If the vision for the creation of the web included a day one feature that could restrict access to content, people working on their own specialist topics, catering to their own niche audiences, would’ve happily pressed the button.

 

A hundred or a thousand thriving communities, small utopias in their own right, with no connection to each other, would’ve been seen as a feature, not the failure of the internet we otherwise see today. The openness of the early days of today’s web, the ability to see most other sites and communities while being exposed to creativity and information like never before, was the easiest elevator pitch in history.

 

Come and see, everything you want for free, was the dream made reality and people couldn’t wait to experience it. Some things for free, but you have to pay for everything else, would’ve changed everything.

 

Regardless, that’s what we have as our internet today, although the definition of ‘free’ has been adjusted over time, mostly to mean no money changes hands. Just watch a few ads, allow the content providers to share your data with the world, and enjoy a lifetime of ‘free’ content.

 

Unfortunately, a ‘lifetime deal’ on the internet is subject to change too and when ads and other mechanisms stop paying the bills, the doors get locked until payment is made for the key.

Paywalls and News

If the whole piracy debate is put to one side just for a moment, paying for music, movies, and books, doesn’t sound especially ridiculous. Yet when it comes to paying to read news, a majority suddenly get a little offended, annoyed even. They read a handful of articles a day, and they’re not paying for that, period. Certainly, they’re not paying a full subscription to several online newspapers on the basis they might have something worth reading this month.

 

And to be frank, who can blame people for that sentiment? The days of someone sitting back in an armchair with a single newspaper, from which they consume all news, are largely gone. And good riddance too. Consuming news from multiple sources is the only way to filter out the political biases, balance opinions, and get closer to the truth. Yet increasingly, large swathes of information, crucial to broader insight and analysis, can only be found behind paywalls.

 

The conundrum is currently unsolvable; a news business requires revenue, just like any other. Ads don’t work and while paywalls are broadly disliked, they pay the bills. People want access to news, information about their world, current events that affect their lives. The only issue is that when asked to pay for it, people mostly don’t want to. If the streaming service market is fragmented, news takes it to a whole new level.

Bypass Paywalls Clean

Bypass Paywalls Clean (BPC) is a browser extension that bypasses many of the paywalls put in place by most of the world’s news publishers. While that’s an accurate description, it’s really an indication of a wider problem.

 

BPC restores the news landscape to one that people can enjoy again, in keeping with news delivery of the last couple of decades. It removes the irritations of news articles appearing in search engines with excerpts promising everything, only to transform into a ‘subscribe now’ bait-and-switch popup, of which there was no mention earlier.

 

BPC removes the need for credit card hunts, not to mention the pain of any subsequent data breaches. BPC removes the need for usernames, passwords, logins authorized by 2FA, and eliminates the barrage of follow-up spam news publications suddenly feel permitted to send; pressure to sign up for longer, and for more money, not to mention the price increases of this year and the year after, plus ‘special offers’ that nobody wants.

 

For these and other closely related reasons, users of BPC are very upset right now. In a post to X yesterday, the software’s developer revealed why his project is no longer available; someone filed a DMCA takedown notice against his repo on GitLab.

 

 

BPC has not published a copy of the DMCA takedown notice, GitLab doesn’t appear to have shared it either. In fact, the URL where the repo could be previously found returns only a 404 error; there’s no indication that a DMCA complaint was even received, let alone who sent it and what it said.

DMCA Abuse or Something Else?

The absence of information has led to some speculation that the notice may have been abusive. Only the developer can say for sure but on the assumption that a DMCA notice was indeed responsible for taking BPC down, some point to the BPC code while shouting ‘foul’. They claim that since the BPC code is the unique creation of its developer, a DMCA notice would need to wrongfully claim copyright of his code.

 

While that could be a worthy topic of discussion, these scenarios can be immediately addressed using a DMCA counter-notice. BPC’s creator can simply file one with GitLab and in less than two weeks’ time, the platform would have to restore it, if whoever sent the original notice didn’t sue the developer in the United States.

 

Diving into a potential legal quagmire is rarely attractive or sensible. Here, however, there are signs to suggest the option has been rendered unavailable. The repo no longer exists according to GitLab, but that seems like a minor detail when compared to the status of the developer’s account.

 

 

There’s no information close to hand on GitLab that attempts to explain why magnolia1234 is ‘blocked’ and no reason supplied on the developer’s account on X either. Responses from BPC users are limited to those who @Magnolia1234B specifically mentions, so discussion is somewhat limited.

More than One Type of DMCA Notice

The developer’s earlier comment, “another day another DMCA takedown notice” tends to suggest receipt of two, three or potentially more DMCA notices. On which platforms they were received isn’t specified but if those all relate to GitLab, it raises the question of whether a ‘repeat infringer’ policy came into play. That could explain the ‘blocked’ account status but since details aren’t being made available, it’s difficult to say for sure.

 

However, DMCA takedown notices come in more than one flavor and the ‘remove this copy of my content’ type may not even be the best fit here. It’s certainly possible that if a DMCA notice is responsible, it could be an anti-circumvention notice for which there is no counter-notice option available.

 

Whether BPC amounts to a tool that circumvents a “technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected by copyright” rendering it illegal under 17 U.S. Code § 1201, cannot be answered without a proper technical analysis.

 

Websites use all kinds of methods to restrict access to content but whether some, any or all qualify for protection is mostly uncharted territory. There’s also the question of intent, i.e what BPC was designed and marketed for; that has the potential to matter a lot.

Blame the Game, Not the Player

In the physical world, a locked door is a pretty clear sign that whatever lies behind it is currently unavailable for access. Some people might give the handle a couple of tries to be sure but, in ordinary circumstances, people don’t immediately start searching for security weaknesses or pull out a lockpicking set.

 

In the online environment, where there’s an underlying assumption most things are free, a paywall popup with an article just visible underneath, is a signal that whoever published the article cannot afford to deliver it in any other way. Yet in many cases it has already been delivered, because the text is already right there.

 

Is it legally acceptable to remove the blocking element in your own browser or is this really about respecting the people who spent time and money creating the content, regardless of how good their security is?

 

Or could this be more about the online news situation in general, where anyone can setup a website that automatically copies everything a news site publishes in public, the moment it’s published, and then pumps it out as their own content to generate revenue?

 

Maybe the terrible ad networks that many illegal and indeed legal news platforms foist upon their readers are the real problem? Or perhaps the response to this barrage of unwanted ads causes most damage; exhausted readers simply rejecting ads altogether, blocking the good and bad in one swoop?

 

With no ad revenue, news sites can either shut down completely or turn to a paywall. So rather than viewing BPC as a parasite that stops creators getting paid for their work, perhaps a broader look at the news ecosystem itself is in order.

Who’s Really Taking Available Revenue?

Considering the volume of news available at any one moment, much of it simply rehashed or otherwise trash copies of reports produced by a limited number of original publishers, the real parasites driving paywall uptake aren’t found in the form of a browser extension.

 

They’re the publications that pass news off as their own, sometimes completely rewritten by AI, who then spend ten times more money on SEO, because getting low quality junk to the top of search results is clearly more important than journalism. They take news articles already being offered for free yet their only contribution is to make whatever they take worse. The world is awash with them yet search engines seem incapable of doing anything about most.

 

Removing these sites from the market would return more of the revenue to those that should’ve received it in the first place, hopefully negating the need for more paywalls and any future for tools like BPC.

 

If news consumers want fewer paywalls, boycott the parasites, plagiarists, and those bombarding your browser and inboxes with spam. Adding them to a hosts file or making a firewall rule is fairly painless but a convenient, open source browser extension might be a fitting solution under the circumstances.

 

Over the past year-and-a-half, artificial intelligence has been enjoying its mainstream breakthrough.

 

The instant success of ChatGPT and other AI-based tools and services kick-started what many believe is a new revolution.

 

By now it is clear that AI offers endless possibilities. While there’s no shortage of new avenues to pursue, most applications rely on input or work from users. That’s fine for the tech-savvy, but some prefer instant results.

 

For example, we have experimented with various AI-powered image-generation tools to create stock images to complement our news articles. While these all work to some degree, it can be quite a challenge to get a good output; not to mention that it costs time and money too.

StockCake

But what if someone created a stock photo website pre-populated with over a million high-quality royalty-free images? And what if we could freely use the photos from that site because they’re all in the public domain? That would be great.

 

Enter: StockCake…

 

StockCake is a new platform by AI startup Imaginary Machines. The site currently hosts more than a million pre-generated images. These images can be downloaded, used, and shared for free. There are no strings attached as all photos are in the public domain.

 

AI-generated public domain photos
 

A service like this isn’t of much use to people who aim to generate completely custom images or photos. All content is pre-made and there is no option to alter the prompts. Instead, the site is aimed at people who want instant stock images for their websites, social media, or any other type of presentation.

Using AI to Democratize Media

TorrentFreak spoke with StockCake founder Nen Fard to find out what motivated him to start this project and how he plans to develop it going forward. He told us that it’s long been a dream to share media freely online with anyone who needs it.

 

“My journey towards leveraging AI for media content began with a keen interest in the field’s rapid advancements. The defining moment came when I observed a significant leap in the quality of AI-generated content, reaching a standard that was not just acceptable but impressive.

 

“This realization was pivotal, sparking the transition from ideation to action. It underscored the feasibility of using AI to fulfill a long-held dream of democratizing media content, leading to the birth of StockCake,” Fard adds.

 

The careful reader will pick up that Fard’s responses were partly edited using AI technology. However, the message is clear, Fard saw the potential to create a vast library of stock photos and added these to the public domain, free to the public at large. And it didn’t stop there.

StockTune

Shortly after releasing StockCake, Fard went live with another public domain project; StockTune. This platform is pretty much identical but focuses on audio instead. The tracks that are listed can be used free of charge and without attribution.

 

StockTune
 

It’s not hard to see how these two sites can replace the basic use of commercial stock footage platforms. While they are still in their infancy, the sites already offer quite a decent quality selection. At the same time, there are also various AI filters in place to ensure that inappropriate content is minimized.

 

The AI technology, which is in part based on OpenAI and Stability AI, also aims to ensure that the underlying models are legitimate. While there are always legal issues that can pop up, both services strive to play fair, so they can continue to grow, perhaps indefinitely.

