Plex is a multifunctional media software and service that allows users to easily access all of their entertainment in one place.

 

The company was founded in 2009 and today boasts 16 million active monthly streaming users, making Plex a serious market player.

 

Most people use the service for perfectly legitimate purposes. On the fringes, however, some users abuse the software to share pirate libraries publicly, a considerable thorn in the side for rightsholders.

 

A few weeks ago Plex announced that it would take action against abusive practices. In an apparent attempt to stop widespread copyright infringement, the service announced that it would ban servers hosted at Hetzner, as these are frequently linked to terms of service violations.

 

Plex never confirmed that copyright infringement concerns were behind this decision, but that would be the most logical explanation. The company is focusing more and more on offering legal streaming media and would like to shake off copyright infringement associations.

ZUMA Press Sues Plex

Although Plex hasn’t been sued by any major Hollywood players, the company is currently involved in a peculiar copyright infringement lawsuit.

 

A few weeks ago, ZUMA Press filed a complaint at a federal court in California, accusing Plex of using a photo of actress Cuca Escribano on its website, without permission. The photo was shot by Jose Perez Gegundez who typically licenses it to third parties for a fee.

 

 

Plex allegedly used the photo without permission, which the photographer’s licensing partner ZUMA Press discovered in April of last year.

 

“Without permission or authorization from Plaintiff, Defendant volitionally copied and/or displayed Plaintiff’s copyright protected Photograph on the Website,” the complaint reads.

Photo Removed

At the time of writing the photo is no longer hosted on Plex’s website or server but an exhibit shared by the plaintiffs shows that this was the case previously. The same photo is still in use by The Movie DB, one of Plex’s data suppliers.

 

 

ZUMA Press alerted Plex to the alleged copyright infringement on March 2 this year. Whether that was a simple takedown notice or whether there were further demands attached isn’t clear, but the press agency wasn’t happy.

 

“Plaintiff, via counsel, served a letter by electronic mail to Defendant seeking to address the complaints contained herein concerning Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s rights-protected works, to no avail,” the complaint reads.

 

Plex has yet to respond to the complaint but it seems likely that the company would like to resolve this matter without much fanfare. As the Hetzner ban shows, the company has little interest in copyright controversies.

 

—

 

A copy of the complaint is available here (pdf). Plex is expected to file a response later this month. There is just one photo mentioned in the lawsuit, which means that the potential damages are limited

 

A few years ago, book piracy was considered a fringe activity that rarely made the news, but times have changed.

 

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice targeted popular shadow library Z-Library, accusing it of mass copyright infringement. Two of the site’s alleged operators were arrested and their prosecution is still pending.

 

In recent months, shadow libraries have also been named in other lawsuits. Publishers sued Libgen over “staggering” levels of infringement, for example. At the same time, several lawsuits accused OpenAI of using Libgen and other unauthorized libraries to train their large language models.

 

These legal efforts have put the operators of shadow libraries under serious pressure, but they remain online, at least for now. In fact, the crackdown on Z-Library propelled a new player into the mix last year; Anna’s Archive.

Anna’s Archive Expands

Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for book piracy sources and shadow libraries. The site launched days after Z-Library was targeted last November, to ensure and facilitate the availability of books and articles to the broader public.

 

 

With more than 20 million indexed books and nearly 100 million papers – many of which are shared without permission – Anna’s Archive has come a long way already. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by the public at large, as the meta-search engine has more than 12 million monthly visits according to recent traffic estimates.

 

For Anna’s Archive, this is all just the beginning. The people behind the site aim to play a crucial role in preserving all available books in the world, even if that means being at odds with copyright law.

Scraping WorldCat’s Billion+ Records

This week, the search engine announced a new milestone that should help it reach this ultimate goal. Over the past several months, Anna’s Archive has been secretly scraping WorldCat, the world’s largest book metadata database..

 

WorldCat is run by the non-profit organization OCLC and works with tens of thousands of libraries globally. Its database is proprietary and not freely available but Anna’s Archive managed to bypass the restrictions, to make their own copy freely available.

 

“Even though OCLC is a non-profit, their business model requires protecting their database. Well, we’re sorry to say, friends at OCLC, we’re giving it all away,” Anna’s Archive notes.

 

The meta-search engine says it managed to scrape a staggering three terabytes of metadata. The dataset includes 1.3 billion unique IDs that, after removing duplicates and other noise, equate to 700 million unique records.

Superior Goal

The average user is probably not especially interested in downloading metadata; they want books. However, Anna’s Archive believes that these records will help to achieve its ultimate goal.

 

“We think this release marks a major milestone in mapping out all the books in the world. We can now work on making a TODO list of all the books that still need to be preserved.

 

“That is a massive undertaking that requires a lot of people and institutions working on it, both legal and shadow libraries, and we hope to be a cornerstone in this effort,” Anna informs TorrentFreak.

 

Scraping WorldCat is just the first step. The next is to put this information to work and figure out how complete the current library offerings are.

Making Sense of The Data

The WorldCat data isn’t just limited to books but also includes music, video, and online articles. This has to be cleaned up and deduplicated, which requires some advanced data science skills.

 

“This is why we’re looking to get the community involved, and why we’re hosting the mini-competition for data scientists. It’s a massive dataset, and we need some help,” Anna says.

 

 

In a blog post announcing the new changes and competition, the meta-search engine also notes that AI researchers have shown an interest in the project. This makes sense, as large libraries are ideal for training LLM’s.

AI and Legal Risks

Many commercial AI tools, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are believed to have been trained on books from shadow libraries. This triggered a flurry of copyright infringement lawsuits that are ongoing.

 

Right now, there is still a lot of uncertainty about what data can be used and under what conditions but courts and lawmakers will offer more guidance on that front in the years to come.

 

The uncertainty hasn’t stopped AI groups from reaching out to Anna’s Archive, which receives emails from LLM creators every day and is actively working with several unnamed parties.

 

Needless to say, running the largest shadow library search engines is not without risk. Publishers and authors likely see Anna’s Archive as a massive piracy operation and legal threats are constantly looming.

 

Anna’s Archive is well aware of these risks and is “obviously very worried”. However, the team behind the site believes that these risks are worth taking in the grander scheme of things.

 

“We believe that efforts like ours to preserve the legacy of humanity should be fully legal, and that copyright is way too strict. But alas, this is not to be. We take every precaution. This mission is so important that it’s worth the risks,” Anna concludes.

 

Dozens of large anti-piracy awareness campaigns have come and gone over the years and while approaches have differed, there’s no confusion when it comes to their common goal.

 

With serious heavyweight backing, the new ‘BeStreamWise’ anti-piracy campaign aims to deter the use of pirate IPTV services in the UK. It deploys familiar techniques to shape public perception but right off the bat there’s an elephant in the room.

 

At least as far as we can determine, there have been no press releases heralding BeStreamWise, or indeed any other mainstream media efforts that could ensure maximum penetration for what is obviously an awareness campaign.

 

That being said, there are some indications that a short video produced by BeStreamWise has already been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. With a running time of just 15 seconds it’s certainly short, but if a campaign wanted to target social media and/or search engine users looking for something in particular, dropping in something like this would make perfect sense.

 

 

Uploaded to YouTube on September 12, the clip above already has over 484,000 views but not even one person was moved to leave a comment. The BeStreamWise channel itself has only six subscribers, but it appears that the campaign didn’t begin online.

People Love Offers Too Good to Be True

To demonstrate how easily people will hand over their personal details, BeStreamWise hired Jenny Radcliffe, aka ‘The People Hacker’.

 

Radcliffe lectures on topics including social engineering, frauds and con artistry. Here she plays a salesperson for a new streaming service called MalStreams, offering free lifetime subscriptions from a pop-up stand in London’s Paddington Station.

 

 

The ‘con’ strategy deployed here is simple; First, commuters’ faith in the judgment of the management team behind one of the most famous stations in the country probably precluded the possibility of a brazen, broad daylight scam.

 

Couple that with the unlikely scenario that scammers accepted the considerable expense and risk of selling an illegal product in a high-footfall location, the targets’ preconceptions most likely ruled an illegal product completely out. As a result, at least a handful of people liked the idea of ‘free streaming for life’ and went on to sign up to the bogus MalStreams service.

 

Unsurprisingly, the number of people who rejected the too-good-to-be-true offer isn’t revealed; it’s a campaign to shape public perceptions after all, not a peer-reviewed study. Those who did fill in their personal details were subjected to a clip depicting some kind of hacker attack, followed by the message: “You’ve Just Let Criminals In.”

 

 

“Streaming services offering free content from other platforms can be too good to be true and aren’t always legal. Illegal streaming can let criminals into your devices and network. Giving them access to your personal and financial information, exposing you to scams, fraud and even identity theft,” ‘subscribers’ were informed after the dust settled.

 

“BeStreamWise and recognize the personal dangers of illegal streaming. Find safer ways to enjoy your favorite content on BeStreamWise.com.”

The BeStreamWise Portal

The campaign portal rigidly follows current anti-piracy messaging by focusing on the four pillars of danger established over the past few years (cited verbatim).

 

Viruses and Malware: When accessing illegal streams, whether through free streaming sites or via apps, add-ons or devices, you are at risk of receiving malicious software. This gives criminals access to your network or your device compromising your personal data.

 

 

ID Theft, Scams, Fraud: Streaming via illegal methods puts you at risk of being exposed to fraud and data theft. This risk increases significantly when users exchange credit or debit card information to view content on unregulated and illicit websites.

 

Inappropriate Content: Watching content via an illicit source can expose younger viewers to age-inappropriate content. These unauthorized websites, devices, apps, add-ons, and the content they can access have no parental controls.

 

Funding Wider Criminality: When you use illegal streams, you risk letting criminals in. Illegal streaming services are increasingly operated by sophisticated criminal networks, often involved in other types of crime.

Who Wants Brits to BeStreamWise?

The campaign portal presents BeStreamWise as an organization made up of eight named members and possibly more. In the order they appear: Federation Against Copyright Theft, the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office, the CrimeStoppers charity, British Association for Screen Entertainment (BASE), Sky, Premier League, and free-to-air broadcaster, ITV.

 

While Sky, Premier League and ITV are well known in their own right, BASE (which used to be a member of FACT) is particularly worthy of mention.

 

BASE members include Universal, Disney, Warner Brothers, MGM, Paramount, Sony Pictures, StudioCanal, Sky Store, Virgin Media, BT TV, CrunchyRoll, Kaleidoscope, Lionsgate, Mattel, Freemantle Media, and Spirit Entertainment, the largest independent home entertainment sales and distribution company handling content for the BBC, Film4, and ITV Studios.

 

 

Members of the Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness include Sky, Warner Bros., and Sony Pictures, and it appears the BeStreamWise campaign has already taken to the streets of Belfast. The billboard in the image above was snapped by a Reddit user in the past few days.

 

While there are a number of campaign participants, Sky’s involvement stands out in a number of ways.

 

Links in the footer of the BeStreamWise website link to terms and conditions and privacy pages on Sky websites, while the bestreamwise.com domain’s security certificate is directly linked to other Sky domains.

 

This could simply mean that the broadcaster’s contribution includes technical assistance but Sky UK Limited is also listed as the owner of trademark application UK00003955720. Dated September 2023, the BeStreamWise trademark covers the categories listed below.

 

Facts From Studies Unavailable to the Public

As one might expect, the portal also features claims from various studies, including 90% of Illegal Streaming Sites Are Classified as Risky, 32% of People Have Been Victims of Fraud, and 2.7 Million Devices Have Been Infected With Viruses.

 

The names of the studies are cited but beyond the curated soundbites previously offered by the industry groups that commissioned the research, the studies aren’t openly published or even made fully available on request. As previously reported, requests to see underlying research have met with obstruction, which by default casts doubt on all claims, at least until properly evidenced.

 

That doesn’t imply that threats don’t exist, they certainly do, but if an entire campaign is based on the existence of specific, ubiquitous threats, there can be zero harm in linking to the full studies, including the methodology.

 

Until then, many of the companies listed above are facing the prospect of a new round of website blocking, this time featuring their own domain. Following an allegation of spreading misinformation, bestreamwise.com has been placed on a popular DNS blocklist which aims to “keep the internet clean.”

 

Tom Cruise’s “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” hasn’t had the easiest path to the silver screen.

