intended purpose of expeditiously removing allegedly infringing content, but instead to have their competitors’ legitimate content removed based on false allegations,” Google wrote. `

This alleged behavior wasn’t well hidden either, as the defendants allegedly promoted their abuse scheme on YouTube in a video blatantly titled: “2022 SEO 3 minutes to take top 1 google by Fake DMCA complaints”.

Fake DMCA tips…
 

Google said that, absent a default judgment, the defendants would continue to harm consumers and third-party businesses. These actions, in turn, will damage Google’s reputation as a search engine.

Court Grants Judgment and Injunction

In July, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim recommended granting Google’s motion for default judgment. The recommendation included an injunction that prevents the two men from abusing Google’s services going forward. However, the District Judge had the final say.

Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila adopted the recommendations, issuing a default judgment in favor of Google. The order confirms that defendants Nguyen Van Duc and Pham Van Thien violated the DMCA with their false takedown notices. In addition, they committed contract breach under California law.

In typical copyrights-related verdicts, most attention is paid to the monetary damages, but not here. While Google could have requested millions of dollars in compensation, it didn’t request a penny.

Google’s primary goal was to put an end to the abusive behavior, not to seek financial compensation. Therefore, the company asked for an injunction to prohibit the defendants from sending false takedowns going forward. This includes a ban on registering any new Google accounts.

The request ticked all the boxes and, without a word from the defendants, Judge Davila granted the default judgment as well as the associated injunction.

The Injunction
 

Google’s victory sends a clear message: those who attempt to manipulate the system can and will be held accountable. However, it is unlikely that the injunction will have a significant impact on the wider ‘scammer’ community.

—

A copy of Judge Edward Davila’s order adopting the report and recommendation, as well as granting the default judgment, is available here (pdf)

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 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. “Wolfs” is the most shared title.

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

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

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

 Like many of its European counterparts, Greece has a pirate site blocking program that receives regular updates through an administrative process.

The first domains blocked by Greek ISPs (xrysoi.online, xrysoi.se and xrysoi.eu) were restricted in 2018 and the most recent (antenasports.ru, sporthd.me) were blocked this August, to a total of 655 domains in roughly six years. Greece also regularly blocks IP addresses, mostly to restrict access to pirate IPTV services, especially those providing access to live football.

The most recent order dated September 3, 2024, requested blocking of just five IP addresses and from data made available as part of the country’s administrative program, just 111 IP addresses are currently blocked overall.

Whether that’s the full extent of blocking is unclear, but it appears that 100% of the ‘pirate’ IP addresses are outside Greece itself, mostly in other European countries.

When compared to neighboring Italy’s regime, blocking in Greece is fairly mild. In general, the government has been accused of not taking the pirate IPTV threat seriously enough. On that front there are clear signs of change and in a case that came to a close last week, the judiciary showed that things can end very badly for IPTV pirates.

Pirate IPTV Reseller Feels Full Wrath of the Law

A number of IPTV providers causing the most headaches right now are based outside Europe and as such, are difficult to counter. ISP blocking is one of the responses to that, but there are other options too, especially targeting so-called resellers. In a nutshell, these people buy subscriptions from IPTV providers at a lower rate than the public so are in a position to make a profit when selling them on.

Because they tend to operate locally in their own markets, often as part of a wider but not necessarily integrated network, to degree resellers offer a single point of contact for IPTV providers. At the same time, resellers service tens, dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of their own customers, which on one hand can return very good profits but on the other, directly exposes resellers to law enforcement.

Last week at the Court of Thessaloniki, a case involving a local IPTV reseller came to a head. The Court heard that the reseller had been in business for years, on a scale and scope rarely seen in these types of cases.

Selling monthly IPTV subscription packages to members of the public over several years, the man reportedly serviced a customer base of several thousand people, many based in Greece, but also some overseas. Typical monthly access cost subscribers around 15 to 20 euros and across several thousand customers, that quickly mounts up. The Court heard the man generated several million euros over the period of offending and that appears to have cost him dearly.

For infringement on a significant commercial scale, the penalty in Greece is a minimum two years’ imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Thessaloniki fined the man 17,000 euros, confiscated equipment used in the course of the offending, then handed down an unprecedented eight-year prison sentence. This apparent line in the sand changes the game in Greece and is likely to have implications beyond this individual reseller.

Time to Make IPTV Customers Pay

According to Skair.gr, the investigation surfaced a database of the reseller’s customers, apparently thousands of them in Greece. The publication states that not only do they face criminal and administrative penalties, but the judicial authorities began making arrests of end users even before the sentence was handed down last week.

The authorities are reported to have obtained the personal details of up to 50,000 IPTV subscribers following a number of raids on various players in the pirate IPTV ecosystem over the past several months. They include the following:

• December 2023: 54-year-old man arrested for “hacking” subscription channels
• March 2024: 60-year-old man arrested for piracy of subscription channels
• March 2024: 43-year-old man for piracy of subscription channels
• April 2024: 2 people arrested for piracy of subscription channels
• April 2024: 54-year-old man arrested for piracy of subscription channels
• July 2024: 25-year-old man arrested for piracy of subscription channels

Running in parallel to the country’s enforcement measures, in July Cosmote TV and Nova signed a deal designed to provide customers with legal access to sports at a more affordable price. Starting on August 23, subscribers to one of the above services were able to get content from the other, for just a small extra charge.

Whether that alone will reduce piracy rates to anywhere near acceptable levels is unknown but a potential eight-year prison sentence may give resellers pause for thought.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

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

As the financial stakes increase and rightsholders become increasingly desperate to suppress piracy, the nature of information delivered to the media demands scrutiny like never before.

Almost all major announcements are geared to elicit a prescribed response, as part of an overall strategy to shape public opinion while delivering on various policy goals.

Claims in Italy, that the Piracy Shield system would virtually eliminate piracy, might’ve just been misplaced optimism. Perhaps claims of error-free operation can be dismissed in much the same way, along with assurances that companies like Cloudflare would be compelled to link to the Piracy Shield system, but legally could not.

Deterrent Messaging and the Pirate Subscriber

To this background and what appears to be plentiful supply of pirate IPTV services still operating in the Italian market, consumers are under the spotlight. People who subscribe to pirate IPTV services are being warned that every use of pirated content contributes to a trail of evidence that leads right to their door and ends in significant fines.

