A few weeks ago, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses, allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

 

This legislative change is the latest attempt to deter piracy in the European country. The potential fines should make pirates reconsider their habits, the idea goes.

Monitoring Pirates

While this plan may be sound on paper, there are some challenges to overcome. Tracking pirates isn’t always possible. Outsiders can’t easily see who uses a pirate streaming site, for example.

 

Tracking BitTorrent pirates is easier, but not straightforward when the largest torrent site in the country, LinkoManija.net, is a private community. The torrent site is relatively unknown in most parts of the world but it’s a local legend. LinkoManija has been around for more than two decades and continues to survive.

 

 

Although the torrent site is not openly accessible, many Lithuanians are members, as evidenced by the fact that it’s one of the most visited sites in the country. The site’s members include some piracy investigators too, it appears.

Watchdog Fines LinkoManija Users

This week, media watchdog LRTK announced that it had fined three LinkoManija users. The people in question were tracked down on July 27, presumably by their IP-addresses. All three shared a copy of the locally produced film “Tu Mano Deimantas“.

 

LRTK says this is the first time it has issued administrative fines for copyright violations carried out by individual pirates. These fines are presumably directed at the Internet subscribers associated with the pirating IP addresses.

 

Under the updated law, the consumer watchdog can fine online pirates up to 600 euros per offense. In this case, the three LinkoManija users were fined 140 euros each.

 

The scale of the fines is relatively mild and may not stop the most determined pirates. However, the authorities likely hope that by showing that people can indeed get caught, that will act as a deterrent. Meanwhile, the LinkoManija website remains up and running, as it has done since 2003.

For many people, Google is the go-to starting point when they need to find something on the web. With just a few keystrokes, the search engine can find virtually anything.

 

The company also has many other tools to browse and organize the web, including the Chrome browser and YouTube.

 

All these products and services fall under the umbrella of the company Alphabet. While the various departments are largely run separately, there is plenty of overlap too. This week, we stumbled upon information suggesting that DMCA notices, received for the search engine, directly impact people’s privately saved links.

 

As reported earlier this month, Google’s search index is a prime target for copyright holders. Over the past several years, more than seven billion ‘infringing’ URLs have been flagged, with the majority removed. This makes sense, as Google is legally required to process DMCA takedown requests.

 

What comes as a surprise, however, is that the search takedown requests also impact other Google services.

Search Takedowns Affect Saved URLs

A few hours ago, Eddie Roosenmaallen shared an email from Google, notifying him that a link had been removed from his Google Saved collection because it violates Google’s policy.

 

The reason cited for the removal is the “downstream impact”, as the URL in question is “blocked by Google Search”.

 

“The following saved item in one of your collections was determined to violate Google’s policy. As a result, the item will be moderated..,” Google writes, pointing out a defunct KickassTorrents domain as the problem.

 

 

Initially, it was suggested that this removal impacted Google’s synched Chrome bookmarks but further research reveals that’s not the case. Instead, the removals apply to Google’s saved feature.

 

This Google service allows users to save and organize links, similar to what Pinterest does. These link collections can be private or shared with third parties.

Bookmarks?

The initial bookmark confusion is likely caused by the fact that, in Google’s app, the saved icon (shown below) appears by default. When clicked, the page in question is added to a “favorite pages” collection, which some people see as a bookmark.

 

 

Confusing terminology aside, what stands out here is that Google’s search content policy also applies to these saved links. As a result, URLs for which Google receives a search takedown, disappear from saved collections as well. This applies to both public and private collections.

 

DMCA’d URLS can’t be Saved

TorrentFreak was able to replicate this issue. Google doesn’t allow us to ‘save’ URLs that are removed from Google search, such as YouTube ripper “Yout.com”, torrent site “1337x.to”, or the earlier mentioned “Katcr.com.”

 

These blockades apply to single URLs, not entire domains. For example, thepiratebay.org is still visible in Google searches and can be added to a collection. However, Pirate Bay links that are deindexed, such as this one, can’t be saved.

 

The same applies to other sites. The old homepage of YouTube ripper 2conv.com can’t be saved since it’s been removed from Google search, but the latest homepage URL (2conv.com/neshq) can still be added.

 

It’s not clear why Google enforces the search policy for saved links or whether preventing copyright infringement is the main goal. The company didn’t immediately respond to our request for comment. If we hear back, this article will be updated accordingly.

 

For now, the impact is relatively limited as the saved feature isn’t widely used. However, if Google decides to “moderate” users’ Chrome bookmarks, or its DNS resolver, things could get interesting.

 

Artificial intelligence has the potential to make our lives more efficient, entertaining, and productive. There are potential downsides as well.

 

From a copyright perspective, AI brings up some interesting questions. For example, can content created by an AI be copyrighted? And can an AI be trained on copyrighted works without limitation?

Authors Sue OpenAI

According to several authors, large language model training sets shouldn’t be permitted to use every piece of text they come across online. In their lawsuit filed in June, book authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad accused OpenAI of direct and vicarious copyright infringement, among other things.

 

Soon after, writer/comedian Sarah Silverman was joined by authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey in an identical suit which also accused OpenAI of using books as training data. This happened without permission, using datasets that were sourced from pirate sites, the complaint alleged.

 

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.

 

“The books aggregated by these websites have also been available in bulk via torrent systems. These flagrantly illegal shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community..,” the authors wrote.

OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Claims

This week, OpenAI responded to these accusations with a request for the bulk of the claims to be dismissed. They include vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violation, unfair competition, “negligence,” and unjust enrichment allegations.

 

“None of these causes of action states a viable claim for relief because none of the legal theories challenged here actually condemns the conduct alleged with respect to ChatGPT, the language models that power it, or the process used to create them,” OpenAI informed the court.

 

“It is important for these claims to be trimmed from the suit at the outset, so that these cases do not proceed to discovery and beyond with legally infirm theories of liability.”

 

 

The only claim that should be able to survive, for now, is direct copyright infringement, but OpenAI expects to defeat the claim at a later stage.

Fair Use

The authors’ copyright infringement claims are grounded in copyright law. OpenAI doesn’t dispute that copyright plays a role but notes that the complaints take a hard line, glossing over exemptions such as fair use.

 

“Those claims, however, misconceive the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”

 

OpenAI notes that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, its creators saw copyright law as a tool to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In this case, AI is seen as useful progress, and its use of large amounts of copyrighted texts could be seen as ‘fair’.

 

“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 writes.

Derivative?

The authors clearly have a different take. They argued that every output of OpenAI’s language models is a copyright infringing derivative work. These derivatives are generated without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

 

OpenAI argues that this conclusion goes too far. The organization points out, based on the authors’ theory, that all output from large language models is essentially copyright infringing. While that may be what the authors want, it would severely hamper AI innovations.

 

Courts have previously rejected interpretations of the term derivative that are too broad, and should do so here as well, the AI company notes.

 

“According to the Complaints, every single ChatGPT output —from a simple response to a question, to the name of the President of the United States, to a paragraph describing the plot, themes, and significance of Homer’s The Iliad— is necessarily an infringing ‘derivative work’ of Plaintiffs’ books.

 

“Worse still, each of those outputs would simultaneously be an infringing derivative of each of the millions of other individual works contained in the training corpus— regardless of whether there are any similarities between the output and the training works. That is not how copyright law works,” OpenAI adds.

 

Based on these and a variety of arguments, OpenAI asks the court to dismiss all claims, except direct copyright infringement.

 

The authors have yet to respond, but they will likely counter OpenAI’s motion. These cases will help to define the boundaries of copyright when it comes to AI developments, and will likely be fought tooth and nail.

 

—

 

The motions to dismiss in the Tremblay and Awad case can be found here (pdf), and the identical version that’s filed in the Silverman, Golden, Kadrey lawsuit is available here (pdf).

The recent release of The Pirates vs The Premier League podcast series was a great opportunity to hear fresh voices and opinions on the Premier League’s piracy problems.

 

The Premier League has had piracy issues since its inception, although fundamentally no different to those endured by its broadcasting partners years before the Premier League even existed.

 

The podcast provided a platform where fans, experts, and other interested parties, were able to present their opinions on what motivates people to consume pirated streams to the detriment of the Premier League. There was even a slim chance that discussions would lead to solutions or at least some common ground.

Premier League Disinterested in Discussion

While there were no fresh surprises, the causes of piracy in the UK were certainly underlined; expensive subscriptions spread over multiple platforms, and zero access to 3pm games. The pirate counter-offer: cheap subscriptions with zero restrictions.

 

Somewhere between those disparate poles lies opportunity and the non-preachy nature of the podcast seemed as good a place as any to discuss or even tiptoe round the edges of a discussion involving the Premier League.

 

Unfortunately, the Premier League declined to appear; presumably because it’s their multi-billion pound business, and they’ll run it as they see fit, within the confines of the official 375-page 2023-2024 handbook (pdf).

 

Premier League Owners’ Charter 2023/24

 

With the Premier League apparently in no mood for discussion right now, it came as a surprise to see the name of its general counsel appear in news feeds as the UK enjoyed a Bank Holiday yesterday.