 

The film’s production started right before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and the planned theatrical release was pushed back several times, to eventually premiere in June 2023.

 

With well over half a billion dollars in global box office revenues, the film has been quite a success. The mission is not complete though, as the digital release, scheduled for October 10, has not yet rolled out.

 

With anticipation just starting to build again, the film has suffered yet another setback. A few days ago, high-quality pirated copies of the new Mission Impossible film began circulating on pirate sites. The fact that it leaked ahead of the official digital release makes it even worse.

Mission Impossible Leaks

These types of leaks are common enough not to make the news but, in this case, something stands out. In common with the COVID-19 pandemic, all signs suggest that the leak originated from China, as evidenced by this full-screen mention of the China Film Administration that prominently appears in the leak before the movie begins.

From the pirated release

 

The China Film Administration (CFA) is led by the communist party of China. Among other things, it issues film screening licenses, which are displayed through an animated dragon logo at the start of films, as is the case here.

 

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Administration itself has anything to do with the leak. However, the Dragon logo does indicate that the leak is linked to China in some way or another.

Chinese Subtitles

In addition to the Film Administration’s pre-roll, the release comes with hardcoded Chinese and English subtitles. Although several pirate releases are tagged “KORSUB,” the captions represent another Chinese connection.

 

Hardcoded subtitles

 

Needless to say, Paramount Pictures and director Tom Cruise won’t be happy with this early leak. However, stopping it from spreading further is literally an impossible mission now that it’s widely circulating through hundreds of pirate sites all over the world.

 

Interestingly, the leak appeared shortly after the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) sent a submission to the US Trade Representative, suggesting that China could do more to combat piracy.

Rightsholders Raise Chinese Piracy Concerns

The IIPA mentioned that the film industry has signaled numerous piracy issues in China. They include the problem of illegal recording or ‘camming’ in movie theaters, a concern that was previously shared with Chinese government agencies, including the China Film Administration.

 

“Unauthorized camcording of movies in theaters—a key source for online audiovisual infringements—remains a significant problem in China for the film industry. Also fueling the growing camcording problem is the increasing problem of people in Chinese movie theaters using cameras, including those on handheld mobile devices, to live-stream theatrical broadcasts of films online.

 

“The motion picture industry has raised the camcording issue with relevant Chinese government agencies, e.g., China Film Administration (CFA), NCAC, and the China Film Distribution and Exhibition Association (CFDEA),” IIPA added.

 

The good news is that “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” didn’t leak from China in a cammed version. However, this high-quality release ahead of the digital premiere might be just as bad.

 

Thus far, the advance pirate release hasn’t broken any records. While hundreds of thousands of people have already downloaded or streamed a copy, it appears that the hardcoded subtitles put off at least part of the potential audience.

 

“Two sets of subtitles that’s just silly, PASS!,” one commenter notes on a popular pirate site, with another adding that they will wait for the digital release because the subtitles are “too distracting.”

 

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

 

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

 

This week we have four newcomers on the list. “Gran Turismo” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 02 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Gran Turismo	7.3 / trailer
2	(…)	Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One	7.9 / trailer
3	(1)	Blue Beetle	6.3 / trailer
4	(2)	Barbie	7.3 / trailer
5	(3)	Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny	6.7 / trailer
6	(…)	Reptile	6.9 / trailer
7	(6)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
8	(…)	57 Seconds	5.2 / trailer
9	(7)	Meg 2: The Trench	5.3 / trailer
10	(8)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	8.8 / trailer

 

 

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

 

Voltage Holdings is one of many mostly American movie companies that have attempted to turn piracy into profit over the last 15 years. A lawsuit the company filed in Canada is broadly the same as others filed elsewhere but the same cannot be said about the outcome.

Background

In 2017, piracy monitoring company Maverickeye collected IP addresses of BitTorrent users sharing the Voltage-owned sci-fi movie ‘Revolt’. Canada operates a so-called ‘notice-and-notice’ regime so Voltage identified the ISPs related to the IP addresses and warning notices were sent to the relevant subscribers. Second notices were sent after Maverickeye found the same IP addresses sharing the same work a week or more later.

 

In March 2018, Voltage filed a statement of claim against 110 ‘Doe’ defendants, identified only by their IP addresses. Voltage later obtained a so-called Norwich order which compelled the ISPs to disclose the names and addresses of the subscribers.

 

Voltage labeled a subset of those subscribers “the worst of the worst” and since they failed to respond, the company requested default judgment at Canada’s Federal Court.

 

Justice Angela Furlanetto agreed the defendants were in default but since Voltage only presented IP address-based evidence, questions remained over who had actually shared the movie.

 

The Judge said that there wasn’t enough evidence to show a direct link to the subscriber or draw an adverse inference. Voltage argued that if the subscriber wasn’t the infringer, the fact that they had already received warnings under Canada’s ‘notice-and-notice’ regime, among other things, meant that they should be held liable for ‘authorizing’ infringement carried out by others.

 

In June 2022, Justice Furlanetto declined default judgment but also refused to dismiss the case. Voltage was given more time to present evidence to support direct infringement or authorization but the company took its case to the Federal Court of Appeal instead.

Basis for Voltage’s Appeal

In its 36-page memorandum filed in November 2022, Voltage outlined two legal theories; either the billpayers pirated the movie themselves (direct infringement), or they authorized someone else’s direct infringement by allowing them to continue pirating Voltage’s movie, despite receiving warning notices from their ISPs.

 

Arguments were heard on March 28, 2023, and three appeal court judges (Justices Donald J. Rennie, David W. Stratas, Wyman W. Webb) handed down their judgment last week.

 

The judgment says that the appeal engages two issues: the jurisprudence on what constitutes direct infringement and authorizing infringement, and the burden of proof and circumstances under which an adverse inference can be drawn.

 

“These issues are closely interrelated. The jurisprudence with respect to the law of copyright determines the minimum evidentiary requirements to establish the asserted types of infringement; in other words, the jurisprudence constrains the extent to which an adverse inference may be drawn in the context of online copyright infringement,” the judgment reads.

Judgment Guided By Supreme Court Ruling in 2022

According to Voltage, once it had presented all “technologically available” evidence to the Court, a “tactical burden of proof” shifted to the internet subscribers. This effectively meant they had to show they were not the infringers. In respect of its authorization claims, Voltage said that Justice Furlanetto was wrong to insist on more evidence; the fact that the subscribers received notices yet failed to control their internet connections was sufficient.

 

The judgment deals with the authorization claims first, guided by a Supreme Court decision handed down in 2022 in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association.

 

“The Supreme Court endorsed the Copyright Board’s determination that ‘it is the act of posting [the work] that constitutes authorization’ because the person who makes the work available ‘either controls or purports to control the right to communicate it’ and ‘invites anyone with Internet access to have the work communicated to them. The authorizer is the individual directly engaging with the copyrighted material,” the judgment clarifies.

 

As a result, the Court of Appeal says that whoever used the subscribers’ internet connections to make Voltage’s movie available for download, authorized the infringement. The Supreme Court found that an authorizer permits reproduction but Voltage claims that an authorizer is someone who permits someone to permit reproduction.

 

The difference in opinion would prove fatal.

Collisions in Copyright Law

Justice Rennie says the Voltage appeal fails to show “any reversible error” in the Federal Court’s decision. Furthermore, Voltage’s arguments on authorization are “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision. Voltage’s claims of direct infringement also run into trouble.

 

“Although it accepted that individuals using each respondents’ IP address had infringed the appellant’s copyright by uploading the Work, the Federal Court found that it could not conclude at this time that the respondents were themselves those particular
individuals. I agree,” Justice Rennie writes.

 

On the question of a subscriber’s failure to defend, the Judge agrees that can lead to an adverse inference. However, just because a defendant is found to be in default at an early stage, it does not necessarily follow that an adverse inference should be drawn at the same stage.

 

“If the fact that a defendant was in default automatically allowed for adverse inferences at the second stage of the test for motions for default judgment, plaintiffs on ex parte motions for default judgment would need to present no evidence to the court in order to be successful. Some evidence is required,” Justice Rennie continues.

 

Indeed, the Federal Court held that “something more is needed than the bare assertion that a subscriber is, by default, the user responsible for infringement.” Voltage failed to provide sufficient evidence, the Court of Appeal notes, so no adverse inference could be drawn.

Court of Appeal Tightens the Noose

Voltage’s reliance on infringement warnings to show subscribers’ failure to exercise control – over internet connections and connected devices – fails.

 

As clarified in the Supreme Court decision, authorization depends on the alleged authorizer’s control over the person who committed the resulting infringement; it does not depend on the alleged authorizer’s control over the supply of their technology.

 

Furthermore, to establish an infringing activity, there must be evidence to show what the activity does to the work in question.

 

“Posting a work online and inviting others to view it engages the author’s authorization right; however, sharing internet access after receiving notices of alleged infringement does nothing to the work in question, and does not therefore engage any copyright interest granted to the author exclusively,” the Court of Appeal notes.

Conclusion: Voltage’s Appeal is Dismissed

From the judgment: “In the factual matrix of this case and at this relatively early stage of this case, the defendants’ lack of participation in litigation does not offset the plaintiff’s lack of evidence.

 

“The Federal Court was not obligated to draw an adverse inference at this stage of the litigation merely because the respondents had, by their silence, not put forward sufficient evidence to rebut the appellant’s allegations,” Justice Rennie concludes.

 

For these reasons, Justices Rennie, Stratas, and Webb, dismissed the appeal.

 

The full judgment is available here (pdf)

 

In our brave new world where millions of ordinary people are copyright holders of snaps they publish to social media or videos they upload to YouTube, awareness of copyright law is at an all-time high.

 

Evidence is easily found on Reddit, where users of /r/copyright and similar subs answer questions including: “Can I print t-shirts with Batman on the front if I only do a few and give them away?” and “Is it copyright if nobody knows I copied a song and changed it so it sounds nothing like the original?”

 

Similar gems are a regular occurrence on YouTube. Who hasn’t seen copies of well-known tracks uploaded in full and protected by the statement: “I do not own this song. Full credits go to the copyright owner. No copyright infringement intended.”

 

And then there’s the increasing number of channels posting ‘copyright disclaimers’ citing Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, stating that since everything on the channel is ‘fair use’, channel owners are exempt and can never be sued.

 

 

While exemption is an interesting proposition, the image above appears to show a channel going further still; while happily claiming fair use ‘protection’ for themselves, they warn of legal penalties should anyone else use “any part” of their video.

Success, Fair Use and Lawsuits

With lots of hard work and even more luck, these channels could one day be as successful as the award-winning H3 Podcast. Created by Ethan and Hila Klein, the channel has over 2.93 million subscribers and almost 1.2 billion views.

 

Not only are the Klein’s experts in growing a brand and popularizing their work, they are also very knowledgeable about copyright law, and particularly well-versed when it comes to fair use. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped them from being sued; of the last seven years or so, at least three years have been spent defending copyright infringement lawsuits.

 

The Klein’s emerged victorious from a lawsuit in 2017 after mounting a successful fair use defense. That wasn’t without its traumas; copyright lawsuits can be extremely expensive and the Kleins’ lives may have taken a different turn had fans not donated $170,000 towards their defense.

119 Seconds of Boxing, 124 Weeks of Litigation (and counting)

It’s not uncommon for the H3 Podcast to discuss current events, providing the type of commentary and criticism that allows for the limited use of copyrighted content without having to obtain prior permission. In April 2021, in the wake of Jake Paul’s 119-second knockout of former UFC fighter Ben Askren, H3 Podcast declared the fight “a disaster” in a video on YouTube, alongside footage of the fight to back up their claims.

 

Event promotor Triller responded with a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding $50 million in damages. Four months later, H3 Podcast’s attorneys filed an extremely detailed motion to dismiss, most likely at considerable expense.

 

If those ‘fair use immunity’ disclaimers on YouTube actually worked, H3 Podcast wouldn’t be spending money defending the use of a clip that represents just a fraction of a four-hour broadcast. Admittedly, things were complicated somewhat by Ethan’s claim on the show that he hadn’t actually paid for the fight.

 

Indeed, the clip shown on the YouTube podcast was actually a pirated copy that Ethan had uploaded to a different YouTube channel as an unlisted video. Of course, Triller’s legal team seized the opportunity to pile on the pressure.