Despite the introduction of new law in August 2023, complete with a new system of fines for consumers of pirated live streams, it appears that no fines of up to 5,000 euros have actually been issued since then.

What effect that may have had on deterrence is hard to quantify but in March 2024, the public received reminders that fines were on the way, even for those who downloaded apps from legal marketplaces operated by Google, Apple, and Amazon.

AGCOM said that an agreement had been reached between the regulator, Italy’s financial police (Guardia di Finanza) and the Prosecutor’s Office in Rome, to facilitate the identification of users. While that turned out to be somewhat premature since nothing had actually been signed, fining pirates is now reportedly close to reality.

Memorandum of Understanding

The “collaboration protocol” between the Prosecutor’s Office, the Guardia di Finanza, and AGCOM, smooths the way for the exchange of information relating to individuals suspected of obtaining subscription-based live sports streams (for now, mostly football) from illegal sources.

“This is a fundamental step in the fight against piracy,” commented Luigi De Siervo, CEO of Italy’s top football league, Serie A, during a YouTube broadcast this week.

“Finally, thanks to the protocol signed by AGCOM with the Guardia di Finanza and the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office, the identification data of the users of the pezzotto [illegal streaming devices] will be made available to the judicial authorities.”

The nature of that data, where and how it was obtained, and how it meshes together to prove that an individual consumed an illegal IPTV stream (or purchased a subscription), is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the prospects of almost limitless success are not being undersold; the messaging suggests that resistance is futile and automatic fines are on the way.

“Every illegal use of video content leaves an indelible digital Ariadne’s thread that will allow law enforcement to prosecute pirates who will automatically be fined up to 5,000 euros. No one can think of continuing to steal content illegally and get away with it,” De Siervo said.

Suggestions that highly advanced systems and new techniques are being used to track IPTV subscribers are certainly interesting, but more mundane methods can be just as effective.

All Things Are Possible But Low-Hanging Fruit Works Too

Even when restrained by limited funding, red tape, and a thousand other types of crimes to investigate, tracking down enough pirate IPTV subscribers to demonstrate a crackdown would be straightforward for law enforcement. Put bluntly, there’s a subset of pirate IPTV subscribers that are completely oblivious or dismissive of the risks.

A database of IPTV subscribers seen by TorrentFreak a few years ago, obtained by the authorities as part of a company investigation, revealed a surprising number of subscribers who opened accounts using their real names, home addresses and telephone numbers. Some of those who used apparently fictitious names, went on to settle their invoices with PayPal accounts registered in their own names at their home addresses.

Based on the assumption that law enforcement resources are limited, and all subscribers have the same basic value, prosecuting those who make the task easy makes complete sense. Given the number of services shut down in Italy in recent years, examples like the above should be in plentiful supply. Even if the authorities wanted to prosecute offenses committed in the past year, that would be very straightforward too.

After targeting a reseller with lacking security, police often gain access to the reseller’s panel and by extension, a subscriber list.

In theory, any customer is a potential target but eliminating any one-off or accidental purchases can be easily achieved by focusing on regular customers who subscribe month after month. Depending on the level of proof required for prosecution, something to show a subscribers’ intent might come in handy as additional evidence.

The chances of at least some subscribers providing their real names are pretty high, so finding corresponding social media accounts should be very easy indeed. In the event that subscribers use those accounts to chat about IPTV piracy or even buy subscriptions as members of an IPTV service’s group, Minority Report-style investigations are unlikely to prove necessary.

That being said, there has been no indication of the scale of prosecutions the authorities have in mind so more significant action can’t yet be ruled out. Even then, the authorities can’t prosecute everyone, but for the desired deterrent effect, they don’t actually need to.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

 Copyright holders and anti-piracy groups repeatedly argue that pirate site blocking is an effective and proportional measure.

This message is highlighted more frequently now that the U.S. is seriously considering blocking measures again.

Effective and Proportional?

On the effectiveness-side, blocking proponents are helped by academic research, which concluded that blocking measures can be effective. The proportionality argument is easily made too. Most people would agree that sites structurally hosting or linking to infringing content, without any other purpose, have little right to remain available.

The arguments above make sense, but they only tell one side of the story. They assume that site blocking is implemented with precision and accuracy. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

Italian ISPs, for example, were mistakenly required to block countless innocent websites linked to shared Cloudflare IP-addresses. That was neither effective nor proportional. It was an outright disaster.

Even seemingly harmless errors raise questions. Earlier this month, we reported on a new court order in France that targeted 98 domain names connected to the pirate site Z-Library. Only nine of those domains were still active.

Why would a presumably meticulous court, order ISPs to block domains that no longer point to copyright-infringing material? Is that effective?

Transparency Reveals German Errors

In Germany, site blocking issues have emerged too. While the country is generally known for its ‘pünktlichkeit‘, that characteristic doesn’t automatically translate to its site blocking efforts.

Similar to other countries, Germany doesn’t make its list of blocked domain names public. The blocking ‘clearing house’, CUII, publishes blocking orders, but the requesting rightsholders and targeted domains are redacted.

To counter this ‘secrecy’, a 17-year-old student called Damian, along with some friends, launched a site where they collect and publish information on all blocked domains. With some technical tricks, they essentially created their own regularly updated transparency portal; CUIIListe.

Aside from the scope of the German blocklist, which included 122 unique domains when tallied in August, it also revealed that many of the blocked domains were no longer active. Rather than facilitating access to pirate sites, the domains had expired, pointed to parked pages, redirected to non-infringing content, or were listed for sale.

Violating the Blocking “Code of Conduct”

These persistent blockades are a problem. Aside from the lack of effectiveness, they directly violate the “code of conduct” which rightsholders and Internet providers signed as part of their voluntary blocking agreement.

Specifically, Section 9 of the code of conduct, titled “Monitoring of blocked sites/lifting of blocks,” outlines the process for removing blocks when they are no longer necessary.

“Copyright holders who initiated the blocking are required to monitor the blocked websites to ensure they still meet the criteria for blocking. If the conditions are no longer met, they must inform the Clearing House, which then notifies the ISPs to lift the block,” it reads.

Article 9 (original)
 

Somewhere in this process, something went wrong. Many of the domains that no longer linked or hosted pirated material remained blocked for weeks, or even months. And without the homebrew transparency portal, they would likely still be blocked today.

