The last time developer Christopher Boomer appeared on our radar was back in July 2022 when he attempted to unmask thousands of alleged copyright infringers using the DMCA subpoena process.

 

As the developer behind the Weightlifting Simulator series of games, among others, Boomer has enjoyed extraordinary success in the Roblox community. Billions of plays of the developer’s games are an endorsement of his work; for some, it’s also a signal to publish similar if not identical games, to generate revenue for themselves.

 

Boomer’s earlier attempt at using the DMCA subpoena process, to unmask potentially thousands of targets, failed Roblox weighed in. While it was clear that the developer had at least some genuine claims, a DMCA subpoena was the wrong mechanism to obtain alleged infringers’ identities.

New Lawsuit Filed in the United States

A new lawsuit filed in a California court this week faces no such obstacles. The complaint states that Boomer is the author of the massively popular Roblox games Weight Lifting Simulator (released in 2017/18) and a game with a similar theme called Muscles Legends (2019).

 

Key features of the games include a play area with weights, benches, treadmills, and other sundry objects. When the player interacts with these items their in-game character becomes larger and stronger in appearance, which leads to progression in the game.

Get Muscles Simulator

Released on the Roblox platform in January 2022, Get Muscles Simulator “appears to be based on the same idea and features the same underlying mechanics as Mr. Boomer’s Weightlifting Games,” the complaint notes.

 

In Weight Lifting Simulator, player avatars interact with in-game objects to increase attributes, and can also battle other avatars. The same gameplay mechanics also appear in Get Muscles Simulator but the complaint alleges that copying goes well beyond that.

 

“[T]he infringing game blatantly copies Mr. Boomer’s protectable expression, including, inter alia, its artwork, level design, animations, design aesthetics, game pieces, user interface and the selection and coordination of game elements, colors, and shapes.”

 

A visual comparison of the games

 

“Indeed, the presence of these elements in Defendant’s game makes it readily apparent that it is a blatant clone of Mr. Boomer’s game. As the non-exhaustive examples [above] show, the main elements of Defendant’s Get Muscles Simulator are substantially similar to the constituent elements of Mr. Boomer’s Weightlifting Games that are original.”

DMCA Counter-Notices Should Be Taken Seriously

As previously reported, a thriving and cut-price cottage industry has sprung up in recent years promising to remove infringing content from the internet using DMCA notices. The same operations also claim that if a client’s content is taken down, they will file DMCA counter-notices to ensure content is restored.

 

Unfortunately, many of these DIY operations have a cavalier attitude to counter-notices and few warn of the consequences when things go wrong. As this case shows, no matter who sends a counter-notice, they should be taken seriously.

 

Around January 24, 2024, Boomer submitted a DMCA takedown notice to Roblox with the aim of removing Get Muscles Simulator from the platform. Three days later, around January 27, the developer of the allegedly-infringing game responded with a DMCA counter-notice to Roblox.

 

A DMCA counter-notice allows those targeted by a DMCA takedown notice to challenge its validity and ask for the removed content to be restored. However, this also triggers a 14-day period in which the original complainant has an opportunity to sue to prevent restoration.

 

If no lawsuit is filed, the content should be restored between day 10 and day 14. In this case, Boomer sued.

Under Penalty of Perjury, Don’t Provide False Information

Counter-notices must contain an address where the sender can be reached and here, the counter-notice sender provided an address in Montana. According to Boomer’s complaint, that statement was false. In a second counter-notice, submitted around January 31, the developer of Get Muscles Simulator provided an address in California.

 

Whether that address is accurate is unclear, but other things also need to be taken into account.

 

Counter-notices require the sender to state, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that their content should not have been taken down. In this case, Boomer’s lawsuit makes his position clear; Get Muscles Simulator is a blatant copy of his copyrighted game. The defendant will have to satisfy the court that simply isn’t true.

 

When submitting a counter-notice, senders are required to consent to the jurisdiction of a federal court in the district where they live. In this case, Boomer’s complaint states that there are no jurisdiction issues to consider because the defendant consented in writing to the jurisdiction of the court in the counter-notice submitted to Roblox.

Claim for Damages

The complaint notes that Get Muscles Simulator copies substantial original elements from Boomer’s game. It further alleges that the game’s developer, identified as Alexander Koshkin, is a deliberate and willful infringer, who generated unjust profits, gains, and advantages by competing against Boomer’s game hoping to “poach the market” for his weightlifting games.

 

Boomer requests a preliminary and/or permanent injunction to prevent further infringement, an award for damages, costs and attorney’s fees, interest, and a trial by jury.

 

The complaint is available here (pdf)

 

In recent years, rightsholders have repeatedly teamed up with Egyptian law enforcement to tackle several large pirate sites and services.

 

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) booked several successes, shutting down domains related to popular piracy rings, streaming portals such as MyCima and, more recently, Cima4U.

 

Several of these actions took place in coordination with sports broadcaster beIN. The company is very active in the Middle East and North Africa (the MENA region) where a large part of its subscriber base resides. Traditionally, this is a region with plenty of enforcement challenges.

beIN Shares MENA Piracy Concerns

Despite recent successes, these challenges remain. A few days ago, beIN and subsidiary Miramax submitted an overview to the U.S. Trade Representative, as input for the annual “Special 301” review. The submission focuses exclusively on the MENA region.

 

“[T]here is still a huge amount to be done. beIN and other intellectual property rights owners, continue to sustain huge revenue losses from piracy in MENA, which greatly threatens the development of the legitimate audio-visual sector,” beIN writes.

 

“In many countries, commitment to intellectual property enforcement, and general respect of intellectual property remains very low. In many countries, piracy continues to be the primary way for people to consume premium sports and entertainment content.”

 

The submission signals a variety of piracy-related problems in countries such as Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE, and Lebanon, where lacking enforcement is a recurring theme. However, our attention was mostly drawn to the comments regarding Egypt.

 

Similar to other countries, many pirate sites are easy to access in Egypt and dedicated piracy devices and subscriptions are openly sold there. While the ACE actions have shown that there is some cooperation from local law enforcement, plenty of concerns remain.

Paid Pirate Site Blocking Licenses

One particularly problematic development relates to site blocking. Rightsholders historically faced difficulty getting support from local authorities on the site-blocking front. Last year, there appeared to be some progress on this front, but not the type beIN wanted.

 

Site blocking is an option in Egypt today. However, instead of it being part of a legal or administrative process, pirate site blocking is offered as a ‘privatized’ service by an unnamed commercial company.

 

BeIN inquired about the available blocking options, but it believes that the fees that are currently charged are too steep.

 

“In 2023, beIN was made aware that license to order such blocking has been granted to a commercial entity, which is offering this to rights owners as a paid service. The fee offered to beIN was neither proportional nor realistic to the service being offered.’

 

 

The ‘pay to block’ offering came as a surprise to beIN, which hopes that the Egyptian government will reconsider the blocking scheme. Perhaps after a nudge from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

 

“beIN is not aware of any other country, where enforcement of IPR has been privatized in such a manner. beIN would urge the authorities in Egypt to reconsider their approach,” the company informs the USTR.

How Bad Is It?

TorrentFreak asked ACE, which is well-connected in Egypt, to share their thoughts on the matter. At this time, however, the anti-piracy group prefers not to comment.

 

Without more details on the scheme and the blocking company involved, it is hard to grasp what’s going on precisely. In theory, the fees being charged could simply be used to cover the costs, instead of blocking being a for-profit business.

 

Interestingly, it appears that not all rightsholders are increasingly concerned about Egypt. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents major rightsholder groups including the MPA and RIAA, removed the country from its watchlist recommendation for the first time this year.

 

Since 1989, IIPA has listed Egypt as either a “watchlist” or “priority watchlist” recommendation in its “Special 301” submissions to the USTR, but that’s no longer the case today. So, not all is bad.

 

—

 

A copy of the submission beIN and Miremax sent to the USTR for its upcoming 2024 Special 301 Review is available here (pdf)

 

From the very beginning and from every possible angle, this story makes almost no sense. But it will, eventually.

 

By chance, when trying to track down a document a few weeks ago, a .pdf file with ‘IPTV’ in the description suddenly stood out in Google search results. Interesting things can appear by pure luck but, on first view, the document seemed quite mundane.

 

Sporting a maple leaf in the top left corner and text on the right mentioning a meeting of Mapleton City Council, deletion was mere moments away. But then the word ‘ACTION’ caught the eye, quickly followed by ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV streaming’.

It transpires that Mapleton is no regular city. Founded in 1850, settled in 1856, and officially incorporated in 1948, it currently boasts a population of around 11,220 people. According to FBI data, just 16 crimes involving violence or threat of violence were recorded in 2022. No murders, no robberies, and it looks absolutely stunning.

Mapleton City Council Loves Mapleton, Records Everything

As far as data is concerned, Mapleton City Council operates with a high level of transparency and appears to keep immaculate records, many of which are published on its website. The city is currently building an all new fiber network promising speeds of up to 2Gbps but, in the meantime, existing internet connections seem to suffice.

 

According to another of the city’s highly detailed documents, on November 3rd, 2022, Mapleton City staff met to finalize and propose a rate to deliver a “High-definition IPTV subscription service” for all network users. In common with most documents that mention IPTV on the Mapleton City Website, this one mentions ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV’ too.

 

“Mapleton City Administration asked the Mapleton City Network to investigate offering High-definition IPTV streaming service to residential and business users,” the official request for the Council to approve the ‘Xtreme’ service reads.

 

“As we research the options, it became clear that a High-definition IPTV subscription service would be the best value and the least expensive to deploy. We as staff agree that a streaming subscription service should be deployed to compete with other communications companies within the Mapleton service area.”

 

 

So what type of ‘Xtreme IPTV service’ could give local communications companies a run for their money?

 

Well, if we shorten ‘Xtreme High-Definition IPTV’ we arrive at a more manageable and recognizable name: Xtreme HD IPTV. If we then place a few channels from the proposed Mapleton IPTV service on the left, and channels from what is actually a well-known pirate IPTV service on the right, we get…

 

…..exactly the same service

March 15, 2023: D-Day

Even the most permissive view of events thus far defies explanation. Did the search for a cheap but legal service to entertain city residents simply get out of hand? Is there a weird, Utah-specific internet filter that blocks negative news about illegal IPTV services and streaming sites, but allows other stuff through?

 

The screenshot below, of a post dated March 15, 2023, was taken from the official Instagram account of the City Council. Based on the possibility that there may have been a huge mistake, or perhaps people have been led to believe certain things that simply aren’t true, we’ve chosen to obscure the identities of the people below.

The relevant sections in red clearly show upcoming events. Since when do people running a city knowingly celebrate the upcoming approval of a massive pirate IPTV reselling operation with an announcement on Instagram?

 

And if that sounds too ridiculous to be true, how about the existence of a detailed cost analysis? The table below not only attempts to calculate the potential size of the local market, but also predicts huge profit margins after weighing in IPTV-specific factors such as concurrent connections.

 

 

Yet, despite all of the above, there was still a strong urge to uncover any reason that might go at least some way towards explaining why a local authority might find itself in such a crazy position.

 

This week, we reached out to two key figures on the council with a request for comment, or even a chat to hear why this isn’t such a great idea. At the time of publication, we still hadn’t heard back.

 

Desperate for any new theories, here’s an obvious one: Is the city and/or its population in dire financial straights? More recent figures may indicate otherwise but in 2021, the median property value in Mapleton was just over $502,000, while median household income was close to $115,000. Just 3% of residents live below the poverty line, which is actually pretty impressive.

 

But even if 100% of all residents were unable to make ends meet, wouldn’t it be sensible to discuss something like this a little more quietly?

 

After spending way too much time trying to answer these and similar questions, a long trawl through the Mapleton City YouTube channel effectively answered them all.

Seeing is Believing

On March 15, 2023, Mapleton City Council unanimously approved the implementation of the Xtreme HD IPTV system. They did so based on 16 minutes of testimony describing how it worked and, more importantly, the absence of legal concerns.

 

The discussion concerning the Xtreme HD proposition begins around the 32-minute mark but from a personal perspective, it’s a very tough watch. The people who gave the project the green light asked questions which mostly headed in the right direction; the information relied upon to reach that decision had only negative value.

 

The same can’t be said of the video, which may turn out to be priceless. Without it, no sane person would believe something like this could ever be possible. Despite the project receiving official approval (a unanimous vote is audible in the video), hopefully someone managed to pull the plug before launch, or at least fairly soon after.

 

The public records referenced in this report are available here

 

At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest YouTube rippers took the unprecedented step of taking the music industry to court.

 

Yout.com’s Johnathan Nader had grown tired of the bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and allegedly defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

 

The RIAA and others were asking Google to remove so-called YouTube-rippers from search results. The music industry group believes that these sites should not be allowed to operate and filed a motion to dismiss Yout’s lawsuit.

RIAA Wins, Yout Appeals

At the end of 2022, the district court handed a win to the RIAA and dismissed the matter at an early stage. Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. That wasn’t the end though.

 

Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision. The stream-ripper’s arguments are partly supported by amicus briefs from GitHub and the EFF, both of which joined the case.

 

On the other side of the aisle, the RIAA dug in its heels. The music group saw no reason to doubt the lower court’s position and, in its response to the appeal, found the Copyright Alliance at its side.

Appeals Court Hearing

On the surface, this case largely revolves around a seemingly simple question. The problem, however, is that both parties have a completely different answer.

 

– Does YouTube employ a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works?

 

This question brings up all sorts of semantic challenges. What is a measure and when is it technological? What does access mean in this context and under which conditions is it controlled? And if there is such a measure, does Yout.com circumvent it?

 

A few days ago Yout and the RIAA had the chance to explain their reasoning to the Court of Appeals. The hearing was presided over by Judge Carney, Judge Leval, and Judge Sullivan, who critically questioned both attorneys on their views.

 

First up was Evan Fray Witzer, who represents Yout LLC. The attorney explained that this case brings up several novel questions, relating to three distinct provisions of the DMCA’s section 1201. At the same time, however, it is crucial to have a full factual record, which is currently missing.

 

The lower court dismissed Yout’s case at the rule 12 stage before all the factual evidence was gathered. No witnesses were heard and it’s not even clear if YouTube intentionally implemented a ‘measure’ to prevent users from downloading videos.