Does a URL in a Video Infringe Copyright

With a subtle shift in tactics, Triller said it had no interest in stifling H3’s commentary and criticism, in a video that had already generated a million views. Triller even implied that under slightly different circumstances, the clip of the fight shown in the commentary video could’ve been shown legally, if it wasn’t for the defendants’ “negligence, willfulness, or maliciousness, or some combination thereof.”

 

The image below shows a screenshot of that video, with the offending information redacted.

 

 

The fact that the URL of the unlisted video appeared in H3’s commentary piece (‘distribution video’) allowed Triller to claim that the video facilitated the infringements of those who watched the fight on the unlisted channel, which relied on H3’s directly infringing upload.

Order on H3’s Motion to Dismiss

With the lawsuit now into its third year, the court has just ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by H3. One aspect of that motion argued that Triller’s claims fail because the unlisted fight video was ‘fixed’ after the broadcast was transmitted. The court found that since Triller alleged that H3 had a copy of the video, but wasn’t on the list of those authorized to obtain the broadcast, at this stage, the company’s allegations are sufficient.

 

The court’s handling of the URL in the unlisted video, which appeared in the commentary video unredacted, went as follows:

 

Defendants made the Unlisted Video independently accessible by displaying its URL in the Distribution Video. Anyone with that URL was able to access the Unlisted Video. At the time of the briefing of the Motion, it appears that the Unlisted Video had been viewed 65 times.

 

Although the Distribution Video displayed the URL in small font, and although no one spoke on the Distribution Video urging viewers to watch the Unlisted Video or read the URL, the URL was visible. The Distribution Video was viewed more than one million times, far more times than the Unlisted Video.

 

However, drawing every reasonable inference in Plaintiff’s favor, and recognizing that evidence of Defendants’ claimed intent is not to be considered in considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the [Second Amended Complaint] are sufficient to present the inference that Defendants created the Unlisted Video and made it publicly accessible for reasons unrelated to the critical commentary in the Distribution Video.

 

In conclusion, the motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part, meaning the case will continue. For how long isn’t clear, but for YouTubers preparing their next counternotice in response to a copyright claim, there’s considerable food for thought.

 

While it’s convenient to claim that use of copyrighted content is ‘fair’, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is. Even in cases where everything points towards a finding of fair use, there is nothing to stop a rightsholder from filing a lawsuit, no obvious timeframe to discover who was right, and no miracle way of paying attorneys’ fees.

 

Millions of people rely on fair use every single day, but it’s a legal defense to be called upon sparingly, not a magic YouTube spell for everyday use.

 

The order on H3’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)

 

This month, the Philippines celebrates its creative industries by dedicating a special month to their work. On top of that, the Government presented a long-awaited ‘gift’.

 

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) announced that local site-blocking plans are about to come to fruition. IPOPHL Director General Rowel Barba signed a memorandum that will go into effect in late November.

 

As part of the agreement, Internet providers will voluntarily block access to known pirate sites. These plans aren’t new; a similar memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed more than two years ago, but that never went into effect.

New Blocking Agreement

The new MOU is an amended agreement between the Philippine Government and local Internet providers. The four-page document sets the rules for an administrative pirate site-blocking scheme, that doesn’t require any oversight from courts.

 

The basics of the plan are fairly straightforward. Copyright holders can submit site blocking requests, which are then sent to dedicated evaluation officers who will review all details and make a decision within five days.

 

If a blocking request is granted, Internet providers are informed, so they can implement appropriate blocking measures. This can be as simple as blocking DNS queries, banning URLs, blacklisting IP-addresses, or a combination of these measures.

 

 

After being alerted, Internet providers have two days to put the blockades in place.

 

“Upon receipt of the Request, the ISP/s shall, within forty-eight hours, implement an efficient and effective Site Blocking mechanism to block its subscribers’ access to the Website complained of,” the memorandum reads.

Objections Allowed

The operators of the targeted sites will also be informed about the blocking measures and allowed to appeal. If site operators don’t have a contact address, they can find a copy of the blocking request on IPOPHL’s website, where these will eventually appear.

 

Similarly, Internet providers are also allowed to share any concerns, in case problems arise down the road.

 

While these types of administrative blocking schemes are not new, this is the first one of its kind in Asia. All parties involved hope that it will help to deter rampant piracy in the Philippines, where more than half of consumers admit to accessing pirate services.

 

An earlier version of the memorandum proposed a more complex system, with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) as a middleman. The NTC remains a signatory to the updated version, but won’t have to review all requests individually.

Hollywood’s ‘Watching’

The new administrative site-blocking scheme is a Philippine endeavor, but the efforts were closely watched by Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association, which is mentioned as a partner.

 

Earlier this year, there were reports that the MPA signed an agreement with IPOPHL to develop a “rolling site-blocking regime” with the primary focus to disrupt access to pirate sites. That sounds similar to the agreement just announced.

 

All in all, the Philippines is making steady progress in its anti-piracy battle, joining more than forty other countries around the world with its blocking program. Interestingly, site blocking is not a viable option yet in the United States, Hollywood’s home turf.

 

Google’s Play Store offers a vast library of millions of apps, in pretty much every category imaginable.

 

Most of the software is perfectly legitimate but there are some problematic apps too, including those that can be abused by pirates.

 

Over the years, rightsholders have reported many thousands of apps, often for copyright infringement. While some of these takedown notices are questionable, most pirate apps quietly disappear from the platform.

 

The RIAA is one of the entertainment industry outfits keeping an eye on Google Play. The anti-piracy group is known to target stream-rippers that allow people to download music from YouTube. This resulted in several lawsuits and thousands of takedown notices, mostly aimed at Google Search.

RIAA Flags Music Apps

In recent weeks, we have seen a series of notices from the RIAA that target music download apps in Google Play. The notices appeared in the Lumen database, where Google publishes its takedown requests. Before August there were less than a handful of requests by the music group; since then more than sixty have been filed.

 

 

The takedown notices all target music-related apps. Many of these promise free music, MP3 download functionality, and the option to download videos and music from social media sites.

 

“Search, download and play music offline wherever you are. MP3 Download & Music Downloader search mp3, download high quality music for free,” one of the apps boasts.

 

Other apps specifically target themselves as ‘tube’ download tools, but carefully avoid mentioning YouTube. There are some that reference popular YouTube ripper brands such as “MP3Juice” to grab people’s attention.

5+ Million Downloads

The RIAA sees these applications as pirate tools. In most cases, the apps have a few thousand installs at most, but there is one that clearly stands out.

 

With more than five million downloads and more than 78,000 reviews, ‘Video & Music Downloader‘ is a massive target. The app was released roughly a year ago and continues to grow at a rapid pace.

 

 

‘Video & Music Downloader’ doesn’t explicitly advertise itself as a tool to convert music videos into MP3s, but many people may use it for that reason. On this ‘circumvention’ ground, RIAA would like to have it removed from Google Play.

 

Thus far, the app remains online. It’s unclear whether Google denied RIAA’s request or whether it is still under review. However, looking more closely at all flagged URLs, we see that the enforcement efforts have mixed results.

Mixed Results

After reviewing all 68 takedown requests filed since mid-August, we found that the majority of the apps are still online. A total of thirty apps were removed from Google Play.

 

 

We don’t want to draw overly-strong conclusions, but it appears that Google has denied some of RIAA’s takedowns intentionally. At the bottom of this article, we’ve listed a complete overview of all the apps and their current availability.

 

It’s possible that some requests may have been denied because the apps don’t openly advertise themselves as music-ripping tools. For example, the popular ‘Video & Music Downloader’ listing doesn’t mention that it can convert music videos to MP3s, but it does so on its own website. The term YouTube isn’t mentioned anywhere.

Increased Enforcement

It’s apparent that the RIAA has stepped up its Google Play enforcement actions recently. However, the recent surge in requests may be partly related to reporting changes at Google’s end. The music group told TorrentFreak that infringing apps have been on its radar for a while now.

 

“RIAA has been enforcing against apps that engage in the infringement of our members recordings since 2009. Mobile app piracy remains a top priority and we will continue to expand our efforts in response to changes in the mobile app space.”

 

To find out if anything changed on Google’s end we requested a comment, but the company didn’t immediately reply.

 

In any case, the RIAA is trying hard to get music downloading apps removed from Google Play. While it has enjoyed some success, this is easier said than done. App developers will become more cautious in how they advertise their tools, carefully avoiding ‘problematic’ words.

 

—

 

All of the apps flagged by the RIAA as problematic between August 18 and September 21 are listed below. The URLs marked with an asterisk have been removed from Google Play and those marked with a minus remain available.

 

– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp4mp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Tamjar.Mp3Download
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=downloader.vitmate.downloaderapp.freedownload
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.locmusic.playersong
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.syahidaapps.coldplaysongsoffline
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=vymate.videodownloader.storysaver.vimate.dmate
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.videodownloader.videosplayer.downloader.privatebrowser
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3juices.alMp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cl.ultimate.mp3music.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arc.mp3downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubemusic.descargarmp3.musicadescargar.tubeplay
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=my.ultratube.adsfree
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mazikatool.tikmezik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.soundmixtop.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.musicagratisxyz.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.videodownloader.downloadvideoappfree
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ultrahd.videodownloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.audiotuner.midistock
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enqimusic.mp3downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.musica.gratis.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.playmusic.music.player.mp3.download.snptube.downoader.free.app
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.freemusic.download.ddplmnb
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.idtubidy.musicdownloaderapp.tubidymp3.tubidymusic
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.descargar.musica.download.mp3.gratis.baixar.music.downloader.free.lagu
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.freemp3.mp3juices33
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.baixargratis.savemp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sntube.mp3.downloader.all.music.freesongs.download.app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubejet.mp3musictube.tubemp3downloader.tubeplay
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.anydownloader.video.downloader.videodownloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.download.music.song[.]mp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=allvideodownloader.videodownloader.downloader.alltube.tubemate.tubedownloader.y2mate.ytdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juices.nu.ytmp3.nu.mp3downloader.mp3juices.cc.ovipco
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.music.song.mp3.play.download.telecharger
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.songworld.downloadmusic
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3juices.music.downloader.download.mp3.gratis.free.app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bpentertainment.tubidyiemp3app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.visionxstudio.musify
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.musicplayer.android.mp3music.ptrb
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yingzzliushi.tube.downloader.new
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidy.mp3musicdownloaderapp.android.free
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.all.video.downloader.eponnj
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidy.mp3musicdownloaderapp.android.free
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yingzzliushi.tube.downloader.new
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.anyvideodownloader.videodownloader.allvideo
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=descargar.musica.mp3.gratis.music.downloader.free.download.tubeplay
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidycloud.musicdownload.mp3.mobi
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juicecom.musicmp3juice.mp3juice.musicdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.musicdownloader.free[.]mp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spy.socialVideodownloader.j
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.en1.y2mate.is.y2mate.com.mp3downloader.mp3juices.ytmp3.putrimp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=elshayeb.bigsamsongs.com
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.SayaliMusic.TubeMp3Download
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3.music.downloader.mp3juice.mp3juices.fm.download.songs.all.free.app.jdd
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ytmp3musicvideo.downloaderapp.forandroid
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=download.musicmp3.allsongs
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.verybestmobile.itunesmusicvideos&hl=en-US
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidycloud.Musicdownloadmp3.t
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juicevin.mp3juicenu.mp3juicecc.mp3juicecom.mp3juicela
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.savefromnetinc.mp3juicecc.musicdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.streaming.videomusic
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pantherabaliska.waptrickmusik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mkvplayer.zoovideoplayer
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.downloader.newmusic.musicdownloader.music
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=videoplayer.videodownloader.Downloader.t
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=public_local.video.local.songs.indian.tube.download.downloader.publik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3musicdownload.newmusic
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lddi.karaoke.offline
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3musicdownloader.mp3.juices

 

Following the creation of its Hadopi anti-piracy agency over 13 years ago, France monitored and stored data on millions of users suspected of infringing copyrights.

 

The majority were BitTorrent users and the plan was to use evidence of their piracy activities as a basis for escalating actions including warnings, fines, and ultimately, internet disconnections.