Ever-Expanding Libraries

At the time of writing, StockCake has a little over a million photos hosted on the site, while there are nearly 100,000 tracks on StockTune. This is just the beginning, though, as AI generates new versions every minute, then adds them to the site if the quality is on par.

 

Theoretically, there’s no limit to the number of variations that can be created. While quality is leading, the founder’s vision has always been to create unrestricted access to media. This means that the libraries are ever-expanding.

 

“The inception of StockCake and StockTune was driven by a vision to revolutionize the accessibility of media content. Unlike traditional platforms, we leverage the limitless potential of AI to create an ever-expanding, diverse set of photos and songs,” Fard says.

 

Both stock media sites have something suitable for most general topics. However, you won’t find very specific combinations, such as a “squirrel playing football.” AI-rendered versions of some people, Donald Trump, for example, appear to be off limits too.

Monetizing the Public Domain?

While the above all sounds very promising, the sites are likely to face plenty of challenges. The platforms are currently not monetized but the AI technology and hosting obviously cost money, so this will have to change.

 

Fard tells us that he plans to keep access to the photos and audio completely free. However, he’s considering options to generate revenue. Advertising would be one option, but more advanced subscription-based services are too. Or to put it in his AI-amplified words;

 

“As our platforms continue to grow and evolve, they will naturally give rise to opportunities that support our sustainability without compromising our values. We aim to foster a community where creativity is unrestrained by financial barriers, and every advancement brings us closer to this goal,” Fard says.

 

AI-generated ‘wealthy cat’ (bonus audio)
 

For example, the developer plans to launch a suite of AI-powered tools for expert users, to personalize and upscale images when needed. That could be part of a paid service. However, existing footage will remain in the public domain, without charge, he promises.

 

“Looking ahead, we plan to introduce a suite of AI-powered tools that promise to enhance the creative possibilities for our users significantly. These include upscaling tools for generating higher-resolution photos, style transfer tools that can adapt content to specific artistic aesthetics, and character/object replacement tools for personalized customization.”

The C Word

It’s remarkable that a small startup can create this vast amount of stock footage and share it freely. This may also spook some of the incumbents, who make millions of dollars from their stock photo platforms. While these can’t stop AI technology, they can complain. And they do.

 

For example, last year, Getty Images sued Stability AI, alleging that it used its stock photos to train its models. This lawsuit remains ongoing. While Fard doesn’t anticipate any legal trouble, he has some thoughts on the copyright implications.

 

“At Imagination Machines, the driving force behind StockCake and StockTune, we believe that the essence of creativity and innovation should be accessible to all. This belief guides our approach to AI-generated media, which, by its nature, challenges traditional notions of copyright,” Fard says.

 

The site’s developer trusts that the company’s AI partners respect existing copyright law. And by putting all creations in the public domain, the company itself claims no copyrights.

 

“Currently, AI-generated content resides in a unique position within copyright laws. These laws were crafted in a different era, focusing on human authorship as the cornerstone of copyright eligibility. However, the remarkable capabilities of AI to generate original, high-quality photos and music without direct human authorship put us at the edge of a new frontier.

 

“We operate under the current legal framework, which does not extend copyright protection to works created without human ingenuity, allowing us to offer this content in the public domain.”

 

Both StockCake and StockTune have the potential to be disruptors, but Fard wants to play fair and remain within the boundaries of the law. He also understands that the law may change in the future, and plans to have his voice heard in that debate.

 

“Our goal is not just to navigate the current legal issues but also to actively advocate for laws that recognize the potential of AI to democratize access to creative content while respecting the rights and contributions of human creators,” Fard concludes.

 

With AI legal battles and copyright policy revving up globally, there’s certainly plenty of opportunity to advocate.

 

In his 1962 book, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke noted that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

 

At the dawn of the 80s, when computers thrived on a single kilobyte of RAM, any enthusiast with access to Clarke’s book would’ve read his words, gazed at the 1,024 bytes of available RAM, and envisioned a galaxy of opportunity. As expectations have grown year-on-year, mainstream users of technology today are much less easily impressed, and fewer still experience magic.

 

Yet, there are solid grounds for even the most experienced technologists to reevaluate almost everything based on current AI innovation. Released on Wednesday, the astonishing Udio produces music from written prompts and seamlessly integrates user-supplied lyrics, regardless of how personal, frivolous, or unsuitable for work they are.

 

Udio and other platforms dedicated to generative AI are the kind of magic that can’t be undermined by looking up a sleeve or spotting a twin in the audience. Indeed, the complexities under the hood that generate the magic are impenetrable for the layman.

 

One thing is certain, however; Udio didn’t simply boot itself up one day and say, “I know Kung Fu (Fighting by Carl Douglas).” It was continuously fed existing content from unspecified sources before singing (or rapping) a single note. If a new bill introduced at the U.S. House of Representatives gains traction, Udio’s makers will have to declare every single song Udio was trained on, retrospectively.

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act

Introduced by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) this week, the bill envisions “groundbreaking legislation” that would compel companies to be completely transparent when training their generative AI models on copyrighted content. From Sciff’s website:

 

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act would require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to the release of a new generative AI system with regard to all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset for that system. The bill’s requirements would also apply retroactively to previously released generative AI systems.

 

“AI has the disruptive potential of changing our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day lives. We must balance the immense potential of AI with the crucial need for ethical guidelines and protections,” Rep. Schiff explains.

 

“My Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is a pivotal step in this direction. It champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets. This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.”

 

The bill has huge support; the RIAA says that “comprehensive and transparent recordkeeping” are the “fundamental building blocks” of effective enforcement of creators’ rights, a stance echoed by ASCAP and, in broad terms, all groups listed at the end of this article.

 

Since the Directors Guild of America says it “commends this commonsense legislation,” a common sense perspective on the proposals shall be applied here.

Artists & Creators Deserve to Get Paid. Period

There can be no debate: the removal of existing art from the generative AI equation is impossible. The latter simply cannot exist without the former; the big legal debate seems to hang on whether consumption was protected under the doctrine of fair use, or was straightforward copyright infringement.

 

If the court finds in favor of fair use, it seems likely that no copyright holders will receive compensation. A finding in the other direction is likely to lead to copyright holders getting paid in some way, shape, or form.

 

Yet while the architects of the Bill claim that it “champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators,” the only realistic beneficiaries longer-term will be copyright holders with a significant enough profile to be identified for subsequent reporting.

 

In most developed countries, copyrights automatically apply as soon as creative works are created. This means there could easily be a billion creators with valid, albeit unregistered copyrights, in tens of billions of images, photos, videos, and music tracks, available online today.

 

The Bill claims to act on behalf of creators but in reality can only ever benefit an identifiable subset, with registered copyrights, for the purposes of “effective enforcement of creators’ rights,” according to the RIAA.

Join The Big Team or Get Nothing

Much like the proposal to “blow up the internet” in the movie Four Lions, the Bill hasn’t even considered what can and can’t be achieved. A centralized database, of all copyrighted works and their respective owners, doesn’t exist. Even if an AI development team wanted to report that a certain copyright work had been used, how can ownership of that content ever be established?

 

And then at some point, almost inevitably, content created with elements of other content, permissible under the doctrine of fair use, will be reported as original copyrighted content, when no payment for that use is required under law.

 

This leads to a number of conclusions, all based on how rights are currently managed. At least initially, if compelled to identify all copyright works used to the Copyright Office, that will only be useful to the subset of creators mentioned earlier.

 

In the long-term, smaller creators – who feel that they too deserve to get paid – will probably have to join the future equivalent of a Content ID program for AI. Run by those with the power to put such a system in place, these entities have a reputation of making the rules and keeping most of the money.

 

The bottom line is extremely straightforward: if creators should be rewarded for their work, then all creators should be rewarded for their work. There cannot be discriminatory rules that value one copyright holder’s rights over those of another. More fundamentally, don’t propose legislation without considering the burden of future compliance, and then double up with exponential difficulties associated with retroactive compliance, as the Bill lays out.

It’s a Kind of Magic, But Not Actually Magic

AI may achieve magical things, but it is not actually magic. The Bill requires AI companies, entities, to provide a “sufficiently detailed summary of any copyrighted works used in the training dataset” to the Register of Copyrights, not later than 30 days before the generative AI system is made available to the public. Or, read differently, enough time to prevent release with an injunction.

 

On the basis that this task simply cannot be achieved for all copyright holders, right across the board, the proposal fails. A ChatGPT instance didn’t reject the Bill or its proposals outright when given the details by us today. However, considering its dataset, and allowing a handling time of one second for each copyright work to be identified in theory, could take over 31 years to complete.

 

“This crazy number highlights the immense scale and complexity of the task. It emphasizes the need for innovative solutions, automation, and cooperation among stakeholders to navigate the challenges of copyright in the AI era,” one of the reasons for the debate concludes.

 

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act can be found here (pdf)

 

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is supported by the Recording Industry Association of America, Copyright Clearance Center, Directors Guild of America, Authors Guild, National Association of Voice Actors, Concept Art Association, Professional Photographers of America, Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Writers Guild of America West, Writers Guild of America East, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Society of Composers and Lyricists, National Music Publishers Association, Recording Academy, Nashville Songwriters Association International, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition, Music Artist Coalition, Human Artistry Campaign, and the American Association of Independent Music.

 

Image Credit

 

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

 

This remnant of the SOPA defeat drove copyright holders to focus on blocking efforts in other countries instead.

 

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old, and momentum is shifting. After more than forty countries around the world instituted site-blocking measures, U.S. lawmakers may be more receptive to revisiting the topic.

 

This week, MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin announced that the movie industry group is going to work with Members of Congress to enact judicial site-blocking legislation in the United States. The RIAA will likely join this effort, as music industry groups have joined similar blocking efforts in other countries too.

 

The site-blocking quest is undoubtedly going to fill plenty of headlines in the U.S. media, as it remains a hot topic. That’s quite a contrast to what we see in other countries, including the UK, where similar measures have been in place for many years.