Deterrent Messaging – Paywalled

In an article published in the Financial Times, it was made abundantly clear that the Premier League’s attitude towards piracy (and how it can be reduced) has not changed. Premier League general counsel Kevin Plumb was extremely clear; piracy will meet the world’s richest football competition in the legal arena.

 

The Premier League’s status as an iconic and powerful global business dovetails perfectly with the reporting of the prestigious Financial Times. However, the article’s emphasis on deterrent anti-piracy messaging was published behind a paywall. Whether that was intentionally symbolic is unclear but football fans aren’t the only audience the Premier League has to consider.

 

The piece begins by noting that the Premier League will take a tougher stance against illegal streaming after beefing up its legal team and launching private prosecutions. More importantly, perhaps, this is all taking place as the Premier League prepares for a “multibillion auction of domestic television rights.” Given that being pummeled by pirates is imagery unlikely to increase bids, a zero-tolerance announcement to the business world makes a lot of sense.

 

“We don’t underestimate them. They’re really sophisticated now. There is always a challenge with finding people online,” Plumb told the FT.

 

“When I first started doing this, our top line priority would have been pubs. There’s a little bit of that now but piracy has evolved from peer-to-peer streaming to closed network subscriptions. You went from the pub to the teenagers in their bedrooms to families watching in their living room, and that then becomes a real priority for us,” he said.

Flawless Deterrent

The most significant deterrent message ever sent by the Premier League is still relatively fresh. In May, five men behind pirate IPTV service Flawless TV were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison, the end result of a private prosecution brought by the Premier League with significant support from Trading Standards and the police.

 

“Would you want to carry on this sort of business if you’re going to get 10 or 11 years in jail?” Plumb asked, referencing the sentence handed down to Flawless ringleader, Mark Gould.

 

Of course, the logical answer is no. The reality is that buying an illegal IPTV package is easier than ever and nothing changed when the sentences were handed down almost three months ago.

 

The Premier League understands its business better than anyone but history has shown that force alone cannot beat piracy. The Premier League is undoubtedly special but certainly not immune to having its deterrent threats ignored, even those not published behind a paywall.

 

The UFC, NBA and NFL are without a doubt among the most recognizable sports brands in the world.

 

Their events attract millions of viewers and are monetized through multi-billion dollar licensing deals and expensive PPV events.

 

Many sports fans are willing to pay to access these broadcasts but for some the costs involved are simply too steep. This has created a black market for pirated live streams which attract millions of users.

Slow and Ineffective DMCA Takedowns

Sports leagues and promotors are not happy with these unauthorized streams and are finding it difficult to get a grip on the problem. DMCA takedown notices are the main anti-piracy tool at their disposal but for live content they say this simply isn’t effective.

 

Last week, these concerns were shared with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to a consultation to discuss future anti-piracy and counterfeiting strategies.

 

In their letter, UFC, NBA, and NFL point out that, when it comes to live sports streaming, most of the value is concentrated on the live broadcast. When it takes several hours before an online service provider (OSP) responds to a DMCA notice, that’s practically useless as the live event has already ended by then.

 

“Unfortunately, UFC, NBAP and NFLP’s shared experience is that many OSPs frequently take hours or even days to remove content in response to takedown notices—thus allowing infringing live content to remain online during the most anticipated moments, or even the entirety, of a UFC event or an NBA or NFL game,” they write.

 

 

As a result of these inadequate policies, live-streaming piracy continues to flourish. For the global sports industry it’s a growing problem said to be responsible for billions of dollars in lost revenues.

Expeditiously Outdated

When the DMCA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, live streaming simply didn’t exist yet. However, the law did clarify that service providers should process takedown notices “expeditiously.”

 

In reality, however, the term expeditiously is not defined. According to some, responding within a few hours is sufficient, while other services believe that taking content down within a day is still quite reasonable.

 

These response times may still work for static content but not for live sports, UFC, NBA and NFL stress in their letter.

 

“It should be no surprise that the notice-and-takedown regime established by the DMCA, which was enacted before widespread internet-based livestreaming became available, is not well-suited to address the present-day particular piracy issues surrounding the infringement of live content.”

Instantaneous DMCA Takedowns

In recent years, live-streaming piracy hasn’t limited itself to dedicated pirate sites. Some use legitimate social media platforms to promote their content or abuse the live streaming capabilities of these services directly.

 

To tackle with this issue, the sports organizations would like to see Section 512 of the DMCA updated. Instead of taking down content ‘expeditiously,” online services should be required to respond near-instantaneously.

 

“[T]he requirement to ‘expeditiously’ remove infringing content means that content must be removed ‘instantaneously or near-instantaneously’ in response to a takedown request. This would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately.”

 

The sports organizations don’t define what “near-instantaneously” means, but this should be seconds or minutes, rather than hours.

 

In addition to swift takedowns, social media platforms should limit the live streaming capabilities to users that meet a certain verification threshold. This should exclude new users, or users with only a handful of followers, for example.

 

“Certain OSPs already impose measures like these, demonstrating that the measures are feasible, practical and important tools to reduce livestream piracy. Both of these reforms are needed,” UFC, NBA and NFL write.

 

This isn’t the first time that sports rightsholders have demanded action. In Europe, shorter takedown windows have been on the political agenda for years. While the European Commission hasn’t baked these into law, Italy recently adopted a 30-minute takedown window for live-streaming content.

 

Whether U.S. lawmakers will consider updating the DMCA has yet to be seen, but getting it on the political agenda is the first step.

 

—

 

A copy of the letter UFC, NBA and NFL sent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office is available here (pdf)

 

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 two newcomers on the list. “Meg 2: The Trench” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 28 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Meg 2: The Trench	5.3 / trailer
2	(7)	The Flash	7.0 / trailer
3	(2)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	8.8 / trailer
4	(3)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
5	(1)	Elemental	7.0 / trailer
6	(6)	Transformers: Rise of the Beasts	6.3 / trailer
7	(4)	No Hard Feelings	6.6 / trailer
8	(8)	Fast X	6.1 / trailer
9	(…)	Vacation Friends 2	5.3 / trailer
10	(10)	John Wick: Chapter 4	8.0 / trailer

 

 

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

 

It’s hard to say how many times the movie, music, and more recently live sports industries have survived imminent piracy-inflicted apocalypses. They have though, possibly since those issuing the warnings usually have ideas about how to prevent them.

 

More often the solution lies in new legislation that allows rightsholders to do something the law currently disallows. The proposals can be radical but to a background of industry X or Y disappearing overnight with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, urgency is always part of the equation.

 

This June, as Italian lawmakers were preparing to pass radical IPTV blocking legislation, DAZN publicly urged lawmakers to speed up the process. DAZN reminded them that since piracy steals €800,000 from live sports every single day, live ‘dynamic’ nationwide blocking needed to be implemented without delay.

 

The law was passed on July 14 and telecoms regulator AGCOM later declared “perfect synchrony” with the measures going into force August 8, just 11 days before the start of the new Serie A football championship.

100 Pirate Services Identified, None Blocked

Articles in Italian media marked out August 8 as a day to remember. Not only would pirate IPTV services face sudden blocking, people who simply bought pirate IPTV packages risked a 5,000 euro fine under new law.

 

According to a report in La Repubblica, what actually happened on August 8 amounted to almost nothing at all. While the blocking system identified around “100 violations,” no pirate services or streams were blocked.

 

One explanation for the absence of blocking notes that the parties responsible for blocking are required to have a “technical roundtable” to finalize details before any blocking can take place. That’s accurate and also makes perfect sense; any overblocking would be a PR disaster. However, some fingers also point towards parliament for not passing the law sooner.

 

A less generous read suggests that most of the technical work should’ve preceded the blocking demands themselves, with tested capability guiding any permission to block. Some also argue that when parliament took an extra four weeks to pass the law, that was also another month to get things ready. Unfortunately, developing software without knowing the details up front rarely goes well and in any event, the delay is clearly going to be longer than four weeks.

Might Be Ready in October

Ultimately, the situation seems easily summed up; lawmakers delivered urgently and, for whatever reason, the blocking parties aren’t ready. La Repubblica reports that the technical table is scheduled for the first week of September, a month after the law came into force, and the results of that may be known “as early as the beginning of October.”

 

Or to express that in DAZN terminology: a minimum €48,000,000 delay.

 

Still, a source familiar with the so-called ‘anti-pezzotto’ blocking platform told Key4Biz that the delay is necessary, partially for security reasons.

 

Italy’s National Cybersecurity Agency (ACN) will reportedly beef up the system’s security because “it will certainly be subject to cyber-attacks commissioned by the criminals who manage illegal IPTVs.”

 

If that has already happened to similar blocking systems elsewhere in the world, nothing has been reported in public. That being said, it would make for controversial headlines if pirates suddenly acquired superior blocking capabilities than those being prepared for their rivals.

 

“The platform is insane and will solve digital piracy and will be used from late September/early October,” the Key4Biz source added.

Pirated content exists in many shapes and forms. In the early 90s cassettes and floppies were popular, but they were later replaced by CDs and other forms of mass storage media.

 

While these shifts were taking place, Internet-based piracy was taking off. From Napster, through Kazaa, to torrents and streaming services; piracy entered nearly every household at some point.

 

Nowadays, most pirates have grown used to the convenience of on-demand streaming but other variants continue to exist. Earlier this week, Amazon sued the operators of several stores it accused of selling pirated DVDs out in the open, for example.