 

Operating the program for a decade cost French taxpayers 82 million euros ($86.5 million) but according to digital rights group La Quadrature du Net, Hadopi’s “mass internet surveillance” destroyed citizens’ fundamental right to privacy.

 

In its quest to hold Hadopi to account, La Quadrature du Net highlighted one of the program’s implementing decrees, which authorizes the creation of files containing internet users’ IP addresses plus personal identification data obtained from their internet service providers.

 

In the belief that represents a breach of EU data protection laws, the digital rights group, ISPs, and other like-minded supporters, took their fight to the French legal system.

Referral to the EU’s Highest Court

In the vast majority of cases, senior judges in EU member states have little need to consult Europe’s highest court. At least in theory, all countries are already in compliance with EU law but every now and again, the gravity of specific cases becomes apparent, resulting in a referral seeking clarification on how EU law should be interpreted.

 

In advance of a full ruling, the conundrum posed by the French referral was evident in a non-binding opinion handed down last October by CJEU Advocate General Maciej Szpunar.

 

Under EU law, member states may not pass national laws that allow for the general and indiscriminate retention of citizens’ traffic and location data. Retention of such data is permitted on a targeted basis, but only as a “preventative measure” for the purposes of fighting “serious crime.” In respect of the information held by Hadopi, the Advocate General found that when the data points are combined, it’s possible to link French citizens’ identities with the content they access.

 

The CJEU’s top legal advisor described the Hadopi situation as “serious interference with fundamental rights” but short of accepting “general impunity for offenses committed exclusively online,” something would have to give. The compromise suggested last year would require “readjustment of the case-law of the Court” to allow rightsholders to enforce their rights when an IP address is the only means by which an infringer can be identified (CJEU, pdf).

Advocate General Delivers Opinion (Case C-470/21)

The opinion delivered Thursday begins with an overview of Hadopi and the methods it uses to deter online piracy. By monitoring initial and subsequent acts of infringement and maintaining relevant databases, it’s possible to identify repeat infringers eligible for the next deterrent steps. A decree adopted in 2010 allows Hadopi to request subscriber information from ISPs in response to the provision of IP addresses, mostly obtained from BitTorrent swarms.

 

The legal proceedings brought by La Quadrature du Net and the Federation of Associative Internet Service Providers, French Data Network, and Franciliens.net, seek to establish whether the collection of civil identity data corresponding to IP addresses, and subsequent automated processing of data to protect of intellectual property, are compatible with EU law absent a review by a court or independent administrative body.

 

The short answer from the AG’s opinion is that Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 (pdf) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows ISPs and other electronic communications services to retain, and an administrative authority such as Hadopi to access, civil identity data corresponding to IP addresses for the purposes of identifying suspected infringers.

 

No court or review body needs to be involved, but use of such data is only permitted when it is the only means of investigation that can enable a suspected infringer to be identified.

Discussion and Reasoning

In the opinion of AG Szpunar, there is a need to reconcile the rights at issue; the protection of private life and personal data on one hand, and the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter, which the graduated response mechanism seeks to uphold by protecting copyright and related rights.

 

The opinion notes that “the great majority” of the IP addresses communicated by Hadopi are dynamic IP addresses, which only correspond to a specific identity at a single moment, which preclude any exhaustive tracking.

 

“I must emphasise that the protection of fundamental rights on the internet does not in my view justify access to the data relating solely to the IP address, the content of a work and the identity of the person who made it available in breach of copyright not being permitted, but means only that the retention of and access to those data must be accompanied by guarantees,” his opinion continues.

 

“To my mind, an analogy with the real world is telling: a person suspected of having committed theft cannot rely on his or her right to protection of his or her private life to prevent those responsible for prosecuting that offense from ascertaining what the content stolen is. On the other hand, that person may rightly rely on his or her fundamental rights to ensure that, during the proceedings, access will not be provided to more extensive data than just the data necessary for the classification of the alleged offense.”

No Mass Surveillance But a Proportionate Response

The digital rights groups’ legal action characterizes the Hadopi program as a general surveillance and data retention scheme, operating contrary to fundamental rights. AG Szpunar finds otherwise, noting that there doesn’t even appear to be general surveillance of the users present in peer-to-peer networks.

 

“That procedure does not involve monitoring their entire activity on a given network in order to determine whether they have made a work available in breach of copyright, but rather determining, on the basis of a file identified as counterfeit, the holder of the internet access through which the user made the content available,” his opinion reads.

 

“(i)t is not a question of monitoring the activity of all users of peer-to-peer networks, but only that of persons uploading infringing files, as the uploading of those files reveals much less information about the person’s private life because files may be uploaded for the sole purpose of enabling those users then to download other files.”

Inevitable Outcome in Favor of Rightsholders

The overall conclusion reached by the Attorney General considers the purpose for which the data is harvested and the challenges of identifying suspected online infringers by other means. The inability to establish a detailed profile of a person’s private life via a dynamic IP address is cited on one hand, while the critical value of an IP address in an investigation sits somewhat uncomfortably on the other.

 

“(i)t follows from the actual case-law of the Court that, where an offense is committed exclusively online, such as an infringement of copyright on a peer-to-peer network, the IP address may be the only means of investigation enabling the person to whom that address was assigned at the time of the commission of the infringement to be identified,” the AG continues.

 

In closing, the retention and access to civil identifying data, corresponding to an IP address for the purposes of prosecuting online infringements, is described as “strictly necessary” and “wholly proportionate” to the objective pursued

 

“Such an interpretation is in my view inevitable,” the AG notes, “unless it is accepted that a whole range of criminal offenses may evade prosecution entirely.”

 

The CJEU’s summary and AG Szpunar’s full opinion are available here (pdf) and here.

 

CJEU note: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date

 

Generative AI models such as ChatGPT have captured the imaginations of millions of people, offering a glimpse of what an AI-assisted future might look like.

 

The new technology also brings up novel copyright issues. For example, several rightsholders are worried that their work is being used to train and exploit AI without any form of compensation.

 

These concerns have triggered numerous AI-related lawsuits in the United States, many of which target OpenAI. Just a few days ago, the Author’s Guild and several prominent members including George RR Martin and John Grisham joined in on the legal action.

 

The allegations in their complaint are similar to others aired over the past few months. The first case was filed in a Californian federal court by authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad, who were later joined by writer/comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors in a similar suit.

 

According to the plaintiffs, large language model training sets shouldn’t be permitted to use every piece of text they come across online. They accuse OpenAI of using books as training data, without permission, relying on datasets that were sourced from pirate sites.

 

The complaints mention the controversial Books2 and Books3 datasets that are believed to be sourced from shadow libraries such as LibGen, Z-Library, Sci-Hub, and Bibliotik.

OpenAI’s Motion to Dismiss

In August, OpenAI responded to these complaints, asking a California federal court to dismiss nearly all claims. According to the tech company, there are no viable claims for vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

 

The only claim that wasn’t contested by OpenAI is direct copyright infringement, which the company plans to address at a later stage.

 

Among its arguments to dismiss the claims, the AI company cited fair use. It argued that the use of large amounts of copyrighted texts could be seen as ‘fair’ because it helps to facilitate progress and innovation.

 

“Numerous courts have applied the fair use doctrine to strike that balance, recognizing that the use of copyrighted materials by innovators in transformative ways does not violate copyright,” OpenAI wrote.

Authors Respond

The authors responded to those arguments this week. While the ‘Tremblay’ and ‘Silverman’ cases are not yet officially merged, both submitted the exact same opposition briefs, asking the court to deny OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the claims.

 

According to the authors, it is “telling” that OpenAI makes no attempt to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claim. This issue is best suited to be discussed at trial and the same applies to the other claims.

 

“Nevertheless, OpenAI still tries to leverage its motion to pre-litigate issues it thinks will carry the day in the future. This is improper on a motion to dismiss and should be disregarded,” they write.

The Fair Use Urban Legend

The authors note that OpenAI’s detailed interpretation of fair use in an AI context is irrelevant, at least at this stage. Fair use is a defense that is typically not used to dismiss copyright infringement claims before they’re properly argued.

 

“Fair use, of course, is an important—yet limited—feature of U.S. copyright law. Importantly, however, fair use is an affirmative defense, and is “inappropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss.” Given that, OpenAI’s arguments regarding fair use are wholly misplaced.

 

To bolster their argument, the authors refer to a recent ruling in a Thomson Reuters lawsuit, which also deals with AI-related copyright claims. In that case, the court rejected the fair use argument and referred the matter to trial.

 

In addition, the plaintiffs note that using copyrighted works for AI purposes isn’t always considered fair use; that’s an urban legend.

 

“Contrary to widespread urban legend in the AI industry, no U.S. court has squarely ruled on the question of whether training an AI model with copyrighted expression is fair use,” plaintiffs write.

Piracy as a Source

The authors also double down on their piracy allegations and mention three types of copyright infringement. In addition to using copyrighted works for training data, the LLM models themselves are also infringing derivative works, and the same applies to the output of the models.

 

These accusations and claims largely rely on the suspicion that OpenAI used hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books as training material. While the company never mentioned its source, the authors believe that the models are trained on pirated books from shadow libraries such as LibGen, Z-Library, Sci-Hub, and Bibliotik.

 

“The book datasets used by OpenAI for training language models included thousands of copyrighted books, including books written by Plaintiffs,” they write.

 

“Given the size of these book datasets, the most likely source of these books is one or more of the notorious ‘shadow library’ websites that host massive numbers of pirated texts that are not in the public domain.”

 

The direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims rest on this suspicion, and the same is true for the DMCA violations. The authors hope that they will be able to prove this at trial and ask the court not to dismiss any claims prematurely.

 

—

 

Copies of the authors’ identical opposition briefs in response to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss are available here (Tremblay et. al / Silverman et al)

 

Despite widespread publicity and overt campaigns warning of the criminal consequences, there’s still no shortage of people prepared to openly sell piracy-configured set-top boxes and pirate IPTV subscriptions.

 

In broad terms, awareness has improved over the last couple of years but, for those who got involved many years ago, historic perceptions may have been somewhat different. In the case of two men from Northern Ireland, an investigation by Sky and the police shouldn’t have come as a surprise but the fact that it took five years to reach its ultimate conclusion probably wasn’t anticipated.

Pirate Set-Top Boxes, Pirate IPTV Services

This week the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) revealed that detectives and broadcaster Sky carried out an investigation into the sale of devices “used for provision of pirated TV channels” and the “supply of streaming services (IPTV).”

 

Between September 2018 and January 2019, the operation focused on a Belfast business run by two local men, 43-year-old Padraig McVicker and 27-year-old Gary Doherty. While PSNI provide no further details on the nature of the business, Companies House data reveals that McVicker was the sole director of a company involved in various aspects of the satellite TV trade.

 

A second company, Free TV NI Limited, in which McVicker and Doherty both held directorships, was initially registered as a seller of second hand goods. While that may have been the case, adverts on platforms including Yell show that the company was also involved in satellite TV sales, installation, and repair.

 

 

According to the ads, the company also sold various IPTV devices. In terms of legality, that’s not an issue provided they’re not configured for piracy but when they are, prosecutors have several opportunities available to them.

Prosecutions and Guilty Pleas

PSNI notes that after being arrested and charged, McVicker and Doherty both entered guilty pleas to a number of offenses under various legislation.

 

Under Section 297A(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, both men admitted “Selling, Distributing Or Letting For Hire Or Exposing For Sale Or Hire An Unauthorized Decoder.”

 

The legislation states that “a person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire any unauthorized decoder shall be guilty of an offense.” Those who can prove they didn’t know that a decoder was unauthorized do not commit a crime, but that doesn’t appear to have been the case here.

 

McVicker also pled guilty to an offense contrary to Section 126(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which relates to the possession of “apparatus” for dishonestly obtaining electronic services.

 

Under that legislation, a person is guilty of an offense “if he has in his possession or under his control” anything that may be used for obtaining an electronic communications service or connection with obtaining such a service. Again, intent plays a key role here.

 

McVicker further admitted possessing criminal property, contrary to Section 329 (1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Sentencing at Belfast Crown Court

At Belfast Crown Court on Tuesday, McVicker was sentenced to eight months in prison, with a further eight months on license for offenses under Section 297A(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

 

For possession of apparatus for dishonestly obtaining services contrary to Section 126(1) of the Communications Act, he received a prison sentence of six months, although that will be served concurrently.