UK Site Blocking Lull

Following requests from movie studios, record labels, publishers, sports leagues and broadcasters, hundreds of websites are blocked in the UK today. This translates to many thousands of domain names, as proxy sites and backup domains are also included. The precise number of websites and associated domains, including their variants and IP addresses, is difficult to report accurately due to a lack of official documentation; certainly, the shifting nature of dynamic blocking doesn’t make reporting any easier.

 

The UK mainstream press hasn’t shown much interest in the topic in recent years. When the MPA obtained the first-ever blocking order against a cyberlocker two years ago, the BBC didn’t even mention it.

 

Meanwhile, UK blocking efforts have expanded considerably, not just by numbers, but also in scope. Without any public announcement, search engine Google joined the effort and since 2022, the company has voluntarily removed domain names from UK search results if these are covered by existing ISP blocking orders.

 

We uncovered these Google delistings by accident and the involved parties subsequently confirmed this blocking expansion. However, Google itself remained quiet for a long time, perhaps due to its previous anti-blocking stance.

17,317 Flagged URLs

Google’s delisting of pirate sites in the UK remains ongoing today. There are no official announcements on this front, but the search engine’s transparency reports published by Lumen provide some insight into this activity.

 

For example, we can see that music industry group BPI reported 1,470 pirate site URLs to Google this month, asking the company to delist them entirely. The BPI added the relevant court orders to all requests and Google complied by removing most domains from its UK search results.

 

Looking further back, we can see that BPI has asked Google to delist 17,317 URLs from its search engine over the past two years. These requests are separate from regular takedown notices, as the full domains are completely removed from search results.

Inflated Numbers

The 17,317 figure is significant but requires nuance. It includes various proxy subdomains as well as subdomains of stream-ripping services. The latter are used to actively evade Google removals and site-blocking itself.

 

 

In addition, the BPI has a habit of occasionally double-listing domain names in their requests, or submitting identical domain names in multiple requests. This further inflates the totals.

 

Caveats aside, it’s probably safe to say that thousands of domain names have been delisted by Google in response to site-blocking orders. These domains provide, or at least used to provide, access to hundreds of pirate sites. This includes The Pirate Bay and many of its proxies, which have been completely stripped from Google’s top results in the UK.

 

Needless to say; if site-blocking legislation eventually makes its way to the United States, we can expect to see similar efforts there. However, we don’t think that will happen so quietly.

 

The debate over whether copyright infringement cannibalizes legitimate media consumption has been dragging on for several decades now.

 

The issue has been researched extensively with both positive and negative effects being reported, varying based on the type of content and the ‘piracy’ source, among other variables.

 

By now, most experts would agree that watching a new blockbuster on a pirate streaming site isn’t going to magically benefit legitimate sales. However, there are many more nuanced types of copyright infringement, where ‘unauthorized’ use is more likely to have a positive effect.

TikTok Pirates

For example, when a viral clip from a TV series is making the rounds on social media platforms, one could argue that this serves as free advertising. At the same time, this clip is not a direct substitution for the full series, which means that the infringing use can be an opportunity, not just a threat.

 

To test this hypothesis, researchers from Peking University examined the impact of short and condensed TV show clips posted on Douyin, the Chinese TikTok. Rightsholders typically object to this type of unauthorized use, but is that wise?

 

 

The goal of the research was to see whether these ‘pirated’ clips have any effect on legitimate consumption. The researchers used a natural experiment around a massive enforcement spike that started around April 2021, when rightsholders criticized Douyin/TikTok for the infringing activity, which triggered a wave of takedowns.

 

“In April 2021, over 500 actors and actresses, together with more than 70 major companies and organizations in the industry, protested against copyright infringement on short-form video platforms. They called for platforms like TikTok to actively detect and remove unauthorized film and television content,” the researchers recall.

 

In response, the Chinese TikTok removed countless problematic clips. The researchers used this ‘natural’ event to see if the takedowns impacted legitimate streaming activity of TV shows on iQIYI, one of China’s most popular subscription streaming platforms.

 

The researchers analyzed whether the mass takedown event impacted demand for subscription-only ‘VIP’ shows in any way. Non-VIP shows, which are freely accessible to all, acted as a control variable, since these were not the focus of the takedown campaign.

Infringing Clips as Free Promotion

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that popular TikTok clips indeed have a significant effect on legitimate consumption. Taking these ‘unauthorized’ clips offline actually decreased legitimate views.

 

“Our empirical results reveal a positive effect of TikTok condensed clips on streaming services demand. Specifically, we observed that the boycott event led to an approximately 3% drop in the number of views for the original VIP content on the focal streaming platform,” the researchers write.

 

“(s)hort-form condensed clips could be viewed as user-generated samples of original video works. They produce positive spillovers by enhancing the visibility of TV series and attracting interested viewers to the full-length content on streaming services,” they add.

 

 

This conclusion is quite intuitive in a social media world where ‘influencers’ are widely used to promote content. For some entertainment industry executives, however, it will require some mental gymnastics to fully grasp that seemingly infringing content can be a good thing.

 

The results also put question marks around the widespread upload filter technologies, that aim to prevent the unauthorized use of video and music. While full copies are never a good thing, small clips may be beneficial in some cases.

 

“Although streaming platforms may be suffering declining engagement these days, our results show that among various kinds of alternative contents on short-form video platforms, user-generated condensed clips might not be foes but actually friends,’ the researchers note.

Not all TV Shows Benefit

In addition to this overall conclusion, the researchers found some interesting moderating variables. Apparently, not all short clips have equal promotional value. TV series with more complex plots, which are harder to summarize in clips of a few minutes, benefit most from social media clips.

 

Translated into genres, the data reveals that ‘crime’ and ‘fantasy’ shows gain more from this type of social media promotion than ‘romance’ or ‘family” shows. According to the researchers, this makes sense as ‘condensed’ clips of complex shows are less likely to act as a replacement for the full show.

 

“Given the constraints of condensed clips of only a few minutes in length, it is highly impractical to include every twist and turn for crime and fantasy genres, making them less susceptible to replacement by condensed clips,” the researchers note.

 

In a similar vein, unauthorized clips of highly rated shows tend to have more promotional value than those that feature shows with bad ratings. This also makes sense, intuitively, as a teaser of a bad show might put potential viewers off and vice versa.

 

These and other results are explained in detail in the full paper titled Pirating Foes or Creative Friends? Effects of User-Generated Condensed Clips on Demand for Streaming Services, which will be published in the academic journal Marketing Science.

 

—

 

Yang, Guangxin and Zhang, Yingjie and Liu, Hongju, Pirating Foes or Creative Friends? Effects of User-Generated Condensed Clips on Demand for Streaming Services. Available at SSRN

 

Way back in 2010, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN embarked on a mission to have The Pirate Bay blocked in the Netherlands.

 

Ziggo, the country’s largest ISP, had been asked to implement a DNS and IP address blockade but when BREIN’s overtures were declined, legal action ensued.

 

Ziggo was subsequently joined by XS4ALL, a rival ISP which also opposed site-blocking measures. After The Court of The Hague decided that blocking all customers from accessing The Pirate Bay went too far, BREIN dug in for the long haul and prepared for a full trial.

 

In January 2012, BREIN emerged victorious. At the time, downloading copyrighted material was still considered legal in the Netherlands, but the uploads associated with BitTorrent were always illegal, tipping the case decisively in BREIN’s favor.

 

Years of appeals and intense legal action followed, including a trip to the Supreme Court and a referral to the EU Court of Justice. In 2017, after the CJEU effectively found The Pirate Bay itself illegal, the matter continued to be fought tooth and nail, sucking in other ISPs, KPN included.

 

This particular chapter was almost over, but another one had begun years earlier and was only just getting warmed up.

Pirate IPTV Takes the Netherlands By Storm

Tackling pirate IPTV services has been a BREIN priority for a number of years. Providers, sometimes extremely large ones, have fallen as part of BREIN’s investigations, but the anti-piracy group is just as much at home targeting sellers, resellers, and set-top box vendors. BREIN has tackled hundreds of these entities over the years, picking up landmark judgments on the way.

 

For ISPs like Ziggo and KPN, the existence of bandwidth-hungry pirate IPTV consumers might’ve once been good for business. Today, however, sales of broadband subscriptions constitute just part of their overall product range. In common with BREIN’s clients active in the movie and TV show production and distribution business, selling access to legal content represents an important revenue source for companies that today are much more than ‘just’ an ISP.

 

Increasing numbers of pirate IPTV users can be directly linked to fewer sales of legal TV packages, the ISPs argue. In an ideal world the ISPs should be selling these to the majority of their customers, but reports suggest that’s becoming increasingly difficult.

Interests of BREIN and ISPs Align

Reports vary but it’s believed that around 1.5 million Dutch households currently subscribe to a pirate IPTV service. With a total population edging towards 18 million, that’s a sizeable figure. It pushes the Netherlands close to the top of the most prolific pirate IPTV consumers list for the whole of the EU where there is no shortage of competition.

 

With the interests of BREIN and those of the ISPs suddenly aligned, it appears that all three are now speaking the same language. According to a report published at Ad.nl (paywall), pressure on sales has led the previously warring factions to call on the state to take a stronger line against the runaway growth of illegal IPTV.

 

The Public Prosecution Service is seen as a potential ally but according to the report, the service has doubts about taking a tough approach. Larger pirate IPTV services are the usual targets when the state considers criminal prosecutions. Beyond that, it’s suggested that action against intermediaries or end users should be tackled by entities like BREIN, under civil, rather than criminal law.

Raising Awareness

Raising awareness among consumers is seen as an area that could yield results but as the figures show, awareness of what makes pirate IPTV services attractive to consumers is already widespread. Typically available for up to 90% cheaper than official services, pirate IPTV services deliver most content offered by dozens of individual legal services, bundled into a single subscription package with all content readily accessible from the same place.

 

Rightsholders’ definition of awareness focuses on the potential downsides; financing criminal organizations, fueling other types of crime, malware, and set-top boxes capable of stealing banking credentials, among other things. For some consumers this type of messaging may have the desired effect but in ‘underground’ circles, where the grapevine and shared experiences rule, none of these issues carry much weight. At least, not enough weight to tip the scales against savings of up to 150 euros per month.