Errors Are Quietly Corrected

Earlier this month, German news site Netzpolitik highlighted these ‘oversights’. At the time, CUII chairman Jan Bernd Nordemann confirmed that non-infringing domains should be unblocked.

CUII said that it previously instructed Internet providers to unblock several domain names but, apparently, dozens of domains needlessly remained blocked.

Damian tells TorrentFreak that when he went over the list a few weeks ago, 41 out of a total of 122 domain names were mistakenly blocked, as these no longer linked to pirated material. Only after this news was made public were most of the errors quietly corrected.

“CUII never mentioned our site, but they are definitely aware of it though,” Damian says, suggesting that the timing of the removals is hardly a coincidence.

Thus far, 39 of the 41 ‘non-infringing’ domain names have been unblocked by CUII. For reasons unknown, newalbumreleases.unblocked.co (listed for sale since June) and harleyquinnwidget.net (hasn’t resolved since March) remain blocked.

Blocking Unblocking Tips

Rightsholders are obliged to monitor blocked domains and report to CUII if domains can be unblocked. Members of the public are allowed to flag domains too, but when a site is blocked, it’s hard to see that it’s no longer infringing.

Damian knows his way around blockades, however, and previously informed CUII that the serien.sx blockade should be lifted. That domain previously pointed to a pirate site, but it’s now redirecting to a site that informs the public how they can circumvent blocking measures.

While these unblocking instructions are sensitive, they don’t fall under the code of conduct.

serien.domains (translated)
 

CUII never replied to the 17-year-old developer. However, they did reply to the Netzpolitik journalist who later inquired about the same domains, informing them that serien.sx was unblocked after ‘someone’ brought the matter to their attention.

In conclusion, the German situation demonstrates that transparency is crucial when it comes to domain blocking. It can even be argued that it’s an essential prerequisite to ensure that blocking measures are both effective and proportional.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

 Despite warnings from internet experts, the government passed a law in 2023 aimed at combating illegal IPTV services. However, the legislation has failed to achieve its intended outcomes.

What followed wasn’t a meeting of minds with all stakeholders involved, but a steely determination to make the system work for the rightsholders. For a framework that had measures in place to punish internet companies for failing to block, but nothing in place to punish rightsholders for blocking innocent internet resources, that didn’t come as a surprise.

Disregard for Internet Services, Stealth Legal Amendments

Before Piracy Shield got off the ground, promises were made about oversight, to ensure those requesting blockades kept to the agreed limits. Among other things, that was to ensure ISPs weren’t burdened with additional costs; that is, even more costs on top of the costs they were already expected to cover from their own pockets, for nothing in return.

There was also the supervision aspect, with telecoms regulator AGCOM quite rightly expected to exercise control over blocking demands. Yet just weeks after the anti-piracy measures passed into law, another set of “urgent measures” (known as the Caivano decree) to “combat youth hardship, educational poverty, and juvenile crime” had something else hidden in the depths of its pages.

As previously reported by DDaY, amendments to the anti-piracy law, signed by the Forza Italia party, resulted in rights holders being given the right to block an IP address or poison ISPs’ DNS servers without AGCOM’s control. Some viewed that as a breach of trust, it’s not too difficult to see why.

Closing the ‘Loopholes’

It’s hardly a secret that DNS-based blocking can only achieve so much, and that those determined to circumvent blocking can do so easily by using tools such as VPNs. Everyone involved in the legislation passed in 2023 understood that. They also knew that blocking Content Delivery Networks and reverse proxy services would become a problem as soon as Piracy Shield launched early this year.

Yet, unlike most other countries that have adopted site-blocking programs, factoring-in the interests of other internet users appears to be viewed as unnecessary among Italy’s more enthusiastic site-blocking proponents. To that end, Forza Italia are back again with fresh amendments that amount to a direct attack – not on pirates – but the entire internet sector.

According to a La Gazzetta dello Sport report, this week the green light was given to the readmission of an amendment to the ‘Omnibus Decree’ in connection with VPNs and pirate IPTV.

“The proposal [by Dario Damiani of Forza Italia] wants to extend to VPNs the obligation to disable access to illegal games by blocking the use of VPNs to generate different IP addresses capable of circumventing the law,” the report notes.

Targeting VPNs? Just the Beginning

That an attempt is underway to level the playing field a little, by taking some VPNs out of the equation, doesn’t come as a surprise. However, while the report is entirely accurate, it significantly understates the scope of the proposed amendments.

The first proposal would pull VPNs AND third party DNS providers into the Piracy Shield system, requiring them to implement blocking in the same way local ISPs already do in Italy. But while only local ISPs are required to poison their DNS servers to redirect local internet users, the proposal for VPNs and DNS says they should be forced to participate in Piracy Shield wherever they are.

Proposed amendment 1 (translated from Italian)

Item 1, which initially looks harmless enough, seeks to replace the word univocally with the word predominantly. Now the all-important context.

If a target blocking location (IP address/domain) isn’t shared with any legal services, blocking simply goes ahead. In the event that the targeted content shares resources (IP address/domain) with legal content, blocking can not go ahead because of the collateral damage to any legal content.

The amendment seeks to lower the threshold so that it’s legal to block legal content, if the server or resource carries predominantly illegal content. This change could increase instances of blocking significantly, which is where item 6 comes in useful.

This amendment seeks to remove all limits on the volume of blocking allowed, regardless of who that negatively affects; primarily local ISPs, as mentioned earlier.

The second proposed amendment should have alarm bells ringing across the tech sector, if not the entire country.

Proposed amendment 2 (translated from Italian)

Football is a very important sport and deserves some level of protection. However, resorting to threats of imprisonment against those who invest in internet projects and offer services to millions of Italians, simply because they’re easier targets than those actually supplying the streams, is cynical at best.

Will that be a net gain or net loss to Italy as a whole? Has anyone carried out a risk assessment? Or an even better question: When that doesn’t work either, what next?

The official amendment document can be found here (pdf, Italian)

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

 App stores are littered with apps that promise free access to music, but only a few live up to expectations. Musi is one of them.

The music app first made headlines in 2016 when its founders, who were teenagers at the time, presented their brainchild in an episode of the Canadian edition of Dragons’ Den.

The software itself works relatively simply. Musi can stream music, sourced from YouTube, and allows users to create and share playlists. It essentially uses YouTube as a music library, without showing the video.