 

Gary Doherty’s offenses contrary to Section 297A(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act earned him 175 hours of community service.

PSNI and Sky Welcome Convictions

Commenting on the sentences, Detective Chief Inspector Tom Phillips, Police Service Lead on Intellectual Property Crime, highlighted the key differences between standard IPTV devices and those that have been modified.

 

“IPTV devices are legal when used to view free or legitimate paid-for subscription services and channels, but once adapted or reconfigured to stream content without the appropriate licenses and consent of creators, they become illegal,” he said.

 

“People think these are victimless crimes but often behind these services are international organized crime gangs, who engage in the most serious of offenses,” he added.

 

PSNI made no claims that the Belfast men were part of an international organized crime gang but took the opportunity to extend a warning to users of IPTV services.

 

“Users and subscribers of illegal services should also be aware that they too are committing an offense for which they can be prosecuted,” he said.

 

Broadcaster Sky said it welcomed the sentences and joined PSNI in issuing a warning to users.

 

“We were pleased to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland in taking this action, both to prevent access to stolen Sky content and also to protect consumers from the real risks of accessing content in this way,” said Matt Hibbert, Sky’s Director of Anti-Piracy, UK and Ireland.

 

Sky did not clarify what risks, if any, users of the convicted men’s devices were exposed to.

 

When Hollywood sets its sights on something it wants to achieve in the piracy landscape, victory may not come this week or even next year. The MPA has been around for 100 years; it definitely has patience to see out a few more.

 

In Vietnam, despite changes in the law and visits by high-ranking MPA and ACE representatives, patience will be required to reduce piracy. The world’s largest pirate sites seem to operate freely there and even when giants like Zoro.to and 9anime came under direct pressure from ACE recently, immediate respawning under new domains was hardly conducive to confidence building.

 

MPA/ACE have enjoyed success, the closure of 2embed is just one example. But with Vietnam-based movie streaming giant Fmovies also announcing a domain switch/minor rebranding to Fmoviesz recently, more progress is needed and in an announcement this week, the authorities reported just that.

1,000 Piracy Websites Blocked

During an anti-piracy seminar held in Hanoi on Tuesday, data compiled by the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information, a department under the Ministry of Information and Communications revealed that, during the past 12 months, 1,000 copyright-infringing sites were blocked in Vietnam.

 

The blocking reportedly took place between August 2022 and August 2023, but there’s not much for the MPA to celebrate, at least not in the short term.

 

It appears that most of the targets were sites offering pirate football streams, not the platforms offering movies, TV shows, manga, and anime that the MPA would like to shut down. Reading between the lines, these blocking efforts are considered a step in the right direction but were probably ineffective overall.

Blocking is 98% Successful Until it Immediately Isn’t

A representative of the state-run Vietnam Digital Copyright Center said that blocking of the 1,000 sites (a closer view reveals that’s actually the number of domains) was carried out in coordination with Vietnamese internet service providers. A similar approach last year allegedly reduced visits to pirate streaming sites by 98%, but general commentary on the scheme tends to undermine that.

 

Current blocking efforts are described as inconsistent, with some ISPs quickly blocking sites but others taking a much more leisurely approach. Given that sites reportedly switch to new domains in a claimed five to 10 minutes, blocking faces immediate challenges. A football streaming site known as ‘Xoi Lac TV’ is claimed to be the most notorious repeat offender and by ignoring bans and switching domains, it has remained online for around five years.

Pirate Sites Funded By Illegal Advertising

Media reports from 2018 indicate that Xoi Lac TV and many other sites were blocked on copyright grounds. And when 500 sites were reportedly blocked in 2021/22, copyright was again the headline reason.

 

Indeed, Vietnam already has a site-blocking mechanism in place; a verified complaint from a rightsholder can lead to the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (AEBI) instructing an online platform to remove content. If that doesn’t happen within the allocated timeframe, ISPs can be instructed to block the sites. Why that doesn’t happen to more sites more often isn’t clear, but there are other ways pirate sites can find themselves in more immediate trouble.

 

When football streaming sites are blocked in Vietnam, discussion of illegal betting advertising on the platforms usually appears as part of the discussion. Xoi Lac TV has appeared on lists of domains blocked due to illegal gambling promotions and the government seems very willing to bring those involved to justice.

 

Late 2022 an expert with Vietnam’s National Cyber Security Center said that the operators of local streaming sites obtain foreign streams, embed their own logos, and then use the content to promote gambling and fraud.

 

“The general method of these websites is to steal TV copyrights, ‘push’ the search engine optimization (SEO) to the top on Google to attract traffic, and then receive ads for gambling and fraud channels,” the expert said.

 

Xoi Lac TV streams reportedly promote the gambling game portal Zovip and sports betting sites including 1bet88 and fun88.

Vietnam Faces “Overseas Challenges”

This type of gambling-focused business model is largely absent from the large sites the MPA would like Vietnam to shut down. Whether that helps them to survive is up for debate but based on comments before and during the event on Tuesday, Vietnam isn’t averse to highlighting enforcement difficulties it faces in ‘other’ countries.

 

Xoi Lac TV is reportedly among around 70 football piracy sites that together generated around 1.5 billion views in 2022/23. However, figures cited by authorities in Vietnam claim that 200 local pirate movie sites only attract 120 million visits per month overall. Fmovies – now known as Fmoviesz – receives around 119.5 million visits each month in its own right.

 

Traffic estimates aside, Pham Hoang Hai, Director of the Digital Content Copyright Center, notes that all of these sites have something in common; they use foreign domain names and services to hide their identities. It was previously highlighted that when Xoi Lac TV operated from Xoilac.tv, it was difficult to trace its operator due to the domain’s registration in the United States. That wasn’t made any easier by the site allegedly using a U.S. IP address and U.S. hosting.

 

Blocking or shutting down websites isn’t something to be taken lightly and it appears Vietnam will take its time before deciding how to proceed against the largest pirate platforms. Meanwhile, it’s being reported that the government has been drafting new rules that will compel ISPs to kick citizens off the internet if they share “law-breaking information.”

 

“The move threatens to throttle web access further in a country where an estimated 1,000 websites, from those of the BBC to Freedom House, are already blocked,” Nikkei reports.

 

There is little doubt that video and music streaming services have taken the Internet by storm over the past decade.

 

An entire “on-demand” generation is growing up, with the streaming business model now generating billions of dollars in revenue.

Competing With Piracy

This growth was spurred on by piracy. When Netflix first launched its streaming services, the company openly positioned itself as a piracy competitor. And indeed, in the early years, many casual pirates were drawn to streaming platforms.

 

In recent years, this early selling point has been pushed into the background. With the launch of many more streaming services targeting the same audience, attractively broad content selections have given way to exclusive releases in a bid to lure customers.

 

The video streaming wars have reached a point where many people can no longer afford to pay for everything they want to see. Ironically, this drives them back to illegal options such as pirate sites and platforms where hacked accounts are listed for sale.

Streaming Service Reseller Faces Prison

These ‘hacked’ accounts, which belong to third-party customers, are sold through a wide variety of sites. Many people fall for these cheap offers without asking questions. The resellers, however, are not so innocent.

 

This week, the Danish National Unit for Special Crime (NSK) announced that a 29-year-old man from Odense has been charged with illegally reselling 500,000 leaked login credentials and now faces a potential prison sentence.

 

A subsection of these accounts are logins for streaming services including HBO Max, Paramount+ and Viaplay. These accounts were sold through a dedicated website at a fraction of the official price.

 

According to Brian Kaas Borgstrøm, Deputy prosecutor at NSK, the accounts on sale were likely obtained through data leaks.

 

“It is our opinion that the defendant has used a data leak to obtain the login information of random paying customers at a number of popular streaming services and then sold the information both collectively and individually. This has given buyers the opportunity to abuse the accounts of real customers.”

 

This doesn’t mean that the mentioned streaming services were compromised. People often use the same credentials across various sites, so hackers can use third-party leaks to hijack streaming accounts.

Not an Incident

The Danish Rights Alliance is pleased with the police action and notes that this isn’t the first time that someone has been caught reselling login credentials.

 

In July, a 31-year-old man from North Jutland was arrested for a similar offense. He is believed to be part of a bigger group that, in addition to hacked logins, also sold pirate IPTV subscriptions.

 

“Cases like this help to make visible that criminals are constantly developing new models to illegally make content available for their own profit – regardless of the fact that their crime goes beyond unsuspecting people,” says Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund.

Major Streaming Services Unite

These types of criminals are able to run their profitable businesses because consumers are eager to save on streaming subscription costs. These types of enforcement actions may deter some criminals, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.

 

Interestingly, several of the largest streaming services including Netflix, HBO, and Disney launched a new coalition yesterday that has “affordability” high on the agenda.

 

The “Streaming Innovation Alliance” (SIA) conducted a detailed survey which suggests that more than half of all consumers believe that streaming services are too expensive, while 75% indicate that costs are highly important.

 

 

This sentiment explains why some consumers resort to illegal options such as piracy and cheap hacked accounts.

 

Unfortunately, however, the Alliance informs TorrentFreak that it’s not their goal to make services cheaper. Instead, it’s an effort to push back against taxes and costly regulations that could make the services even more expensive.

 

Affordability as a piracy driver is not on the agenda yet. That’s a shame perhaps, as the Alliance could be a great way to find creative solutions to make progress on the cost front in other ways.

 

A few hours ago, social media activity in India lit up when a ‘leak’ of the highly anticipated film “Fukrey 3” started to circulate.

 

This third installment in the “Fukrey” comedy franchise is scheduled to premiere in theaters later this week, but pirates appeared to get it early once again.

 

Local news media outlets were quick to jump on the topic and over the past several hours, numerous headlines eagerly informed readers that the film had leaked. According to some reports, this advance release has the potential to hurt box office revenues.

 

These types of clickbait headlines are a great way to grab attention and drive traffic. However, “Fukrey 3” didn’t leak on pirate sites. Instead, the filmmakers distributed fake leaks as part of an anti-piracy campaign, suggesting that people should watch the film on the big screen instead.

“Redacted Copy”

With a running time of two and a half hours, the leak seemed promising. The timestamp and a “redacted copy” tag are a nice touch as well, but the intro shatters all pirates’ dreams.

 

Instead of a leak, the actors encourage the audience not to pirate the film. After that, there’s a continuous loop of “Fukrey 3” trailers with the actors’ anti-piracy messages added throughout.

 

The Fukrey 3 “Leak”

 

There are reports that the orchestrated leak appeared on popular torrent sites but we haven’t been able to confirm that on our end. It was circulated through Telegram though, as shown below.

 

Telegram Leak Channel

Subtle Dig

In a statement shared with local media, the filmmakers explain that their goal is to send an anti-piracy message in a ‘subtle’ way. They believe that it will ultimately help to deter piracy.

 

“The makers manage to take a subtle dig at those who encourage and indulge in piracy. Fukrey 3, a delightful comedy entertainer, is meant to be experienced on the grandeur of the big screens.” the Fukrey 3 team notes.

 

“By orchestrating this unexpected release, the makers have ingeniously crafted a move that is bound to bring joy to everyone. Not only does it capture attention, but it also serves as a powerful promotion to combat piracy and protect the hard work and creativity of the film industry.”

 

This anti-piracy message is certainly more entertaining than traditional PSAs, but whether it will help to deter piracy has yet to be seen. Research previously indicated that acknowledging the popularity of piracy is typically counterproductive.

 

There is no doubt, however, that “Fukrey 3” will leak onto pirate sites at some point. Let’s hope, for the makers of the Hindi movie, that this doesn’t happen before the official premiere.

 

 

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

 

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

 

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Blue Beetle” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on September 25 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Blue Beetle	6.3 / trailer
2	(1)	Barbie	7.3 / trailer
3	(3)	Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny	6.7 / trailer
4	(2)	Retribution	5.3 / trailer
5	(4)	Talk to Me	7.3 / trailer
6	(7)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
7	(5)	Meg 2: The Trench	5.3 / trailer
8	(6)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	8.8 / trailer
9	(8)	Fast X	5.8 / trailer
10	(back)	Elemental	7.0 / trailer

 

 

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

 

While some pirate sites will obviously slip through the cracks, the overwhelming majority of piracy platforms that exist today are already known to the rightsholders they affect.