‘Handmade’ Pirate Sticks

The pirate DVD business has been around for more than two decades but usually takes place offline. However, it seems that sellers have gotten used to the opportunities and convenience of the Internet as well. And with outlets such as Etsy providing an easy storefront, selling has become easier than ever.

 

While Etsy isn’t the only store where pirated content is openly sold, the problem seems prevalent there. Simply typing in the search phrases “USB movies” or “USB TV shows” returns hundreds of results.

 

Most of these flash drives are tagged as “handmade”. It’s not clear what that entails but it seems likely that these sellers downloaded the pirated goods by hand at some point, created curated selections of movies and TV-shows, then added them to USB drives.

 

 

This ‘craftwork’ results in popular titles such as “80 action movies usb” and “South Park seasons 1-26 and movie on USB flash drive“. The prices vary and range from a few dollars for a single TV-series on a flash drive, to $1,200 for a collection of 10,000+ movies on a 12 terabyte hard drive.

Is Craft Piracy OK?

Earlier this week someone on Reddit questioned how so many Etsy sellers can sell these ‘handmade’ flash drives loaded with movies and TV shows. Have these people found a loophole in the law or is this copyright infringement?

 

As far as we know, there is no fair use exception for ‘handmade’ collections of pirated content, and most Redditors also answered that this is copyright infringement. The question of how these sellers get away with it was aptly answered as well.

 

“They’re getting away with it the same way any drug dealers in my city are getting away with selling drugs, they just haven’t gotten caught yet. Or some may have gotten caught but only received a slap on the wrist and decided it was worth the risk to continue.”

 

While selling drugs is obviously on a different level, both groups appear to be seizing an opportunity to make a profit. And given the vast amount of pirate flash drive sellers out there, it’s possible to get away with it, at least for a while.

ACE is Watching

Anti-piracy coalition ACE is aware of this problem, however. ACE boss Jan van Voorn informs TorrentFreak that they’re working with Etsy and other online platforms to address these types of problems.

 

“This is one example where sellers circumvent the parameters and violate the terms of service. This is something we are actively flagging with platforms like Etsy,” Van Voorn says.

 

We also reached out to Etsy, but the company didn’t immediately reply to our request for comment.

 

For now, however, the problem persists. Looking at the reviews, many customers are happy with the products these sellers offer. However, there are several complaints as well, probably because most who buy pre-loaded pirate drives aren’t the most tech-savvy types.

 

When a sports business journalist says he’s producing a podcast series on piracy, there’s always a risk that the end product will end up sounding like a corporate anti-piracy campaign disguised as independent reporting.

 

After learning of the project a few months ago, we are pleased to confirm that podcast series The Pirates vs The Premier League is out now and certified free from distracting influences.

 

Created by journalists Matt Cutler and Richard Gillis, the series begins with football fan Matt hoping to find a pirated live stream of a match featuring his team, Aston Villa, which isn’t being shown in the UK.

 

Given that the Premier League insists this is a crime (watching streams, not supporting Aston Villa), the admission sets the tone for an honest view of IPTV piracy. Matt speaks with those who supply streams, hears from fans who consume them, and with input from various experts, tries to understand the implications for the Premier League and the sport in general.

 

We’ll let the podcast tell its own story but a significant point emerges from the podcast in the form of a jarring omission. Contributors include fans, a close friend of a jailed IPTV pirate, an IPTV reseller, anti-piracy company Nagra, various industry analysts and fascinating input from Will Page, former Chief Economist at Spotify, to name just a few.

 

The Premier League, the body at the epicenter of the debate, refused to participate.

 

Five episodes are currently live

 

The podcast explores various theories on why the Premier League prefers to exclude itself from the discussion, while acknowledging the exceptional quality of the Premier League product. One of the questions relates to the cost of that product in an economic downturn and whether football’s traditional working class fans are being priced out in favor of the middle classes.

 

“The Premier League is a fantastic product. It’s hard to argue against that,” Matt informs TorrentFreak.

 

“Over the last 30 years it has taken football not just in the UK but globally to a new level of quality and entertainment, and also the clubs are doing more than ever to support grassroots and good causes. That’s only been enabled because of the investments that have come from Sky and other subscription broadcasters. But I do believe football in particular has become too expensive.

 

“TV is the main way most football fans watch sport; season ticket waiting lists are at an all-time high and even if you can get a ticket, you have to be able to afford it. The cost of living crisis is putting this under the spotlight and piracy in many ways democratizes football again. Yet the data also shows two-thirds of people who pirate sports broadcasts also pay for sports broadcasts legitimately.

 

“Fans will pay, millions just don’t currently have access to a product that delivers what they want at a price point they are willing to pay.”

Factors Beyond Price Fuel Piracy

The podcast also addresses the controversial ‘3pm blackout’ and its contribution to piracy rates. Matt believes that getting rid of the broadcasting ban would be a major step forward, as would a change of anti-piracy messaging and more consideration for those who can’t afford to follow the sport anymore.

 

“The blackout is a core reason why people are pirating sport in the UK and I haven’t seen any evidence that its removal will have a negative impact on grassroots football, both attendances and people playing,” Matt says.

 

“I’d also like to see communications changed away from ‘pirating sport might get you arrested’ to better explaining why the money being spent on media subscriptions benefits fans and the clubs they support. And who the illegitimate content lines the pockets of.

 

“Lastly, and maybe this is a reach but, subsidizing subscription costs for those struggling financially wouldn’t go amiss.”

 

The Pirates vs The Premier League is available on Spotify and Apple (Unofficial Partner Productions)

 

Authorities and rightsholders in Brazil say there will be no let up in their battle against all aspects of the illegal TV market. From pirate IPTV services and non-certified set-top boxes, to illegal streaming websites and pirate apps, all will face continued disruption.

 

Brazil’s National Film Agency (Ancine) and local telecoms regulator Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency) announced a new anti-piracy partnership earlier this year, with the latter championing blocking measures as a key tool for bringing piracy under control.

Technical Measures Play to Pirates’ Strengths

While rightsholders believe that blocking can be effective at reducing piracy rates, as a technical response it actually plays to the strengths of tech-savvy pirates. Where rightsholders’ currently hold an advantage is the general lack of technical ability at the mainstream consumer end of the market. No longer just geeks, many of today’s IPTV pirates fix cars, conduct plastic surgery, or handle tax affairs for a living. They watch TV to relax so anything that prevents that needs to be handled by someone else.

 

With that in mind, it was interesting to read comments from the Brazilian Association of Pay Television (ABTA) in a Teletime report published earlier this month. In response to IP address blocking deployed by the authorities, pirate set-top boxes now have VPN services built in or come ready configured to use public DNS services, rather than the poisoned ones provided by ISPs.

 

It’s unlikely this took ABTA by surprise. In the UK, where blocking is over a decade old and on some ISPs cannot be defeated by a simple change of DNS, it’s now fairly standard for pre-configured subscription IPTV boxes to arrive with a pre-configured VPN. This does nothing to make the very casual user more tech-savvy but does allow blocks to be easily circumvented by those who are.

Blocking the Unblockers

The problem in Brazil and elsewhere is that the companies requesting ISP blocking don’t like to see it being circumvented. ABTA legal director Jonas Antunes said that if VPN services and public DNS providers like Google fail to comply with Anatel’s blocking instructions, the government will have to address the issue.

 

“The main difficulty in combating piracy today is not in the telecommunications networks, but in a layer above,” Antunes told Teletime.

 

While that may indeed be part of the puzzle, ultimately the issue always returns to the internet. Following the realization that governments and rightsholders lack real control online, the usual response is to point fingers at powerful internet companies and demand that they find a solution.

 

During the first day of the PAYTV Forum in São Paulo earlier this week, Anatel’s Moisés Moreira kept that tradition alive.

“One of Them Starts With a G”

According to event sponsor Teletime, Moreira told the forum that there has been very little assistance from Big Tech when it comes to tackling the illegal distribution of content online.

 

“We want them [the big platforms] to help us block IPs. That’s what we need to be more successful,” Moreira said. “There are giants, I will not mention their names – one of them starts with G – that we have notified.”

 

It’s difficult to gauge how Google might react without knowing the specifics of the proposals and the implications for hundreds of unknown moving parts. Historically, it would’ve been a pretty safe bet for rightsholders to go home with absolutely nothing but attitudes do seem to be changing at Google.

 

Whether that includes immediate compliance with ultimatums is unknown, but history shows that compliance with any measure leads to further demands to comply with another.

 

“I have already determined a period of one week for them to manifest themselves and if that does not happen, we will escalate the enforcement, even judicialization by the agency. There’s nothing left to wait for, so we’re going to be more rigorous,” Moreira informed the forum.

 

Image credit: Mohamed_hassan/Pixabay

 

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

 

This stance was a remnant of the SOPA defeat, which drove copyright holders to focus on blocking efforts in other countries instead, with success.

 

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

Future Anti-Piracy Strategies

An ideal opportunity to discuss the site-blocking potential arrived earlier this year when the U.S. Government’s Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched a consultation to discuss future anti-piracy and counterfeiting strategies.