Apple Removes Musi

While the app’s millions of users seem satisfied with Musi, music industry groups are not happy at all. They argue that Musi is a ‘parasitic’ app that doesn’t compensate creators or rightsholders. The app was previously removed from Google Play and, as we reported a few weeks ago, IFPI and other music insiders were pressing Apple to remove it too.

Those efforts paid off yesterday when Musi was wiped from the App Store. Apple users who previously installed the software can continue to use it, but it’s no longer possible to install the app through the official store.

There’s no official explanation from Apple about the reason for the takedown. Our inquiries to Apple weren’t immediately returned, and the sender of the takedown request is unknown. However, information seen by TorrentFreak sheds more light the background leading up to it.

Music Industry Pressure

The takedown didn’t arrive out of the blue. Music industry group IFPI reported the Musi app to the App Store last summer. This triggered a legal back and forth, which also involved Musi’s lawyer, who argued that the app was merely providing access to publicly available music, stressing that the app doesn’t store any content on its servers.

It’s not clear whether Apple took any position in the dispute. We do know that the company, which typically has rigorous copyright standards, didn’t remove Musi from the app store at the time.

IFPI, however, was determined to have the app taken down. The group escalated the matter and called on other stakeholders to complain to Apple. More complaints might help to convince Apple.

YouTube

In recent months, Apple indeed received more complaints, including a recent takedown request from the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). Documentation seen by TorrentFreak further suggests that YouTube also got involved.

YouTube’s arguments in favor of takedown are unknown but, according to some, Musi circumvents YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ measures, which violates the DMCA. In addition, the app goes against the company’s terms of service.

The involvement of YouTube would be significant. Thus far, the video platform hasn’t taken any public action against “rolling cipher” issues. It’s often music companies who use this argument, against stream ripping platforms, for example.

Over the past year, music industry groups and various companies, who are a major revenue source for YouTube, repeatedly urged the company to get involved. Judging by the comments we’ve seen, those efforts paid off.

It’s Not Over Yet

This is one of the most significant App Store takedowns ever. With over 100 million downloads, Musi is one of the most popular apps around.

At the time of writing, the official Musi website still links to the iOS download, which is no longer available. In replies on social media, Musi says that it’s working on a potential comeback.

“The app is currently unavailable while we address some comments relating to the App Store. We don’t have an estimated time as to when it’ll be back but rest assured this has our top attention!,” Musi notes.

This is not the first time that Musi has been removed from the App Store. There’s still a possibility that, with some changes, it will return. Similarly, sideloading remains an option, and the music app may choose to focus on that going forward.

Who was behind this week’s takedown is unknown, but music industry insiders aren’t completely satisfied yet. There are talks about a potential lawsuit, which would likely take place in Canada, but that matter still being discussed. The hesitation likely stems from the fact that a lawsuit could potentially be lost, which would make matters worse, much worse.

If Musi doesn’t return to the App Store, it will be a major disappointment to millions of users. At the same time, it will be a massive blow to the app’s creators, who have turned it into a multi-million dollar business in recent years.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

Library Genesis, often shortened to LibGen, is one of the longest-running shadow libraries online. It provides free access to a vast collection of millions of books and academic papers that typically require payment.

In recent years, rightsholders have made several attempts to shut the site down. Court orders have led to LibGen being blocked in several countries, but completely eliminating the threat has been extremely difficult. This is partly because the identities of those running it remains unknown.

In 2017, Elsevier won a court case against LibGen and Sci-Hub in a New York federal court, which awarded the publisher $15 million in damages. However, both shadow libraries remained online and continue to operate to this day.

Publishers vs. LibGen

Hoping for a better outcome, textbook publishers Cengage, Bedford, Macmillan Learning, McGraw Hill, and Pearson Education filed a similar copyright infringement lawsuit against LibGen last year. According to the plaintiffs, LibGen is responsible for “staggering” levels of copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was stalled for months because LibGen’s anonymous operators didn’t respond. With no other viable options left, the publishers filed a motion for a default judgment in their favor.

The rightsholders said that LibGen distributes at least 20,000 of their copyrighted works without permission. The site is designed to be user-friendly while remaining resilient to enforcement measures.

For example, LibGen can easily switch domain names if needed and uses censorship-resistant decentralized hosting technologies such as the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), the publishers said.

Court orders LibGen to pay $30 million

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon granted the default judgment without any changes. The anonymous LibGen defendants are responsible for willful copyright infringement and their activities should be stopped.

“Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct and will continue to be irreparably harmed should Defendants be allowed to continue operating the Libgen Sites”, the order reads.

The order requires the defendants to pay the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, a total of $30 million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

$30 million…
 

While this is a win on paper, it’s unlikely that the publishers will get paid by the LibGen operators, who remain anonymous.

Injunction targets domains, IPFS gateways, and more

To address this concern, the publishers’ motion didn’t merely ask for $30 million in damages, they also demanded a broad injunction.

Granted by the court yesterday, the injunction requires third-party services such as advertising networks, payment processors, hosting providers, CDN services, and IPFS gateways to restrict access to the site.

“…all those in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, are permanently enjoined from…

 

…Using, hosting, operating, maintaining, registering, or providing any computer server, website, domain name, domain name server, cloud storage service, e-commerce platform, online advertising service, social media platform, proxy service (including reverse and forwarding proxies), website optimization service (including website traffic management), caching service, content delivery network, IPFS or other file sharing network, or donation, payment processing, or other financial service to infringe or to enable, facilitate, permit, assist, solicit, encourage, induce, participate with, or act in concert with the infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works…”

The injunction further targets “browser extensions” and “other tools” that are used to provide direct access to the LibGen Sites. While site blocking by residential Internet providers is mentioned in reference to other countries, ISP blocking is not part of the injunction itself.

Seizing (Future) Domain Names

In addition to the broad measures outlined above, the order further requires domain name registrars and registries to disable or suspend all active LibGen domains, or alternatively, transfer them to the publishers.

This includes Libgen.is, the most used domain name with 16 million monthly visits, as well as Libgen.rs, Libgen.li and many others.

At the moment, it’s unclear how actively managed the LibGen site is, as it has shown signs of decay in recent years. However, when faced with domain seizures, sites typically respond by registering new domains.