 

Actions taken against specific pirate platforms are shaped by policy, resources, and other practicalities, meaning that less significant sites may face no immediate threat. Others aren’t so lucky.

 

In Mangamura’s case, a site founded in 2016 targeting the Japanese market became extraordinarily successful in a very short space of time. That it did so by exploiting culturally-valuable manga content, in the backyard of the world’s largest manga publishers, pushed Mangamura to the top of the enforcement list.

 

Mangamura mysteriously shut itself down in April 2018 but after just two years online, the site had reportedly caused $2.91 billion in losses to publishers. A criminal investigation into Mangamura’s activities eventually led to the arrest of the site’s operator, Romi Hoshino, in Manilla.

 

Hoshino was later deported to Japan and arrested by the authorities. A guilty verdict in a subsequent criminal trial saw Hoshino sentenced to three years behind bars.

Publishers and Hoshino Have Unfinished Business

Released from prison last year, the 31-year-old is now facing a civil lawsuit for damages filed by several Japan-based manga publishers. They were at court in the U.S. recently seeking Mangamura traffic data held by Google and Cloudflare. While that information could be useful for progressing their civil lawsuit, it appears that over the next 48 hours, things will become rather more complicated.

 

On September 26, Hoshino will launch his new book, The Truth About Mangamura. The author says it will reveal how a “shut-in NEET” (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) somehow created a hugely successful website only to become an internationally wanted man.

 

One of the book’s promotional images shows Hoshino’s progression through life from childhood to arrest, including the now-infamous mugshot that appeared in media all around the world.

 

 

The book’s promotional material suggests that Hoshino’s technological successes may be presented alongside allegations of “digital defeat” in Japan, such as poor growth in IT and the failure of law to keep up with reality. It also promises to expose “behind-the-scenes judicial deals, fake trials, show punishments, and copyright issues.”

 

This is a “controversial book that indicts Japan’s judicial problems!” the description on Amazon reads.

Hoshino Will File an Application for Retrial

Whether Japan’s judicial system has any appetite or ability to revisit Mangamura-related problems is unclear, but this week Hoshino will attempt to find out. On Wednesday he is expected to file an application for a full retrial at the Fukuoka District Court, a rare moment for a case that ran its course without any appeal, by a defendant who has completed his sentence.

 

According to a report in Asahi, Hoshino was prohibited from using a computer in detention so was unable to collect any evidence to prove his innocence. While denying a prisoner access to the internet is hardly uncommon, Hoshino’s allegations make for interesting reading.

 

In very broad terms, the criminal case found that Hoshino was liable for uploaded copies of popular manga titles ‘Kingdom’ and ‘One Piece’ that were made available to the public via Mangamura. Hoshino doesn’t deny the manga titles were made available; he’s contesting the mechanism by which that took place.

Hoshino Claims He’s Innocent

From the limited details available, Hoshino appears to be arguing that the manga titles were uploaded to another site, not on Mangamura. He claims that a reverse proxy enabled the content on third-party sites to appear as if it was displayed on Mangamura, without any of the images actually being stored locally.

 

On the one hand, these claims could be dismissed as semantics intended to distract from a clear intent to profit from piracy. On the other, Hoshino may have some type of case, at least in theory.

 

In English-speaking countries, sites that utilize content hosted elsewhere through the provision of links to external platforms are often described as ‘indexing’ sites. They act as an index to content found elsewhere but host none of their own. In Japan, the terms ‘leech’ or ‘reach’ are used to describe the same type of site and at least functionally, they provide illegal access to copyrighted material just like any other.

 

However, operators of leech or reach sites were only rendered criminally liable by legal amendments that came into force on October 1, 2020. On that day, indexing site operators or those publishing apps with the same function faced the same punishments as their directly-infringing counterparts for the first time. Mangamura had been offline for two-and-a-half years at this point.

Reverse Proxy Defense Detailed in Original Judgment

The judgment handed down by the Fukuoka District Court in 2021 covers submissions by the prosecution and defense relating to the two manga works Hoshino alleges were made available via reverse proxy.

 

The judgment substitutes the names of defendants and or witnesses, plaintiffs, site names and third-party platforms with letters. The ‘defendant’ is Hoshino and A, B and C refer to individuals who uploaded content to servers that was later consumed by users of ‘G’, aka Mangamura. ‘P’ appears to be a reference to Cloudflare.

 

The judgment notes that Hoshino set Mangamura’s server “not to cache data, and on that basis, the manga and other image data posted on G by way of reverse proxy would exist on the recording device of the third-party server and not be stored on the recording device of G’s server.”

 

The judgment further notes that, “for a certain period of time, the defendant used a CDN server provided by P located in the U.S. as a reverse proxy between G’s server and the viewers, so that when ordinary users viewed G’s manga, they accessed the CDN server, not G’s server.”

 

The judgment also reveals statements by one or more of the uploaders (A,B,C) who recalled certain facts about the two works in question sufficient for the court to conclude the works were uploaded by them.

 

The judgment further notes “that the reverse proxy setting by the defendant constitutes an infringement of the right of public transmission under Article 23 (1) of the Copyright Act, as it makes a work available for transmission.”

 

Hoshino recently answered questions during a press conference, the video is embedded below. The original judgment handed down by the Fukuoka District Court can be found here (pdf)

 

Amazon’s listing for Hoshino’s new book, out tomorrow, can be found here.

 

 

Earlier this year, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others filed a complaint at a Nashville federal court, accusing Elon Musk’s X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement.

 

The company behind X allegedly fails to properly respond to takedown notices and lacks a proper termination policy for repeat infringers.

 

As a result, X is reportedly rife with music piracy. This activity generates many millions of views which are monetized by the social media platform, while rightsholders receive no compensation for the use of their works.

Motion to Dismiss

X doesn’t agree with these characterizations at all. A few weeks ago, the social media platform filed a motion to dismiss, refuting all piracy allegations.

 

The complaint argues that X is liable for direct infringement, and is contributorily and vicariously liable for the copyright-infringing activities of its users. However, X’s attorneys contested all three claims.

 

With more than a quarter billion dollars in potential piracy damages on the line, the music companies are not backing down. They responded to X’s motion to dismiss by pointing out that all counterarguments fail. As such, the case should continue as is.

 

“The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant X Corp. should fail in its entirety,” the music companies write, before going into further detail.

Different Interpretations

Both parties highlight existing jurisprudence from different angles. X, for example, insists that a direct copyright infringement claim requires non-automated and intentional acts by a defendant, while its alleged wrongdoing mostly relates to passive and automated algorithms.

 

The music companies see things differently. Citing the Aereo case, among others, they note that automation doesn’t shield online platforms from infringing public performance rights.

 

“Aereo and the cases cited below foreclose X’s argument that the automated aspects of its system or the end user’s role in selecting which content to upload or access insulate it from direct liability here.

 

“[A]utomation is not a talisman that precludes direct liability, as X asserts,” the music companies add, concluding that X violated their public performance rights.

 

Even if volitional conduct is required to support a direct copyright infringement claim, the music companies believe that their complaint is sufficient. For example, X intentionally created a feature that supports music streaming and encouraged users to upload content directly to the platform.

 

In addition, X’s alleged failure to properly take down infringing content and the subsequent uploads of repeat infringers can also be seen as direct infringements of public performance rights.

Contributory and Vicarious Infringement

The parties also differ in their interpretations of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Musk’s lawyers argue that the plaintiffs failed to show that X took active and intentional steps to encourage infringement, something the music companies contest.

 

In their opposition brief, the publishers point out that intent isn’t a requirement under U.S. copyright law; material contribution to copyright infringement should be sufficient to state a claim.

 

Responding to the vicarious copyright infringement allegations, X disputes the notion that it financially profits from copyright infringing activities on is platform and that it has the ability to do anything about it.

 

Again, the music companies see things differently and argue that their claims are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

‘Profiting from Piracy’

For vicarious liability to exist, a rightsholder must show that financial benefits are triggered by the infringing activity. That is the case here, the music companies argue, due to the presence of advertising.

 

The complaint showed how advertisements were shown next to copyright infringing content. This suggests that more infringements should directly lead to more advertising revenue.

 

“The causal relationship between the infringement of Plaintiffs’ works and X’s profits could not be more direct. When X runs ads in connection with infringing video content, money flows into its pockets,” the music companies write.

 

Music Companies Oppose

 

In addition, these infringements could draw more users to the platform or create more engagement. Both have the potential to increase advertising revenues.

 

“The ability to view and post infringing content draws users to X’s platform, the increased engagement brings X more advertising revenue, and X’s service would be less attractive if it properly policed infringement on its platform.”

 

All in all, it’s clear that both parties have an entirely different view on the copyright infringement claims. It is now up to the District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, to decide whether the case can move forward.

 

—

 

A copy of the music companies’ opposition to X’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)

 

An event organized by Spanish football league LaLiga took place at the Museum of Arts and Sciences of Valencia yesterday.

 

LaLiga were joined at “Fight Against Piracy in Sporting Events” by Víctor Francos Díaz, Spain’s recently appointed Secretary of State for Sports and president of the Higher Sports Council (CSD), and MEP Iban García del Blanco.

 

Citing data recently published by the European Intellectual Property Office, which found that piracy in the EU grew by 3.3 % in 2022, the CSD president said piracy remains a problem for sports groups like LaLiga and for governments around Europe. That report didn’t actually contain any data on the IPTV-based piracy plaguing LaLiga, but there’s no doubt that the league has its hands full.

Scale of the Problem

LaLiga’s efforts to contain IPTV piracy services began eight years ago and according to local media, La Liga’s anti-piracy department now detects over 46,000 IP addresses around the world broadcasting pirated live sports.

 

LaLiga chief Javier Tebas reported that during the first five days of the new Spanish football season, it had “eliminated” 58 Android-based piracy apps believed to have been downloaded by four million users worldwide. Tebas said that 800,000 of those users are in Spain where they use the app to watch pirated football streams.

 

The figures relating to Apple devices are smaller, around a million users worldwide, 300,000 of them in Spain. Overall that’s roughly 1.1 million users of these pirate apps in Spain, a considerable number but only part of the overall picture.

Terminology and Definitions Are Important

What LaLiga means by “eliminated” isn’t clear and that in itself muddies the waters when trying to build a picture on achievements and failures. On one hand, the complete destruction of 58 apps and their infrastructure would be a monumental achievement but if 58 apps were only removed from app stores or blocked by ISPs, any gains might already have been wiped out as pirates adjust.

 

The tell-tale signs that “eliminated” means something other than total destruction were evident as Tebas outlined another problem facing LaLiga. While it may well have restricted the availability of dozens of apps, LaLiga is in no position to do anything about the copies that have already been downloaded and installed on users’ phones.

 

Tebas describes this as another problem LaLiga faced, which probably speaks volumes about the status of the “eliminated” apps. If we assume that non-functional “eliminated” piracy apps are useless and therefore of little concern to LaLiga, only functional apps are problematic. If the already downloaded apps can still rely on functional internet infrastructure, getting rebranded apps back into the marketplace won’t be a problem for pirates.

 

That being said, Tebas believes that eliminating downloaded apps has value, and it appears that work towards that is already underway.

LaLiga is “Talking to Google”

“That is another of our fights: that those who have them downloaded on their mobile phones already have them and now we have to work to eliminate them,” Tebas said, as quoted by local media.

 

“We are talking to Google and other platforms so that they can be located on those mobile phones. If it can be done and it is done, for example, for crimes such as child pornography, for intellectual property, which is stealing, they should have to do it too.”

 

It’s been quite some time since the protection of intellectual property and the protection of children have been mentioned in the same sentence, and longer still since anyone has advocated for equivalent countermeasures.

 

That could mean that the protection of intellectual property is getting ahead of itself but without similarly huge financial lobbying power, it’s more likely to reflect child protection falling behind.

 

In 2003, the World Wide Web was still in its infancy. Dial-up connections were still the default and YouTube, Facebook, and Gmail had yet to be invented.

 

There was a new technology making waves at the time. BitTorrent made it much easier for people to transfer large files, opening the door to unlimited video-sharing without restraints.

 

Many people started experimenting with BitTorrent by sharing pirated films and TV shows. These files made their way all over the world and remained available as long as all pieces were shared in the swarm.