 

“There is a question as to what YouTube intended with these measures. We don’t know because YouTube isn’t here. YouTube has not come in as an amicus. And we have not had the opportunity to question YouTube about that,” Witzer said.

 

Yout’s attorney suggests that it’s possible that YouTube never implemented any technology specifically to prevent people from grabbing video files. It might have, but in that case, it is still easy to circumvent, even without specialized tools such as Yout.

Where’s YouTube?

Judge Leval responded by saying that preventing downloads is of great commercial significance to YouTube, as it generates its revenue from advertising. Yout’s attorney agreed but had his response ready.

 

“I have two responses to that. The first is; one would expect if that was YouTube’s concern, that you would have an amicus brief from YouTube here, and you don’t. And I think that that is significant and telling.

 

“The second, though, is that is the same concern, Your Honor, that every television broadcast had when the VCR came out. If you can simply record this, you can show it at your movie night. You can show it as many times as you want.”

 

The VCR comparison was brought up a few times but not as often as the role of YouTube in this lawsuit. The case essentially centers around its purported protection measures, without any direct input from the company itself.

 

When Judge Carney asked what in particular would be developed on a fuller record, if this case was sent back to the lower court, Yout’s attorney said that YouTube could and should be heard.

 

“I think one thing that would be developed on a fuller record, Your Honor, is what precisely is the technological measure employed by YouTube and does it, is it designed to prevent access? Is it designed to prevent copying? Or does it have some other use that YouTube is putting to it?”

 

The attorney said that they would need to subpoena YouTube as a third party. That should clarify what their technology and methods are and how this relates to YouTube’s business.

 

“I’ll simply conclude by saying this is the type of case that calls out for expert witnesses,” Witzer said, noting that the EFF and GitHub had already argued in their favor.

Court Questions RIAA

The hearing then continued with RIAA attorney Rose Ehler, who started by pointing out that Yout allows the public to download audio and video files. This includes copies of music videos that were only intended to be streamed through YouTube.

 

This introduction triggered a quick tête-à-tête with Judge Sullivan, who tried to get to the bottom of RIAA’s reasoning.

 

Judge: But I could do that without Yout, right?

 

RIAA: There are instructions for how one could do it without Yout. But what Yout does is enable it on an automated basis.

 

Judge: I get that. But […] seriously, what is the technological measure that would be protecting this copying of the material if I can do it myself?

 

RIAA: Well, just because you can do it yourself or you can hack the technological measure, it doesn’t mean…[interrupted]

 

Judge: Well, I’m not hacking anything. I mean, I could do this right now in this courtroom on my computer probably, right?

 

RIAA: Your Honor could. I think it would be hacking.

 

RIAA’s attorney went on to explain what it sees as the “technical measure.” Yout itself has stated that YouTube uses a “signature mechanism” that must be read and interpreted by JavaScript. Yout modifies the signature value.

 

This prompted more questions from Judge Sullivan, who suggested that the signature value is accessible through a regular browser and that he and others could also modify it without using a dedicated tool such as Yout.

 

“You’re saying I would then be violating the statute as well?” the Judge asked.

 

RIAA’s attorney agreed that people could do it on their own which, in individual cases, may qualify as a copyright exemption. However, doing it to download a music video and to seed piracy on the Internet would be classified as circumvention under the DMCA.

Reverse Engineered Technological Protection?

Moving on to the “protection” element, the RIAA believes that the signature value used by YouTube serves as a technological measure that, in the ordinary course, prevents people from downloading music videos.

 

“The strength is not what we look at. We look at how it operates in the ordinary course and whether in the ordinary course of the operation, it serves the function of limiting or controlling access,” RIAA’s attorney said.

 

This again triggered more questions from the court about how effective this is and whether the signature value was intended as a protection measure. The latter question can only be answered by YouTube, whose views are unknown.

 

The RIAA countered by noting that intent isn’t important, as it’s not part of the DMCA rules. The statute looks at whether a technological measure is being circumvented in the ordinary course of operation, which it believes is the case here.

 

This didn’t convince Judge Sullivan who pointed out that the lower court seems to have “reverse engineered” its way to a conclusion.

 

“But how are we able to know that from the pleadings? How are we able to know how it works in the ordinary course? I mean, it might be people are doing this all the time on their own. There’s no discovery on that. There’s no expert opinion on that.

 

“It seems to me that Judge Underhill sort of inferred that this, because it’s complicated, because there’s no download button, because it’s a contractual provision, there must be a technological measure. He’s sort of backwardly engineered it, it seems to me,” Judge Sullivan added.

An Easy Solution

As is, the court may not be convinced by the RIAA’s arguments alone. That’s not to say that they’re wrong, but he suggests that this case could benefit from YouTube’s input on the matter. Particularly because there are “some pretty big stakes here.”

 

“This could be easily solved. And my hunch is what it is. It’s going to be clear that there are other technological measures that are here. But right now, YouTube’s staying out of it and we’re kind of guessing, Judge Sullivan noted.

 

Both attorneys were confronted with critical questions during the hearing, as is often the case. This means that it is too early to draw any conclusions. It is clear, however, that YouTube holds the keys to many of the questions that have come up. Whether it will be heard, however, is for the Court of Appeals to decide.

 

—

 

A copy of the full hearing is available here (mp3).

 

Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit.

 

In many cases, discussion comments are read and soon forgotten but several old threads were brought back to life recently as part of piracy liability lawsuits.

 

The comments in question were picked up by Kerry Culpepper, a copyright attorney who leads several piracy lawsuits against Internet providers on behalf of independent film companies. While they say they’re not interested in pursuing legal action against these people, their comments could serve as important evidence.

Filmmakers Try to Unmask Redditors

Early last year, the film companies subpoenaed Reddit for the first time, requesting the personal details of several users. Reddit refused to cooperate, defending their users’ right to anonymous speech, and found a California federal court in agreement.

 

In a second attempt a few weeks later, several film companies sent a similar subpoena to Reddit. This time, the request was more targeted, as all comments specifically referred to the ISP being sued; Grande Communications.

 

Reddit still refused to comply, however, stressing that its users’ First Amendment rights would still be at stake. After hearing both parties, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler sided with Reddit once again.

Reddit III: Targeting IP-addresses

While the denial was another setback for the film companies and their attorney, they had no plans to abandon this route to evidence quite so easily. Last month, they were back in court with a similar but tweaked request, this time related to a lawsuit targeting Internet provider Frontier Communications.

 

Broadly speaking, the third case was comparable to the others. The film companies, including Voltage Holdings and Screen Media Ventures, wanted to use comments made by six Redditors to show that the ISP didn’t take proper action against repeat infringers, or that ‘lax’ enforcement acted as a draw to potential pirates.

 

Contrary to the earlier requests, the film companies were no longer looking for any names or email addresses, only the applicable IP address logs. This would allow the commenters to remain anonymous because an ‘IP-address is not a person‘, their attorney argued.

 

Reddit, again, refused to hand over information, arguing it would violate users’ right to anonymous speech. The fact that it would only have to reveal IP-addresses wouldn’t change that, Reddit argued.

Court Sides with Reddit, Thrice

After both sides had the chance to present their arguments, the matter landed on the desk of U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson of the California federal court. After reviewing the paperwork, Judge Hixson denied the motion to compel.

 

Similar to the decisions in Reddit I and Reddit II, the court concluded that the First Amendment rights of individuals to speak anonymously weigh stronger than the interests of rightsholders. This is particularly true because the Redditors are third parties and not defendants in this case.

 

Of importance in this decision is the so-called ‘2TheMart.com’ standard, which was also applied in the earlier two cases. From that perspective, the court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion.

 

This case deals with comments from six Redditors that could serve as evidence in the film companies ‘legal battle with Frontier. However, the court believes that the rightsholders can obtain similar evidence from a more direct source.

 

In the legal proceeding against the ISP, the court previously ruled that the film companies can unmask several alleged pirate subscribers. This could be used to obtain comments directly from Frontier subscribers.

 

“[T]here is information available from another source, as Movants themselves note the underlying bankruptcy court adjudicating the copyright litigation has already ruled they can obtain identifying information from Frontier for IP addresses known to have pirated using Frontier’s network,” Judge Hixson writes.

 

“If Movants sought further information, they need only subpoena the ISP for the subscriber information associated with that IP address, as the ISP does not share Reddit’s interest in protecting the anonymity of that user.”

Anonymous IP-addresses?

Judge Hixson didn’t elaborate in response to the filmmakers’ novel argument that sharing IP-addresses wouldn’t violate the First Amendment right to anonymous speech (‘not a person’).

 

According to the ruling, current precedents suggest that it’s not common to disregard the First Amendment argument when it comes to IP-address unmasking.

 

“While the Court is unaware of any cases in the Ninth Circuit in which a court has declined to apply a First Amendment unmasking standard for IP addresses, other courts have recognized that IP addresses are essential to unmasking because an ‘IP address cannot be made up in the same way that a poster may provide a false name and address’.”

 

“For this reason, the Court finds no reason to believe provision of an IP address is not unmasking subject to First Amendment scrutiny,” Judge Hixson writes.

 

The court further added that the film companies can still use the Redditor’s comments as evidence, as is. Printouts of webpages have been used at previous trials as well, so that could apply here.

 

Based on these and other arguments, Judge Hixson ultimately reached the same conclusion as the court did in the earlier two cases.

 

“In sum, the Court finds Movants cannot meet the 2TheMart standard because the evidence they seek can be obtained from other sources, including from Frontier in the normal course of discovery.”

 

If the rightsholders are unable to obtain the desired evidence from Frontier, they could always try again, of course. If anything, the film companies have shown that aren’t prepared to give up easily.

 

 

—

 

A copy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson’s order is available here (pdf)

 

In the early 2000s, powerful entertainment industry groups were demanding action to prevent “wholesale theft” of their content online, much of it at the hands of regular customers of the world’s ISPs.

 

That very little content was available to buy legally online not only helped to fuel the crisis, in this underdeveloped market many ISPs still had just one key product to sell; internet access and the bandwidth it consumed. Broadly speaking, ISPs were concerned by the threats; on balance, however, putting customer interests last wouldn’t have been an ideal strategy in a rapidly growing market.

Epic Battle For The Internet

In 2004, Belgian music rights group SABAM made an extraordinary move designed to force ISPs into compliance. Targeting local ISP Scarlet, SABAM sought a declaration that the ISP’s subscribers infringed its members’ rights, demanding that the ISP should be compelled to filter and block all piracy traffic.

 

For the next seven years, through local courts and the European Court of Justice, Scarlet fought SABAM and the notion that an ISP could be forced to proactively monitor, block and filter to protect SABAM’s members’ rights, but at the expense of internet users’ fundamental rights.

 

Scarlet’s landmark victory in 2011 remains one of the most important of its kind but in the 13 years that followed, entertainment companies changed and consumption of pirated content changed. While the legal principles underlying Scarlet’s victory did not, attitudes towards acceptable filtering and blocking were on the move.

ISPs Develop Tools to Block IPTV, Can’t Wait to Use Them

In 2008, Scarlet was acquired by telecoms giant Belgacom Group, which later rebranded as Proximus.

 

Today the Scarlet brand is associated with the cheapest prices available in Belgium but, for owner Proximus, the availability of cheap bandwidth shouldn’t be seen as a green light to consume cheap pirate IPTV services. Indeed, the company not only disapproves of pirate IPTV services, but it’s also eager to play a more active role to ensure that its customers can’t consume them. Right now, only paperwork is holding that back.

 

“We are just waiting for the legal framework to be able to cut the streams. We don’t have the right to do that today. But we have the capacity,” CEO Guillaume Boutin revealed in a recent interview.

 

“The cycle between when the link is spotted and when we receive permission to cut it takes too long. Afterwards it abounds in all directions. More links are coming. This procedure is of no use today.”

 

Boutin says that if he spots an illegal stream, under the current framework he can’t simply decide to block it.

 

“However, it is critical to be able to stem the phenomenon. Honestly, this IPTV situation is intolerable, for the rights holders, for the distributors, and for Proximus too. This is an enormous evaporation of value for the sector. This is unacceptable.”

 

Hearing an ISP use language and reasoning typically associated with rightsholders is rare; in some regions, it’s completely unheard of. It suggests that these former rivals not only have much more in common, but may also stand to benefit from common policy in specific areas of business.

 

Elsewhere in Belgium, another ISP appears to be singing from exactly the same sheet.

CEO of Orange Completely Agrees

Telecoms company Orange Belgium is a Proximus competitor albeit a little more expensive according to online comparisons. Yet in an interview with La Libre (paywall) published early February, comments by CEO Xavier Pichon are so closely aligned with those of Proximus chief Guillaume Boutin, there’s little to set them apart.

 

“We have the technological means to massively block these streams, and the content publishers who lose money are just asking for that, but for the moment, it is blocked because of administrative and judicial consistency. But that will change,” Pichon said.

 

“Illegal IPTV seriously threatens the entire economic model of publishers, copyrights and media. Telecommunications companies invest considerable resources in acquiring the rights to content and, at the same time, in the sizing and quality of the network necessary to carry content traffic over the network.

 

“On the contrary, illegal service providers do not contribute to copyright and threaten the entire economic model of the media,” Orange’s CEO added.

New Law in Place But Awaiting Royal Decree

Both Proximus and Orange say that they’re waiting (impatiently, in the case of the former) for implementation through a royal decree of a draft law published in 2022.

 

The ISPs believe that the law will authorize the type of immediate blocking needed to properly tackle pirate IPTV providers. Pichon also believes that today’s ‘pirate IPTV’ platforms will eventually find themselves usurped; the term IPTV will live on, though, at least after work to polish its image.

 

“But let’s remember that IPTV, which is a product of piracy, will be a product of the future,” he said, alluding to success for a legal alternative.

 

“We will have to ‘unbrand’ the term IPTV.”

 

One of the key goals of the Premier League’s prosecution of Flawless TV was to send a clear deterrent message to those considering the same line of work.

 

When five people were sentenced to an unprecedented 30+ years in prison last May, that was the most powerful anti-piracy message ever sent in the UK, via a private prosecution billed to the taxpayer.