 

Several stakeholders submitted their comments this week and while the responses cover a wide range of issues, site blocking is mentioned repeatedly.

 

Technically, it is already possible for rightsholders to request blocking injunctions, and that has happened in the past. However, the text of the law is not entirely clear on whether ISPs have to be held liable or not. That further complicates the issue.

 

Ideally, rightsholders would like to change the legal framework in the United States to allow for so-called ‘no fault’ injunctions on home turf. Supporters argue that, with proper judicial oversight, courts should be able to instruct Internet providers to block foreign pirate sites, without holding intermediaries liable.

Piracy: An Existential Threat

Creative Future is one of the most vocal proponents of site blocking. The group represents hundreds of companies and organizations, as well as 300,000 individuals who work in the creative industry. According to CEO Ruth Vitale, piracy is an existential threat to the livelihood of these people.

 

“Our nation’s creative economy, the world’s best, continues to be under siege by digital piracy despite the almost universal availability of our work in the legitimate digital marketplace,” Vitale writes.

 

Concerns about piracy are nothing new but the fact that the U.S. harbors the most pirates worldwide and lacks simple and effective tools to combat known pirate sites, is a real issue.

 

“To make matters worse, most piracy that is consumed in the United States is coming from territories beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. What is as incomprehensible? The fact that there are commonsense measures in place around the world that have proven to be effective anti-piracy tools in situations like this, but that are not available here at home.”

 

Court-ordered site-blocking injunctions are the most obvious tool, according to Vitale, who mentions that these have proven to be effective in other parts of the world.

 

“Such site blocking has proven to be an effective remedy against piracy in the more than 40 countries that have implemented court-adjudicated site blocking – including western democracies like Canada and the UK,” she notes.

Site Blocking: A Game-Changer

The submission reads as a personal plea but also cites various studies and statistics to argue in favor of blocking. This includes academic research which found that, if done right, blocking injunctions can trigger some pirates to pay for additional legal subscriptions.

 

With dozens of millions of pirates in the United States, this translates into significant revenues; that could be a potential game changer.

 

“This kind of shift away from illegal pirate sites and toward the legal marketplace could be a game-changer not only for America’s film and television industry and its 2.4 million workers, but for all Americans,” Vitale writes.

 

Creative Future is well aware of the site-blocking concerns voiced by opponents. This includes the concern that overblocking can restrict freedom of expression.

 

While we have seen serious but isolated incidents in other countries, Vitale believes that these “outdated arguments” shouldn’t stop Congress from seriously considering site-blocking.

Publishers Push Site-Blocking

Creative Future is not the only organization urging the Government to consider site-blocking legislation. The Association of American Publishers (AAP) requests the same.

 

AAP has two main legislative suggestions. The first is to implement a takedown-staydown policy, to ensure that content isn’t reuploaded on platforms once it’s removed. The second is site-blocking.

 

“Website blocking works to disrupt piracy or large-scale copyright infringement occurring on or facilitated by blatant pirate sites located in foreign jurisdictions,” AAP writes.

 

The publishers stress that thousands of domains have been blocked in dozens of countries around the world, but not in the US. While the association admits that it’s no “silver bullet to cure all online piracy ills,” it will help to combat the problem.

 

“This remedy has already proven effective in multiple jurisdictions around the world, and a similar remedy should be adopted in the United States,” AAP writes.

 

This isn’t the first time that rightsholders have urged U.S. rightsholders to consider site blocking. Thus far, no concrete plans have surfaced, but there is some movement in the Capitol.

 

US Senator Thom Tillis previously asked the public to share their views on site blocking. This triggered unanimous support from the Motion Picture Association, but there was plenty of opposition too, as always.

 

—

 

A copy of Creative Future’s response to the USPTO’s inquiry is available here (pdf) and AAP’s version can be found here (pdf)

 

For quite some time, Fmovies has sat among a newer-breed of pirate streaming sites pulling in astonishing levels of traffic. This has attracted a lot of negative attention from major rightsholders in the movie and TV sectors.

 

The studios of the MPA have repeatedly taken complaints about FMovies to the U.S. government, leading to the platform making annual appearances in the USTR’s ‘notorious markets’ list. The resulting diplomatic pressure on overseas governments (in this case Vietnam) is supposed to restrict and restrain sites like Fmovies from operating freely; even a reduction in popularity might be a good start.

Fmovies Does Nothing But Grow

No matter which tools rightsholders use against FMovies, nothing has worked thus far. The site was sued in the United States in 2016 and emerged on the wrong end of a $210,000 judgment, yet appeared entirely unaffected.

 

The site is also subject to numerous ISP blocking orders around the world and in 2022 was held up as an example to show why global DNS blocking may be needed to deal with the most persistent of pirate sites.

 

Back then Fmovies.to was enjoying at least 87 million visits per month but by May 2023, the figure had increased again to over 98.4 million. Just a month later, Fmovies reached 106.9 million visits according to SimilarWeb stats, but that was just another stepping stone to the 122.3 million achieved in July 2023.

Users Keep Returning to the Site

This level of growth is not typical and in part may be linked to the closure of Soap2Day. Nevertheless, the site must be getting things right in the eyes of its users to maintain such high levels of traffic.

 

One of the claimed benefits of Fmovies is that advertising is kept to a minimum. For users of adblocking extensions, which likely counts for millions of the site’s users, that’s to be expected, but sites like Fmovies don’t run on fresh air. Indeed, in today’s ‘pirate market’, turning a profit is mostly seen as fundamental. The manner in which Fmovies generates revenue is likely to come to the forefront at some point but until then, some users have been voicing security concerns.

Anti-Virus/Malware Warnings

One of the conversations on Reddit began when a user complained that their AVG security software had blocked the download of a supposed trojan while using Fmovies.

 

Given that false positives are common and people can have polarized positions on which security software people should (and should not) be using, the conversation was much less productive than it could’ve been. Nevertheless, users of Avast and Kaspersky claimed to have the same issue, while at least one person advised that anti-virus software isn’t needed these days at all.

 

After speaking with a couple of people more focused on this type of issue, one shared the puzzling screenshot below. There’s no claim that the issues reported above are linked in any way to the information below, but it’s not the type of thing one tends to expect.

 

 

Running the same URL through urlscan.io shows that Fmovie scans are common; over 600 have already been carried out. The screenshot retrieved by URLScan can be seen below. The ‘software update’ is not what it claims to be and for those who click through, nothing good will come of it.

 

 

‘Disney’ Subdomain a Coincidental One-Off?

Drawing conclusions on security matters is best left to the professionals, so we draw none here. All we can say for sure is that some security vendors appear to have been sounding the alarm this week, as the screenshot below tends to suggest. Over what exactly isn’t clear so for anyone experiencing issues or those with a technical interest, getting in touch with the vendors directly maybe an option.

 

 

Given the basic curiosity around the Disney subdomain, it was always a possible that Netflix or Amazon might’ve made an appearance too, but they don’t. Instead, the weirdness continues with verizon.fmovies.to, centurylink.fmovies.to, comcastcorporation.fmovies.to, and charter.fmovies.to, among others. There are plenty of mundane ones too, like server.fmovies.to and cdn.fmovies.to, but everyone has some of those.

 

Maybe some people just like having fun with off-the-wall naming conventions but for those who like big brands, the full list is a goldmine – almost literally in some cases.

 

northwesternmutual, nscorp, expediainc, centerpointenergy, visa, citigroup, walmart, omnicomgroup, wellsfargo, pepsico, etc, etc, etc (full list here)

 

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

 

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

 

The Federal Court eventually granted this request for the ongoing season, with some safeguards. In part due to intervention from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), an independent expert was appointed to measure the effectiveness and proportionality of the blocking efforts.

 

The blocking injunction wasn’t filed in isolation. Instead, the interlocutory order is part of a lawsuit against the operators of the IPTV streaming servers. The goal of the lawsuit is to pursue claims against these defendants and the blockades are a temporary measure to limit the damage these services cause.

NHL Blocking Season Ends

The initial NHL injunction only applied to the 2021/2022 season, which was already in its final stages when the injunction was issued. After that, the media companies, which include Rogers, Bell, and The Sports Network, used the lawsuit to obtain a similar blocking order for the NHL’s 2022/2023 season.

 

Despite these successes on the blocking front, there was no clear progress in the underlying lawsuit. Publicly shared information is limited but court records show that the plaintiffs decided to discontinue their legal action earlier this month.

 

 

The decision doesn’t impact the blocking injunction, as that was already moot after the NHL season ended. However, by dropping the case in its entirety, it’s clear that the rightsholders no longer intend to go after the people who operate the pirate streaming operations either.

 

This begs the question; was this lawsuit indeed started to bring the operators to justice, or was the main priority to get a blocking injunction in place?

 

To find out more, TorrentFreak reached out to several rightsholders. Rogers Media was the only company that acknowledged our request for comment, but the company stopped responding after that.

Legal Concerns and Lacking Transparency

The Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic remains skeptical. CIPPIC’s Interim Director and General Counsel, David Fewer, remains critical of the legal process surrounding these blocking injunctions.

 

“We are concerned with how blocking orders are being used. We’ve always had difficulties with offering this kind of remedy to copyright holders through the interlocutory judicial process,” Fewer informs TorrentFreak.