The publishers are aware of this risk. Therefore, they asked the court to cover future domain names too. The court signed off on this request, which means that newly registered domain names can be taken over as well; at least in theory.

Should Plaintiffs identify any additional Libgen Sites registered to or operated by any Defendant and used in conjunction with the infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, the registries and/or the individual registrars of such domain names shall further have the authority pursuant to this Order to transfer such additional domain names to Plaintiffs’ ownership and control or otherwise implement technical measures to ensure the domain names cannot be used by Defendants or to operate Libgen as described immediately above.

 

All in all, the default judgment isn’t just a monetary win, on paper, it’s also one of the broadest anti-piracy injunctions we’ve seen from a U.S. court.

The paperwork is still fresh, so it remains to be seen how third-party services will respond to it. Some foreign companies, in particular, may be more hesitant to comply with U.S. court orders, for example.

At the time of writing, all LibGen domains mentioned by the publishers remain online.

—

A copy of the default judgment including the injunctive relief, as signed by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, is available here (pdf)..

A list of all domain names mentioned by the publishers in March, with the associated details, can be found below.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

 An unprecedented order handed down by a judge in Argentina mid-September was music to the ears of LaLiga President Javier Tebas.

Alongside orders for local ISPs to block 69 domains linked to pirate IPTV service Magis TV, Judge Esteban Rossignoli at Court 4 of San Isidro reportedly instructed Google to “adopt the necessary technical means” to immediately uninstall the MagisTV app from all Android devices operating with an Argentinian IP address.

From a purely technical perspective, removing a sideloaded, non-Google Play piracy app doesn’t sound impossible. The precedent it would set has the potential to undermine Google, Android, and the majority of its users.

LaLiga President Blames Google For Piracy Woes

Google hasn’t issued a statement concerning the order but, given the gravity of the situation, that may be a good sign. The same can’t be said about Javir Tebas; he’s been celebrating this landmark moment in anticipation of its replication in other countries around the world, even before its debut in Argentina.

Fresh comments this week suggest that LaLiga doesn’t just view Google as an irritant in its battle against live sports piracy. The league believes that Google has the power to reduce piracy of LaLiga content by around 80% so, in the absence of positive action, the company should be held responsible.

At the Europa Forum on Monday, Tebas spoke of potential catastrophe for televised sports of all kinds, and the entire sports industry beyond that, if piracy isn’t brought urgently under control.

“We have to be aware that [piracy] is the main challenge facing professional football and the sports industry in general,” Tebas said.

“If this dynamic of piracy does not change,” he continued, there will be “a very significant decrease in audiovisual income that will affect football and non-professional sport [in Spain]”.

Tebas claims that this could be Spain’s reality in as little as two or three years. So, to mitigate the threat, LaLiga will call on the authorities to intervene.

Criminal Complaints Against Google

There are a number of valid reasons to file criminal complaints against pirate IPTV services. Indeed, targeting the source of pirated content has always made sense for obvious reasons, not least since it actually takes content down.

It also delivers an added bonus. With the content removed at source, looking around for third parties to hold liable becomes unnecessary. LaLiga sees things a little differently, however.

“The big technology companies have to intervene. They have to stop collaborating with piracy because they make money. Google makes money, Amazon makes money, Apple makes money – and they make a lot of money,” Tebas said, before revealing what comes next.

Tebas says that LaLiga will file “criminal complaints against Google” in countries such as Spain, France, Brazil, and Ecuador. LaLiga’s president is a lawyer so, presumably, he already knows the charges LaLiga has in mind and is satisfied that the evidence meets the higher standard required for a criminal prosecution.

Reports Suggest That Google Actually Cooperates Quite a Lot

Stating this week that “enough is enough”, Tebas says that 40% of the Spanish population are pirates. How many pirate LaLiga content is unclear but, however many there are, showing that Google is criminally liable for their conduct could prove challenging.

Take for instance an announcement by LaLiga, revealing its anti-piracy successes at both Google and YouTube when tackling piracy in the season spanning 2020/2021. The league reported that it successfully disabled in excess of 1,065,000 videos on YouTube and removed more than 75,800 websites from Google’s search results.

While the numbers demonstrate the scale of the problem, they don’t lead to the impression that Google is uncooperative. In fact, marketing material for LaLiga Tech, the anti-piracy unit founded by LaLiga in 2021, boasts of its abilities to swiftly take pirated content down, including from platforms owned by Google.

Teamwork?

Today, LaLiga Tech is known as Sportian, a joint venture formed with Globant in 2022. Customer testimonials relating to successes before and after the rebranding are hosted on the company’s website. One cites the benefits of having access to Google’s Trusted Copyright Removal Programme and YouTube’s Content ID, and how the whole package led to customer Dorna Sports seeing 98 out of every 100 illicit videos being taken down “within minutes.” (pdf)

The image on the right (above) is an extract from a presentation which tells the story of how LaLiga itself turned piracy around. It’s brimming with positivity and sits in stark contrast to the apocalyptic vision portrayed elsewhere, including the threats directed at Google this week.

Good Cop, Bad Cop?

Exactly what’s playing out here may be revealed in due course but if nothing else, there appears to be a hat for every occasion. The report mentioned earlier stating that 1,065,000 videos were removed from YouTube and 75,800 websites were disappeared from Google’s search results, had another interesting figure attached.

According to LaLiga, “820 mobile applications that were used to view pirated content” were also taken down, so why Google is currently public enemy #1 is up for debate. If the criminal complaints concern apps that appear on Google Play and are subsequently installed on users’ devices, LaLiga would certainly like to see those apps rendered inoperable. Not complying with that request doesn’t seem like a crime, however.

A less invasive approach may lie in LaLiga’s own anti-piracy toolkit which appears capable of identifying and then taking apps down quickly, before they even get a chance to gain traction among users.

Source: Sportian report

Whatever grievances LaLiga has with Google, its Sportian division seems very happy to utilize its takedown tools and use their effectiveness as a selling point.

But for Google, not even generously granting access to its exclusive adserver and elite digital marketing tools can make things right.

Source: Sportian.com

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

 The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the best known literary works in history, written by a young girl hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam during World War II.

Anne Frank died in 1945, but her legacy lives on though her words, which are a powerful testament to the resilience of the human spirit and a reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust.

Anne never saw her diary in printed form, as the first copies were published by her father Otto Frank in 1947. Since then, it’s been translated into more than 70 languages, selling more than 30 million copies around the world.