Future Cooperation

That BREIN, Ziggo, and KPN now appear to agree on the need to tackle IPTV services is logical, if a little unexpected. BREIN’s activities that require the assistance of local ISPs rarely run smoothly. Ziggo, for example, refused to forward piracy warning notices to its customers, leading to yet another face-off in court, from which Ziggo came out on top.

 

That being said, BREIN will likely appreciate any alignment and, as the site-blocking ‘Covenant’ currently in place shows, cooperation isn’t impossible, or even out of the question. In all likelihood, it’s simply a matter of timing.

 

Image credits: (1, 2)

 

It’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) views site-blocking measures in the United States as the logical next step in their perpetual campaign against piracy.

 

Working with U.S. Congress members, the plan is to propose judicial site-blocking legislation that will see local ISPs compelled by law to prevent consumer access to pirate sites. A similar but broader effort failed in 2012 but twelve years is a very long time; in the tech and internet world, it’s almost forever.

 

In the years since the rise and fall of SOPA, the MPA has been the driving force behind site-blocking legislation around the world, modeling dozens of partner countries in the shape of its vision for blocking in the U.S.

 

At this year’s CinemaCon ‘State of the Industry’ event at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin said that the United States now has plenty of catching up to do.

 

“It’s long past time to bring out laws in line with the rest of the world,” Rivkin said, a reference to the MPA’s substantial body of overseas work it now hopes to replicate back home.

Preparation for the Big Site-Blocking Push

After reliving the high points of 2023 – Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon and the portmanteau of the moment, Barbenheimer – Rivkin turned to the bottom line. The MPA’s top man reported box office revenues in the U.S. and Canada up 20 percent on the previous year, and up nearly 30 percent abroad. An unquestionably great achievement, especially without protection from site-blocking.

 

But while tradition allows for generous helpings of creative imagery in support of the magical silver screen, financial positives are dwelled upon only fleetingly; the fairy dust is quickly dispersed, bringing reality into sharp focus.

 

Commentary explaining why the figures aren’t as good as they sound, or will take great effort to maintain, helps to calibrate expectations. After assuring everyone they’re in this together, and whatever needs to be done will be done, because that’s what Hollywood does, the groundwork to support demands for new legislation are carefully laid.

 

It’s a tried and tested system that really does work; Rocky Balboa’s unbreakable determination in 2021 mid-COVID, a home/mobile entertainment market up 24 percent in 2022 and a billion at the box office in the first quarter. Avatar: The Way of Water surging past $2.3 billion in global ticket sales, Top Gun: Maverick at $1.5 billion and still plenty of jet fuel left in the tank.

 

Then a short pause as the tension builds for the annual stark reminder; American creators are under attack, just as they were last year, the year before, and every year before that.

 

We have no illusions about the scope and the severity of the problem……The challenges are as daunting as they are uncertain….. One of the biggest existential threats to our collective future.

 

Used during the last three CinemaCons, the warnings above won’t be enough this year. Not at a time when Congress is listening.

Piracy is Visible, Behind The Scenes Lies Worse

Piracy rhetoric usually finds itself delivered in a way that counters notions of stability based on reported business successes. When an urgent drive for new legislation is imminent, there’s no room for complacency and at CinemaCon the nature of the threat left nothing to the imagination.

 

“Remember, these aren’t teenagers playing an elaborate prank. The perpetrators are real-life mobsters, organized crime syndicates, many of whom engage in child pornography, prostitution, drug trafficking, and other societal ills,” Rivkin informed the audience.

 

And it’s not just big companies facing immediate threat; the entire country is at risk.

 

“They operate websites that draw in millions of unsuspecting viewers whose personal data can then fall prey to malware and hackers,” Rivkin said. “In short, piracy is clearly not a victimless crime.”

 

People shouldn’t go about their work in fear, however. They should listen to a story first.

Telling a Compelling Story

Rivkin told CinemaCon that the MPA focuses on two pillars: Protecting content and the people who produce it, which together pave the way for the industry to reach even bigger audiences worldwide.

 

“To make that happen, we need to keep doing what we do best: telling a compelling story,” the head of the MPA explained.

 

“When I head to Capitol Hill in DC or State Capitols throughout the country, for example, I paint a picture of the ways our productions bolster communities: how film and television support 2.74 million American jobs; how production comprises 122,000 businesses; and how our incredible industry boasts a trade surplus with nearly every nation on earth.

 

Today, our job involves another plotline countering a central threat to the security of workers, audiences, and the economy at large: Widespread, digital piracy.

 

“This problem isn’t new. But piracy operations have only grown more nimble, more advanced, and more elusive. These enterprises are engaged in insidious forms of theft, breaking laws each time they steal and share protected content. These activities are nefarious by any definition, detrimental to our industry by any standard, and dangerous for the rights of creators and consumers by any measure,” Rivkin warnned.

 

Mobsters, organized crime syndicates, child pornographers, prostitution, drug trafficking, malware and hackers. Hundreds of thousands of jobs stolen from workers and tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, “including more than one billion in theatrical ticket sales.”

 

As stories go, it’s as compelling as a synopsis accompanying a good film on Netflix which promises and then delivers, exactly as advertised. Or a bad one, where the exciting stuff appears in the synopsis yet somehow never makes it into the movie.

 

Regardless, the MPA has a plan, one that will protect content, protect creators, return a potential one billion dollars to theaters, and by extension, keep all Americans safe.

Blocking Piracy Websites

As outlined directly to the audience at CinemaCon: The MPA’s Site-Blocking Plan.

 

So today, here with you at CinemaCon, I’m announcing the next major phase of this effort: the MPA is going to work with Members of Congress to enact judicial site-blocking legislation here in the United States.

 

For anybody unfamiliar with the term, site-blocking is a targeted, legal tactic to disrupt the connection between digital pirates and their intended audience. It allows all types of creative industries – film and television, music and book publishers, sports leagues and broadcasters – to request, in court, that internet service providers block access to websites dedicated to sharing illegal, stolen content.

 

Let’s be clear: this approach focuses only on sites featuring stolen materials. There are no gray areas here. Site-blocking does not impact legitimate businesses or ordinary internet users. To the contrary: it protects them, too.

 

And it does so within the bounds of due process, requiring detailed evidence establishing a target’s illegal activities and allowing alleged perpetrators to appear in a court of law. This is not an untested concept.

 

Site-blocking is a common tool in almost 60 countries, including leading democracies and many of America’s closest allies.

 

What key player is missing from that roster? Take a look at the map behind me. It’s us!

 

There’s no good reason for our glaring absence. No reason beyond a lack of political will, paired with outdated understandings of what site-blocking actually is, how it functions, and who it affects.

 

Yet experiences worldwide have now answered these concerns and taught us unmistakable lessons: Site-blocking works. It dramatically reduces traffic on piracy sites. It substantially increases visits to legal sites. Simply put, this is a powerful tool to defend what our filmmakers create and what reaches your theaters.

To show what site-blocking could achieve in the United States, Rivkin homed-in on a site that has thus far proved impossible to shut down, one that was highlighted in a House Subcommittee hearing last December.

FMovies Comment Reveals More Than Just Site-Blocking

There’s little doubt that FMovies represents a primary enforcement target for Hollywood, or rather it would be a target if authorities in Vietnam wanted to do something about it, which apparently they do not. While obviously a negative for Hollywood, when advocating for site-blocking legislation, FMovies is a lobbying gift on a golden platter.

 

“One of the largest illegal streaming sites in the world, FMovies, sees over 160 million visits per month and because other nations already passed site blocking legislation, a third of that traffic still comes from the United States”, Rivkin explained.

 

The 160 million visits per month estimate seems conservative and may have been measured in February when the site experienced an unexplained dip. In January, FMovies received almost 198 million visits and in March, traffic was returning to normal levels of around 192 million visits per month.

 

However, Rivkin’s follow-up comment to the theater-focused audience at CinemaCon may be an indication that the MPA has more on its mind than just blocking.

 

“Imagine if those viewers couldn’t find pirated versions of films through a basic internet search. Imagine if they could only watch the latest great movies when they’re released in their intended destinations: your theaters. If we had site-blocking in place, we wouldn’t have to imagine it. We’d have another tool to make that real,” he said.

Memories of SOPA: “Blocking Didn’t Break The Internet”

Rivkin mentions the SOPA defeat in 2012 by citing one of the key claims by the opposition. They warned that eventually, one way or another, blocking would end up “breaking the internet” but a dozen years later, Rivkin noted that the “internet is doing just fine.”

 

While that is still likely to be a hot topic for debate in the coming months, Rivkin’s search engine comment deserves more attention.

 

Search engine removals or deindexing by companies such as Google don’t automatically happen just because a site is blocked by ISPs in a particular territory. What we know from blocking in Europe is that Google will remove sites from its results if a blocking order exists against a site, even if Google isn’t named in the order. In the SOPA era, that would never have happened, and certainly not voluntarily.

Times Change, But By How Much?

In today’s environment, there seems to be no obvious obstacle to prevent Google from doing the same, should site-blocking become available in the United States. If that type of cooperation does become the standard, perhaps Google will cooperate when it comes to blocking sites that use its DNS too.

 

We don’t know what Google is thinking and it could go either way. What we suspect is that a re-run of 2012, with the entire tech world united in opposition to SOPA and blocking in general, seems much less likely today.

 

The MPA could tip the scales even further in its favor by telling more detailed stories about the real-life mobsters and organized crime syndicates behind pirate sites it will actually name, in public, with supporting evidence.

 

If not for the sake of Hollywood, bringing the child abuse, prostitution, and drug trafficking to an end might be the biggest PR coup ever seen. As the basis for a box office record-breaker in which Hollywood itself stars, would be all the more tempting, especially in the absence of piracy.

 

Image credit: Stockcake

 

In a complaint filed at a Nashville federal court last spring, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others, accused X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement.

 

The social media company allegedly failed to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacks a proper termination policy.

 

“Twitter routinely ignores known repeat infringers and known infringements, refusing to take simple steps that are available to Twitter to stop these specific instances of infringement of which it is aware,” the complaint alleged.

Motion to Dismiss

X vehemently disagreed and filed a motion to dismiss the case, hoping to shut down the legal battle at an early stage. The attempt was partially successful; last month, the court dismissed the music companies’ direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims.