Premier League 6, Rest of the UK 0 (latest score)

Following last year’s convictions, there were a few loose ends still to be tied up in matters connected to the Flawless case. A defendant who failed to appear for sentencing was reportedly recaptured in Thailand last August, but six months later his fate still isn’t clear.

 

While Flawless sold subscriptions direct to the public for roughly £10 per month, those prepared to sell to their own customers could buy them for roughly £6 and then sell on for £10, or indeed whatever they liked. A person previously described as one of the leading resellers of Flawless TV subscriptions was previously mentioned using the mysterious pseudonym ‘Mr X’.

 

At his sentencing last week, a less sinister picture emerged.

Dedicated Headteacher, Father of One, Maverick

At Birmingham Crown Court last Friday, 42-year-old Paul Merrell was handed a 12-month prison sentence for reselling IPTV subscriptions to an estimated 2,000 customers.

 

Between 2017 and 2021, Merrell received a total of £450,000 in customer payments, an amount from which the cost of buying the subscriptions (around £200,000) would have to be deducted before counting up any profits.

 

The revelation that Merrell built most of this business while working as a deputy headteacher at a school in Coventry, came as a surprise. That the business continued after being appointed headteacher of a school in Stourbridge, was more surprising still. A headteacher, addressed ‘Sir’ during the day, was known as ‘Media Maverick’ online.

 

According to people who spoke favorably of him in court, Merrell’s positive contribution to society included taking a £13,000 reduction in salary when he became headteacher, because he felt he could turn a failing school around. To cover two decades of six-figure annual losses, Elmfield Rudolf Steiner School sold off its land, but after Merrell’s arrival, things began to improve.

Merrell’s Actions “Require Deterrence”

In a letter to the court requesting leniency, the chair of Merrell’s school council spoke of its plight implying that, should he be spared prison, Merrell might even keep his job. Concerns for his wife, son, and the family home, were also heard, and there’s no doubt the court considered the UK’s prison capacity crisis.

 

Yet, according to the judge, this was a case where deterrence was required and with that, he sent the headteacher to prison and issued a confiscation order for £91,250.

 

The situation at the school is unclear but according to Merrell’s barrister, the family will likely lose their home. Upon his release, returning to work as a teacher could prove almost impossible.

 

So overall then; a sentence that may deter IPTV resellers but will benefit almost no one else, while the taxpayer picks up the bill once again?

A Little Nuance Rarely Hurts

When an otherwise decent person gets deprived of their freedom, while career criminals who contribute nothing receive yet another chance to turn things around, that can undermine public confidence in the justice system. In this case, however, things aren’t as straightforward as they may first appear, particularly when it comes to deterrence.

 

Mark Gould, the main player at Flawless, was raided at his home in Greenwich on May 22, 2018. News of that magnitude travels very quickly in IPTV communities. Two additional arrests on June 19, followed by two more in July and August, meant that anyone with even a basic interest in IPTV should’ve had at least some idea things were going wrong, Merrell included.

 

An alternative narrative, where Merrell wasn’t told anything was amiss and had no means of finding out, may suggest he was simply in the wrong line of business. Certainly, the ease with which his online persona could be matched to IPTV sales, his real name, and his home address, may even back that up.

Reselling Continues

Regardless, between January 2017 and up to a week after Gould’s arrest, Merrell paid Flawless just over £100,100 for reseller credits he later sold on. However, despite Gould’s arrest and the likelihood things would get worse, payments to Flawless continued, albeit to PayPal accounts not operated by Gould.

 

The people behind those accounts have not been named in public, at least to our knowledge, but they were part of a new plan to keep Flawless going despite Gould’s arrest. The identities of these people are well known to the Premier League’s investigators, but their legal position is unknown to us.

 

Roughly a year later, around July 2019, a FACT investigation was uncovering the transactions detailed above, plus others related to the same operation. That seemed to show that Gould’s arrest and the need to migrate the service into a new form to avoid law enforcement, had no effect on Merrell’s reselling business.

 

Late January 2021, two-and-a-half years after Gould’s arrest, Birmingham Trading Standards raided Merrell’s home in Sutton Coldfield, triggering a series of events that led to his sentencing last week.

 

How different things would’ve been if Media Maverick had stopped doing business in May 2018 is unknown. In money terms, given the amounts cited at trial, the overall value could’ve been 50% lower, the period of offending, significantly lower than that.

 

If nothing else, the judge would’ve had fewer reasons to impose a deterrent custodial sentence, and as a result, the consequences would’ve been much less severe.

 

Last December, Italy’s much-debated ‘Piracy Shield’ anti-piracy system went live in a limited capacity.

 

With a legal challenge thwarted, the blocking efforts are now gearing up, with Internet services as rightsholders’ weapon of choice.

 

Italy’s telecoms regulator AGCOM is the arbiter and previously declared the technological and procedural rules. In essence, these require ISPs, DNS resolvers, and other intermediaries to block pirate IP-addresses within thirty minutes of being alerted. The leading authority made it clear that VPN services are no exception.

 

“[A]ll parties in any capacity involved in the accessibility of illegally disseminated content – and therefore also, by way of example and not limitation – VPN and open DNS service providers, will have to execute the blocks requested by the Authority [AGCOM],” the notice read.

AirVPN ‘Blocks’ Italians

Following the announcement, there hasn’t been much response from VPNs, until this week, when AirVPN decided to close its doors to Italian subscribers. The company, which is based in Italy, argues that it has no other option given Piracy Shield’s burdensome requirements.

 

Instead of having a team available around the clock to implement the latest DNS and IP-address blockades, AirVPN believes that denying all Italians access is the best choice at this time. This policy, requiring all customers to declare that they’re not from Italy, will officially go into effect on February 19.

 

Part of the problem is that the blockades will have to be implemented within 30 minutes, even if there are clear errors, AirVPN says. Another concern is the absence of a formal judicial review. There is an option to appeal, but only after the blockades are live.

Widespread Blocking

The Piracy Shield system is just getting underway but AirVPN fears that it might ultimately lead to widespread blocking. While AirVPN could technically comply, the company can’t justify the costs.

 

“[The] requirements are too burdensome for AirVPN, both economically and technically. They are also incompatible with AirVPN’s mission and would negatively impact service performance. They pave the way for widespread blockages in all areas of human activity and possible interference with fundamental rights,” AirVPN staff notes.

 

“(i)n the past each individual blockade was carefully evaluated either by the judiciary or by the authorities, now any review is completely lost.”

 

No Other Option

AirVPN believes that ‘Piracy Shield’ gives private entities, often representatives of rightsholders, enormous power. They can order intermediaries to block content without third-party verification, and without having to fear damages or fines for potential mistakes.

 

Speaking with TorrentFreak, AirVPN’s Paolo Brini says that the company regrets having to take this decision. In addition to practical issues, blocking goes against the company’s core commitments.

 

“According to our mission and commitments, the end-to-end principle and Net Neutrality should not be violated deliberately in the absence of a proper court order. Furthermore, any block should be brought on with all the safeguards provided by due process,” Brini says.

 

The VPN company itself remains incorporated in Italy but the company says that it’s is exploring other options too. AirVPN staff sympathize with fellow Italians, suggesting they can still use the Tor network instead. However, AirVPN sees no other option than to ‘leave’ Italy, at least virtually.

 

“By withdrawing service availability from Italy, AirVPN will be able to stay outside the scope of the framework and maintain integrity and efficient operations,” the company concludes.

 

At the time of writing, VPNs are not yet directed by AGCOM to take action, but that’s expected to change in the future, following discussions with stakeholders.

 

As covered earlier today, Italian authorities now say that the Piracy Shield blocking system is now fully operational. The first three official targets are traditional pirate sites; Calcio.re, Stream.lc, and re-fast.myworldiptv.xyz.

 

—

 

H/T: Tarnkappe.

 

When over 100 officers of Italy’s ‘Penitentiary Police’ carried out a massive anti-contraband operation inside the Velletri prison last week, the spoils were widely reported in the media.

 

The seizure of a small amount of drugs got a mention, likewise the seizure of six phones, chargers, and a PlayStation console.

 

But what really sparked imaginations was the discovery of pirate set-top boxes, which apparently allowed users to “access various pay TV contents such as Sky, Netflix, DAZN.”

 

An image accompanying a Polizia Penitenziaria article raises more questions than it answers. Who would smuggle an Android device in a box that doubles its size? Even without the box, do traditional prison smuggling methods have the capacity to accommodate something of this size?

Fortunately, these aren’t the devices that were actually seized. The pair discovered in the operation were Amazon Fire TV Sticks, which does make a lot more sense, even when bundled with remote controls.

 

That still leaves the question of WiFi access, let alone WiFi access stable enough to eliminate buffering inside a concrete prison. A smartphone with a WiFi hotspot might suffice but, with up to four years in prison for those caught smuggling illicit items, it hardly seems worth the risk.

 

Yet, when compared with punishments available under new law passed in Italy last year, which provides for a €5,000 fine and up to three years in prison for watching pirated content at home, it suddenly doesn’t look quite so bad. The bigger question is whether these devices will continue to enjoy a plentiful supply of live streams following the full launch of Italy’s Piracy Shield system late last week.

Piracy Shield Makes Its Grand Entrance

There are no obvious reasons why Piracy Shield shouldn’t meet the expectations of its developers at Sp Tech, a startup linked to the Previti Law Firm. Meeting the standards touted by some of the system’s self-appointed evangelists over the past six months won’t be possible, however.

 

After launching in December to meet a legal deadline but then not doing very much since, Piracy Shield made its official grand entrance in time for the match between Lecce and Fiorentina at the Via del Mare Stadium on February 2

 

“The debut of the anti-piracy platform represents for the Serie A, and in general for the entire world of content producers, a fundamental turning point that has been awaited for many months,” said CEO of Serie A, Luigi De Siervo.

Calcio.re, Piracy Shield’s First Official Target

On January 29, 2024, broadcaster DAZN filed what appears to be the first official application for enhanced Piracy Shield site blocking. DAZN wrote that since a significant number of links providing free access to Serie A games were being made available by an illicit streaming site, urgent action was required (translated from Italian).

 

https://calcio.re is an online platform that allowed the user free access to the matches of the 21st day of Serie A played on January 20 and 21, 2024. The digital works were thus broadcast in violation of copyright law. DAZN is the official licensee of the Serie A matches and Serie B matches.

After highlighting previous infringement of its content, DAZN went on to declare ongoing and systematic violations that warranted an urgent response, including the ability to block any future domains and IP addresses that can be “traced back to the same content and through which the violations take place.”

 

To show its verification efforts, DAZN provided the site’s email address (@mail.ru), listed its domain registrar as Sarek Oy in Finland (reachable via the email address support@sarek.fi) before mentioning PrivActually Ltd, a Cyprus-registered company available via a Njalla email address.

 

Calcio.re uses Cloudflare and the CDN service had already provided DAZN with the name of the company providing hosting services (peenq.nl in the Netherlands) and the locations of the servers, most likely in Estonia.

 

AGCOM granted a blocking order, initially by DNS within 24 hours, and then perpetually by DNS and IP address (Italian, pdf)

Second Official Target: Stream.lc

Also on January 29, DAZN filed a similar blocking application targeting streaming site stream.lc. In common with the previous complaint, the company wrote that infringements were observed on January 20-21, adding that other violations are systematic and ongoing.

 

Stream.lc’s domain registrar was identified as NETIM SARL of France available through Cloud DNS Ltd in Bulgaria. Cloudflare handed over information in this case too, including contact details for Stream.lc’s hosting provider. Said to operate from Sri Lanka, LankaCloud’s servers are reportedly located in Ukraine

 

AGCOM granted a blocking order, initially by DNS within 24 hours, and then perpetually by DNS and IP address (Italian, pdf)

Third Official Target: re-fast.myworldiptv.xyz

On the same date, Serie A filed a blocking application of its own against re-fast.myworldiptv.xyz. The site’s domain registrar was identified as GoDaddy, with Cloudflare providing reverse proxy services.

 

Cloudflare identified hosting services company BestDC Limited based in the Netherlands, and an email address at serde.ch where myworldiptv.xyz is believed to have its servers. AGCOM issued a blocking order (pdf, Italian) substantially similar to the pair mentioned above (translated from Italian).

 

Successful Launch or Complete Failure?

Since a complete blackout of pirate IPTV services had been predicted by some proponents, when that failed to emerge during the past few days, social media commentary inevitably characterized that as an overall failure.

 

The reality is that such extreme positions will never find common ground; 100% perfect and immediate blocking is impossible but more importantly, only people who enjoy failure launch a system like Piracy Shield and go flat out on day one. In a statement issued yesterday, telecoms regulator AGCOM didn’t name any of the platforms already blocked, but did offer some numbers.

 

“As of Friday, Feb. 2, 65 DNSs and 8 IP addresses illegally broadcasting the matches of the 23rd day of the Serie A soccer championship were blocked within thirty minutes of being reported through the Piracy Shield platform.”

 

Finally, it can be quite interesting to see how pirate sites respond to anti-piracy measures. Here’s a non-comprehensive overview for calcio.re. Some responses may have been pre-prepared or previously available as an option, but if nothing else, blocking appears to be an irritant most platforms can do without.

 

 

A DISH Network copyright infringement lawsuit filed in February 2022, demanded $32.5m in damages from UK-based CDN company DataCamp.

 

The original complaint alleged that DataCamp failed to take appropriate action against 11 pirate IPTV services. DISH claimed these clients were repeat infringers after sending over 400 DMCA notices to DataCamp.

 

In many respects the lawsuit was not dissimilar to others that have targeted ISPs and various intermediaries in recent years. Allegations that DataCamp failed to act appropriately under a reasonable ‘repeat infringer’ policy, for example, is a hallmark of these potentially ruinous lawsuits.

The Specter of Losing Safe Harbor Protection

If a court determines that an intermediary cannot rely on safe harbor protections, the financial consequences of liability can prove catastrophic. As a result, pressure on DataCamp to settle would have been (or at least should have been) enormous. Instead, DataCamp came out swinging.