 

CIPPIC can’t comment on the motivations of the rightsholders but based on the information available it wouldn’t be a surprise if the blocking injunction was the main aim of the litigation.

 

Whatever the case, Fewer would like to see more transparency. At the moment, most of the legal processes take place behind closed doors, without public scrutiny.

 

“Quite apart from the failure to pursue the alleged infringers is the complete lack of transparency around the technology used. This includes both its benefits and its burdens. Canadians are being deprived of the facts necessary to ground good reality-based policy discussion,” Fewer says.

“Blocking Worked”

Through a backchannel, TorrentFreak managed to obtain some further information about the blocking efforts. While hard to measure, the rightsholders and several ISPs believe that these restrictive measures were successful.

 

According to Rogers Media, the blocking actions were effective from a commercial standpoint, as they coincided with an uptick in legitimate viewers.

 

“For the 18-34 age group, viewership on Rogers Media’s Sportsnet channels increased by 13% for ‘National Games’ and 9% for games between two US teams and for ‘Regional Games’,” Greg Sansone, Rogers Media’s Senior Vice-President of Sportsnet, commented in an affidavit.

 

 

Sarah Farrugia, Vice President, Business Intelligence and Retention at Bell Canada, shared some similar findings. The company tracked the IP addresses that tried to access the pirated streams and found that several of these customers signed up for paid packages afterward.

 

The exact number of new signups is redacted from court records and it’s not known what percentage of non-blocked customers signed up for new subscriptions as well. According to Bell, however, the data suggest that the blocking efforts work.

 

In addition to tracking customers’ activities, Bell also kept an eye on VPN usage. Some predicted that the blocking measures would boost VPN use but Bell didn’t find any evidence for this.

And Now?

The main question now is what Bell, Rogers, and other rightsholders will do next. If the blocking efforts were indeed successful, it seems likely that they may want to file a new lawsuit, perhaps against other pirate streaming services, to continue these efforts.

 

How the court will view a potential follow-up is an interesting question. The Federal court previously stated that blocking injunctions are temporary measures and that rightsholders are expected to go after the actual infringers.

 

It’s also possible that copyright holders will focus on other targets for now, including pirate streaming sites. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against Soap2Day. This could have been a precursor to a new blocking injunction, but the site threw in the towel before rightsholders could make that move.

 

ISP blocking injunctions that aim to prevent regular internet users from accessing pirate sites are heavily utilized by the largest media companies.

 

Early targets included pirate sites offering movie and TV shows but today the emphasis is on preventing access to live TV streams, sports broadcasts in particular. Since live streams are more challenging to block than static websites, courts appear keen to give rightsholders additional flexibility and in many cases, subject them to limited oversight.

LaLiga & Movistar Plus+ Blocking in Spain

Hoping to restrict access to sites and services offering pirated live TV streams, Spanish top-tier football league LaLiga and Telefónica-owned Movistar Plus+ previously obtained permission from the courts to implement ISP blocking. In 2022, Telefónica persuaded a judge to compel ISPs to block IPTV streaming servers within three hours of notification.

 

As reported this week by local tech news site Bandaancha, until now the sites and services to be blocked by ISPs had not been publicly disclosed. After the site obtained and then published a list of almost 80 domains subject to blocking, at least in part that’s no longer the case.

 

Where they remain live, the majority of the domains on the list either directly relate to illegal IPTV services (streaming or sales portals), or are clearly web-based illegal streaming websites. However, a significant number of domains are categorized as ‘torrent’ and due to their very nature, are rarely linked to live sports stream piracy, one significant exception aside.

Blocking Ace Stream

The first domain in the torrent category is acestream.org, the home of the Ace Stream streaming client. The inclusion of this domain on Spain’s block list has been known for some time and is considered controversial. The domain offers no copyrighted content and while some users of the Ace Stream client use the software for infringing purposes, Ace Stream’s developers insist that their software is content neutral and entirely legal.

 

Also on the list is www.futbolgratis.workers.dev, a URL that acknowledges Telefónica blocking before redirecting to another domain. Since its stated purpose is to offer Ace Stream links that in turn link to illegal live streams, justification for blocking is much more obvious than for acestream.org.

6explodie.org Can’t Be Blocked – Explodie.org Should Not Be Blocked

Who’s actually responsible for the error isn’t clear but 6explodie.org should not be on a piracy blocklist or reported as being on one; the domain doesn’t exist and has never been registered. The most likely explanation is that the domain intended for blocking is explodie.org but that opens up an even bigger can of worms.

 

Explodie.org is operated by developer Jacob Taylor who, among other things, is an advocate of net neutrality. Taylor operates a public BitTorrent tracker (OpenTracker) that anyone is free to use and, more importantly, also responds to DMCA takedown notices.

 

 

There are strong indications that explodie.org is indeed being blocked across Spain. It’s a measure usually reserved for the most egregious piracy platforms but in this case, Taylor’s entire personal website (which is clearly not a pirate site) appears to have been censored regardless.

Public BitTorrent Trackers

Other currently active public BitTorrent trackers on the list include open.acgtracker.com, open.stealth.si and internetwarriors.net, but the grounds for their inclusion are unclear.

 

These sites offer no content indexes, i.e. people can’t browse around looking for something suitable to download. Indeed, it’s not even possible to download a .torrent file from any of these services, let alone any actual content. These trackers merely coordinate connections of torrent transfers from third-party sources.

 

Such wholesale blocking of services that have entirely legal uses raises questions of what amounts to a proportionate response under EU law, or whether those in control of blocking are even encouraged to consider those concepts anymore.

 

Finally, it should be pointed out that by their very nature, the majority of the domains on the list are prime candidates for blocking. Some appear to have gone offline or moved to other domains, but many make their purposes quite clear.

 

Overall, instances of questionable or even wrongful blocking seem low, but that’s obviously going to be the case when transparency is virtually nil.

 

The list of domains as reported by Bandaancha.eu:

 

6irmz.top
chiletv.xyz
dropfile.com
e7b8bcf34bb8735ca0da79183299.lig4retnec.co
emyb.in
firetvset.net
fjernsynet.xyz
fre7.flycany.me
full003tv.xyz
gioggg.net
golatin.online
huang6nis.xyz
iptvsharks.com
magadam1.xyz
mega1005002877313670.xyz
nitroty.us
pelisyseriespty.xyz
santmarcta.life
somosvip.xyz
suptv-nord.com
tecnoiptv.es
theredball.ddnsgeek.com
xenty.club
iptvforall.app
tvpremiumhd.tv
bobres.co
iptvwink.com
jokeriptv.net
getsportztv.com
onetvservices.com
1stream.top
3papahd3.icu
bdnewsch.com
cricfree.live
cricfree.top
dreko11.net
en5.sportplus.live
freelive365.nl
hd.crichd.cx
hockeyweb.live
izlemac16.xyz
jokersecretpage.xyz
m.rojadirecta.fun
motornews.live
p2pstreams.live
pepperlive.info
socolive.pro
sportinglive.co
sportsnest.co
stakes100.xyz
techoreels.com
tezgoal.com
vipboxs.com
weakstreams.com
www.cyfostreams.com
www.hdmatch.xyz
ovostreams.com
www.rojadirectatenvivo.com
www.sportnews.to
zdsports.org
acestream.org
arenavision.site
www.futbolgratis.workers.dev
6explodie.org
open.acgtracker.com
open.stealth.si
share.camoe.cn
thetracker.org
t.nya.atracker.com
tracker.coppersurfer.tk
tracker-electro-torrent.pl
internetwarriors.net
tracker.tfile.co
tracker.tfile.me
tracker.tiny-vps.com
tracker.toment.eu.org
tracker.tvunderground.org.ru
tracker.vanitycore.co

 

Amazon is not just the largest e-commerce retailer, the company also has a significant copyright portfolio.

 

In recent years the company has increased its anti-piracy efforts, both individually and as a member of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE).

 

The company does all it can to protect popular titles such as The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, The Boys, and The Peripheral, which are typically pirated shortly after their release. The main focus of these anti-piracy efforts is on pirate streaming and download portals, but it doesn’t end there.

Amazon Sues Pirate DVD Stores

This week, Amazon Technologies filed a lawsuit against several websites that sell pirated DVDs disguised as official releases. While these pirated discs are no longer as popular as they were 20 years ago, they remain a problem, especially when illicit copies are sold as the real deal.

 

In a complaint filed at a California federal court, Amazon accuses seven websites of selling pirated discs. These sites, including dvdshelf.com.au, dvds.trade, and dvdwholesale.co.uk, are presumably operated by the same group, using a variety of companies.

 

For the public at large, it may not be immediately obvious that these discs are pirated. However, since Amazon doesn’t produce or sell DVDs for these Prime Video series, there is no doubt that they are created from illicit sources.

 

“Defendants’ scheme to exploit the worldwide recognition of the Amazon Series is straightforward and blatant through their Piracy Websites, Defendants openly sell pirated and infringing DVDs containing unauthorized copies of the Amazon Series.

 

“To date, Amazon has not released for sale or distribution the Amazon Series on DVD, and instead exclusively distributes such content via its streaming-video-on-demand platform, Amazon Prime Video,” the complaint clarifies.