 

The labels’ contributory infringement claims were partially dismissed. Judge Trauger concluded that X can’t be held liable for making it very easy to upload infringing material or for monetizing pirated content. These characteristics are not exclusive to infringing material and apply to legitimate content too, she argued.

 

However, some elements of the contributory infringement remain intact and the lawsuit will continue on those grounds. Among other things, this includes claims that X’s repeat infringer policy was inadequate and that it willingly turned a blind eye to pirating users, especially those who have a blue checkmark.

 

“Particularly striking is the allegation that X Corp. enforces its copyright policies less stringently against individuals willing to pay for its ‘verified’ service,” Judge Trauger wrote in her order.

X Answers Complaint

With the case moving forward, X was required to formally answer the complaint, which it did yesterday. In a 29-page response, X denies any wrongdoing, including allegations that its repeat infringer policy is inadequate.

 

The music companies’ claim and the concise reply from X shown below are exemplary.

 

Claim: “Twitter has not adopted, reasonably implemented, nor informed subscribers or account holders of, a policy to terminate users engaging in repeated acts of copyright infringement.”

 

X’s Response: “Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 154 of the Complaint”

In response to other allegations, X notes that the music companies are quoting and paraphrasing out of context. This includes a statement from X owner Elon Musk, who previously criticized copyright law and stated that an overzealous DMCA is a “plague on humanity“.

 

This is how that statement was used by the music companies in their complaint.

 

From the complaint
 

X notes that this was taken out of context. The company doesn’t mention how, but the music companies didn’t mention that Musk was responding to a news article about a bill that would limit the copyright protection term for rightsholders including Disney.

 

“Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to characterize, paraphrase and quote, selectively and out of context, a post by Elon Musk, and that the content of any such post, considered fully and in context, would speak for itself. Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 of the Complaint,” X writes in its answer.

Affirmative Defenses

Aside from denying the copyright infringement allegations point-by-point, X’s formal answer to the complaint doesn’t respond in detail. This is typical for this stage of the proceeding. The answer does, however, raise a series of affirmative defenses.

 

For example, it counters that the remaining contributory liability claim is barred because any copyright infringement was “innocent and not willful.” In addition, X describes the requested damages, which in theory could reach $250 million, as “unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate”.

 

Some of the Affirmative Defenses
 

X’s response to the complaint isn’t the endpoint, it kicks off the rest of the proceeding where both sides will have to argue their positions on the merits. There is a case management conference scheduled for next month, where the court will likely set a trial date.

 

—

 

A copy of X’s answer to the music companies’ complaint is available here (pdf)

 

Three years ago, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld the first pirate site-blocking order in the country.

 

The landmark decision opened the door to additional and more advanced blocking requests. Indeed, it didn’t take long before NHL broadcasters asked the court for a pirate streaming blocking order of their own.

 

This NHL blocking action was followed by a FIFA World Cup blocking order, which was also granted without further hassle. Following up on these successes, sports rightsholders added MLB among their targets.

 

These blocking injunctions were not filed in isolation. Instead, the interlocutory orders are part of lawsuits against the operators of the pirate streaming servers. On paper, the goal of the lawsuits is to pursue claims against these defendants and the blockades are a temporary measure to limit the damage these services cause.

 

This approach made sense, as filing a lawsuit simply for blocking purposes wasn’t common. However, after several injunctions were granted over the past three years, change is on the horizon.

NHL, NBA and Premier League Piracy Blockade

Last Friday, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network, filed a notice of application at Canada’s Federal Court. This time, they seek an order requiring Internet providers to block live streams of NHL, NBA, and Premier League games.

 

This is a notable change compared to earlier blocking requests, which all focused on single sports. Combining multiple sports leagues and events makes sense, the rightsholders argue, as the targeted piracy servers typically offer a broad selection of sports as well.

 

“This process is also more efficient for the parties and the Court than initiating separate proceedings for each professional sports league and every time new content is broadcast…,” the rightsholders write in their application.

 

This isn’t the only change in this blocking proceeding. The defendants, the protected content, and the procedural blocking approach are also subject to change.

Defendants Unlimited?

None of the blocking targets listed in the application includes a name. Instead, it targets three “John Doe” defendants who are identified by their IP addresses. These addresses were offering pirated sports streams in the past.

 

Does 1-3
 

The IP addresses are not linked to a single service. They appear to be used by several piracy operations, including publicly available pirate streaming site ‘epllive.net’ and paid subscription platforms including ‘TVSmarters’ which are mentioned by name.

 

Pirate streaming example
 

Before requesting this blockade, the rightsholders identified thousands of illicit streaming instances. They subsequently alerted the associated hosting providers, asking them to forward the notices to their customers, but that didn’t yield the desired response.

 

With seemingly no other viable option to target the problem, the rightsholders believe that a blocking order is warranted. Notably, this applies to the three “John Doe” defendants, but also “Other John Doe Respondents” who are linked to streaming servers for which the IP addresses are not mentioned.

 

“The other John Doe Respondents are other unidentified persons unknown to the Applicants who operate Unauthorized Streaming Servers providing unauthorized access in Canada to Protected Live Content, and that are located at a large number of IP addresses that change continuously,” the rightsholders write.

 

This means that there could, in theory, be thousands of IP addresses that are subject to the request. Not just that, the list can change over time because rightsholders are seeking a “dynamic” injunction.

New ‘Streamlined’ Blocking Approach

Thus far, all Canadian site-blocking measures have come in the form of interlocutory injunctions as part of ongoing legal procedures against the alleged pirate operators. That’s about to change as well, if the recent request is granted.

 

The court previously noted that the lawsuits against the operators lingered on while the blocking orders were in place. To address this, and streamline the blocking procedure, the rightsholders now request a permanent and final injunction.

 

“The Applicants seek a permanent injunction in order to bring finality to the proceedings and propose to proceed by way of application instead of by action, as it is a more streamlined process,” they write.

‘Flexible’ Blockades Covering ‘Future’ Content

This procedural “streamlining” and the fact that multiple sports leagues are covered in the application are clear deviations from earlier blocking requests. However, it doesn’t end there. Other tweaks could have broad implications too.

 

For example, the proposed order doesn’t only apply to content that’s listed in the application. If the rightsholders acquire new content in the future, that may be added in as well, expanding the blocking scope.

 

A broad injunction would make it possible to add new seasons for existing sports leagues, but also completely new sports, or other content for which they obtain the rights in the coming two years.

 

“This process is also more efficient for the parties and the Court than initiating separate proceedings for each professional sports league and every time new content is broadcast and/or when the Applicants secure new rights,” the rightsholders add.

One Universal IP-address Blocklist

If granted, the blockades will only be active for specified time windows surrounding the live sports events. This is similar to earlier injunctions and in part put in place to prevent overblocking.

 

However, another key change is that the rightsholders now ask for a single IP-address blocklist during all ‘live’ windows, regardless of whether that server was previously used to stream pirated broadcasts of the specific event.

 

“Given that the same IP addresses are associated with the infringement of multiple sporting leagues and events, the use of a common IP address list for blocking would be more efficient in implementing the Order sought,” they write.

 

Universal Blocklist
 

The above logically means that an IP address that streamed pirated copies of an NBA game will also be blocked during Premier League matches.

 

Overall, it is clear that the rightsholders are trying to make the blocking process more streamlined and efficient, while also expanding the scope of the process.

 

The application has yet to be approved by the Federal Court. The rightsholders hope that, by abridging the deadlines, an order will be issued before the current sports seasons end. Several ISPs have indicated that they don’t plan to object, but others still have room to do so, which could slow down the proceeding.

 

—

 

A copy of the Application filed at the Federal Court by Rogers, Bell, Fubo, et al. is available here (pdf)

 

Since its official launch at the start of February 1, 2024, much has been said and written about Italy’s ‘Piracy Shield’ IPTV blocking system.

 

Yet, by volume, telecoms regulator AGCOM and key beneficiary Serie A, Italy’s top-tier football league, haven’t said very much at all.

 

In separate articles published in Italian media last weekend, a reason for the lack of participation is made clear; few articles published online offer credible information and most don’t focus on the right issues.

 

In a piece written by AGCOM commissioner Massimiliano Capitanio himself, we learn that articles published about Piracy Shield demonstrate “very little discernment” and prefer to use ‘anonymous web users’ as sources rather than information provided officially.

 

It’s the “classic reasoning that fuels fake news,” Capitanio explains.

 

Serie A CEO Luigi De Siervo believes that the overblocking of Cloudflare was blown out of all proportion; an event that, according to official sources of information, didn’t happen at all but then, after reconsideration weeks later, did happen, but on such a small scale it was hardly worth mentioning.

“Journalists Have Overlooked a Fundamental Fact”

Something on which Capitanio and De Siervo both agree is the importance of reporting the numbers. Not those related to increased interest in subscription TV packages available from local broadcasters, but those related to the number of domains and IP addresses blocked by Piracy Shield.

 

“No pirate can sleep peacefully,” De Siervo told Corriere.it.

 

“In just sixty days, more than ten thousand illegal sites have already been blocked. The system works: we frequent Telegram chats where pirates exchange information and we know that there is excitement after the advent of the platform.”

 

Capitanio believes this important “fundamental fact” regarding the scale of blocking has been overlooked by journalists; “a monstrous number that should deserve eight column headlines” because it proves the platform actually works. “Maybe for some it works too well,” he adds.

SCOOP: THE BIG BLOCKING NUMBERS

It’s important to note that Piracy Shield advocates use different, shifting terminology than their critics. So, before looking at the BIG NUMBERS everyone has overlooked, a quick reminder that comparing like-for-like is extremely important.

 

De Siervo’s claim, that 10,000 illegal sites have been blocked, is as close to official information as it gets. Unfortunately, it’s completely untrue. There is a world of difference between an illegal site being blocked and an IP address or domain/subdomain being blocked.

 

Here, De Siervo took the number of domains/subdomains blocked by Piracy Shield, which are counted individually even if they relate to the same main domain, and then added them to the number of IP addresses blocked, even though many relate to domains/subdomains, so have already been counted.

 

These figures can be reported separately as domains and/or IP addresses blocked, but they can’t be added together, scrubbed of their identity, and then be relabeled as “illegal sites.” In a news article for public consumption, most people will believe that 10,000 sites have been blocked; here’s why that is a dangerous assumption.