 

After settlement negotiations failed and pressure increased, DataCamp accused the plaintiffs of targeting smaller companies with copyright infringement claims, then aiming for cash settlements as an alternative to expensive lawsuits with unpredictable outcomes.

 

Given that opposing parties go to court to solve disputes, with settlement one of the more obvious options, in itself the DataCamp claim wasn’t especially unusual. However, the company went on to allege that it had been offered a public consent judgment, ostensibly worth tens of millions of dollars in the plaintiff’s favor, on the understanding that a private agreement meant that nothing would ever be paid.

 

The value, the company said, was in letting other potential lawsuit targets believe that, since DataCamp had paid, when DISH came knocking, they would have to pay too.

Parties Agree to Settle

In the wake of those extraordinary allegations and others besides, returning to the negotiating table can’t have been easy. The alternative, another one, two or more years of litigation, may have made the decision to carry on talking somewhat easier. In the end, it appears that agreeing to the terms of a settlement was more easily achieved than bridging the chasm of opinion on display in court over the last two years.

 

A statement issued today by anti-piracy group IBCAP, of which DISH is a member, and a separate statement from DataCamp, sets the stage for the same story and subsequent settlement to be told from two different perspectives.

 

“On February 2, 2024, IBCAP member DISH Network L.L.C. received a settlement payment of $3,000,000, resolving its lawsuit against Datacamp Limited, a U.K.-based company providing global content delivery network (CDN) services under the name CDN77 and dedicated servers and network services under the name Datapacket,” IBCAP’s statement reads.

 

“The settlement agreement follows substantial discovery and briefing on Datacamp’s motion to dismiss, which the court denied on July 14, 2023, rejecting Datacamp’s argument that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Datacamp could not be liable for infringement by its customers.”

 

DataCamp’s statement begins by noting the company’s “persistent compliance” with the requirements of the DMCA.

 

“Despite our persistent compliance with DMCA procedures, DISH Network made unfounded claims suggesting that we had not diligently policed alleged copyright infringements by some of our customers,” DataCamp says.

 

“We firmly believe the alleged facts in DISH Network’s complaints are false. Throughout the legal process we vehemently denied each claim and even filed Counterclaims against DISH Network due to their failure to comply with the DMCA process. Despite the difficulty of this decision, we believe that the decision to settle is in the best interest of our company and clients. We maintain our unwavering commitment to the highest ethical standards and DMCA compliance.”

Terms of the Agreement

Given that the terms of settlement agreements rarely appear in public, that they’re being made available here is unusual, to say the least. The details were provided by IBCAP and are reproduced here verbatim.

 

In addition to Datacamp’s payment of $3,000,000, which has already been received, the settlement agreement requires Datacamp to implement a takedown policy and a repeat infringer policy. These policies will promote the expeditious removal of infringing material and permanently shut down client accounts of repeat infringers. Datacamp further agreed to provide the identity and contact information of its clients that are repeat infringers or those that had their accounts permanently shut down for failure to remove allegedly infringing material. Datacamp agreed to future damages of up to $250,000 per month if it fails to fulfill removal and termination provisions of the settlement agreement.

The terms and conditions as detailed in the full agreement are extraordinary and to our knowledge, completely unprecedented. A small sample is provided below for reference, but essentially this reads like an uncompromising, tightened version of the DMCA, with severe penalties for non-compliance. (For ‘defendant’ read ‘DataCamp’)

 

– 3(a) Upon receiving a notice from DISH identifying infringing channels or works (whether airing on channels or offered as VOD), Defendant shall identify its client transmitting such channels or works and contact the client to demand that the client remove the subject channels or works and confirm such removal to Defendant by the date that is three (3) Business Days following Defendant’s receipt of DISH’s notice of infringement.<

 

– 3(a)(i) If Defendant’s client confirms the removal within the deadline set forth in paragraph 3(a), Defendant shall inform DISH accordingly by email to the email address that sent the notice of infringement and asking DISH for confirmation.

 

If DISH provides Defendant notice that the client’s removal confirmation for the complained of content is false and the content has not been removed (in whole or in part), then within forty-eight (48) hours following receipt of such notice from DISH, Defendant shall both (1) permanently shut down and not restart the client’s servers/accounts and (2) provide DISH the client’s identity and contact information by email to the email address that sent the notice of infringement.

The section relating to financial penalties indicates that if DataCamp fails to handle takedowns in a way that constitutes a breach of the agreement, the company will have five days to put things right. At that point, the following financial penalties come into play:

 

-(2)(b) Defendant shall be liable to DISH for two thousand five hundred United States dollars ($2,500) per channel or VOD title, as identified in DISH’s notices with URLs or other identifying information, per day (or part of a day) that the breach continued (not to exceed two hundred fifty thousand United States dollars ($250,000) per calendar month).

Datacamp provided TorrentFreak with the following statement which addresses the agreement as a whole.

 

“The settlement agreement between Datacamp and DISH confirms our adherence to DMCA procedures. Additionally, it explicitly defines protocols for clients who persistently violate policies, display uncooperative behavior, and remain unresponsive over an extended period,” says DataCamp CFO, Veronika Siskova.

 

“Over the years we have readily assisted many content owners in protecting their intellectual property. The settlement terms closely align with standard DMCA procedures and reaffirm DataCamp’s dedication to DMCA compliance, providing a solid foundation for both parties to move forward positively.

 

“We remain devoted to our clients, and this resolution allows us to direct our resources and energy toward continuing to create exceptional products and services.”

 

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that DISH and DataCamp do seem to agree on the purpose of the original complaint, as IBCAP suggests.

 

“This lawsuit and resulting settlement agreement against Datacamp sends a direct message to yet another category of infringers — companies who support pirate services, such as CDNs and hosting companies — that their willingness to deliver infringing content over their networks will not be tolerated,” says Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

 

“Datacamp’s payment of $3 million conveys a strong message that CDNs and hosting companies should not take the risk of permitting infringing content to stream across their networks. The takedown and repeat infringer policies that Datacamp has agreed to serve as examples of policies other CDNs and hosting companies should adopt to help minimize infringements on their networks and minimize their exposure to sizeable damage awards.”

 

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. “The Beekeeper” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on February 5 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	The Beekeeper	6.5 / trailer
2	(1)	Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom	6.7 / trailer
3	(2)	Wonka	7.3 / trailer
4	(4)	The Marvels	5.7 / trailer
5	(3)	Wish	5.7 / trailer
6	(5)	Ferrari	6.7 / trailer
7	(6)	Migration	6.7 / trailer
8	(…)	Mr. & Mrs. Smith	6.6 / trailer
9	(7)	Oppenheimer	8.5 / trailer
10	(…)	Orion and the Dark	6.5 / trailer

 

 

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

 

In recent years, copyright holders have paid close attention to a growing number of large piracy services with connections to Vietnam.

 

Representatives of the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), went as far as traveling to the Asian country to discuss the problem with local authorities.

 

The problematic sites and services, which include Fmovies, AniWave, 123movies, BestBuyIPTV, 2embed, and Y2mate, have many millions of monthly users globally. Several attempts have been made to alert the authorities to these ‘criminal’ platforms but to date, criminal convictions have proven elusive.

IIPA Flags Vietnam as a Piracy Haven

To strengthen its call for action, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) urges the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to assist. The IIPA represents the interests of prominent rightsholder groups, including the MPA, RIAA, and ESA, and highlights the Vietnam problem in its recent “Special 301” recommendation.

 

“Vietnam has become a leading global exporter of piracy services and Vietnamese operators have been associated with some of the world’s most pervasive piracy websites, causing significant damage to both the local and international marketplaces,” IIPA writes.

 

 

It’s no secret that many large pirate sites and services have links to Vietnam and local authorities are aware of at least some of them. While this has resulted in some enforcement action, the first piracy-related criminal conviction has yet to take place.

 

A high-profile conviction would reassure rightsholders and other companies considering investments in the country, IIPA reasons, while noting that the country is currently seen as a “piracy haven”.

 

“The Government of Vietnam should recognize that securing the country’s ‘first’ criminal copyright conviction would provide significant reassurance to companies that are considering investing in local content and provide rights holders with a better understanding and assurance regarding the required criminal process,” the IIPA notes.

 

“The criminal enforcement path available against these sites and their operators remains excessively long and lacks transparency.”

Music Pirates

The IIPA highlights several concrete piracy challenges, which aren’t limited to video entertainment. Recent survey data released by music industry group IFPI showed that roughly two-thirds (66%) of Vietnamese respondents between the age of 16-44 regularly pirate music. That’s well above the global average.

 

A popular option to obtain copyrighted music is through YouTube-ripping platforms such as Y2Mate, which reportedly has links to Vietnam. The site blocked visitors from the US and UK in 2021, but that decision was recently reversed.

 

“Importantly, Y2Mate is one of a network of seven globally popular stream-ripping sites believed to be operating from Vietnam,” IFPI writes.

 

“Although the operator of Y2mate.com voluntarily geo-blocked access from the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany, the site is once again accessible from these countries, and while the site was geoblocked the operator set up alternative stream-ripping sites.”

Persistent Movie/TV Pirates

Y2mate isn’t the only site persisting with its piracy activities. There’s a pattern of Vietnamese sites and services ostensibly giving in to legal pressure, only to later reappear with a twist.

 

As reported here earlier, ACE previously tracked down the operators of 2embed and zoro.to, who appeared cooperative after they were paid a visit. However, those actions didn’t have a lasting effect.

 

Zoro.to was reportedly ‘acquired‘ by a new team, who kept the site online under the Aniwatch brand. Similarly, 2embed’s ‘shutdown‘ had little effect as a new 2embed swiftly replaced it, presumably with links to the old team.

 

Zoro -> Aniwatch
 

In its recommendation to the USTR, the IIPA highlights both events as key examples of the enforcement challenges rightsholders face in Vietnam.

 

“Both 2embed and zoro.to were being operated by the same network of identified operators. In a Knock-and-Talk operation in July 2023 undertaken by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) the operators of these sites handed over administrative control of the primary and associated domains.”

 

“However, in a matter of weeks a new domain (aniwatch.to) replaced zoro.to and thereafter a new domain (2mbed.me) replaced 2embed.to. Criminal enforcement action by the [Ministry of Public Security] is needed to close such expansive piracy networks,” IIPA adds.

Criminal Enforcement, Please

Legally, Vietnamese authorities have the power to act against these piracy moguls. In 2018, copyright infringement offenses were added to the country’s Criminal Code. Practical challenges remain, however.

 

In 2021, there was some hope when Vietnamese police questioned the alleged founder and two employees of the notorious piracy site Phimmoi.net. However, no charges were filed as a result and local authorities eventually suspended the investigation.

 

More recently, ACE submitted criminal referrals targeting Fmovies and BestBuyIPTV to Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS). Thus far, these cases are still ‘stuck’ in processing, IIPA says, with little sign of progress.

 

“[T]here remains a lack of transparency and clarity with the MPS continuing to request additional evidence without explanation or reasoning, potentially using the opaque process as a pretext to delay the investigation or not pursue a prosecution,” IIPA writes.

 

It’s clear that rightsholders are becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation. The IIPA suggests a more robust enforcement framework should be a top priority for 2024.

 

“Establish a robust enforcement framework and ensure enforcement officials […]investigate and criminally prosecute commercial-scale piracy sites and services as well as bring administrative actions.”

 

 

The above is just a small selection of IIPA’s comments and suggestions for Vietnam, which go far beyond the need for criminal action.

 

The ultimate conclusion is that Vietnam deserves to be called out on the USTR’s “Priority Watch List” in the upcoming Special 301 Review.

 

—

 

IIPA’s 2024 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, which includes all Vietnam references, is available here (pdf)

 

From the launch of its online streaming service fifteen years ago, Netflix positioned itself as a piracy competitor.

 

The idea was to take market share away from piracy sites, by offering a legal and more convenient streaming platform.

 

Initially, this seemed to work. Netflix amassed hundreds of millions of subscribers, some of whom left their piracy habits behind. However, as the ‘streaming wars’ turned legal and convenient streaming platforms into isolated and pricey content silos, momentum started to shift.

 

In recent years piracy started to grow again, including in well-served markets such as the United States. In theory, this may help Netflix in its battle with other legal platforms, but that’s a consolation prize if the war against piracy is lost.

 

There are no concrete signs that Netflix is crumbling, but piracy is a concern. This isn’t breaking news; piracy has been repeatedly highlighted as tough competition in the company’s 10-K filings at the SEC.

Piracy is a Tough Competitor

Earlier this week, Netflix submitted its latest 10-K filing. The mandatory document provides information that helps investors to gather key information about publicly traded companies. In the “competition” section of the annual overview, piracy is again mentioned several times.

 

 

Netflix explains that the online video landscape is a competitive business. New services and distribution models could impact the business of the leading video streaming platform. This includes legal competitors as well as piracy.

 

“The various economic models underlying these channels include subscription, transactional, ad-supported and piracy-based models. All of these have the potential to capture meaningful segments of the entertainment video market,” Netflix writes.

 

These are in part standard disclosures, as every company faces competition. However, Netflix believes that online piracy is particularly compelling because it’s free for consumers. That makes it very hard to compete against.

 

“Piracy also threatens to damage our business, as its fundamental proposition to consumers is so compelling and difficult to compete against: virtually all content for free,” Netflix writes.

Growing and Hard to Stop

When Netflix launched, its on-demand streaming experience was more convenient than most pirate sites. At the time, torrent sites were dominant but still required users to have some technical knowledge and the patience to wait for content to download.

 

Today, most pirate sites use on-demand streaming, taking away a major edge for Netflix. And because piracy is so compelling for consumers, it is growing rapidly worldwide, threatening legal services.

 

“In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth, and our efforts to prevent that growth may be insufficient,” Netflix notes.

 

“If we are unable to successfully or profitably compete with current and new competitors, our business will be adversely affected, and we may not be able to increase or maintain market share, revenues or profitability.”

(Un)authorized Copying?

The concerns voiced by Netflix are real, but the company isn’t near its demise. These 10-K filings are supposed to detail risks and Netflix is not the only company mentioning piracy as a potential threat.

 

A Netflix Competitor
 

When we started looking for similar mentions by other businesses, we stumbled upon similar concerns and, strangely enough, some identical ones. Apparently, there’s quite a bit of copying going on, as SEC filings from several companies include identical passages.