 

 

The piracy operation consists of at least seven websites and these all remain online today. According to Amazon, the sites ship to customers in the U.S. and abroad, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, resulting in mass copyright infringement.

Test Purchases

Before going to court, investigators conducted more than twenty test purchases of pirated DVDs. After these orders arrived, Amazon sent the discs to the Motion Picture Association which independently confirmed that they were all pirated.

 

 

These illegal sales don’t just hurt Amazon and other entertainment companies, people who buy the DVDs are victims too. While the cheap price tags are perhaps too good to be true, some people believe that these are official DVDs. The reviews, however, show that the quality isn’t always up to par.

 

“For instance, a customer left a one-star review of DVD Shelf’s website in 2021 stating that despite the company’s ‘claim[] to only sell genuine products,’ the customer found the DVDs were ‘of EXTREMELY poor quality’ and are ‘absolutely pirated copies,’ with, among other issues, episodes missing, sync problems, editing issues, and faulty discs.” Amazon writes.

 

The complaint lists Yangchun Zhang as a key suspect. This person presumably resides in China and obtained the ‘DVD Shelf’ trademark in Australia. In addition, Zhang is also listed as the registrant of several of the domain names involved.

Damages and Injunction

The complaint accuses Zhang and the others of both copyright and trademark infringement. Through the lawsuit, Amazon hopes to recoup damages, which can run in the millions of dollars.

 

Another key priority is to shut the sites down and Amazon asks the court for an injunction to stop all infringing activity.

 

In these types of cases, the defendants are not always responsive. For this reason, Amazon requests an injunction that requires domain registrars and related companies to hand over the stores’ domain names. At the same time, payment providers such as PayPal should freeze all funds, to pay off potential damages in the future.

 

—

 

A copy of the complaint, filed by Amazon Technologies at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (pdf).

 

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 three newcomers on the list. “Elemental” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 21 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Elemental	7.0 / trailer
2	(1)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	8.8 / trailer
3	(3)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
4	(2)	No Hard Feelings	6.6 / trailer
5	(…)	The Monkey King	5.8 / trailer
6	(6)	Transformers: Rise of the Beasts	6.3 / trailer
7	(5)	The Flash	7.0 / trailer
8	(4)	Heart of Stone	5.7 / trailer
9	(8)	Fast X	6.1 / trailer
10	(9)	John Wick: Chapter 4	8.0 / trailer

 

 

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

 

Today’s youth is growing up in an era where all knowledge and information is literally at their fingertips.

 

The internet is a great source of knowledge, entertainment, and a key tool for social interactions. However, it also comes with many darker sides, although kids won’t always recognize the dangers.

 

In Denmark, local anti-piracy group Rights Alliance has repeatedly warned that today’s youth should be properly educated when it comes to copyright and piracy. A few weeks ago, the group launched a dedicated piracy panel for teens, hoping to learn more about their bad online habits.

 

By understanding the motivations of today’s youth, the anti-piracy group hopes to be in a better position to influence their behavior. That’s not the only effort on this front; Rights Alliance also helped to create a new curriculum for high schoolers.

Are You a Thief?

The new course material titled “Are You a Thief” aims to allow students between the ages of 13 and 16 to investigate their own habits, while also learning about the law and the potential risks they face.

 

“Students must learn about copyright and relate this to the streaming culture they are a part of. This includes knowledge of what rules and laws are broken when you misuse and spread creative content, as well as what personal and societal consequences you risk with illegal streaming,” Rights Alliance notes.

 

The study material is targeted at social studies students. It was created in cooperation with publisher Gyldendal, which operates the educational platform, and is supported by the Danish Ministry of Culture.

It’s Stealing

Whether the course will have the desired effect remains to be seen but there’s plenty of room for improvement. According to a recent survey, nearly a third of all Danes between the age of 15-29 admitted to streaming or downloading pirated content.

 

The course material shows video footage of creators who were harmed by online piracy and stresses that piracy breaks the law.

 

“[Piracy] actually amounts to stealing. It is theft directly from the people who make a living from producing TV, films, series and sporting events – and every time you break the copyright law,” the course website notes.

 

“In the real world, we learn to control desire, postpone needs, and resist temptation. This lesson also applies to the digital world. Stealing is wrong and punishable,” it adds.

 

The last sentence suggests that, in some cases, pirates can get content sooner than their paying counterparts. This availability issue is often seen as a main driver of piracy. While improvements can be made on the supply side, the course urges teens to postpone their needs instead.

Malware

In addition to the effect piracy has on others, the curriculum also highlights that pirates put themselves at risk. Pirate sites don’t adhere to privacy regulations and, on some scammy pirate sites, there’s a higher risk of running into malware.

 

When a pirate site doesn’t charge anything, it will likely make money in other ways. According to the course material, hackers and criminals are particularly keen on shipping malware.

 

The curriculum includes a quote from Jens Myrup Pedersen, professor of cyber security at Aalborg University, who notes that malware can lead to all sorts of trouble.

 

“It can be abused in countless ways. Hackers can extort money from you, redirect your computer so that you constantly end up on other illegal websites, and monitor everything you type on your keyboard,” Pedersen warns.

 

The course material isn’t mandatory but the creators offer it for free, so schools can offer it to their students if they wish. If everything goes well, Rights Alliance and its partners hope to see the piracy rate drop over time.

 

On July 23, 2023, the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand, put a company called Bitcache Limited into liquidation.

 

Founded on July 28, 2016, Bitcache Limited was the legal entity behind Kim Dotcom’s Bitcache, an upcoming blockchain/crypto solution set to revolutionize the utility of Bitcoin through the introduction of cost-effective microtransactions. That was more than seven years ago; almost a lifetime in whatever unit crypto-years are measured in these days.

The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread

During the summer of 2016, Kim Dotcom was teasing fresh information about the imminent debut of Megaupload 2.0. Set to launch in January 2017, every file transfer on the platform would be linked to a bitcoin transaction, taking “decentralization, anonymity & encryption to the next level. A nightmare for those who want to mass surveil & censor,” Dotcom said.

 

The technology making all of this possible was Dotcom’s groundbreaking Bitcache; unseen in public but allegedly capable of eliminating all blockchain limitations.

 

“Nobody will upload to any other cloud after Megaupload’s Bitcache goes live,” Dotcom declared.

Just Wait For It

In October 2016, with the launch of Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache just a few months away, ‘MU2’ secured its first investment round. Through the online investment platform BnkToTheFuture, 354 investors committed over a million dollars to the project, one that would not be ready for launch on January 20, 2017, as previously announced.

 

Dotcom said that a timely launch was “unlikely” so there would be an MU2/Bitcache announcement on that day instead.

 

With the launch suddenly and inexplicably back on, January 20, 2017, spectacularly failed to deliver. With just 90 minutes left before the official power-up of both Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache, Dotcom said that the launch had “hit a roadblock” and he couldn’t comment further.

 

New Zealand companies MU2 Ltd, Bitcache Technologies Ltd, and Bitcache Ltd, did not comment either, and the same held true for their trust company owners registered in the Cook Islands and Cayman Islands.

 

Details of the last-minute ‘hiccup’ emerged on January 24, 2017. In an effort to raise capital, Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache had reportedly struck a stock and cash merger deal worth $100m with a publicly listed company on the Canadian stock exchange. Dotcom said the Canadian Securities Exchange raised objections, and that ruined everything.

 

“Bitcache feels it is important as a technology startup to stay nimble and reduce corporate complexity in favor of technology development,” Dotcom said at the time.

 

With the benefit of foresight, Bitcache Limited’s liquidator might’ve nodded in agreement.

“There Are Fees Owed and Not Paid”

The day before Megaupload 2.0/Bitcache hit the roadblock in 2017, Kim Dotcom’s directorship in Bitcache Limited came to an end. Auckland lawyer Phil Creagh, who according to his bio was involved in all Kim Dotcom-related litigation matters since 2014, was a Bitcache director until September 2020. On May 24, 2023, Creagh filed an application to have the company liquidated.

 

“It’s pretty straightforward, there are fees owed and not paid. The company has not taken any steps so far to avoid being placed in liquidation,” Ceagh told Newsroom. “We’ll put it in liquidation and see what, if anything, can be recovered.”

 

 

Local company Insolvency Management Limited was appointed as liquidator on July 13, 2023. On the same day, Dotcom said Bitcache was in the hands of the liquidator because it had received an invoice for work carried out by a law firm.

 

NZ Herald reported that Creagh’s law firm, Anderson Creagh Lai, said the application was filed over “unpaid director’s fees in the sum of $231,653.”

Liquidator’s First Report

On August 18, 2023, Insolvency Management Limited filed its first report regarding Bitcache’s demise, which includes a list of shareholders, the most prominent shown below.

 

 

“The company traded as a software developer of a crypto currency scheme and was set up in 2016 by Kim Dotcom who acted as a director for some 7 months,” the report reads.

 

“Subsequently 2 professional directors were appointed although the Liquidator is advised Mr. Dotcom still held an active interest in the running of the business. Currently the Liquidator is not aware when the company ceased to trade.”

 

The liquidator “is not aware” of any physical assets owned by the company but notes that a trademark exists, value to be determined.