 

Most of these early releases remained available for a few days or weeks, and some lasted well over a year before people lost interest. In extreme cases, some torrents have managed to survive for over a decade.

The Fanimatrix Torrent Turns 20

The oldest surviving torrent we have seen is a copy of the Matrix fan film “The Fanimatrix”. The torrent was created in September 2003 and will turn 20 years old in a few days. A truly remarkable achievement.

 

The film was shot by a group of New Zealand friends. With a limited budget of just $800, nearly half of which was spent on a leather jacket, they managed to complete the project in nine days.

 

While shooting the film was possible with these financial constraints, finding a distribution channel proved to be a major hurdle. Free video-sharing services didn’t exist yet and server bandwidth was still very costly.

 

Technically the team could host their own server, but that would cost thousands of dollars, which wasn’t an option. Luckily, however, the group’s IT guy, Sebastian Kai Frost, went looking for alternatives.

Promising New Technology

Frost had a bit part in the film and did some other work as well, but the true breakthrough came when he stumbled upon a new technology called BitTorrent. This appeared to be exactly what they were looking for.

 

“It looked promising because it scaled such that the more popular the file became, the more the bandwidth load was shared. It seemed like the perfect solution,” Frost told us earlier.

 

After convincing the crew that BitTorrent was the right choice, Frost created a torrent on September 28, 2003. He also compiled a tracker on his own Linux box and made sure everything was running correctly.

 

 

Today, more than twenty years have passed and the torrent is still up and running with more than a hundred seeders. As far as we know, it’s the oldest active torrent on the Internet, one that deserves to be in the history books.

A Proper Celebration for the 25th?

Initially, there was a plan to celebrate the 20th anniversary but that hasn’t come to fruition. Some of the original cast members have fairly successful careers now and are scattered around the world, so getting the team back together is a challenge.

 

Director and writer Rajneel Singh, who is still active in the film industry, would like to do something special for the 25th anniversary. Frost says that there is a plan to get the cast together to shoot and release a new clip, perhaps coupled with some fresh “Fanimatrix” merchandise.

 

Whether the torrent will still be going by that time is unclear, but Frost will do everything in his power to make that happen.

 

“I never expected to become the world’s oldest torrent but now it’s definitely become a thing I’d love to keep carrying on. So I’ll be keeping this active as long as I physically can,” Frost tells us.

 

There were a few times that the torrent almost died but after the news broke that this was the oldest active torrent, dozens of people stepped forward to donate their bandwidth.

 

“It’s really heartening seeing the community pull together around this torrent, despite its usually low transfer count, and work together to keep it alive and kicking. It warms my heart on the daily.”

 

“We’re super pumped that it’s still going and that people still take an interest in it. Looking forward to the 25th and having something special to share with the world,” Frost concludes.

 

“You’re talking about things I haven’t done yet, in the past tense. It’s driving me crazy. Are you sure you have the right person?”

 

Sarah Connor’s bewilderment in the 1984 masterpiece The Terminator is convincing. Important actions she was yet to take had already led to events happening in the future; the Terminator’s job was travel back from the future and stop her doing the stuff she hadn’t even done yet.

Determining the Future

Time travel never makes sense in movies and the text of the DMCA makes no attempt to address any takedown grievances a T-1000 may have experienced in 2029. It states that if a copyright holder sees their work being infringed online, they can send a notice that identifies the location of the content along with a request for its removal.

 

This would not have confused Sarah Connor. The alleged infringement happened and as per the DMCA, the content that can be seen in the present can be removed, so it’s not seen in the future. No time-traveling conundrums, just past, present and future, in one direction.

Proactive Help For Rightsholders

For some time, rightsholders have been submitting DMCA notices to Google that request the removal of URLs in Google’s search indexes that do not yet exist in Google’s search indexes. By default, these ‘DMCA’ notices are invalid; no infringement means there’s a) no content to locate and b) nothing to take down.

 

The caveat here is that Google is simply going the extra mile to help rightsholders. One example is the tendency of pirate site URLs to follow a formula; it’s possible to predict an infringing URL in advance, and when Google crawls it, it’s immediately flagged and never appears in search results. There are other examples, but it’s the intent that’s important.

 

Google recently revealed that it preemptively blocks hundreds of millions of URLs before they appear in its indexes. This isn’t required under law so referring to them as DMCA takedown notices is immediately problematic.

Crimes of the Future

Google’s web takedown form states that it’s company policy to “respond to legally valid copyright removal requests.” In addition, however, it also accepts notices that aren’t legally valid, at least under the DMCA.

 

“Search accepts notices for web pages that are not even in our index at the time of submission. Nevertheless, we will proactively block such web pages from appearing in our Search results and will apply these notices to our demotion signal,” the page reads.

 

Given that no infringement has taken place, what happens when people start making predictions about future infringements that never happen, or they decide to start sending bogus notices to ensure that sites are punished by preemptive blocking?

Future Blocking Warning

In a post to the /r/google community on Reddit yesterday, a user reported that they had received “many DMCA notices from Google regarding a pornography actor.”

 

The notification from Google, which clearly references the DMCA, notes that some of the reported URLs in the complaint may not actually be in its search results.

 

 

“Although some of these URLs may not be available in our search results now, we are retaining these notices and will act on them if at some point in the future we do crawl these pages for inclusion in search results,” the notice reads.

Problem #1: The Allegations Are Bogus

The DMCA notice posted by the Reddit user is listed on the Lumen Database (link). It claims to protect the rights of an OnlyFans/Instagram user but actually targets a policy page on the Reddit users’ site, a mobile phone store, another mobile phone store, and a meme page.

 

Only one URL hits an appropriate target, unless beach footwear qualifies.

 

 

The sender is identified as ‘Venus Group’ and according to Lumen Database records, it represents a long list of similar OnlyFans/influencer-type people.

 

In another notice listed on Lumen (link), a page on the Reddit user’s website selling smartphones is a target, along with a site selling a dog-feeding device, and a site selling a specialist alcoholic drink.

 

Whether the company received a similar warning about future piracy is unclear, but the same DMCA complaint also requests the removal of a Sony Pictures Publicity administration portal.

Problem #2: Doing Nothing Isn’t An Option

As Google’s notification explains, if URLs aren’t in its indexes now, as soon as it sees them there’s a reasonable chance they will never appear in its search results and the notices will form part of a demotion signal. So what are the options for those wrongfully targeted?

 

The suggestion from Google is to file a DMCA counter notice; Sarah is confused again.

 

On the basis that a DMCA notice may only reference an infringement that has actually happened and must state the current location of the infringing content, any notice that fails to do so is invalid.

 

Regardless of whether Google accepts infringement notices to enable it to respond proactively, how can a DMCA counternotice attempt to revoke an invalid DMCA notice that references allegedly infringing content that simply doesn’t exist in Google’s search results, but may appear sometime in the future?

 

This is one of the inevitable problems of letting people predict the future and mess around with the normal flowing of time. The logical progression from here is for people to get their DMCA counter notices in first, to counteract the bogus notices that haven’t been sent, referencing content that doesn’t exist.

 

If the past can change, then so can the future.

 

Manga comics have always been popular on pirate sites but where other categories have seen stalled growth, manga piracy boomed.

 

This unauthorized activity has not gone unnoticed by publishers, who’ve made it clear that piracy will not be tolerated, especially in Japan.

 

Publishers are tackling the problem by ramping up enforcement. This recently led to a major success when a Cloudflare probe helped to shut down 13DL, Japan’s largest pirate site.

Mangamura Shutdown

These enforcement efforts are intensifying but they are not new. Back in 2019, Japanese authorities arrested the operator of Mangamura, the leading manga piracy site at the time.

 

Mangamura had only been around for roughly two years but according to Japan-based anti-piracy group CODA, it caused well over $2 billion in damages to the local manga industry. The operator of the site, Romi Hoshino, was held responsible and eventually pleaded guilty in a criminal prosecution.

 

In 2021 the Fukuoka District Court sentenced Hoshino to three years in prison and over $650,000 in fines. That was a major win for the publishers, but they still weren’t done.

Publishers Want Millions

Last year, manga publishers Kodakawa, Shogakukan, and Shueisha filed a civil lawsuit against the former operator of Mangamura. Together, the companies requested 1.9 billion yen in damages. That’s close to US$13 million based on today’s exchange rate, without taking into account the 5% interest rate on top.

 

According to the complaint, Mangamura had around 100 million monthly visits at its peak. This arguably made it one of the largest pirate sites in history with Hoshino, who is now in his early thirties, as the main defendant.

 

To back up these claims and formulate a claim for damages, the publishers started to verify the site’s traffic statistics. They also hoped to find more evidence of Hoshino’s personal involvement. This quest eventually brought them to the U.S., as Mangamura used the services of both Google and Cloudflare.

Help from Google and Cloudflare

A few weeks ago the rightsholders made an appearance at a California federal court where they requested a subpoena to obtain detailed information from these two American tech companies. According to the court filing, the requested details are critical.

 

“[T]he number of visits or accesses to each of the Infringing Websites and the identifying information relating to the Mangamura would be critical in the Lawsuit,” the publishers wrote, adding that Google and Cloudflare are the only parties that can provide access to it.

 

The request landed on the desk of U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim who, after reviewing all the arguments, recommended the court grant the subpoena. Neither Google nor Cloudflare objected or made an appearance.

 

In a report and recommendations, Judge Kim concludes that all statutory and discretionary factors weigh in favor of granting the subpoena. The requested information is targeted enough and appears to be vital to the ongoing legal battle in Japan.

 

“[D]iscovery sought does not appear unduly burdensome or intrusive. Petitioners’ request is narrowly tailored to seek the website analytics necessary to calculate damages in their suit and identifying information solely for the registered account holder and registered billing contact for Mangamura,” Judge Kim wrote.

 

A few days ago, District Court Judge Vince Chhabria took over this recommendation, granting the subpoena.

Analytics, IP-addresses, and More

The subpoenas seek information about accounts related to “manga-mura.net” and “mangamura.org”. This includes traffic statistics, including the number of visitors these domains received.

 

 

In addition, the Manga publishers are also looking for all names, phone numbers, email addresses and billing addresses, payment methods, IP addresses, and access logs that are tied to the accounts.

 

Deterrent

Whether Google and Cloudflare can deliver the requested information has yet to be seen. In any case, the publishers are determined to hold the operator of the defunct site financially responsible for the damages they suffered.

 

The Japanese complaint mentions that Hoshino likely had help from co-conspirators but no other names are listed. The Tokyo District Court did previously fine two advertising companies for placing ads on Mangamura. Neither of these companies are listed in the publishers’ civil lawsuit.

 

Despite the fact that there’s only a single target in the Japanese lawsuit, the publishers hope that their legal action will eventually make other pirate site operators rethink their actions.

 

“We hope that the lawsuit will be conveyed to operators around the world and will deter them [from pirating],” Shueisha’s head of PR, Atsushi Ito, previously said.

 

—

 

A copy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s report and recommendations in available here (pdf), and the order granting the subpoenas can be found here (pdf)

 

In recent years, rightsholders of major sports events have repeatedly complained that piracy of live sports is getting out of hand.

 

Ideally, they would like to see updates to the current legislative frameworks so the problem can be targeted more efficiently. These comments have prompted lawmakers to look into the matter but, for now, the status quo remains.

 

That’s not to say that it’s impossible to address sports streaming piracy under current laws. The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has used its network and law enforcement connections to take out several large sports streaming operations, for example.

U.S. Domain Seizures

The U.S. Government also proved its abilities late last year, when it seized dozens of sports streaming-related domains in a FIFA World Cup-themed enforcement push.

 

In the initial wave, Homeland Security Investigations took down 55 domain names operated by pirate sports streaming sites and, in a follow-up, several more were pointed to a seizure banner.

 

This high-profile action affected millions of pirates and was successful in shutting some sites down permanently. SoccerStreams, one of the main targets, initially moved to a new domain but later announced that it had shut down permanently.

New Crackdown?

Earlier this week, several websites associated with brands that were targeted by U.S. seizures suddenly became unreachable. The domain names of popular sites such as NFLbite.com, NBAbite.com, and freestreams-live1.top stopped resolving.