Dynamically Generated Sub-Domains

The ‘ticket’ below represents a rightsholder blocking request filed at Piracy Shield. It targets subdomains of the partially redacted main domain names megahxxxxxxx, leadcxxxxxxx, mexxxxxxxx, and mexxxxxxxx.

 

 

These subdomains, such as pdvsvvp, yzzazup and zwjntqj, are generated by IPTV services at will. A unique subdomain could be generated for each subscriber of the service, or 1,000 subdomains, 100,000, or even a million subdomains, could be generated for other reasons linked to blocking circumvention.

 

As reported in January, Sky TV in the UK faces the same issue. After obtaining a court order that targeted around half a dozen IPTV providers, subdomains/domains like those shown below became a target for blocking.

In the Piracy Shield blocking ticket, the URLs contain a main domain and one subdomain. In the sample relating to Sky blocking, one main domain and two subdomains. These subdomains are almost infinitely variable and can be generated, disappeared, and regenerated at will, at zero cost to the provider.

More Subdomains Coming Up

By January, the number of subdomains blocked by the Premier League, relating to roughly six IPTV providers per the court order, exceeded 4,500. As far as we’re able to determine, since then, another 4,600+ have been blocked, leading to a grand total of ~9,100 domain/subdomains (FQDN) blocked for roughly six IPTV providers.

 

In Serie A success-story parlance, this would amount to the blocking of 9,100 illegal sites and a gross misrepresentation of events on the ground. Domain terminology can’t be dismissed as unimportant or talk simply for geeks, it’s the basis for a sensible discussion.

 

That being said, the number of domains and IP addresses blocked proves almost nothing. A 2021 report published by the EUIPO estimated there were 5,000 sites offering live sports in Europe alone.

 

If that number doubled since then, and it probably has, Piracy Shield would’ve blocked them all in two months. But blocking an illegal site is not the same as blocking IP addresses and subdomains, regardless of what official information sources claim.

Not Cloned or Hacked Although AGCOM Was Hacked a Bit

As noted by AGCOM, journalists have been relying on their own sources to report on Piracy Shield since February. The regulator paints these sources as unreliable and anonymous but, in the absence of official information for almost that entire period, most journalists reported to the best of their ability.

 

The articles featuring official information from Capitanio and De Siervo both touch on a story broken here at TF; the unexpected appearance of alleged Piracy Shield source code and confidential documentation on GitHub.

 

In comments to Corriere, De Siervo is extremely clear: “It is not true that the source code of the platform was cloned.”

 

In his article published by Agendadigitale.eu, Capitanio writes that “some confidential information was only released on Github, a site used mainly by developers, which, in any case, did not affect [Piracy Shield’s] functioning at all.”

 

In case the message isn’t clear, Capitanio is unequivocal: “Piracy Shield was absolutely not hacked.”

 

De Siervo, however, suggests there might have been a bit of hacking, but not really that much, and in any event, use of the word AGCOM and Piracy Shield may (or may not) be interchangeable

 

“The hackers only breached the first level of protection of the AGCOM website. The security of the platform is not compromised at all,” he told Corriere.

 

In fact, Piracy Shield is so good, De Siervo says foreign countries want to buy it.
(Note: this statement is from an official source)

 

Internet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.

 

The biggest hit came three years ago when the Internet provider lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

 

A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages. This landmark ruling was appealed and while Cox remains liable for contributory copyright infringement, the damages award may change.

New Damages Trial ‘Delayed’

The court of appeals recently dismissed the vicarious liability claims and vacated the $1 billion damages award. A new trial will determine the scale of the damages given these new circumstances.

 

When the court of appeals issues its mandate, the lower court can start a new damages proceeding. However, Cox believes that it’s best to put the brakes on this process, as there is another appeal pending that could influence the outcome. That has to conclude first.

 

The record labels don’t object to this reasoning and have informed the court that its mandate could be stayed until the second appeal is finalized. The court of appeals subsequently granted the request last Friday.

Cox Works on Supreme Court Petition

These procedural issues typically aren’t very exciting but, in this case, Cox also revealed that it plans to file a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to take on the piracy liability battle. That’s notable, as it would be the first time that a “repeat infringer” case ends up at the highest court United States.

 

Cox asked the court of appeals to also stay its mandate pending its Supreme Court application, as this could steer the legal battle in yet another direction.

 

According to Cox, the Supreme Court has substantial reasons to take on the case. For one, there are currently conflicting court of appeals rulings on the “material contribution” aspect of copyright infringement.

 

The Supreme Court could give more clarity on when a service, with a myriad of lawful uses, can be held liable for infringers.

 

In addition, Cox also cites the recent ‘Twitter vs. Taamneh’ Supreme Court ruling, which held that social media platforms aren’t liable for terrorists who use their network. While that’s not a copyright case, it’s relevant for the secondary liability question, the ISP argues.

 

“Though Twitter was not a copyright case, it confronted a directly analogous theory of secondary liability: that social-media platforms, including Twitter and YouTube, could be liable for continuing to provide services to those they knew were using them for illegal purposes,” Cox writes.

Termination Risk

Finally, Cox notes that the Supreme Court should hear the case because it deals with an issue that’s ‘exceptionally important’ to ISPs as well as the public. If the present verdict stands, Internet providers may be much more likely to terminate Internet access, even if the subscriber is innocent.

 

“This Court’s material-contribution standard provides powerful incentives for ISPs of all stripes to swiftly terminate internet services that have been used to infringe— no matter the universe of lawful uses to which those services are put, or the consequences to innocent, non-infringing people who also use those services.

 

“That is why a chorus of amici urged this Court not to adopt this standard at the panel and en banc stages, and will likely urge the Supreme Court to grant review as well,” Cox adds, referring to the support it received from third-parties previously.

No Supreme Court Stay

Cox hasn’t filed a writ of certiorari yet and still has time, as it’s due June 17, 2024. The intention to go to the Supreme Court would be another reason to halt the new damages trial, according to Cox, but the court of appeals rejected the request.

 

This means that the new damages trial can start, even if the case is still pending at the Supreme Court. However, it’s clear that this legal battle is far from over yet.

 

—

 

A copy of Cox’s motion to stay the mandate, with the Supreme Court comments, is available here (pdf). The Appeals Court’s order on this motion can be found here (pdf)

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “Dune: Part Two”, which leaked this weekend, is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on April 8 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(back)	Dune: Part Two	8.8 / trailer
2	(1)	Road House	6.2 / trailer
3	(10)	Dune: Part One	8.0 / trailer
4	(…)	Knox Goes Away	6.9 / trailer
5	(2)	Oppenheimer	8.5 / trailer
6	(3)	Madame Web	3.8 / trailer
7	(…)	Baghead	5.4 / trailer
8	(8)	Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire	6.7 / trailer
9	(7)	The Beekeeper	6.5 / trailer
10	(6)	Damsel	6.3 / trailer

 

 

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

 

Anti-piracy organization CODA (Content Overseas Distribution Association) is a permanent fixture on the front lines of Japan’s war against online piracy.

 

CODA represents the interests of around 30 corporate entities doing business in the publishing, media, movie, music, and wider entertainment industries. Members include publishers Kadokawa, Shueisha, Kodansha, and Shogakukan, through to videogame/publishing giants Square Enix and Bandai Namco. From the broadcasting sector, there’s NHK, Nippon, and Nikkatsu, to name just a few.

 

While these names represent just a sample of the individual companies represented by CODA, the anti-piracy group also has around ten ‘organizational’ members. These are trade groups in their own right and have members of their own.

 

They include the Japan Satellite Broadcasting Association, Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan, Japan Video Software Association, Japan Magazine Publishers Association, Association of Japanese Animations, plus several others involved in the videogame, software, and content protection legal sectors.

Popularity of Japanese Content Fuels Massive Levels of Piracy

The scale of the content protection challenge faced by CODA is difficult to overstate. The anti-piracy group is refreshingly open with its research and data, which as an observer makes it easier to connect with and appreciate the big numbers, rather than simply reciting them without relevant context.

 

Japan’s online piracy issues are a constant, much as they are in any other country, but more recent estimates reveal illicit consumption’s startling growth.

 

A major problem estimated to be worth less than 500 billion yen (US$3.3bn) back in 2019 took just three years to transform itself into a ~2 trillion yen ($13.2bn) piracy nightmare. Videogame piracy skyrocketed in the period leading to 2022, but it’s the products of the publishing and film industries that attract the lion’s share of all piracy, much of it taking place and directed from overseas.

CODA & MPA Officially Extend 10-Year Anti-Piracy Partnership

On March 20, 2014, CODA and the Motion Picture Association (MPA) signed an agreement to develop new strategies to tackle online copyright infringement worldwide, and to strengthen their joint copyright protection activities. The agreement, renewed another five times since then, has just reached its 10th anniversary and the event was marked with another renewal.

 

Last week at MPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., CODA and the Motion Picture Association signed an official memorandum of understanding (MOU) to extend the term of their agreement until 2026.

 

“On the day, MPA’s Karin Temple (Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel) and CODA’s Representative Director Takeo Goto signed the agreement, and at the signing ceremony, each pledged further collaboration,” a CODA statement reads.

 

Image credit: CODA

 

“CODA and MPA began a business partnership in 2005 to combat physical piracy in the Asian region, and have since built a strong partnership by signing a 10-year MOU starting in 2014. CODA and MPA’s joint enforcement efforts have achieved great results, including implementing many anti-piracy measures in the Asia-Pacific and beyond, resulting in tens of thousands of crackdowns.”

Joint Success, Massive Budget Disparities

CODA data shows that from January 2005 to March 2023, collaboration with the MPA generated thousands of enforcement cases. In China, 13,820 cases led to the arrest of 304 people, in Hong Kong 1,318 cases led to 1,275 arrests, and in Taiwan, 2,233 people were arrested as part of 2,215 enforcement operations.

 

From physical piracy operations to more recent actions targeting pirate IPTV in Taiwan, CODA deals with problems wherever it finds them.