 

Bitcache owes NZ$1.2m (US$713K) to three creditors including Creagh and his law firm. With a share capital of NZ$21.5m, the total deficit is an estimated NZ$22.7m (US$13.5m).

“Potentially Serious Questions Raised”

An article published by NZ Herald says that the liquidator’s report raises “potentially serious questions” about Bitcache.

 

“The Companies Office listed 10 shareholders in Bitcache before its liquidation – all based in the Cook Islands, Cayman Islands or Hong Kong,” NZ Herald reports.

 

Insolvency Management principal Ian Nellies told the Herald that the shareholding companies were trusts.

 

“I’m still investigating who has ultimate ownership,” Nellies said.

 

The liquidator’s report also identified “some early developed software that may or may not have some value” but Dotcom was keen to distance Bitcache replacement ‘Fileshop’ from that discovery.

 

“The good news is that the project is now called FileShop, has been developed from scratch with a completely new code base and without any of the Bitcache IP,” Dotcom recently wrote on X.

 

“Very happy to announce that friendly previous investors and partners have not been forgotten and that this app is coming.”

 

 

YouTube’s Content ID system helps rightsholders and content creators prevent copyright infringement.

 

Copyright holders can either remove problematic content from the video platform or monetize it instead.

 

Monetization is preferred in many cases and can be quite lucrative. Over the years, the Content ID platform has generated more than $9 billion in ‘claimed’ advertising revenue.

Criminal Content ID Scam

This option isn’t just utilized by legitimate owners, scammers have been making use of it too. While it’s unknown how often the system is abused, an indictment published by the Department of Justice in late 2021 showed that a U.S. company run by two men built a multi-million dollar business on this scheme.

 

A criminal investigation revealed that Webster Batista Fernandez and Jose Teran ran a massive YouTube Content ID scam. By falsely claiming to own the rights to more than 50,000 songs, the pair generated more than $23 million in revenue.

 

The scammers’ company, MediaMuv LLC., wasn’t a direct member of the Content ID program. Instead, it operated through a trusted third-party company, which had access to the platform.

 

Both defendants signed guilty pleas and faced long prison sentences. Teran, who was described as the “number two” of the operation, was sentenced to more than five years in prison a few weeks ago. The custodial sentence came as a disappointment to the defense, which had requested mild probation or home confinement instead.

Court Sentences “Lead” Scammer

The second defendant, Mr. Fernandez, also sought leniency from the court. His attorney argued that a 46-month prison sentence should be sufficient, noting that his client takes full responsibility for his wrongdoing.

 

“Mr. Fernandez concedes that he made a terrible decision to become involved in criminal conduct, which has not only affected his family and children, but has also caused financial harm to the victims involved in this case.”

 

In this instance, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas L. Rayes found the recommendation persuasive. Late last week, Mr. Fernandez was sentenced to exactly 46 months in prison, as suggested.

 

“It is the judgment of this court that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of forty-six months,” the order reads. This prison term will be followed by three years of supervised release.

 

Forfeited Cash and Restitution

In addition to the jail time, Mr. Fernandez will also forfeit possessions related to his crimes. His stake in over a million dollars seized by the authorities, for example, plus several pieces of real estate and cars.

 

The authorities described the YouTube scam operation as one of the “largest music-royalty frauds ever perpetrated” and it invites potential victims to come forward to claim their part of a restitution fee, in an amount yet to be determined.

 

The list of illegitimately claimed songs exceeds 75,000 titles, which once again illustrates the scope of this multi-million dollar scam.

 

Finally, it is worth noting that Mr. Fernandez, who supposedly initiated the scheme, received a significantly lower sentence than his partner Mr. Teran. The reason for the disparity is not revealed in available paperwork, however, and the authorities have yet to comment on the sentencing.

 

—

 

The sentencing order for Mr. Fernandez can be found here (pdf)

Private criminal prosecutions are complex and expensive but can also offer some great perks; the taxpayer picking up the bill for the prosecution and then paying to keep those convicted in prison, for example.

 

In the case of the five men sentenced in May for running pirate IPTV service Flawless TV, it’s unlikely the Premier League will be left out of pocket. They also benefited from a free anti-piracy deterrent campaign via the media, at the expense of the five men jailed for more than 30 years.

 

While that was the icing on the cake, the cake was missing a cherry. Six men were due to be sentenced in May yet only five sentences were handed down.

Sixth Defendant Left UK Before Sentencing

Since the unprecedented sentences were handed down late May, TorrentFreak has been filling in the gaps on the Flawless operation, the subsequent investigation, and the roles played by some of those imprisoned.

 

In June our focus was on Zak Smith, a former employee at an anti-piracy company working with the Premier League who supplied Flawless with inside information that helped to undermine IPTV blocking in the UK. Our information indicates that Smith was the first Flawless defendant to enter a guilty plea, way back in February 2020.

 

An early guilty plea is one of several factors typically associated with more lenient sentencing. However, Smith was apparently unavailable to be sentenced along with the other defendants in May, so a warrant was issued for his arrest. None of our sources knew or were prepared to confirm Smith’s whereabouts outside the UK, when he left the country, or whether overseas trips were normal for the 30-year-old.

Smith Detained in Thailand

While all of the Flawless defendants are intriguing as individuals, Smith is perhaps the most puzzling. Obviously talented and unusually polite, Smith had access to valuable information that most likely would’ve grown more valuable over time, yet the evidence shows he made almost nothing from his involvement with Flawless.

 

When UK police recently discovered that Smith was probably in Thailand and requested help from local authorities, it’s unclear how they characterized him. A fugitive from justice in the most significant IPTV piracy case in the UK’s history? Or a guy who received a grand total of £3,297.02 for his work and has no criminal record?

 

Whether Thai authorities cared one way or the other was masked by Smith carelessly (or perhaps knowingly) outstaying his visa by 16 days. He was arrested by officers from the Immigration Office in Koh Samui after being tracked down to a rented property he shared with his girlfriend in Ban Khao Le, a quiet area according to Thai authorities, “suitable for sheltering from officers’ scrutiny.”

 

When foreigners are arrested in Thailand that often triggers a photoshoot of the suspect in various locations, flanked by arresting officers. We’ll keep those to a minimum here, starting with a replacement image of the rental property we managed to track down using Google Earth.

 

Differing Accounts of Arrest

Images of immigration authorities talking to Smith inside the rental property appear on several Thai websites. It’s unclear whether some publications were provided with inaccurate information or simply made errors themselves, but claims that the Flawless defendants were sentenced to 30 years EACH in prison are not hard to find.

 

Of more concern is this article containing several official photographs, featuring Smith inside the property and the following claim: “Officers inspected the house and found that Mr Zak Timothy Smith used a computer to control the release of codes to watch Premier League football.” The screenshot of the website, the images, and the allegation appear below for context.

 

 

On one hand this appears to be an allegation that Smith is still somehow involved with the sale of illegal Premier League IPTV packages. On the other, we cannot find any other site that repeats the claim in their own articles, but many still link back to this news article as the source.

 

As mentioned earlier, Smith entered a guilty plea in the UK years ago so when he is sentenced, it’s a question of how much time he’ll serve, not whether he will serve any at all. We have no idea whether claims of alleged offending in Thailand have the potential to affect the sentencing judge’s decision in the UK, but we wanted to rule the claim in or out independently, if that was even possible.

Not Just Photographs: Authorities Have Video Too

After speaking with a TF source in the region who has proven reliable in the past, we learned that the authorities video these types of arrests and if we’re lucky, someone will come up with a copy at some point. We got very lucky; not only a video, one with mostly audible voices too.

 

In the image above, where Smith is sitting down and facing a gentleman (Man1) with very short hair (with a man wearing a hat behind), the conversation goes like this:

 

Man1: [inaudible]

 

Smith: I’ve been sick. I meant to get an extension but i’ve been sick.

 

Man1: [mostly inaudible but man asks if Smith has a plan to leave “the land”]

 

Smith: Yeah, in like a month after i’ve got an extension. I was going to get a 30-day extension [mostly inaudible]

 

Following this exchange, Smith and Man1 walk to the room shown in the second photograph (Man1 standing over Smith as he sits in an office chair in front of a computer)

 

Man1: What is this? [gestures towards computer screen]

 

Smith: This is a program for a game, an online game. So, we write code for people to play the game

 

Man1: Hmmmm. Which game?

 

Smith: Do you know a game called Runescape?

 

Man1: Football game?

 

Smith: No, no, no, no, no. Runescape, it’s like a [inaudible] click game online.

 

Man1: You have been at work, in England? What kind of work?

 

Smith: It would be comp…[inaudible]

 

At this point the video has obviously been edited to remove something. Who said or did what is unknown and it’s impossible to say how much video has been removed. When the video returns, the topic of conversation is IPTV.

 

Smith: No. I don’t have IPTV, no.

 

Man1: IPTV in England, you know.

 

Smith: I know about IPTV…

 

Man1: What about IPTV, what about it?

 

Smith: The IPTV is..

 

Once again the video is cut. It returns with Smith walking towards the chair, sitting down, and explaining the function of the software still running on his screen. The quality is terrible and the image below is the best we could manage. If anyone knows what it is, that would be helpful.