 

Netflix: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

Triller Corp: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

FuboTV: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

Redbox Entertainment: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

IMAQ: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

CuriosityStream: “In light of the compelling consumer proposition, piracy services are subject to rapid global growth”

 

We don’t know where these references originate. Netflix has mentioned it for a while, that’s for sure, and apparently, the use of this language is widespread and subject to rapid global growth.

 

It’s clear, however, that piracy is a concern for Netflix. While Reed Hastings wasn’t worried about piracy a decade ago, the company now spends millions of dollars tackling the problem.

 

The streaming giant joined the MPA a few years ago and is also a member of anti-piracy coalition ACE. In addition, Netflix also has an in-house anti-piracy department that keeps an eye on piracy threats.

 

If it was possible to recall and then count every anti-piracy campaign targeted at the UK public since the dawn of the VCR, the answer would be of interest to us, because we have absolutely no idea.

 

But maybe volume isn’t particularly important. Perhaps a better question would be this: Has an anti-piracy campaign targeting the public in the last 40+ years ever actually worked?

 

Those who guessed “yes” are absolutely right, well done. Those who guessed “no” are absolutely right too. There are no losers in this game because it’s all about framing.

No Anti-Piracy Campaign Has Ever Failed

Since anti-piracy campaigns cost money, it is incredibly rare for anyone to admit that their campaign didn’t work. It’s much more likely that an apparently unsuccessful campaign finds itself celebrated as the campaign that prevented things from getting even more out of hand than they already were. You see, while it’s always been about framing, it’s always been about timing too.

 

When lobbying the government to contribute to campaigns with funding from the public purse, that’s the perfect time to mention the threats; to specific industries, employment, the economy in general, public order, crime waves, terrorism, whatever fits the mood of the day. When the campaign is done, pick out the positives, tell everyone that the money was well spent, thank the government, and then say nothing. Just wait.

 

In time, probably just a few months, a couple of gentle mentions of how piracy keeps evolving is a great way not to confront sources of funding with embarrassing news of failure. The campaign itself was a success, it was everything else that changed.

 

What never really changes is the underlying sense of threat. The threat of a looming catastrophe that, to date, has never actually happened. Not because a catastrophe was never likely, but because everyone pulled together to avoid one. In much the same way as everyone needs to work as a team to avoid whatever threats are coming up next.

Threats to the Public

For the past several months, an anti-piracy campaign has been running in the UK. On one hand, the BeStreamWise campaign aims to sensitize consumers of illicit IPTV services to various threats; the threat of being scammed, for example, or even defrauded. When dealing with criminals, anything is possible.

 

The threat of identity theft shouldn’t be ruled out either but the really important thing is to allow the public to a) soak up the threat b) feel the building anxiety and sense of impending doom and c) ditch illegal services before something terrible happens. When everyone is out of danger, d) click here to subscribe to one of our legal and safe subscription services.

The Threat of Being Caught & Sent to Prison

On the campaign website, BeStreamWise wisely steers clear of the potential legal repercussions of using pirate services. In anti-piracy, however, the presence of legal threats is an opportunity rarely missed.

 

The apparently separate but coordinated media campaign being conducted through the UK tabloids, which really stepped up a gear in November and has barely stopped since, has been running in parallel to the BeStreamWise campaign.

 

Despite appearing to have similar goals, the BeStreamWise campaign only gets a handful of mentions in at least dozens of articles. Instead, the Federation Against Copyright Theft often responds to questions raised in the articles, which all carry exactly the same message, as the sample below shows.

 

United threat to safety

 

In much the same way that millions of people in the UK were convinced that if they play the lottery “It Could Be You!”, it seems that the goal here is to make the odds of prosecution seem just as convincing.

 

After seeing over 50 of these articles published since late November in a broad range of national and local online news outlets, we used various tools to analyze their text and AI to identify the most prominent keywords. Across all articles, keyword similarity was rated at 82%, which is extraordinary when there’s no common news event underpinning any of the articles.

 

A couple of exceptions aside, sentiment was rated negative, as expected, with the most popular keywords across all articles shown below. The situation as portrayed seems……..a little threatening perhaps?

 

Nobody should be offended when broadcasters and other rightsholders defend their products from piracy. When IPTV providers, resellers and everyone else in the supply chain get arrested and, horror of horrors, find themselves being privately prosecuted, that is literally the worst thing that can possibly happen.

 

People who consume pirated content have their own balancing act to consider. It’s not difficult to imagine that someone, somewhere, has decided that scare tactics amplified through the media – no, more than that, completely reliant on the media – is a great way tip the balance in the right direction.

Bottom Line: Do Scared People Pirate Less?

It’s difficult to say whether fear has ever played a part in reducing piracy, but one thing is certain: nobody ever scared anyone into being a loyal customer; the effect is temporary at best, counterproductive and completely ineffective at worst.

 

A new study reveals that men (also a focus of BeStreamWise in respect of live sports) are not only primed to immediately reject negative outside messaging, but their response significantly exacerbates the same problem threat messaging aims to reduce.

 

The study, Psychological Reactance to Anti-Piracy Messages Explained by Gender and Attitudes, was published last month. According to its authors, it “uses evolutionary psychology as a theoretical framework to examine whether messages based on real-world anti-piracy campaigns cause reactance and whether this effect is explained by gender and pre-existing attitudes.”

Threats Could Make Matters Worse

In summary, the researchers exposed adult participants to the messaging contained in three previous, real-life anti-piracy campaigns.

 

The first, Get It Right (From a Genuine Site), carried prosocial messaging, while Crimestoppers (CrimeStoppers-uk.org) and Graduated Response (French Three-Strikes scheme) provided the threatening messaging. A control group received no anti-piracy messaging at all.

 

“The results indicate that the prosocial message has no significant effect, neither causing reactance nor influencing a decrease in piracy for either gender or attitude group,” the researchers write.

 

“The threatening messages, in particular Crimestoppers which emphasizes the risk of computer viruses, had a polarizing effect on the group with favorable attitudes towards piracy. Men with favorable attitudes towards piracy reported an increase, and women with favorable attitudes towards piracy reported a decrease in piracy intentions.”

 

“The results support our evolutionary theoretical proposition that reactance to messages is adaptive, with men being more sensitive to threats to freedom by external forces than women.”

 

 

The chart above shows that females with favorable attitudes towards piracy responded positively to threats. However, men with the same favorable attitudes towards piracy responded to all types of anti-piracy messaging with a significant increase in their motivation to pirate.

 

Most pronounced is the 30%+ increase in the ‘Crimestoppers Group’ which may have implications* for the current BeStreamWise campaign. If nothing else, they share almost identical messaging.

 

Crimestoppers (Threatening Message 2)

 

The communication was delivered by crime reduction charity Crimestoppers (crimestoppers-uk.org) and funded by film industry trade body BASE (British Association of Screen Entertainment). The campaign focused on the individual’s risk of computer viruses, identity fraud, money/data theft and hacking, using precise numbers of cases reported to legitimize their claims.

After four decades of anti-piracy campaigns that have failed to scare pirates into compliance, and 15 years of ISP blocking measures that have mostly failed to render pirate services non-functional, a solution to the problem seems more elusive than evere.

 

Since no anti-piracy companies believe their market is on the brink of collapse, confidence must be high that the same strategies that have always fueled the market will long continue to do so. That might be the clearest signal yet that something needs to change.

 

Whitman, K., Murad, Z. & Cox, J. Psychological Reactance to Anti-Piracy Messages explained by Gender and Attitudes. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05597-5

 

Summary available here

 

*BASE is a member of the BeStreamWise campaign.

 

Over the past couple of years, Genshin Impact publisher Cognosphere has been to court several times in the United States hoping to identify those who leak unreleased content online (1,2,3,4,5).

 

What happens when leakers are identified is mostly unknown. Direct contact from Cognosphere’s legal team seems the most likely outcome but, since the courts aren’t directly involved, nothing can be confirmed from official records.

 

These matters in the U.S. sit in stark contrast to events currently unfolding in Canada’s Federal Court. A named defendant and others yet to be fully identified now face a full-blown lawsuit after allegedly failing to comply with the terms of a cease-and-desist notice.

Statement of Claim

The complaint lists Cognosphere PTE Ltd as the headline plaintiff but since its trading company HoYoverse is the exclusive licensee of Genshin Impact in Canada, that’s the entity with rights at stake in the claim.

 

Genshin Impact is described as a successful game but an expensive one too. In addition to an initial development budget of $100 million USD, around $200 million USD is required annually for the development of updates, expansions, and patches.

 

“This makes Genshin Impact one of the most expensive games ever developed,” HoYoverse informs the court.

 

HoYoverse’s exclusive rights in Genshin Impact include all copyrights and the right to prevent circumvention of the game’s Technical Protection Measures (TPM). According to the complaint, multiple TPMs are deployed to prevent hackers from engaging in activities that disrupt gameplay, devalue the game, and harm the Genshin Impact community.

 

These activities run contrary to Genshin Impact’s Terms of Service and while HoYoverse does what it can to prevent players from gaining an unfair competitive advantage, no measures are ever completely bulletproof.

“Defendants Are Members of Online Hacking Groups”

HoYoverse begins by identifying an individual said to reside in Alberta, Canada. They’re the only defendant currently identified by a real name but until such a time we’re able to confirm the person isn’t a minor, we’ll use their online handle ‘Taiga’ instead.

 

“[Taiga] is a software developer and self-proclaimed game hacker. [Taiga] is a member of game hacking groups including ‘Akebi Group’, ‘Crepe Team’ and others unknown to HoYoverse,” the complaint reads.

 

The remaining defendants are currently listed as John Does but, according to HoYoverse, all are members of the same hacking groups so it refers to them using their online handles.

 

“The John Does use online aliases including Callow (‘John Doe Callow’), Belizardd (‘John Doe Belizardd’), Witch God Solael (‘John Doe Solael’) and others that are unknown to HoYoverse but known to Taiga and each other,” HoYoverse notes.

Defendants Undermine the Genshin Impact Business Model

HoYoverse goes into considerable detail to explain why Genshin Impact’s TPMs are crucial to the smooth functioning of the game. In essence, the game is a finely balanced environment supported by a business model that relies on the game being just that.

 

When the alleged members of ‘Akebi Group’ and ‘Crepe Team’ inject their own code into the mix, that enables players to cheat, upsetting the balance of the game and the underlying business model.

 

“Since at least as early as August 2022 and continuing, the Defendants, have individually, collectively and/or acting in concert developed, advertised and marketed, distributed, offered for sale and sold hacking tools for Genshin Impact, including hacks referred to as ‘Akebi GC’ (short for ‘Genshin Cheat’), ‘Acrepi’ (a free version of Akebi GC), and ‘Genshin XYZ’,” HoYoverse informs the court.

 

A fraction of the cheat code

 

“The Akebi GC, Acrepi and Genshin XYZ tools operate to inject malicious code into the Genshin Impact code during loading, to modify the game contrary to the Genshin Impact TOS. The Akebi GC, Acrepi and Genshin XYZ tools do not function without Genshin Impact and therefore have no commercial significance or legitimate purpose and are only useful for illicit use in hacking the Genshin Impact game and code.”

 

HoYoverse claims that the founder of the Akebi GC project is John Doe Callow while Taiga is the “self-proclaimed ‘main developer and updater’ of Akebi GC, and the creator of Genshin XYZ. It’s alleged that around August 2022, Taiga and the defendants made the Akebi GC code available for public download, including via Taiga’s GitHub and UnknownCheats repos.

HoYoverse Takes Action

According to the complaint, HoYoverse filed a DMCA takedown request against Taiga’s Akebi GC GitHub repository in November 2022, alleging infringement of Genshin Impact copyrights.

 

HoYoverse claims that a “defiant and undeterred” Taiga responded via a publicly-posted message. That message remains on GitHub today.

 

 

HoYoverse goes into detail describing what happened next, but in summary, the Discord channel allegedly became the jump-off point for the ‘Akebi-Private Shop’ from where it’s alleged the defendants have been selling subscriptions to Akebi GC; 7 days for $7.99 and 30 days for $19.99.

 

HoYoverse says it responded by sending a cease-and-desist letter to Taiga on March 31, 2023, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, plus offenses related to the circumvention of Genshin Impact TPMs.

 

“In an email response, three days later, [Taiga] acknowledged that the unauthorized use of HoYoverse’s intellectual property was a mistake and took full responsibility for his actions,” HoYoverse reports.

 

“[Taiga] indicated that he had removed all infringing material from his website and his other platforms. [Taiga] also indicated that he had instructed his team and relevant partners not to use HoYoverse intellectual property.”

Cease-and-Desist Ignored, Lawsuit Ensues

HoYoverse’s assessment of what happened next can be summarized as follows: the John Doe defendants continued to develop, advertise, market and sell the Genshin Impact cheats, and Taiga continued to support Akebi GC, help gamers find and use Akebi GC, while maintaining the Akebi Discord server.

 

HoYoverse claims that Taiga also has a new cheat in production for a game it also owns, Honkai: Star Rail.

 

The company’s key claims are as follows:

 

Defendants have individually, collectively and acting in concert:

 

– (a) circumvented, (b) offered or provided services to the public to circumvent, and (c) distributed, offered for sale, or provided technologies, devices, and/or components to circumvent the HoYoverse TPMs, [contrary to] s. 41.1(1)(a)-(c) of the Copyright Act;

 

– infringed the copyright in the HoYoverse Works contrary to s. 27(1) of the Copyright Act;

 

– infringed the copyright in the HoYoverse Works contrary to s. 27(2) of the Copyright Act;

 

– provided services primarily for the purposes of enabling acts of copyright infringement of the HoYoverse Works by means of the Internet or another digital network contrary to s. 27(2.3) of the Copyright Act;

The company is seeking interim, interlocutory, and permanent injunctions to restrain the defendants from circumventing its Technical Protection Measures, and/or distributing, selling or any type of similar dealing in respect of its copyrighted works, in whole or in part.

 

HoYoverse further seeks an order directing the defendants to deliver up “all goods, articles, works, technologies, devices, components, or other materials” in connection with their infringing activities.