 

 

More than a dozen sports streaming domains appeared to be taken out. These domains were registered through Njalla, which advertises itself as the “world’s most notorious privacy provider for domains.”

 

Privacy doesn’t mean that domains will remain online at all costs though. Njalla changed the nameservers of the domains to 1-ceci.njalla.do, 2-nest.pipe.ma, 3-pas.njalla.in, sending traffic into a sinkhole. Or as the French would say, Ceci n’est pas.

 

Indian Court Order

Given the recent history, it seemed likely that the U.S. Government might be involved, but that’s not the case. Njalla informs us that it took action following a court order from the New Delhi High Court in India.

 

“The domains are all with our ICANN-accredited partner and it’s out of both ours and their hands because of the court decision,” Njalla explains.

 

If Njalla or its partner, presumably Tucows, ignored the court order the latter would risk losing its ICANN accreditation. That could effectively put the company out of business.

 

Njalla still doesn’t have all the information but may share more details in the future, if the domain registrants give permission. What’s clear is that the targeted domains can’t operate through Njalla.

Not All Domains Remain Suspended

This enforcement action isn’t as broad as it first appeared, however. Several domains that initially pointed to “suspended” nameservers have resurfaced again on their original nameservers. Apparently, these domains are not listed in the court order.

 

Njalla informs us that the domain names that currently have a ‘clienthold’ status are the real targets. That appears to include freestreams-live1.top, which currently points to “shut-for-fraud.com” nameservers.

 

Needless to say, the domain suspension immediately stopped all traffic to this site, albeit with a slight delay due to DNS caching. However, sites that have previously survived U.S. domain seizures are not quick to back down, so the domain whack-a-mole will likely continue.

 

Demand for pirated streams doesn’t appear to wane either. A recent poll by Oddspedia among 3,200 American football fans shows that 93% don’t have any moral objections to using pirated streams. According to most respondents, the legal options are simply too expensive.

 

—-

 

Freestreams-live1.top is now on Clienthold. There may be more of these but without a copy of the court order, we’re not able to confirm that.

 

Below is a list of the domain names that (previously) pointed to suspended nameservers.

 

– rcrackstreams.com
– rboxingstreams.com
– nhlbite.com
– nflbite.com
– nbabite.com
– methstreams.link
– linestreams.com
– karmastreams.me
– karmastreams.com
– fsl-streams.click
– f1bite.net
– crackstreams.nu
– cokestreams.com
– buffstreams.sx
– boxingbite.net
– 2720pstream.tv
– 720pstream.nu
– 720pstream.me
– 101streams.net

 

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regularly conducts studies to see how piracy rates evolve over time.

 

These studies also identify the various barriers and drivers behind this activity, which helps to shape future policies.

 

This week, EUIPO released the latest installment of its biannual report on copyright infringement in the EU and UK. This study aims to document various piracy trends and the socioeconomic factors that trigger them.

 

The EU report is largely based on data from UK piracy tracking firm MUSO, which is widely used for these types of longitudinal studies.

Piracy Rebounds

In previous studies, a clear downtrend was visible, suggesting that piracy had seen its peak. While this may still be the case, the most recent data suggests that there was a notable increase in piracy levels over the past two years.

 

Overall, the latest study shows that piracy traffic started to grow again at the start of 2021, after years of decline.

 

“The main finding is that the declining trend seen in the earlier studies seems to be reversing, with piracy increasing again, mainly due to increases in piracy of TV content and publications,” the report reads.

 

 

Current piracy levels are still nowhere near what they were five years ago. However, a trend reversal is notable and may suggest that we’re at a pivotal point in time.

COVID Not to Blame

The EU report is the first detailed multi-country piracy study to investigate the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important, as many stakeholders maintain that this global event increased piracy overall.

 

Earlier this month, for example, the Motion Picture Association presented the following conclusion in its advice on future anti-piracy strategies.

 

“Studies show that piracy in the U.S. increased during the lockdown. These trends have continued past the pandemic, as consumers are now more comfortable with accessing copyrighted content through illegal piracy services,” the MPA said.

 

The Hollywood group based its conclusion on an early week-to-week piracy traffic comparison from MUSO, which indeed signaled a temporary increase. However, a follow-up report by MUSO later clarified that this effect was short-lived, as online piracy declined in the months after.

 

The new EU study now confirms that piracy was actually lowered during the pandemic, at least in the EU. While American trends are not included, these tend to be similar to those in Europe, at least in terms of direction.

 

“The models confirm that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to reducing film and TV piracy,” the research concludes, adding that there was no positive or negative effect on music.

Film piracy dropped during COVID

 

Indeed, looking at the graphs presented in the report, there is a clear COVID dip visible. According to the researchers, more people may have switched to legal services during the lockdowns.

 

“One possible reason for this phenomenon is that users may have opted for legal platforms as a simpler way to access the type of content they are interested in, coupled with limited opportunities to spend money on outside entertainment.”

 

While not mentioned in the report, another explanation is that fewer high-profile releases came out during the lockdowns. Fewer releases typically result in a piracy dip.

TV Piracy is Booming, Music Not So

Looking at the different content categories, we see that TV piracy remains dominant. According to the researchers, 48 % of the total aggregated piracy volume can be attributed to TV.

 

TV is also largely responsible for the recent rebound, together with the new publishing category that was added to the report this year. The evolution of all content piracy shows that the piracy totals remain below the 2017 level.

Piracy per Category

 

This overview further shows that music piracy, which was once widespread, is now a relatively fringe activity in the EU. This is good news for the music industry, which has seen its enforcement efforts against streamripping platforms pay off.

 

 

The EUIPO report also examined live sports piracy for the first time. While the available data is limited, there’s a significant increase of roughly 75% visible between the start of 2021 and the end of 2022.

Regional Differences

Previous studies have shown that streaming is by far the most dominant piracy vehicle today, beating alternatives such as torrents and direct downloads. This trend remains intact.

 

There are notable regional differences between countries, however. As shown below, film pirates in Romania and Italy almost exclusively rely on streaming, while torrents and direct downloads remain fairly popular in Spain and the Netherlands.

Piracy Preferences per Country

 

Various countries also differ in the volume and type of content consumed. Piracy is most popular in Estonia and Latvia, while it’s relatively out of favor in Germany and Italy.

Content per Country

 

The bar chart above further shows different preferences for the type of content. In Greece, film piracy is good for 25% of the total piracy volume, for example, while in Poland it’s as low as 5%.

Income and Legal Options

In addition to providing dozens of descriptive graphs and charts, the researchers also analyzed the data to identify potential key drivers of piracy. This produced some interesting observations.

 

The econometric analysis, which is limited to the movie, TV, and music categories, shows that the number of available legal alternatives reduces piracy. This means that the availability of more legal streaming services correlates to lower piracy numbers.

 

The income level of a country has a significant impact on piracy rates. Low per capita income, a high degree of income inequality, and high youth unemployment are all associated with increased consumption of pirated content.

A Massive Caveat

All in all, EUIPO’s biannual report is a great way to measure and track how piracy trends develop over time. That said, it comes with a massive caveat.

 

The study relies on MUSO’s data and is largely based on website visits. This means that IPTV piracy is not taken into account at all. The same is true for other types of piracy, such as apps and streaming devices.

 

EU’s own research has shown that IPTV piracy is a billion-dollar industry. While it isn’t as easy to measure as web-based traffic, it would be good to see some more details on it in future reports.

It’s no secret that French file-hosting platform Uptobox has been in the crosshairs of rightsholders for some time.

 

Founded in 2011, Uptobox gained popularity by making it easy for users to upload, store, and share files with others. In April 2023 alone, Uptobox received 34 million visits, roughly a third of those from France.

 

News that Uptobox domains had been blocked by French ISPs emerged in May, but the service remained unfazed. Rather than panic, it offered unblocking advice instead.

Serious Technical Issues…

Roughly three hours ago, the official Uptobox account on ‘X’ tweeted that the service was experiencing issues.

 

“It appears that we have a technical problem, we are currently investigating, the network seems to be severely disrupted,” the platform reported.

 

 

Reports from all over Europe confirmed that Uptobox was down, accompanied by differences of opinion as to the cause. Soon after, French news outlet l’Informé broke the news that no user of the service wanted to hear.

Police Raids on Two Datacenters

According to l’Informé sources, around 20 police officers raided Scaleway and OpCore, two cloud service providers based in Vitry-sur-Seine, an area in the southeastern suburbs of Paris.

 

At the time of the report, police were still on the scene, reportedly carrying out a court-ordered “counterfeit seizure” operation targeting Uptobox, which presumably utilized servers at Scaleway and OpCore.

 

According to l’Informé, the raids were carried out on behalf of the world’s largest entertainment companies; Columbia, Paramount, StudioCanal, Warner Bros, Disney, Apple and Amazon. All are members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the world’s largest anti-piracy coalition.

 

(Update: ACE has just confirmed its involvement in the operation. Statement below)

 

No Uptobox domains are functional at the time of writing.

One Image Reportedly Sealed Uptobox’s Fate

A remarkable detail in l’Informé’s report suggests that an image posted to Twitter almost five years ago may have marked the beginning of the end for Uptobox. It was posted to the @Starouille account just before Christmas 2018 by an individual believed to be the chief technical officer of Uptobox.

 

 

‘Online’ is a reference to Online SAS, the cloud hosting company that rebranded as Scaleway in 2015. DC2 is a reference to datacenter 2, a 4,500 m² facility located in Vitry-sur-Seine, the same suburb targeted by police this morning. Images courtesy of Google comprehensively clear up any remaining doubts over the location.

 

 

When contacted by l’Informé for comment, representatives of the movie industry, Scaleway and OpCore all declined to answer any questions.

‘Expert’ Opinions Should Be Ignored

Some ‘experts’ posting on social media are claiming that the l’Informé article is bogus. Unfortunately, they have to overcome two massive hurdles to remain credible.

 

Most importantly, the news was broken by journalist Marc Rees, so we can safely bet the house it’s authentic. Secondly, the official Uptobox account on ‘X’ has just provided important updates.

 

“Following the incident, we lost access to the servers containing the user files, they are no longer reachable, we have not yet had any documented confirmation of the seizure of our servers by anyone,” the first tweet reads.

 

“The database was not affected, and for security reasons, it was relocated off-web and the servers operating the site were erased in their entirety.”

 

Uptobox reports that no user data is currently lost and if it can regain access to its servers, files and user accounts may be reconnected.

 

“In the meantime, your files remain anonymous on our servers and are unusable. As for Premium subscriptions, these are frozen and will be restored and credited with compensation as soon as we regain access to the file servers. We are not going to give up, our team is working hard to resolve this situation as quickly as possible.”

 

Update: Statement from the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment:

 

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the world’s leading anti-piracy coalition, today announced it has shut down Uptobox and Uptostream, two of the digital piracy world’s most notorious illegal video hosts.

 

The action, conducted in France and the United Arab Emirates, puts an end to a piracy operation that was well known for a decade among distributors of infringing content. The illegal service boasted massive audiences, mainly from France, but also from Indonesia, India and Mexico, with 1.5 billion visits over the last three years. The services hosted a sizable infringing library of film and television titles affecting all ACE members and many other rightsholders, allowing users to stream and download copyright-protected content at no cost or through a paid premium subscription.

 

The two French nationals who ran the illegal service are based in Dubai, where they amassed illegal gains from selling advertising and premium subscriptions.

 

“The action we announced today demonstrates that even the most sophisticated piracy operations are not above the law,” said Jan van Voorn, Executive Vice President and Global Content Protection Chief of the Motion Picture Association and Head of ACE. “This case sends a strong message to criminal operators that their illegal actions will be put to an end eventually. They may think their operations are undercover, but ACE has the network, resources and expertise to identify them and shut them down.”

 

“Canal+ supports swift action when acts of piracy compromise intellectual property rights, which in turn has an impact on our business,” said Céline Boyer, Head of Content Protection at Canal+. “Our partnership with ACE is essential to ensuring that the creative marketplace continues to thrive by addressing content piracy at its source.”

 

“France Televisions has zero tolerance for piracy and illegal distribution of content and channels,” said Nathalie Bobineau, Senior Vice President of International Development of French public broadcaster France Televisions. “By collaborating with ACE, we reinforce our commitment to upholding the principles of copyright protection and preserving the value of original content.”