In 1963, Otto Frank established the “Anne Frank Fonds” in Switzerland and appointed it as his sole heir. This organization now owns the copyrights, over which it works hard to maintain control. According to the organization, the original print versions will remain protected for many decades.

The Anne Frank Copyright Battle

While early versions are presumably in the public domain in several countries, the original manuscripts are protected by copyright in the Netherlands until 2037. As a result, the copies published by the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting, are blocked for Dutch visitors.

“The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations,” is the message disallowed visitors get to see.

This blocking effort is the result of a copyright battle. Ideally, Anne Frank Stichting would like to make the manuscripts available worldwide, but the Swiss ‘Fonds’ has not given permission for it to do so. And since some parts of the manuscript were first published in 1986, Dutch copyrights are still valid.

In theory, geo-blocking efforts could alleviate the copyright concerns but, for the Fonds, these measures are not sufficient. After pointing out that people can bypass the blocking efforts with a VPN, it took the matter to court.

Does Geo-blocking Protect Copyrights?

Around the world, publishers and streaming services use geo-blocking as the standard measure to enforce geographical licenses. This applies to the Anne Frank Stichting, as well as Netflix, BBC iPlayer, news sites, and gaming platforms.

The Anne Frank Fonds doesn’t dispute this, but argued in court that people can circumvent these restrictions with a VPN, suggesting that the manuscripts shouldn’t be published online at all.

The lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, but the appeal was also dismissed, and the case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court.

The Fonds argues that the manuscript website is (in part) directed at a Dutch audience. Therefore, the defendants are making the manuscripts available in the Netherlands, regardless of the use of any blocking measures.

The defendants, in turn, argue that the use of state-of-the-art geo-blocking, along with additional measures like a user declaration, is sufficient to prevent a communication to the public in the Netherlands.

The defense relied on the opinion in the GO4YU case, which suggests that circumventing geo-blocking with a VPN does not constitute a communication to the public in the blocked territory, unless the blocking is intentionally ineffective.

VPN and Geo-Blocking Questions for EU Court

Before the Dutch Supreme Court goes ahead with the case, it has referred three key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It seeks clarification on how to interpret blocking and VPN use, in the context of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive.

Firstly, the Dutch Supreme Court asks the EU Court whether there can only be a “communication to the public” if a website is directed at that country. And if so, what does this ‘direction’ entail precisely.

The second question is whether there’s a “communication to the public” in a country where state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures, and potentially other restrictive measures are in place, yet may face circumvention with a VPN.

Finally, if the EU Court concludes that blocking measures are not sufficient because they can be bypassed with a VPN, does this automatically mean that the publisher is violating copyright law?

Or, in the translated words of the court:

1. Must Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive be interpreted in such a way that a publication of a work on the internet can only be regarded as a communication to the public in a certain country if the publication is directed to the public in that country? If so, which factors must be taken into account in this assessment?

 

2. Can there be a communication to the public in a certain country if, by means of (state-of-the-art) geo-blocking, it has been ensured that the website on which the work is published can only be accessed by the public in that country by circumventing the blocking measure with the help of a VPN or similar service? Is it relevant to what extent the relevant public in the blocked country is willing and able to gain access to the website in question via such a service? Does it make a difference to the answer to this question whether, in addition to the geo-blocking measure, other measures have been taken to hinder or discourage access to the website for the public in the blocked country?

 

3. If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure means that the work published on the internet is communicated to the public in the blocked country within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive, is that communication then made by the person who published the work on the internet, even though the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service in question is required for taking cognizance of that communication?

Far Reaching Consequences

On paper, the Anne Frank copyright battle is already controversial. However, this case could also have far-reaching consequences for many other sites and services that publish geographically-restricted content.

If state-of-the-art geo-blocking is not sufficient to alleviate copyright concerns, rightsholders can in theory go after publishers and platforms that use this technology. That applies to many large streaming services, and would make geographical licenses impossible to enforce.

Of course, most rights holders are already well aware of the geo-blocking weaknesses. They willingly accept this weakness in favor of geographical restrictions, which are often used to optimize profits.

That said, the ruling will also be important for VPN companies, many of which sell region unblocking as a feature. If the EU’s highest court decides that this is a key factor in copyright enforcement, that type of advertising could become problematic.

As for this specific situation, there’s a lot at stake as well. The manuscripts are important for research purposes, and broader access would help facilitate that. While opinions on copyright matters differ, everyone should strive to do good. Or as Anne Frank wrote:

“How noble and good everyone could be if, at the end of each day, they were to review their own behavior and weigh up the rights and wrongs. They would automatically try to do better at the start of each new day and, after a while, would certainly accomplish a great deal.”

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

  A pictorial timeline on the Motion Picture Association’s website begins with a 102-year-old photograph taken at the first meeting of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), the organization known today as the MPA.

“Since that time, the MPA has served as the leading advocate of the film, television, and streaming industry around the world, advancing the business and art of storytelling, protecting the creative and artistic freedoms of storytellers, and bringing entertainment and inspiration to audiences worldwide,” the introduction reads.

In 2024, the MPA can be found doing all of the above in most countries around the world. Yet if intellectual property laws had been more rigorously enforced well over a century ago, the story of Hollywood may have ended before it even began. Thomas Edison’s hoarding of over 1000 patents included many that were vital to movie making. As a result, filmmakers were given a blunt choice; they could do it his way and pay for the privilege, or they could choose no way at all.

With intellectual property law threatening to stifle creativity, some filmmakers took a third, unadvertised option. 1) Go to Los Angeles, where Edison and his patent bullying would be less effective. 2) Start building Hollywood anyway, and then 3) Around seven years after the first studios opened for business, photograph the historic moment for the history books and keep looking forward.

“The Growing Threat of Film Piracy”

Despite an alleged transgression here and there, respect for all intellectual property has been the unshakable start, beginning, and end of the MPA’s policy for decades. In 1975, the MPAA, as it was then known, established the Film Security Office to work with law enforcement in an effort to calm the “growing threat of film piracy.”

It’s a phrase still in common use today, but back then, the numbers were a little less extreme. At that time, it was claimed that movie piracy cost the industry more than $100 million a year, or close to a third of the cost of Apollo 11 (~$355m), the mission that placed a human being on the moon.