 

Image credit: CODA

 

A major issue faced by CODA relates to its budget for overseas anti-piracy enforcement. Funding for overseas anti-piracy efforts is allocated as a proportion of overseas sales and CODA’s members simply don’t do enough overseas business to compete with the MPA, CODA explains.

 

Annual dues for the six major studios for piracy-fighting actions carried out by the MPA total $50m. CODA says that Disney’s sales alone out-volume the combined sales of Toei, Toho, Shochiku, and Kadokawa, at a rate of 16 to 1.

 

Given the disparity, the opportunity to conduct joint enforcement work with the MPA is clearly a massive boost for CODA’s members. At a time when Japanese content is in demand like never before in overseas markets, it’s especially important. As the market stands right now, however, only a minority of overseas consumers actually pay for it.

 

Enforcement Challenges Broadly Mimic Those of the MPA

 

In a presentation slide, CODA highlights how a typical pirate can operate if the operator wishes to remain anonymous. The original slide ‘The dark side of identifying operators of pirated sites’ is entirely in Japanese so here we’ve made best efforts to provide a like-for-like translation.

 

Some nuance may have been lost, but the common theme is undoubtedly a lack of ‘know your customer’ regimes from domain registration, to server rental, through to use of a CDN such as Cloudflare.

 

Image credit: CODA

 

Considered a major irritant, the Njalla domain service is called out alongside Cloudflare.

 

“Began operations in April 2017. Sells ‘complete anonymity’. Founded by Peter Sunde, co-founder of The Pirate Bay. Users buy the rights to use domains purchased by Njalla. Njalla is the owner of the domain, Njalla does not disclose [user identities],” CODA writes.

 

“[Cloudflare] operates a distributed server system (user servers are hard to find). When Cloudflare discloses information, the site operator is also notified to that effect. The operator immediately moves the server,” the anti-piracy group contiues, adding:

 

“If you have basic knowledge of the Internet and can read and write simple English, you can operate a completely anonymous pirate site!”

Takedown Compliance: The Winner is….

In common with many anti-piracy groups, CODA sends large numbers of DMCA-style takedown notices to platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Daily Motion, and sundry local equivalents.

 

The data shows that CODA achieves a very high rate of compliance, in many cases above 99%. (Original slide in Japanese, our translations appear inside square brackets [ ])

 

Image credit: CODA

 

Whether that’s due to CODA’s high-level accuracy (our knowledge of CODA suggests that they take accuracy very seriously) or adherence to strict local law, or even a combination of both, isn’t immediately clear. However, the stand-out figures here are returned by MEGA; every piece of content CODA asked MEGA to remove, was removed, earning the company a 100% compliance rate.

 

For reference, CODA’s members and their lines of business are listed below.
(Note: some companies may span more than one category but here they are listed only once)

 

### Anime and Entertainment Production
1. Aniplex Inc.
2. Cygames, Inc.
3. KADOKAWA CORPORATION
4. King Record Co., Ltd.
5. SHUEISHA Inc.
6. SHOGAKUKAN Inc.
7. Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions Co., Ltd.
8. SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
9. STUDIO GHIBLI INC.
10. TOEI ANIMATION CO., LTD.
11. TMS ENTERTAINMENT CO., LTD.

 

### Publishing and Media
12. ADK Emotions Inc.
13. KODANSHA LTD.
14. Nikkatsu Corporation
15. Nippon Television Network Corporation
16. Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK)
17. Shochiku Co., Ltd.
18. TOKYO BROADCASTING SYSTEM TELEVISION, INC.
19. TV Asahi Corporation
20. TV TOKYO Corporation
21. YOMIURI TELECASTING CORPORATION
22. WOWOW Inc.

 

### Film Production and Distribution
23. Happinet Phantom Studios Corporation
24. TOEI COMPANY, LTD.
25. TOHO CO., LTD.
26. Bandai Namco Filmworks Inc.

 

### Music and Record Labels
27. Avex Inc.
28. King Record Co., Ltd.
29. PONY CANYON INC.
30. UNIVERSAL MUSIC LLC

 

### Broadcasting
31. Fuji Television Network, Inc.

 

### Miscellaneous
32. FWD Inc. (Various services)
33. YOSHIMOTO KOGYO HOLDINGS CO., LTD. (Entertainment management and production)

 

Organizational members of CODA listed by category

 

### Media and Entertainment Associations
1. Japan Satellite Broadcasting Association
2. Motion Picture Producers Association of Japan
3. Japan Video Software Association
4. Japan Magazine Publishers Association
5. The Association of Japanese Animations

 

### Gaming and Software
6. Computer Entertainment Supplier’s Association
7. Association of Copyright for Computer Software
8. Digital Content Association of Japan

 

### Intellectual Property and Legal
9. Japan Patent Attorneys Association

 

### Anti-Counterfeiting
10. Anti-Counterfeiting Association

 

Two billion copyright claims are processed every year through YouTube’s Content ID platform – a staggering figure that underscores the scale of this content management system.

 

As an enforcement tool, Content ID has often been criticized by creators but rightsholders, at least those who have access to it, are generally happy with its performance.

 

Aside from addressing copyright infringements in an automated fashion, the Content ID system brings in billions of dollars in revenue. Many rightsholders choose to monetize copyright-infringing videos instead of taking them down, which can be quite lucrative.

 

This approach was initially controversial but not anymore. In a way, one can argue that YouTube engineered a way to monetize copyright infringement. YouTube itself also benefits from this strategy. After all, a video that’s taken down doesn’t bring in any revenue at all.

 

Despite the benefits for large rightsholders and YouTube itself, Content ID is unique in its kind. Most other large video services and content storage platforms simply take content offline. Developing a similar technology isn’t easy, but one could argue that this represents missed opportunity.

Fingerprint, Find, and Report

New York-based tech company WebKyte recognizes the potential and has developed a technology that might be able to fill the gap one day.

 

WebKyte is certainly not a newcomer to the copyright scene. The company, formerly known as WebKontrol, was founded over a decade ago and has offered fingerprinting and takedown services for a long time. It’s one of several companies in this business, but one with an interesting pitch.

 

One of the services on offer is WebScan, which allows copyright holders to search for pre-indexed content on 12 large video sharing platforms: Aparat, CDA, Chomikuj, Dailymotion, FC2, Mail.ru, OK, Rumble, Videa.hu, Vimeo, VK, and Webshare.

 

Several of these services have been listed in the USTR’s overview of notorious piracy markets. However, they all aim to operate legally and, if rightsholders report pirated content, the platforms will take it down.

 

With WebScan, rightsholders can fingerprint their content and instantly ‘scan’ for content matches on these sites. If any matches are found, the associated URLs can be targeted through takedown notices.

 

While we would never vouch for the accuracy of any fingerprinting filter, WebKyte provided us with access to their platform, allowing us to upload files and check the accuracy. After uploading a copy of TPB-AFK to the system, near-instantly it found over 2,000 matches across the dozen platforms.

 

These don’t need to be taken offline, but as far as we could see, the detected links were indeed pointing to copies of the TPB-AFK documentary. Whether it missed any links is unknown, of course.

A Platform-Independent Upload Filter

While WebScan is a handy tool for rightsholders, WebKyte has a service for online platforms too. The latter refers to the ContentCore platform, which offers a Content ID-like tool ‘as a service’.

 

“ContentCore is a ready-to-use YouTube Content ID ‘as a service’ for UGC platforms of any size to detect illegal content among user-generated uploads,” WebKyte’s elevator pitch reads.

 

In essence, it’s a copy of the earlier mentioned WebScan technology, installed directly at the online platforms to automate takedowns. Put more bluntly; it’s an upload filter.

 

 

While pirate sites are not necessarily eager to install upload filters, plenty of legitimate platforms might find them useful. In addition to appeasing rightsholders, ContentCore also helps to ensure that UGC platforms comply with Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive.

 

ContentCore essentially automates the takedown process. Currently, most rightsholders find content and then report it to the platform, which has to process the request and take action. Under the automated system, copyrighted content is fingerprinted and added in advance, so pirated copies can be flagged when they’re uploaded.

Errors and Nuance

Upload filters are not perfect and generally lack ability to factor-in the nuances of copyright law, such as fair use. WebKyte hasn’t solved this problem but CEO Olia Valigourskaia believes that, when dealing with full videos, rightsholders can detect copies with ‘100%’ accuracy.

 

The technology can also find partial clips and even modified videos, but that opens the door to inaccuracies. The company’s internal tests on public datasets reveal that the current error rate is about 2.7%.

 

WebKyte notes that it minimizes the risk of overblocking. That said, when dealing with millions of takedowns, a relatively small percentage will result in big numbers. This means that platforms that use this service may want to build extra safeguards against overblocking, including fair use.

 

At the moment, several user-generated and social media platforms are using ContentCore but none of these would like to have their name mentioned in public. WebKyte did say that, for one ContentCore client, it currently checks 173,000 user-generated videos for copyright infringements every month.

Monetizing Piracy

To illustrate the scope of the ‘piracy’ problem online platforms must deal with, WebKyte shared a selected dataset with us. This shows that copies of a Hollywood film that premiered in December 2022 were uploaded over 3,000 times to the Polish file-hosting platform Chomikuj in one year.

 

Rightsholders usually want this content taken down, but there’s increasing interest in monetization, perhaps in part due to YouTube’s success with this strategy.

 

At the moment, no independent platform has a full Content ID equivalent with monetization capability. That’s the “holy grail” for WebKyte, as that would create a win-win situation for rightsholders, platforms, as well as WebKyte itself.

 

Valigourskaia says that rightsholders have shown an interest in monetization, so it may only be a matter of time before it is rolled out more broadly.

 

“From our experience, rightsholders are on board with varying approaches to monetization policies. For instance, major Hollywood studios are eager to monetize clips like trailers and behind-the-scenes videos that get posted on various UGC platforms,” WebKyte’s CEO says.

 

“Other rightsholders, such as Bollywood studios, seek ways to monetize full-length content on AVOD platforms. ContentCore is the tool that will enable platforms outside of YouTube to explore new revenue streams by enhancing the experience for users, rightsholders, and advertisers.”

 

Of course, other parties in the equation might not ‘win’ in this scenario. Pirates, for one, won’t be happy with automated upload filters and legitimate content creators whose content is inaccurately flagged, won’t be pleased either.