 

There’s also a request for damages, statutory damages, and/or an accounting of the Defendants’ profits, as the plaintiff may elect, in excess of $50,000. The company further requests punitive and exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest on all monetary relief, plus costs “on the highest possible scale.”

 

Two decades ago, when the RIAA tried to obtain the identities of Verizon customers via the convenient DMCA subpoena process, significant pushback led to defeat for the record labels.

 

The case made it clear that subpoenas obtained under section 512(h) of the DMCA only apply to ISPs that directly store, cache, or provide links to infringing material. An RIAA lawsuit against Charter failed for similar reasons.

 

In 2014 and after a considerable break, BMG and anti-piracy partner Rightscorp attempted to unmask 30,000 CBeyond subscribers using the same DMCA subpoena process. That also ended in disappointment but somehow, seven years later on the same legal basis, DMCA subpoena applications suddenly began producing results.

Cautiously Building Momentum

After testing the water in 2019, during 2022 and early 2023, companies including Voltage Pictures, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios obtained DMCA subpoenas targeting customers of CenturyLink (now Lumen). After a relatively gentle request to obtain the identities of 13 subscribers, subsequent demands turned up the heat.

 

An additional DMCA subpoena later sought to unmask almost four times more subscribers than the preceding one, before a follow-up application took the previous target of 63, doubled it, and added another couple of dozen subscribers on top for good measure.

 

After focusing on CenturyLink subscribers for more than a year, Voltage, Millennium, and Capstone obtained a DMCA subpoena targeting 41 IP addresses operated by ISP Cox Communications. Most of the IP addresses were allegedly linked to piracy of the movie ‘Fall,’ with infringements reportedly carried out by Cox subscribers using BitTorrent networks.

 

The DMCA subpoena application itself was somewhat unusual. Explanatory text recognized that under conventional thinking, § 512(h) doesn’t usually apply to conduit ISPs. However, it suggested that legal developments over the past few years supported a theory that the Tenth Circuit would eventually come to see § 512(h) in a whole new light; specifically, that it does apply to conduit ISPs after all.

DMCA Subpoena Immediately Challenged

When the DMCA subpoena was served on Cox Communications, the ISP contacted the relevant subscribers to determine whether any would object to having their identities disclosed. One subscriber took the opportunity to send a letter of objection to the court, which now forms part of the public record.

 

The letter doesn’t identify the ‘John Doe’ subscriber or their family, but since it contains sensitive personal information in the first couple of paragraphs, only the last three paragraphs are reproduced here.

 

 

The letter was construed by the court as a motion to quash, with a recommendation that the subpoena was invalid under § 512(h). A subsequent report issued by Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter later arrived at the same conclusion. It further noted that, to the extent any information had been derived from the invalid subpoena, it must be returned or destroyed while no further information should be obtained or placed on record.

A DMCA Subpoena Cannot Apply Here

In his order handed down this week, District Judge J. Michael Seabright provides an exceptionally clear overview of the four types of safe harbor available to ISPs under the DMCA. In doing so, the Judge also shows why the movie companies’ DMCA subpoena fails.

 

The breakdown seems to show why DMCA subpoenas issued under § 512(h) cannot be used to obtain the identities of P2P infringers when their ISP qualifies for protection under § 512(a). (For reference, the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions are detailed in full here)

 

The key points of the order read as follows (minor edits for brevity):

 

– The safe harbor in § 512(a) protects ISPs from liability for ‘transmitting, routing, or providing connections for’ material through a system or network.

 

– The safe harbors in § 512(b), (c), and (d) protect ISPs from liability for infringing material that users temporarily store in caches (§ 512(b)), on systems or networks (§ 512(c)), or at links (§ 512(d)) provided by the ISP.

 

– The safe harbor in § 512(a) does not require ISPs to take down material upon receiving notice from a copyright owner — if an ISP is a “mere conduit,” nothing is stored, and there is nothing to take down.

 

– Conversely, though their wording differs, each of the safe harbors in § 512(b), (c), and (d) requires that, when notified of alleged infringement by a copyright owner, an ISP “respond[] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement (notice and takedown)

 

– In contrast, the “mere conduit” safe harbor in § 512(a) does not contain any notice and take down provision referring to Subsection (c)(3)(A)—because there is no material to take down.

 

– In considering whether a copyright owner can obtain the IP addresses of P2P infringers by subpoenaing an ISP under § 512(h), the Eighth Circuit [Verizon] and D.C. Circuit [Charter] both reasoned that if the ISP acts as a “mere conduit” in cases of P2P filesharing, it is not possible for a copyright owner to satisfy the notice requirement in Subsection (c)(3)(A).

 

– On this basis, both courts ruled that the ISP fell within the safe harbor in § 512(a) and the subpoenas over P2P filesharing were improper. [..] In short, a § 512(h) subpoena cannot issue if the ISP is unable to locate and remove the infringing material, and an ISP acting as a mere conduit for allegedly infringing activity cannot do so. This court agrees with the reasoning of the Eighth and D.C. Circuits.

Movie Companies’ Objections

Despite being rejected by the Court, the main objections filed by the movie companies still make for interesting reading.

 

When applying for the DMCA subpoena, the movie companies submitted a list of IP addresses that allegedly participated in the infringing activity. The aim here was to demonstrate compliance under § 512(h) by providing a notification of claimed infringement that identified the allegedly infringing material/activity, along with sufficient information for the ISP to locate it.

 

The companies reasoned that in assigning IP addresses to the alleged infringers, Cox was “referring or linking material” under § 512(d), making their list of IP addresses a valid notice of infringement.

 

The movie companies also objected to a statement in the Magistrate Judge’s report, which concluded that Cox acted as a “mere conduit” in the transfer of files through its network. After arguing that they should have had the ability to submit a briefing on the issue of statutory interpretation, the Judge ordered Cox to file a declaration on its status as a service provider.

 

Cox responded with a declaration which confirmed that it operates as an ISP under 17 U.S.C. § 512(a). The movie companies objected to that too, but without the desired result.

 

The full order is linked below for those interested in the finer details. Needless to say, none of the arguments were able to prevent the DMCA subpoena from being ruled invalid, on exactly the same basis the RIAA’s attempts were rejected over 20 years ago.

 

District Judge J. Michael Seabright’s order is available here (pdf)

 

In a matter of weeks, the controversial Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren PPV boxing event will turn three years old and still be remembered for all that went wrong.

 

After the H3 Podcast aired a short clip of the event on YouTube, featuring a fight that lasted just 119 seconds, Triller filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against creators Ethan and Hila Klein. Even today, it still seems nowhere near done.

 

What began as a fairly bitter and personal affair has left both sides with little to celebrate since the lawsuit was filed in 2021. With no obvious benefit beyond money for the overall winner, not losing face down on the canvas appears to be the only discernible prize.

Convoluted Lawsuit Finds Knockout Punch Elusive

More detailed background on the case is available here. In summary, H3 says that when it showed the fight along with biting commentary on YouTube, that was fair use, even though the video shown was sourced from a pirated copy of the PPV event.

 

For its part, Triller disagrees, bitterly.

 

Last week, Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI), the company behind various H3-branded channels, filed a counter-complaint against counter-defendant Triller. TEI’s focus is an amnesty program widely publicized by Triller in the wake of the Paul vs. Askren fight.

 

For a payment of just $49.99, Triller said that people who pirated the PPV could avoid being targeted in legal action that would demand $150,000 from each and every person who watched the fight without paying for it. TEI says the promotion of the amnesty program was misleading and deceptive.

 

“In the course of advertising and promoting its so-called ‘amnesty program’ Triller made false and misleading statements that TEI’s podcast episode entitled Jake Paul Fight Was A Disaster….infringed the Broadcast and that anyone who viewed the Podcast engaged in copyright infringement,” TEI informs the court.

 

“Even worse, Triller made false and misleading statements about the financial ramifications of watching the Podcast to persuade the public to pay Triller $49.99 each to participate in Triller’s so-called amnesty program. This counterclaim is directed at exposing Triller’s false and misleading statements and force it to account for its deception.”

TEI Watched a Pirated Live Stream to Avoid Giving Paul Money

TEI’s counter-complaint begins with a potted history of its critique of Jake Paul. TEI accuses Paul of engaging in “highly aggressive, manipulative and avaricious marketing practices to his child audience to induce them to purchase his merchandise.” Jake’s brother, Logan, is described as equally problematic, but the focus is on Jake’s boxing career and TEI’s scathing criticism.

 

“TEI produced episodes on the H3 Podcast Channel that criticized Jake Paul’s boxing matches as being horribly lopsided in favor of Jake Paul because he was either significantly larger or younger than his opponents,” TEI says.

 

“These episodes produced by TEI also criticized Jake Paul’s boxing matches as cash grabs intended to bait the audience to pay steep pay-per-view prices in the hope of seeing Jake Paul defeated.”

 

After describing Paul’s matchup with Askren as a “farce that degraded the sport of boxing,” at a PPV price point that was “prohibitively expensive for his target audience,” TEI makes an unexpected admission.

 

Before reviewing the fight on YouTube, TEI employees necessarily needed to watch the fight. However, since that would mean handing over cash to the benefit of Jake Paul, that option was ruled out.

 

“TEI, however, did not want to provide any financial support for Jake Paul (or for any other endeavor involving Jake Paul). Consequently, on April 17, 2021 (i.e., the day of the Broadcast), TEI employees watched an unauthorized stream of the Broadcast on the Internet,” TEI informs the court.

 

“TEI did not make a simultaneous copy of the Broadcast when it was viewed on April 17, 2021. TEI did pay the $49.99 viewing fee for the Broadcast at a later date.”

Triller’s Amnesty Program

TEI says that on or around May 3, 2021, Triller’s head of piracy, Matt St. Claire, sent a press release to various media outlets that advertised and promoted Triller’s amnesty program. TEI uses sections of a subsequent Reuters article to support its claims that Triller’s statements not only misled the public, but did so at the expense of the podcast.

 

 

“The aforementioned statements from the Triller Press Release gave the false and misleading impression of fact that: (1) the Podcast itself constituted copyright infringement; (2) anyone who viewed the Podcast was liable for copyright infringement; (3) that the potential exposure for each view of the Podcast was up to $150,000 per view; (4) that TEI runs a criminal enterprise; and (5) TEI resold the Broadcast and profited from doing so,” TEI continues.

 

Since Reuters articles are widely syndicated, Triller’s statements also appeared in articles published elsewhere. TEI claims that the substantial audience led to “countless online posts” in which the company was labeled a criminal copyright infringer.

 

Overall, TEI says that a substantial number of people “were deceived (or had a tendency to be deceived)” into believing that since they watched the H3 podcast, they were also liable for infringement.

Reasons for People to Settle

TEI says that the above led some to believe that the only way to avoid liability was to participate in Triller’s amnesty program. To encourage them to do so, it’s alleged that Triller offered to drop the lawsuit against TEI if it paid a settlement of $900,000 and made the following public statement:

 

 

“By this statement, Triller requested TEI to falsely represent: (1) that TEI paid millions of dollars to settle the Initial Complaint – despite Triller demanding only $900,000; and (2) TEI was knowledgeable of Triller’s watermark technology – as no such information was shared with TEI,” the company adds.

 

“The clear purpose of this statement, just like Triller’s Press Release, was to advertise and promote Triller’s so-called amnesty program (in general) and to TEI’s audience (in particular).”

 

TEI says that the alleged conduct above caused it to suffer financial loss and reputational damage. The company requests a judgment for disgorgement of Triller’s profits, compensation for its losses, an award for treble damages under the Lanham Act, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.

 

TEI’s counter-complaint against Triller Fight Club II is available here (pdf)

 

Late 2022, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

 

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough following complaints about pirating subscribers. Specifically, the labels alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.

 

The trial lasted more than two weeks and ended in a resounding victory for the labels. A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages to the record labels.

$47 Million Appeal

Last September, Grande filed its opening brief in which it again argued that the lower court reached the wrong conclusion. Internet providers shouldn’t be held liable for pirating customers based on third-party allegations, the company noted.

 

Among other things, the ISP believes that it shouldn’t have to terminate Internet access so easily. This view was supported by several telecom industry groups, who all object to disconnecting subscribers’ internet access based on copyright claims.

 

The record labels countered the appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict should be upheld. Any other outcome would make it almost impossible to tackle the online piracy problem.

 

The labels explained that ISPs play a central role in BitTorrent-based piracy, as they are the only ones who can link an IP-address to a subscriber. This means that when rightsholders or their anti-piracy partners sent infringement notifications to Grande, the ISP was the only party that could address this conduct.

Grande Responds to Labels

This week, Grande submitted a reply brief in which it counters the music companies’ arguments. The ISP maintains that it shouldn’t be held liable for pirating subscribers, citing last year’s ‘Twitter vs. Taamneh‘ Supreme Court ruling.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court held that social media platforms aren’t liable for ISIS terrorists who used their services to recruit and raise funds. In a similar vein, Grande believes that it shouldn’t be held liable for subscribers who pirate content.

 

The record labels previously argued that the Supreme Court ruling shouldn’t be directly translated into a copyright context. That would essentially change the concept of contributory copyright infringement based on a case that has nothing to do with copyright, they reasoned.

 

Understandably, Grande believes that the Supreme Court decision is directly relevant and quite essential.

 

“The central contributory copyright infringement issue before the Court is whether providing internet service to a direct copyright infringer, standing alone, is sufficient to support contributory liability. The Supreme Court recently made clear that it is not,” the ISP writes.

 

Grande cites the Supreme Court, which concluded that it would “run roughshod over the typical limits on tort liability” to “effectively hold any sort of communication provider liable for any sort of wrongdoing merely for knowing that the wrongdoers were using its services and failing to stop them.”

“Dramatic Expansion of Copyright Liability”

The ISP notes that the record labels are essentially asking the Court to authorize a dramatic expansion of secondary copyright infringement liability. This means that if an ISP fails to take “simple measures” to stop piracy, it becomes responsible for the activity.

 

However, if the court of appeals relies on the recent Supreme Court ruling, Grande should not be held liable. This leaves the court with two options, Grande says.