Adjusted for inflation alone, that’s around $584 million in today’s money. To put that into perspective, last December the MPA informed lawmakers that piracy of filmed entertainment now costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion and over 230,000 jobs annually.

Figures like these, coupled with statistics similar to those in the image above, represent tens of thousands of hours of research carried out by a wide range of organizations. The majority are either linked to the MPA directly via memberships or funding, or indirectly linked to the MPA through its members’ memberships of other organizations. Other entities do business with members of the MPA or the affiliated ACE anti-piracy coalition.

That’s not intended to cast doubt on the veracity of any study or report; it’s simply the most obvious example of the MPA’s unprecedented power, reach, and influence in the filmed entertainment sector – not to mention many governments – on a truly global scale.

MPA Dials in Even More Reach, Power, and Influence

When it comes to shaping global policy in a way that benefits the MPA, there’s no such thing as too much power. Being able to call on the combined might of members Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios, The Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery is part of daily business for the MPA.

Since 2019, the MPA members list has also included Netflix which, along with its movie and TV show creating counterparts, also provides leadership as a founding / governing member of the ACE anti-piracy coalition.

Until now, the only founding member / governing board member of ACE that hasn’t counted itself among the members of the MPA, is the entity previously known as Amazon Studios LLC. An announcement by the MPA confirms that after many years trying to get Amazon on board, on October 1, 2024, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios will join the MPA as its most recent member.

And Then There Were Seven

“The MPA is the global voice for a growing and evolving industry, and welcoming Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios to our ranks will broaden our collective policymaking and content protection efforts on behalf of our most innovative and creative companies,” says Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO of the MPA.

“MPA studios fuel local economies, drive job creation, enrich cultures, and bolster communities everywhere they work. With Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios among our roster of extraordinary members, the MPA will have an even larger voice for the world’s greatest storytellers.”

Mike Hopkins, Head of Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, says the company is proud to join the world’s most powerful entertainment industry group.

“Amazon’s mission is to entertain customers around the world with compelling film and television. In order to do that, we must support storytellers, while also helping to sustain a robust entertainment industry that works for both studios and our creative partners,” Hopkins says. “We are proud to join the MPA and its member studios in their collective efforts to protect creators, content, and consumers worldwide.”

In common with the other members of the MPA, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios will likely pay millions towards the MPA’s annual running costs. However, if all goes to plan on everything from piracy reduction to taxation, membership might not end up costing Amazon very much at all. Now there’s a light bulb moment.

From October 1, 2024, the MPA members list will read as follows: Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios, The Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

With approximately a billion active monthly users worldwide, Telegram is one of the most used messaging services.

The communication platform helps to connect people from all over the globe, with optional end-to-end encryption providing improved security compared to some other players in the market.

Telegram can also be an excellent medium to broadcast messages to a wider audience. Through dedicated one-way channels, people can share news, status updates, and emergency alerts, for example.

Illegal Activities

However, like any technology, Telegram has its dark side. It’s been used to facilitate illegal activities, including drug trafficking, fraud, and the spread of child abuse images. While much of this occurs beyond the company’s purview, Telegram has faced criticism for not doing enough to combat these activities.

Last month, the company’s CEO, Pavel Durov, was arrested at a French airport as part of a criminal investigation. According to several reports, Telegram is accused of facilitating drug trafficking, fraud, and the spread of child abuse images.

Although copyright infringement wasn’t cited as a reason for the arrest, Telegram has attracted criticism from rightsholders in the past. The service has been flagged a “notorious” piracy market on numerous occasions and was previously listed on the EU’s “piracy watch list”.

These complaints go beyond mere warnings. Earlier this year, a Spanish court ordered Internet providers to block the service in its entirety due to copyright issues. While this blockade was averted at the eleventh hour following fierce backlash, the pressure is on.

Z-Library, Telegram, and the DMCA

Telegram isn’t oblivious to the critique. The company accepts DMCA takedown notices and regularly removes copyrighted content, when asked. This means that if rights holders spot infringing content being posted publicly, they can take action.

It’s unknown how responsive Telegram is to these takedown notices, but the recent disappearance of several posts in the official “Z-Library Official” channel, suggests that Telegram isn’t sitting still.

With more than half a million subscribers, Z-Library has one of the more popular channels on Telegram. The shadow library is also the target in a U.S. criminal investigation and has had hundreds of domain names seized over the past two years.

Z-Library uses Telegram to send updates to users, including the availability of new domain names. That’s a source of frustration for book publishers and U.S. law enforcement, who are trying to make the site inaccessible. While Z-Library hasn’t folded yet, Telegram is taking action.

Telegram Removes Z-Library Posts

The “Z-Library Official” channel currently has 566,893 subscribers and remains online today. Several posts have vanished, however, including this message that was published in response to recent domain seizures.

May 31 message
 

Although this update didn’t include infringing content, it links to the Z-Library site, which appears to be off limits for Telegram. Over a dozen other posts have met the same fate. These have all been replaced with the following note.

“This message couldn’t be displayed on your device due to copyright infringement”, the updates now read.

The updates don’t mention who requested the removal, but rightsholders or U.S. law enforcement are prime candidates. In either case, Z-Library received the message loud and clear, and it no longer includes direct links to its site in new updates.

“Since recently, the Telegram administration has been blocking posts that contain links to our library. So, we’d like to remind you about the places where you can find the actual links,” the team writes, pointing readers to Wikipedia and Reddit.

The Link Conundrum

Z-Library’s message points users to Wikipedia and Reddit, where links are still accepted, at least for now. On Telegram, there are still plenty of Z-Library links in the comments as well, and even on Z-Library’s official profile page.

At the same time, fraudulent Z-Library copycats are profiting from the link Whack-A-Mole by posting unofficial links. These have also appeared on the official Wikipedia page in the past, and on top of search engine results.

While accessing Z-Library isn’t getting any easier, the site itself doesn’t show any signs of slowing down. Z-Library just started a new “donation drive” to continue to fund their operation. According to the numbers that are available, thousands of dollars have been donated already in just a few days.

Fundraise

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

  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. “Blink Twice” is the most shared title.

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

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

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts

  As reported last week, an order published in Argentina dated September 13, 2024, revealed that local ISPs are now required to block dozens of Magis TV-linked domains for violating intellectual property law.