 

Online platforms are aware of these concerns and that may be part of the reason they’re hesitant to use it, or publicly admit that they do. If ContentCore is indeed more broadly adopted, we’ll keep a keen eye on the results, good or bad.

 

Pirated copies of movies leak all year round, often ripped from streaming platforms after their official premiere. That by itself is nothing special.

 

However, when a high-quality copy of a blockbuster title appears online before it’s officially available, people take notice. That’s exactly what happened with Dune: Part Two over the past few hours.

 

The second installment of the adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 sci-fi book premiered in cinema a little over a month ago. With over $600 million in global box office revenues, it’s the most successful film of the year. The digital release, planned for later this month, is highly anticipated too.

Dune Leak: Part Two

Dune’s popularity was also noticed in pirate circles; ‘Dune: Part One’ made a surprising comeback in the weekly list of most pirated films. Apparently, some people chose to watch Part One through unofficial channels before buying a cinema ticket for Part Two.

 

Needless to say, the high-quality leak of Dune: Part Two is also drawing lots of visitors to pirate sites. Its ‘WEB-DL’ tag suggests a lossless rip from an online streaming source. It’s unclear where it originated, as the film is not available through any digital platforms yet; at least as far as we know.

 

The leak is real, however, evidenced by the screenshot below and the many commenters who were surprised by this early release.

 

Dune.Part.Two.2024.1080p.WEB-DL.H264.AAC2.0-InMemoryOfEVO

Remember EVO?

The early leak comes with another noteworthy angle, the inclusion of “InMemoryOfEVO” in its filename. This refers to the release group EVO which was busted in 2021 by the Portuguese police, partly acting on intelligence gathered by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

 

That this ‘tribute’ to EVO comes as part of the Dune leak likely isn’t a coincidence either. EVO was the group that leaked a copy of Dune: Part One before its official release. Not long after, the group disappeared off the radar.

 

The EVO bust was a pivotal moment for piracy release groups. It marked the end of more than two decades of steady “screener” leaks, in which EVO played a central role in more recent years. The recent Dune leak is no screener, of course, but it’s certainly a high-profile release that will be watched closely by pirates, and Hollywood.

 

With ongoing talks about a third Dune installment, this may not be the final part of this saga either.

 

From the moment Italian authorities announced they would build the most ambitious anti-piracy blocking system ever seen, it was clear that only controversy lay ahead. All that remained to be seen was when, at what scale, and how any chaos would be managed.

 

Predictably, overblocking was an immediate problem, with blunders against Zenlayer and Cloudflare sounding alarm bells early on.

 

Arguably of greater concern was the dramatic shift in behavior displayed by telecoms regulator AGCOM and the sports rightsholders set to benefit most from the system. Constant media appearances that bemoaned piracy and boasted the prowess of the incoming Piracy Shield system leading up to its launch, gave way to almost complete radio silence when everything began to go south.

 

From that low point, further deterioration ensued. Attacks on the press for telling the truth, public statements that everything was running to plan, and a refusal to commit to a level of transparency that would allow those wrongfully affected to exercise their right to complain. More recently AGCOM has been rejecting legitimate complaints concerning Cloudflare overblocking; in some cases the reasons for rejection are directly linked to AGCOM’s own failure to publish relevant information.

ASSOProvider’s Stand and Subsequent Reward

ASSOProvider is an association representing the interests of more than 200 small to medium-sized companies and ISPs in the Italian internet and telecoms sector. It’s perhaps the most vocal critic of Piracy Shield and the law that supports it, including the requirement that ISPs implement systems and commit workers to the program at their own expense.

 

That led to ASSOProvider mounting a legal challenge in 2023, one that failed in its bid to prevent Piracy Shield getting off the ground.

 

When the specter of overblocking raised its head in February, ASSOProvider called on AGCOM to grant access to information that might help to explain why it was allowed to happen. Information requested included domains and IP addresses blocked, reports and documents received from rightsholders, plus copies of the blocking tickets filed on the days when overblocking occurred.

 

While no communication appears to have been received from the communications regulator on that topic, AGCOM has managed to find time to fine ASSOProvider for obstructing AGCOM’s supervisory activities.

More Piracy Shield Controversy

The news that AGCOM has sanctioned ASSOProvider first appeared on the ISP association’s website.

 

“Assoprovider, which actively participated in the working group set up by the Authority to combat illegal activities, for as long as it was allowed to participate, requested clarification from the Authority as to why, without any valid reason, it should provide a list of Italian ISPs [members of ASSOProvider] at a certain point,” the announcement reads.

 

“However, these data are already in AGCOM’s possession, as it manages the public communications registry (ROC), and, as stated in its memorandum defending against [ASSOProvider’s legal challenge], it knows, just like everyone else, the identification details of all network operators and communication services.”

Life Suddenly and Coincidentally Becomes More Difficult

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito, lawyer and legal consultant of ASSOProvider, says the fine “coincidentally” arrived after ASSOProvider appealed against the recent decision of the local court and requested documents related to Piracy Shield.

 

“ASSOProvider is an Association and not an operator [ISP], and it is not clear what supervision can be done and what obstacle it may have posed by exercising the constitutional rights to appeal to the Court and to submit a FOIA,” Sarzana says.

 

“AGCOM without any reason requested the list of Associates [ISPs] but the data of all the Italian operators are in its possession, as AGCOM itself clarified in its briefs before the Regional Administrative Court. Furthermore, AGCOM itself sent a notice to all Italian providers asking them to participate in the working table.”

Fine of 1,032 Euros Triggers New Resolve

Exactly how much ASSOProvider has been fined isn’t revealed in its announcement, but Sarzana confirms a figure of 1,032 euros. Not a huge amount in the bigger picture but significant enough to introduce yet another irritant into the Piracy Shield mix and by targeting its most vocal critic, enough to lead some to conclude that a message has been sent.

 

Even if that was the case, ASSOProvider says it won’t back down. Sarzana says the association will challenge the fine in all courts and “will not retreat an inch in fighting injustices and for legality.”

 

Indeed, ASSOProvider seems more motivated than ever.

 

“For almost twenty-five years, ASSOProvider has always been at the forefront in the defense of civil rights,” says ASSOProvider President Giovanbattista Frontera.

 

“This time too we will fight for the affirmation of constitutional rights and for the recognition of citizens’ right to a fair defense. We won’t stop, and you won’t stop us.”

Private torrent trackers with Danish roots have long been the go-to place for file-sharers in Denmark. Not anymore.

 

Starting in the fall of 2020, Danish law enforcement toppled several thriving torrent communities.

 

With help from local anti-piracy group Rights Alliance, DanishBits, NordicBits, ShareUniversity, Asgaard and others were systematically dismantled.

Sting Operation

When the first trackers fell, preparations for the operation had been ongoing for years. It all started when a former lawyer working for Rights Alliance went undercover at the private tracker DanishBits in 2016. As a quiet user, the infiltrator mapped the site’s internal relationships and identified key individuals in the wider Danish tracker ecosystem.

 

The details of this sting operation read like a film script but for many involved, it turned into a real-life drama. Not only were several trackers subsequently shut down, a number of community members were prosecuted too. More than two dozen people, from prolific uploaders to ringleaders, all had their day in court.

 

After the tracker dominoes fell, more than two dozen suspects were investigated and taken to court. This resulted in a wide range of sentences, with most of the tracker admins receiving conditional prison sentences of a few months. Some were ordered to carry out community service.

Conditional Prison Sentence

This week, the National Unit for Special Crimes (NSK) announced the final sentence related to the ‘Asgaard’ tracker. The Court in Horsens sentenced a 48-year-old man from East Jutland, who pleaded guilty to copyright infringement, to a suspended prison sentence of 60 days.

 

The defendant was the last of seven Asgaard tracker administrators to go before the court. The man helped to get the torrent site off the ground in 2019 and served as an admin of NordicBits before that; both offenses were accounted for in the conviction.

 

Asgaard became immensely popular in Denmark toward the end of 2020, after DanishBits and NordicBits shut down. The site had an estimated 1.5 million monthly visits at its height, making it the biggest pirate site in the country for a while.

Harsher Punishment Wanted

The guilty verdict is good news for Rights Alliance, but a bittersweet victory. While the crackdown effectively decimated the torrent tracker problem, the sentences handed down have been relatively ‘mild’. The tracker operator and many other “ringleaders” don’t have to serve time in prison, as the sentences are conditional.

 

Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund notes that copyright and IP-related crimes are historically not viewed as severe crimes in Denmark, adding that a tougher sentence would be more effective.

 

“Sentences for IP crime are in general too low in Denmark, to have a sufficient deterrent effect. We believe the sentences in many cases should have been much harder,” Fredenslund informs TF.

 

“The reality is that IP crime has not been seen as a severe crime in Denmark historically, so we are starting from a low point and building from there to obtain adequate sentencing that will keep others from committing similar crimes.”

 

NSK prosecutor Hans Bohn Sørensen is content with the verdict, however, which marks the end of the Asgaard prosecution.

 

“I am satisfied with the verdict, which now ends the proceedings against the founders and administrators behind one of the largest illegal file sharing services we have had in Denmark,” Sørensen says.

Threat Neutralized?

The recent sentence and those that were handed down earlier are not the harshest on a global scale and unlikely to spook hardened criminals. However, deterrence is not solely determined by the harshness of a punishment.

 

Another factor that plays a key role is the likelihood of getting caught. With a multi-year crackdown on several trackers, Danish police and NSK have shown that this risk is, perhaps, higher than ever.

 

Commenting on this aspect, Fredenslund praises the authorities’ invaluable efforts, which helped to ensure that Danish file-sharing services no longer pose a significant threat to Danish rights holders.

 

Of course, new trackers will always emerge but Rights Alliance sees these as marginal problems in the grander scheme.

 

“The current trackers only harbor the very hardcore illegal users in Denmark. They don’t pose a threat that’s comparable to Asgaard, ShareUniversity, DanishBits, etc.,” Fredenslund notes.

 

With the final conviction of the last Asgaard admin, all cases related to the tracker are closed. Cases against other trackers are still pending, however. In the meantime, Rights Alliance maintains its focus on emerging threats, including those related to Artificial Intelligence.