 

(1) Follow the Supreme Court’s precedents on the proper scope of secondary liability for copyright infringement (as Grande argues)

 

(2) Deem those precedents inapplicable and instead expand contributory liability (as the district court did) by adopting the Ninth Circuit’s “simple measures”

 

In its attempt to avoid liability, Grande explicitly points a finger at other parties in the BitTorrent ecosystem, while also highlighting that rightsholders have the option to sue pirates directly.

Suing Pirates, Torrent Sites, or Torrent Client Devs

The record labels previously argued that it’s important to hold ISPs liable because they are the only party that can match IP addresses to individual subscribers; Grande doesn’t deny that. Instead, it points out that rightsholders can use the information to sue pirates directly.

 

“They can file a John Doe lawsuit against an alleged infringer known only by IP address and then serve a subpoena on the ISP to obtain their identity,” Grande explains.

 

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter and others aided and abetted terrorist activity because it didn’t “consciously and culpably” participate in the illegal activity. According to Grande, Internet providers are even further distanced from any wrongdoing.

 

Another option would be to go after the operators of torrent sites or the developers of BitTorrent clients, the ISP adds.

 

“The Labels can also pursue claims against people who actually induce and encourage BitTorrent file sharing, like the creators and distributors of BitTorrent software and the operators of BitTorrent websites,” Grande writes.

 

“That it may be easier for the Labels to sue Grande is not a legitimate basis for expanding the scope of common law contributory liability.”

 

 

Grande doesn’t explain why or when developers of torrent clients should be held liable for piracy. Popular torrent clients and sites that distribute this software are typically content-neutral and don’t actively encourage piracy. That is similar to the defense Grande relies on.

 

“ISPs that actively encourage infringement — for example, by instructing customers on how to engage in piracy — would be contributorily liable. ISPs that merely provide content-neutral internet access to their subscribers would not.”

Material Contribution

The ISP adds that it did not materially contribute to any copyright infringement. Instead, it argues that its actions remained distanced from any piracy activity.

 

“Grande neither ‘facilitated’ nor ‘provided tools for’ copyright infringement, however one might understand those terms. The only affirmative thing Grande did was provide content-neutral internet service to all its customers”

 

The reply again brings up the suggestion that there are many other actors who, unlike Grande, directly enable BitTorrent file-sharing. In addition to mentioning torrent client developers, BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen, tracker operators, and hosting providers all get a mention.

 

“Each of these actors plays a direct role in the sharing of copyrighted music files over BitTorrent. Grande, in contrast, stands far removed from the infringing conduct,” Grande writes.

Going Forward

We assume that many of the mentioned parties will entirely disagree with the insinuation that they could be liable for piracy. Similarly, the record labels will have a different outlook on the matter as well, as will become clear as the case progresses.

 

The above is just a small selection of the arguments and counterpoints presented in the 70-page reply brief. Among other things, it also reiterates that would be a “draconian overreaction” to terminate Internet connections because someone in a household may be pirating.

 

What’s clear, however, is that the stakes are high in this case. Not just for the $47 million that’s on the line here, but also for other ISPs and their subscribers.

 

—

 

A copy of Grande’s reply brief, filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is available here (pdf).

 

Each year around the end of January, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes its annual review of so-called ‘notorious markets’ known for their connections to intellectual property crime.

 

In common with previous years, the 2023 edition published Tuesday highlights “prominent and illustrative” examples of mainly online sites and services that either engage directly in piracy, facilitate it, or simply turn a blind eye to infringement while enjoying the benefits. The USTR’s report aims to motivate governments and various players in the private sector to take appropriate action, wherever that’s possible, to disrupt and limit infringement.

2023 Notorious Markets Review

The 2023 Review of Notorious Markets shows that for a persistent few, annual appearances on the list are now considered more likely than sudden absences. The Pirate Bay is present once again, and the same is true for streaming giant Fmovies and academic research repository Sci-Hub. Russia-based trio Rapidgator (file-hosting), RuTracker (torrents) and VK, the largest social media platform in Russia, also maintain their spots.

 

After an unexplained absence in 2021, YTS.mx reappeared in the report last year. As expected, the most-visited torrent site on the internet also appears in this year’s report.

USTR Highlights Positive Developments, Notable Absentees

Regular readers of the USTR’s reports will have already noted the absence of former torrent giant, RARBG. After being listed as a notorious market for the previous seven years, last May the site suddenly shut down, sending shockwaves through the piracy ecosystem.

 

Since it proved impossible for us to confirm the specific reasons behind the site’s closure, our best attempt at an explanation last September necessarily relied on circumstantial evidence. The USTR links to that article in its report but the specific reasons for RARBG’s demise remain elusive.

 

Nevertheless, RARBG’s place in the report has already been occupied by new entry, TorrentGalaxy, a popular torrent site that effortlessly handled additional users and sudden increases in traffic when RARBG unexpectedly disappeared last year. Reportedly hosted in Romania, TorrentGalaxy has cemented its position as one of the most-visited torrent sites in the world.

 

Other absentees this year include the Premier League-nominated iStreamtoWatch and LalaStreams, which fell following enforcement action by the U.S. government. The USTR also highlights significant enforcement action in 2023 against some of the largest overseas piracy platforms. They come with important caveats, however.

Major Piracy Platforms and the Resurrection Phenomenon

While mitigating the effects of enforcement action is nothing new for pirate sites, today’s ‘hydra response’ can happen at bewildering speed and scale. For some, resilience is already baked in and for those based in problematic jurisdictions, even a more leisurely response can prove effective.

 

In 2023, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment targeted sites operating under Cuevana3 branding that had featured in earlier notorious markets reports. As the USTR notes, the operation was an immediate success, albeit in much the same way earlier operations targeting Cuevana-branded sites had been too; initially devastating but ultimately temporary.

 

“Cuevana’s use of multiple domains has allowed variants of the site to remain operational. Despite successful enforcement efforts that enabled right holders to take control of 22 domain name variants in 2023, mirror sites were able to quickly re-emerge under new domains,” the USTR writes. (Officially nominated as Cuevana3.ch, others include go.cuevana3.news, cuevana3.pro, cuevana3.ma, cuevana3.media, and cuevana3.nu)

 

Mexico-based Pelisplus, a new addition to the 2023 list, is another streaming platform causing problems in Latin America. The USTR says the site services its own visitors but also supplies content to similar sites.

 

“Pelisplus offers a content management system library service — a database that provides access to pirated movies and television series elsewhere in exchange for payment of a fee or other compensation — and also streams its own catalog of pirated movies and television shows,” the USTR reports. (Nominated as pelisplus.icu. Related sites include pelisplushd.to, pelisplushd.lat, pelisplus.in, and pelisplus.ai)

 

After receiving a nomination from the MPA last October, the rapid growth of streaming site Vegamovies earns it a prominent newcomer spot in this year’s report. Operating from several domains, it’s claimed that Vegamovies receives almost 185 million visits per month, which could already mean it’s the most-visited site of its type in the world.

 

Since 96% of its visitors originate from India, Vegamovies has remarkable scope for expansion in international markets.

Vietnam Also Injects Life Into ‘Dead’ Sites

For similar reasons mentioned earlier, regarding Cuevana3, 2embed maintains its notorious status in 2023. The USTR describes 2embed as a “piracy-as-a-service” provider; it crawls pirate sites for infringing content and then supplies it to other platforms.

 

When 2embed inserts its own ads, content is supplied for free; when customers prefer their own ads, that comes at a price. When the MPA reached an agreement for 2embed to shut down, its response was less predictable.

 

“Despite successful enforcement action in July 2023 by right holders and anti-piracy trade associations to shut down 2embed.to, which was run from Vietnam, the site is now operating again using different domains,” the USTR notes. (Nominated as 2embed.me. Related sites include 2embed.cc and 2embed.org)

Reanimating Anime

When the world’s largest anime piracy platform pulled an almost identical stunt around the same time last year, notorious market status was all but inevitable.

 

“Aniwatch, which reportedly became one of the most popular pirate streaming sites in the world this year, also is reportedly a rebrand of a previously popular site, zoro.to,” the USTR notes. “In July 2023, right holders and anti-piracy trade associations shut down zoro.to, which was run from Vietnam, and thereafter the site apparently was rebranded as aniwatch.to.”

 

The USTR notes that resurrections like these “highlight the importance of pursuing piracy site owners and operators, in addition to shutting down the websites, in order to target the root of infringing content and illegal conduct.”

Pirate IPTV in a State of Flux

After various enforcement measures paid off, IPTV platforms Chaloos, Forever IPTV, iStar Media, and Media Star, are absent from the 2023 report.

 

After being listed last year, Globe IPTV – historically one of the largest and longest-standing pirate providers – receives no mention in the report published yesterday. In its place is new entrant GenIPTV, one of the services currently being subjected to unconventional blocking measures at the hands of UK subscription broadcaster, Sky TV.

 

“GenIPTV is one of the largest IPTV providers in the world, reportedly operating through multiple affiliates to sell subscriptions for access to over 10,000 broadcast and streaming channels as well as a video library of over 52,000 copyright-protected titles,” the USTR notes. (Nominated as genip.tv)

 

Vietnam-based BestBuyIPTV remains on the list this year as does Shabakaty, an unlicensed IPTV service operated by EarthLink Telecommunications, the largest Internet service provider in Iraq. Spider, based in Amman, Jordan, keeps its notorious status due to its persistent sale of pre-loaded set-top boxes and unlicensed IPTV subscriptions.

 

After the MPA labeled it a priority target last October, IPTV software solution WHMCS Smarters now appears in the USTR’s full report.

 

“WHMCS Smarters is a company in India that sets customers up in the illegal IPTV business by building for them a customized ‘over the top’ (OTT) IPTV platform from scratch and providing end-to-end support,” the USTR notes.

 

“While WHMCS Smarters states that they do not sell infringing streams, channels, or other content or subscriptions, it does sell the software, tools, and services an individual would need to establish and operate his or her own ‘off the shelf’ illegal IPTV business.”

Music, Shadow Libraries, File-Hosting

Having previously been considered priority enforcement targets, stream-ripping platforms flvto.biz and 2conv.com, and fellow music piracy platforms MP3Juices and NewAlbumReleases, are absent from this year’s report. Instead, SSYoutube.com has burst onto the scene after being identified as the most popular YouTube-ripping platform in the world, pulling in an estimated 343 million visits per month.

 

On the file-hosting front, Krakenfiles (incorrectly listed in the report as Krankenfiles) and Savefrom are new additions to the notorious markets list. There’s no change for shadow libraries Sci-Hub and Libgen, but the USTR now links both platforms with relative newcomer, Annas-archive.org.

 

A copy of the USTR’s 2023 Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf). A list of highlighted sites/services, including those listed for counterfeiting, reads as follows:

 

Torrent Sites

 

– 1337X
– RuTracker
– The Pirate Bay
– TorrentGalaxy (new)
– YTS.mx

 

File-Hosting/Cyberlockers

 

– 1fichier
– Krakenfiles (new)
– Rapidgator
– Savefrom (new)

 

E-Commerce

 

– Aliexpress (no longer listed)
– Baidu Wangpan
– Bukalapak
– DHgate
– Indiamart
– Pinduoduo
– Shopee
– Taobao

 

PaaS

 

– 2embed
– WHMCS Smarters (new)

 

Advertising

 

– Avito

 

Streaming /IPTV

 

– Aniwatch (new)
– BestBuyIPTV
– Cuevana3 (new)
– Fmovies
– GenIPTV (new)
– Pelisplus (new)
– Shabakaty
– Spider
– Streamtape (new)
– VegaMovies (new)

 

Hosting/Infrastructure

 

– Amaratu
– DDoS-Guard (new)
– FlokiNET
– Squitter (new)

 

Social Media

 

– VK
– WeChat

 

Gaming

 

– NSW2U (new)

 

Music

 

– SSYouTube (new)

 

Publishing

 

– Libgen
– Sci-Hub

 

Over the past decade and a half, hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates were taken to court for sharing mostly video content without permission from rightsholders.

 

While this activity is still ongoing, at least to a degree, not all courts have welcomed this type of lawsuit.

 

On several occasions, courts dismissed piracy claims after ruling that “an IP address is not a person”. In 2014, for example, Florida federal court Judge Ursula Ungaro dismissed a lawsuit ruling that IP address evidence can’t identify the person who allegedly shared a pirated movie.

 

Geolocation software might make a reasonably accurate estimate of where the associated account holder lives, but even if an exact home address is known, an IP address can’t identify the person who used it to pirate.

 

“Even if this IP address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” Judge Ungaro explained.

 

Filmmakers who use IP addresses as piracy evidence are generally not keen on this conclusion, especially when it gets in the way of their legal efforts. Intriguingly, however, several movie companies now hope to use it to gain an advantage in their dispute with Reddit.

Film Companies: An IP address is Not a Person

The film companies, which include Voltage Holdings, are no strangers to the IP address argument. They previously filed lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates based on IP address evidence that didn’t result in the desired outcome.

 

A Canadian court, for example, concluded that while IP address evidence may link pirate activity to an internet connection, it can’t conclude that the account holder is the person who committed that offense. Or put differently: an IP address is not a person.

 

So, when Reddit recently defended the anonymous speech of its users in a piracy-related case, arguing that an IP address is “identifying information,” Voltage knew what its response should be.

 

In a reply, the filmmakers counter that sharing the IP addresses of the Reddit users doesn’t violate their anonymous speech rights. IP addresses don’t “unmask” the Redditors, they argue.

 

“Movants are not ‘unmasking’ Reddit’s subscribers. Movants’ subpoena merely requests Internet Protocol (‘IP’) address logs. An IP address is not a person,” the film companies argue, citing Judge Ungaro’s order.

 

“Accordingly, Reddit’s pages of arguments based upon the First Amendment standards for unmasking anonymous speakers are not applicable,” they add.

Anonymous Speech at Stake?

Reddit is concerned that the filmmakers could obtain the identities of the affected users by subpoenaing their ISP for the account holder information behind the IP addresses. While the account holders might not be the Redditors, it potentially puts their anonymity at risk.

 

The film companies previously said that they have no intention of going after the Redditors. Instead, they want to use their comments to show that Internet provider Frontier failed to reasonably implement a policy for terminating repeat infringers.