In total, 69 domains (full list in our earlier report) must be blocked so that internet users cannot access them from anywhere inside Argentinian territory. The nature of the listed domains suggests that rightsholders focused on resellers of Magis TV subscriptions. One of the service’s main domains appears in the list but as things stand, any damage to availability is likely to be both limited and short-lived.

Linked to Operation 404

Our report coincided with the latest wave of Operation 404 in Brazil last Thursday, which also led to three arrests in Argentina. On Friday, dozens of local media reports linked those arrests to Magis TV.

According to reports, Hugo Javier Mospan, 47, of Buenos Aires, is linked to the teaching of computer courses in Argentina. Before that he was an employee at a transport company.

Leopoldo Federico Peña, 46, also of Buenos Aires, reportedly has a history of marketing household appliances and electronic equipment. In mid-2022, in concert with others, he reportedly registered several companies for the purposes of importing, exporting, distributing and maintaining such products.

Leopoldo Peña, Kevin Bentancur and Hugo Mospan

Infobae reports that the youngest of those arrested, 27-year-old Kevin Ariel Bentancur from Buenos Aires, had a job working at a car dealership. Pictures of all three were widely published by local media late last week following their arrests.

News reports also showed law enforcement entering premises and retail outlets suspected of selling ‘fully-loaded’ TV boxes, with at least some devices sold with the Magis TV app pre-installed. A raid targeting ‘TodoTech’ in Misiones is said to have yielded just three TV boxes but another at “Kive” in CABA, a more impressive 481 TV boxes were seized by police.

Source: YouTube

Two other suspects, Roberto V. and Marcos DJ, are described as the most visible ‘marketers’ of Magis TV devices in Argentina. They’re still at large, according to reports, and somewhat less visible, at least for now.

This type of high-profile action is clearly meant to send a message. Whether that message will include custodial sentences will remain to be seen, but the loss of money invested in devices taken away by the police has the potential to sting and give pause for thought, if nothing else.

Yet whatever happens in Argentina, the court order has a component that goes beyond seizing devices and ISPs blocking Magis TV. The component isn’t just controversial; depending on how it’s handled, it could reverberate far beyond Argentina.

If those who requested this additional component thought it through (there are clear signs that’s exactly what they did), whatever happens next will determine just how far rightsholders are prepared to go to ensure that people stop pirating live TV content.

No Red Lines in This War

The action targeting Magis TV appears to have two tracks, the blocking action and a criminal investigation. The initial complaint to the authorities was filed by LATAM anti-piracy group Alianza, which represents companies in, or connected to, the pay TV sector; Direct TV, Sky Brasil, Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, Globo, Win Sports, Telecine, the list goes on.

The investigation was carried out by Argentina’s Specialized Unit on Cybercrime (UFEIC) and headed by prosecutor Alejandro Musso. As we know, the request to block 69 Magis TV-linked domains was handed down on September 13 by Judge Esteban Rossignoli at Court 4 of San Isidro.

No stranger to controversy himself, Judge Rossignoli granted a request that seems likely to be the source of even more. Prosecutor Musso says that the blocking of 69 domains means that the “app will no longer be able to be downloaded” but they needed to go much further than that. Specifically, the threat posed by millions of copies of Magis TV already installed on users’ devices needed to be eliminated. The Judge agreed.

Google Ordered to Remotely Uninstall Magis TV From Users’ Devices

In instructions to Google, Judge Rossignoli says that the company must “adopt the necessary technical means to immediately uninstall from Android systems that report IP addresses in the territory of the Argentine Republic (which can be verified by the IP addresses assigned to this country), the application named Magis TV.”

The order specifies a filename (magis_mobile_v6.5.2.apk) and the following hash values:

• SHA1: e68156b531ffaade1090b7326b7ae7d604975cd0
• MD5: c4614c08c3be4ee9972870056d47afae

A VirusTotal report confirms that both hashes relate to the same file, a 48.89 MB (51262825 bytes) Android APK.

Two hashes, same file

Commenting on the instructions to Google, Musso acknowledges that “this has never been done before” but defends the unprecedented measure as entirely necessary.

“What was achieved is an unprecedented court order, which is in the process of being analyzed by Google – we understand that they cannot deny it – which is to uninstall, through the Android operating system update, the application on all devices that have an IP address in Argentina,” Musso says.

Measure Will be Replicated “Immediately”

Having been granted this type of power once, rightsholders aren’t known for letting the momentum go to waste. In recent years, as anti-piracy efforts have become more globalized, court orders issued in one country are often cited in others, showcasing the potential power courts possess if they truly prioritize intellectual property protection. In Argentina, this expansion appears to have been part of the planning.

“We understand that this measure will be replicated immediately by many countries that have this same type of problem,” Prosecutor Musso continues.

“What will be achieved once this is completed is that the installed app disappears and cannot be downloaded again, thus breaking the cycle of digital piracy. The only way [Magis TV] could circumvent this is to develop a new app where we would be waiting for them, ready to do exactly the same thing once we identify it.”

For Alianza member LaLiga, this development couldn’t have come soon enough. Spain’s top-tier football league has been campaigning for apps to be remotely deleted from Android devices for some time, including last September when it claimed to be discussing the measure with Google.

“This ruling by the Argentine authorities following prosecutor Musso’s investigation, based on the evidence presented by Alianza, represents a global example in the fight against piracy and theft of audiovisual content,” says LaLiga President Javier Tebas.

“Not only have all the domains associated with the illegal service and its technological infrastructure been blocked, but it has also been ruled that Google must prevent the use of illegal applications already installed on Android devices through its security mechanisms, something we have requested on numerous occasions. In fact, a judge of first instance in Spain already issued an order in 2022 calling for a similar measure from Google at the request of LaLiga, in a process that’s still ongoing.”

Google Yet To Respond In Public

Rightsholders appear to have no red lines in their fight against piracy, but for Google this looks like a minefield requiring the most delicate of steps to protect the global Android brand. While users are unlikely to appreciate Google reaching into their devices to disable software downloaded and installed using Google Play, the idea that third party apps installed independently could be eliminated remotely is an issue for every Android user.

Whether Google will challenge the ruling head on or look for another reason to justify the deletion, is currently unknown. The implications are unknown too, but it may not be too long before Android users start to find out.

Source

RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend  

Hope you enjoyed this news post.

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

2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of August): 3,792 news posts