 

Since disclosing the IP addresses won’t directly identify anyone, their request can’t harm anonymous speech in any way, they add.

 

This reply shows that the request has multiple angles and the tables can be turned be either side. What’s helpful, however, is that the film companies have shared information on want they intend to do with the requested IP addresses.

Narrowing Down the Search

In theory, the Redditors’ households can be potentially identified using Reddit’s IP address logs via a follow-up subpoena to their ISP. However, the filmmakers suggest that identities are not essential to their request. Instead, they see most value in the following information.

 

1. Information that shows the comments were made by people who used a Frontier connection to boast about piracy.

 

2. Identifying the number of copyright infringement notices rightsholders sent to Frontier for the associated IP addresses.

 

 

Neither of these points require the filmmakers to know who the Redditors or associated subscribers are. Then again, without legal guarantees, Reddit may still be concerned that the filmmakers will do more.

Alternatives?

Ultimately, the court will reach a decision after weighing the First Amendment rights of the Redditors against the interests of copyright holders. Previously, the balance tipped in favor of Redditors, twice.

 

In the present dispute the rightsholders only seek IP addresses, not the names and email addresses of Redditors. But whether that will change things remains to be seen.

 

A key reason for the court siding with Reddit previously was that the filmmakers have other options to get similar evidence. The movie companies already have a list of IP addresses that allegedly pirated their films, for example.

 

Reddit also pointed this out in the current dispute, adding that the filmmakers already have a subpoena in hand to obtain the associated subscriber information from Frontier directly.

 

The filmmakers don’t dispute that they are able to get information on Frontier’s pirating subscribers. They indeed have a subpoena in hand, but note that this is limited to the subscribers who shared their films.

 

Given the already available options, the key question is whether the Reddit comments are unique and valuable enough as evidence in the Frontier case, to require Reddit to share the posters’ IP addresses.

 

The filmmakers’ reply indicates that they are open to a compromise. They suggest that, at minimum, they would like to verify that the Redditors were using a Frontier connection.

 

“Movants intend to show that these posts were made from same Frontier IP addresses where multiple notices of infringement were sent to Frontier. At the very least, Movants need to show that these posts were made from Frontier IP addresses for the Court to consider them as evidence,” they write.

 

Both the film companies and Reddit will get the opportunity to explain their motivations and concerns during a forthcoming hearing, after which the court will likely issue its decision.

 

—

 

A copy of the reply from Voltage Holdings, LLC; Screen Media Ventures, LLC; Killing Link Distribution, LLC; Family of the Year Productions, LLC; and Laundry Films, Inc is available here (pdf)

 

Pirate sites were early adopters of cryptocurrency. The Pirate Bay, for example, started accepting bitcoin donations in 2013.

 

At the time, a single bitcoin was worth roughly $120, just a fraction of today’s price of $43,000. If The Pirate Bay had kept all donations received it would have millions in bitcoin today.

 

Movie2K was another pirate site that showed an early interest in bitcoin. In its heyday, the site was the dominant pirate streaming portal in German-speaking countries. It generated a healthy revenue stream, part of it held in bitcoin.

Movie2K Bitcoin Loot

The operator of the site never got to spend most of it though. The site surprisingly shut down in the spring of 2013. Many suspected that legal troubles had plagued the site, something confirmed years later when Dresden police announced several arrests.

 

It was rare to see new activity in an already-dated dossier, but the biggest surprise followed later when the police announced that $29.7m in bitcoin had been secured from the site’s operators.

 

This ‘seizure’ was one of the largest of its kind but the authorities estimated that the operators had more bitcoin stashed away, much more. Today, new information released by Dresden police shows that the assumption was correct.

50,000 Bitcoin Secured

Following an investigation carried out by the Dresden General Prosecutor’s Office, the Saxony State Criminal Police, and the local tax authority (INES), nearly 50,000 bitcoin were ‘provisionally’ secured earlier this month. The haul is worth more than $2 billion at today’s exchange rate.

 

Never before has this much bitcoin been secured by German authorities; it’s also one of the largest crypto hauls worldwide.

 

“The Bitcoins were seized after the accused voluntarily transferred them to official wallets provided by the [Federal Criminal Police Office]. This means that a final decision has not yet been made about the utilization of the Bitcoins,” police write.

Operators Bought Bitcoin

The German authorities received help from forensic experts at the FBI to secure these assets. According to publicly released information, the operators earned money through advertising and dodgy subscription scams.

 

Interestingly, the site operators didn’t necessarily get paid in bitcoin; they purchased the coins. They started converting their revenue to bitcoin in 2012 when it was worth just a few dollars per coin.

 

Looking back, this must be one of the best investments ever made, although the operators don’t get to enjoy it. As noted by Tarnkappe, a 40-year-old German and a 37-year-old Polish man remain under investigation for copyright infringement and money laundering.

 

It’s not clear whether the authorities believe that all Movie2K bitcoin have now been secured, or if they have even more in their sights.

 

Founded in 1996, the Internet Archive has built an unparalleled library of digital artifacts in less than three decades.

 

Many people are familiar with the website archiving project “Wayback Machine” but the non-profit also has many other preservation projects underway.

 

These meticulous archiving skills are a vital part of the digital history books, which are being ‘written’ as we speak. However, good intentions themselves are not immune to copyright complaints, or worse, multi-million dollar lawsuits.

The Great 78 Project

Six years ago, the Archive teamed up with other libraries and experts to archive the sounds of 78-rpm vinyl records, which are obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio, including all crackles and hisses, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl disintegrates.

 

The ‘Great 78 Project‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans. However, not all music industry insiders were happy with it, as the copying took place without obtaining permission from all rightsholders.

 

The Great 78 Project
 

Last summer, a group of major music labels including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, decided to take action. In a complaint filed at a U.S. federal court, they sued the Internet Archive, its founder Brewster Kale, and others they believe are responsible.

 

“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the labels wrote.

 

With 2,749 recordings at stake, the potential statutory damages could run to more than $400 million. However, the Internet Archive (IA) sees things differently, believing that the ‘Great 78 Project’ is fair use.

IA Files Motion to Dismiss

Filed a few days ago, IA’s motion to dismiss stresses that it’s important to archive these older records, some of which date back to the late 19th century. The records have been obsolete since the 1950s but that doesn’t mean that their sounds should be lost forever, IA argues.

 

“The specific quality of the sound, including the peculiar and distinct crackles and other imperfections that are a hallmark of this antiquated medium formed an indelible part of American culture for many decades,” the motion notes.

 

“But the physical recordings themselves tend to disintegrate over time—and as the complete set of these old records gradually becomes unplayable, their unique contributions to our history is on a precipitous path to oblivion.”

 

IA’s motion
 

The lawsuit will ultimately have to decide whether the ‘The Great 78 Project’ is allowed to exist under U.S. copyright law. The motion to dismiss also deals with another time-sensitive issue.

 

Specifically, IA argues that many of the works should be removed from the lawsuit, as the labels failed to take timely action following a cease and desist letter the RIAA sent in 2020. This letter pointed out concrete copyright concerns, but the labels allegedly took too long before filing their lawsuit.

RIAA’s Cease and Desist

The U.S. Copyright Act has a three-year statute of limitations. This means that, after discovering concrete copyright infringements, a lawsuit has to be filed within this window. That didn’t happen here, according to IA.

 

The RIAA letter didn’t list any specific recordings but referenced artists including Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday. It further characterized IA as a platform that enables piracy on a massive scale, mentioning “thousands” of recordings.

 

“Although the Internet Archive is rife with infringing copies of sound recordings, perhaps the most prominent example of this infringement is the ‘Great 78 Project’,” RIAA wrote in its letter.

 

“Your unauthorized reproduction, distribution and public performance of these recordings is a plain violation of the RIAA member companies’ rights under the Classics Protection and Access Act (‘Classics Act’), 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and constitutes nothing less than piracy on a massive scale.”

 

RIAA letter

IA Replied

IA’s motion to dismiss recognizes that the RIAA sent this letter. At the same time, it adds more context, pointing out that founder Brewster Kahle replied to the letter. Among other things, Kahle noted that rightsholders can send takedown notices or request the exclusion of certain artists and recordings.

 

According to the motion to dismiss, RIAA never responded to this reply, and the project continued in the years that followed.

 

“Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle promptly responded that the project would gladly exclude any digitization of the labels’ recordings that they identified to Internet Archive. The record labels never responded to that letter,” the motion reads.

 

A follow-up eventually came when the RIAA member labels filed a lawsuit, more than three years later. The timing is important, as IA argues that the lawsuit falls outside the three-year statute of limitations.

Statute of Limitations

According to U.S. copyright law, the three-year period begins when a rightsholder ‘discovers’ the infringement. IA now argues that the labels were aware of alleged “Great 78 Project” infringements when the RIAA sent its letter.

 

“[T]he letter acknowledges plaintiffs’ belief, as of July 22, 2020, that ‘thousands’ of recordings had already been digitized and uploaded to the Great 78 Project, including those by specific named artists,” IA writes.

 

“And even if Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of those alleged acts of infringement, the RIAA letter at a minimum demonstrates that a reasonable plaintiff ‘should have discovered’ the alleged infringement and that a cause of action for infringement had accrued as of that date.”

 

The IA argues that since many claims fall outside the three-year period, they should be dismissed. While some claims may remain, this will help to significantly narrow the scope of the case, as well as the potential damages.

 

At the time of writing, the labels have yet to respond to IA’s argument. They may see things differently but, on the surface, the timing seems unfortunate. Had they filed their case a few weeks earlier, this issue wouldn’t have come up.

 

Finally, the Kahle-Austin Foundation filed a separate motion to dismiss. The foundation argues that there are no grounds to include it in the lawsuit, as it only helps to fund the Internet Archive.

 

—

 

The motion to dismiss filed by the Internet Archive and related defendants is available here (pdf). The motion from the Kahle-Austin Foundation 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. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on January 29 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(5)	Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom	6.7 / trailer
2	(3)	Wonka	7.3 / trailer
3	(…)	Wish	5.7 / trailer
4	(1)	The Marvels	5.7 / trailer
5	(…)	Ferrari	6.7 / trailer
6	(…)	Migration	6.7 / trailer
7	(4)	Oppenheimer	8.5 / trailer
8	(2)	Napoleon	6.5 / trailer
9	(6)	Killers of the Flower Moon	7.9 / trailer
10	(…)	Night Swim	4.8 / trailer

Last Friday, we reported on two Freedom of Information Act requests directed at two regional police forces in the UK.

 

In almost identical requests, which appear to have been filed by the same person, Wiltshire Police and West Yorkshire Police were asked eight questions relating to enforcement measures taken against suppliers, distributors, and consumers of illegal streaming services.

 

Both police forces said that no information was readily accessible, adding that it would take so long to retrieve information manually that the estimated costs rendered both requests ineligible for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. That was disappointing.

 

A key component of an ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the UK includes sensitizing the public to the risk of being convicted for fraud offenses carrying prison sentences of up to 10 years. Not for getting involved in the supply or sale of pirate streams, but for simply watching them.

 

Certainly, legal theory doesn’t rule out the possibility, but in a campaign that relies almost entirely on fear, hard independent facts would’ve been a welcome addition.

Information Accessible, Reasonably Priced

During the weekend, we learned that the eight questions covering the five-year period 2019-2023, rejected by Wiltshire Police and West Yorkshire Police for being too costly to answer, were also sent to Greater Manchester Police (GMP). With just one exception (question 7 relating to the supply of illegal streams, see earlier article) GMP answered every question.

 

GMP reports that two people received a police caution for distributing or supplying illegal streaming services in 2021. During the same year, a total of two people were arrested for distributing or supplying illegal streaming services.

 

There’s insufficient information in the response to determine whether the two people arrested in 2021 were the same people who received cautions in 2021. In 2022, one person was arrested for distributing or supplying illegal streaming services.

Distribution, Supply, & Viewing

Since GMP declined to answer question seven (which relates exclusively to the supply of illegal streams) but were happy respond to question six (which mentions both distribution and supply) it seems likely that all figures released here relate to distribution.

 

Overall then, a maximum of three arrests and two cautions in a five-year period doesn’t sound like a lot, even accounting for the possibility of additional arrests/cautions/fines relating to action under question 7.

 

Based on how many members of the public could be affected by the purported fraud prosecutions publicized in the media, we now turn to the most important disclosures by GMP with government figures for context.

 

The most recent data published by the Intellectual Property Office estimates that in 2022 alone, 3.9 million people in the UK watched live sports via illegal streams.

How many of the 3.9 million live in GMP’s area is unknown but, with almost 500 square miles of mostly urban conurbation and a population of 2.8 million, it accounts for 5% of the overall UK population.

 

In its response to the FOIA request, Greater Manchester Police reveal that the number of people cautioned, fined and/or arrested for simply watching illegal streams in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 combined, was…..zero.

Inconvenient Facts Are Still Facts

GMP’s disclosure doesn’t come as a surprise but seeing the zero figure in black and white confirms our suspicions. Had there been a single arrest anywhere in the UK, purely for watching illegal streams, no effort would’ve been spared to ensure everyone heard about it.

 

Whether similar disclosures will appear in the days and weeks ahead is unknown but thanks to GMP’s ability to accurately retrieve information, at least some facts have entered the public domain. If West Midlands Police or Leicestershire Police receive similar requests, their record retrieval skills shouldn’t disappoint.

 

For a six-week period early 2023, West Midlands Police were able to report that four crimes were linked to Prime Energy drink, (pdf) including assault, harassment, criminal damage, and theft from a machine. None of the offenses related to the extortionate price of the drink, however.

 

In response to a FOIA request to disclose caller logs that featured terms including ‘UFO’, ‘Alien’, ‘UAP’ and ‘spaceship’, Leicestershire Police went to considerable lengths to protect caller privacy (pdf).

 

After being provided with an example of appropriate redaction (“Male caller named (REDACTED) reports seeing four flashing lights hovering above his property in (REDACTED) street before a female was beamed into the sky”) the force published a spreadsheet. It lists 65 calls but no information that could identify any particular caller.

 

West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.

 

GMP’s response to the FOIA request related to streaming is available here (pdf)