 

 

Smith: It basically plays a video game for me. It’s nothing..erm… This is like a hobby, not really a….this is a hobby. It’s a game

 

Man1: Ahhhh [something appears on screen, too blurred to describe from the video] And you don’t IPTV?

 

Smith: Well I know what IPTV is…

 

Man1: IPTV is…a set-top box…you share..

 

Smith: You share the programs over the internet

 

Man1: You share the programs [inaudible] the football live on the IPTV and you can see the television, live football.

 

Smith: That’s not me, no.

 

Man1: [man1 looks at someone in the room, behind and to the left of the camera. Man1 starts laughing]

 

Man1: How long to be here?

 

Smith: Two weeks, about two weeks.

 

Man1: Before you stay? [man speaks Thai, video ends]

 

Smith’s current whereabouts are unknown but Thai authorities say that he will not be permitted to return to Thailand.

 

The American copyright industry generates billions of dollars in annual revenue and is generally seen as one of the country’s primary exports.

 

Whether it’s movies, music, software or other goods, U.S. companies are among the market leaders.

 

To protect the interests of these businesses around the globe, copyright holder groups can count on help from the U.S. Government. The yearly list of ‘notorious markets,’ for example, is a well known diplomatic pressure mechanism to encourage other countries to up their enforcement actions and improve laws.

 

The same is true for trade deals and other policies, which often require trade partners to take action in favor of copyright holder interests.

 

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents the ESA, MPA, and RIAA, among others, has been the voice of major entertainment industries on this front. The Alliance regularly encourages the U.S. to further the international interests of its members, including in Africa.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act

A few weeks ago the IIPA published its views on the latest eligibility review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This process, led by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), determines which sub-Saharan African countries can enjoy certain trade benefits.

 

This isn’t the first review of its kind; we have reported on similar efforts in the past and the most recent review features much of the same critique.

 

IIPA is particularly concerned that South Africa isn’t doing enough to deter copyright infringement. There are also grave concerns that the proposed “fair use” exception, which is modeled after legislation in the U.S., could lead to problems in the African country.

 

The critique from rightsholders hasn’t gone unnoticed by South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa previously sent two copyright-related bills back to Parliament but IIPA and other rightsholder groups haven’t yet seen the desired changes.

Libraries Respond

Amid these high-level political lobbying efforts, one submission clearly stands out. Last week, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), which consists of the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries, sent a rather outspoken take to the USTR.

 

The Alliance represents more than 100,000 libraries which are used by 200 million Americans each year. While there is no direct tie to South Africa that we’re aware of, the group pays close attention to copyright-related developments around the globe.

 

When the Alliance read IIPA’s critique of South Africa’s copyright policies and plans, it felt the need to jump in and add a different take on the situation.

Fair Critique?

The libraries counter IIPA’s submission point by point. One of the key points of contention is the fair use proposal, which South Africa modeled after the U.S. version. According to rightsholders, this is a concern since it includes many copyright exceptions that might be abused.

 

The libraries clearly have a different take. They argue that protesting a fair use policy inspired by U.S. law is hypocritical.

 

“[A]s a matter of policy, the United States should always support other countries’ adoption of provisions based on U.S. copyright law. This is true regardless of whether the provision expands the scope of copyright or limits it. To oppose such adoption appears hypocritical and condescending,” the libraries write.

 

One of IIPA’s arguments suggests that the South African fair use proposal could violate the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. The libraries don’t contest that, but warn that, if true, the same would apply to the U.S. version.

 

“IIPA appears to imply that a fair use provision might be inconsistent with the three-step test in the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. This is a dangerous argument for IIPA to make, because if section 12A of the CAB violates the three-step test, so does 17 U.S.C. § 107.”

Above and Beyond

Some of the IIPA’s suggestions go beyond U.S. copyright law, the libraries note. For example, IIPA calls for stricter anti-piracy enforcement, including a policy that requires online platforms to prevent unauthorized use of copyrighted works on their platforms.

 

According to the libraries, this goes above and beyond what online services are required to do under U.S. law.

 

“These [requirements] do not exist in U.S. law. It appears that IIPA is requesting USTR to impose the EU Copyright in the Digital Single Market’s filtering obligations on South Africa,” the libraries write.

 

In other instances, IIPA requests South Africa to adopt U.S. standards that exceed international ones. For example, it requests a 70-year copyright term, as opposed to the 50-years standard.

 

“IIPA complains that the PPAB does not extend the term of protection in sound recordings from 50 years to 70 years. However, the term of protection for sound recordings set forth in the TRIPS Agreement and the WPPT is 50 years.

 

“South Africa should not be penalized for complying with, but not exceeding, these international standards,” the libraries add.

Orwellian

Finally, the libraries point out what they believe is an “Orwellian” take from the IIPA. The rightsholders argue that academic freedom would be threatened if scientists have the right to freely share the results of Government-funded research.

 

This would ensure that publicly funded research can be published in an open-access format, instead of being locked behind a paywall. As such, the libraries fail to see how this puts academic freedom at stake.

 

“This is a truly Orwellian argument. How does preserving a scientist’s right to make her research publicly available undermine her academic freedom?” they write.

 

The examples highlighted above are just a fraction of the points brought up by the Library Copyright Alliance’s submission. Overall the libraries conclude that many of the policy choices made in the bills are completely consistent with U.S. law. Other than that, it stresses that legislation is never perfect for all parties and that compromises have to be made.

 

—

 

A copy of the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submission to the USTR is available here (pdf)

 

Over the past few weeks, football organizations and broadcasters around Europe have been obtaining and/or renewing permission to block access to unlicensed online streams.

 

The Premier League obtained an injunction extension late July, and was closely followed by pay-TV broadcaster Sky which had specific IPTV providers in mind for its blocking measures. The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) also obtained a High Court blocking injunction last month, after obtaining similar permission in previous years.

 

The details of these orders, and others obtained by broadcasters elsewhere in Europe, are not made public, but their purpose is well known. The aim is to prevent (or at least disrupt) access to servers that are connected to the supply of infringing streams. In many cases these servers are either operated by IPTV providers themselves or affiliated third-parties. Beyond that, their functions and locations are rarely mentioned in public.

Inside a Live UEFA-linked Blocking Order

Given the international nature of UEFA competitions including the Champions League and Europa League, blocking orders are obtained via approved systems in various EU Member States. That may involve a court appearance or a presentation of facts to an administrative body with the authority to approve ISP blocking measures.

 

A blocking order authorized through one of these processes was recently made available to TorrentFreak. It describes the need for blocking measures in some detail along with a list of IP addresses to be blocked by internet service providers in an EU Member State, to protect local broadcasters licensed to air UEFA tournaments.

 

The order adds to mounting evidence that while rightsholders can certainly monitor IP addresses used during a match, the IP addresses they initially intend to block are known well in advance. This means the IP addresses will be immediately blocked by ISPs when games begin, regardless of whether they actually stream a particular match or event.

The ‘Pirate’ IP Addresses

Tests on a selection of the IP addresses listed for blocking didn’t always produce the same results across various IP geolocation services. However, when there were large geographical differences of opinion, ping timing mostly settled the dispute. The image below indicates the supposed locations of the IP addresses/servers listed in the order (ipinfo.info data) and shows that many are ostensibly located within Europe itself.

 

 

Based on the locations returned for the IP addresses in the order, around 30% are linked to hosts/service providers in the Netherlands, 14% linked to hosts in Germany, 10% in Bulgaria, with Sweden and Ukraine accounting for around 7% each.

 

Outliers include an IP address supposedly linked to a server hosted in Azerbaijan (Asia), or potentially Sweden, depending on opinion, plus IP addresses linked to Jordan but geolocated in Europe. Other IP addresses apparently do link to servers in Iran (Middle East) while others linked to Hong Kong (Asia) are both disputed and undisputed, depending on the location service used.

 

Multiple listings for the same ISP/IP range are excluded from the table below, while we excluded another allegedly-infringing IP address for wasting the time of the ISPs ordered to block it. As explained here, IP addresses in the range 172.19.X.X are reserved for local use, so including them in a blocking order won’t help to reduce piracy.

 

The fact that the IP address was submitted to the authorities and then somehow passed their scrutiny suggests that appropriate checks aren’t being carried out. How many more of these errors exist is unknown because the system operates that way by design.

 

The inclusion of any service provider in the list below is solely due to their link with the IP addresses submitted for blocking and not an indication of wrongdoing. Rightsholders are responsible for making ISPs aware of allegedly infringing activity and ISPs have no duty to proactively monitor customers

 

IP Addr	Region	Country	City/Town	ISP/Operator
45.xx.x.x	Asia	Azerbaijan (Disputed/.SE)	Qaraçuxur	TVNET Solution
45.xx.x.x	Europe	UK	London	TCK OOO
45.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands (Disputed/.DE)	Amsterdam (Ping suggests .NL not .DE)	Ipxo** (See note below)
46.xx.x.x	Europe	UK/Ukraine	London/Mariupol	Ipxo**
169.xx.x.x	Europe	Germany	Frankfurt	Datacamp
193.xx.x.x	Europe	Poland	Gdansk	HITME.PL
193.xx.x.x	Europe	Sweden***(Disputed/.NL)	Stockholm (Ping suggests .SE, not .NL)	TVNET Solution
141.xx.x.x	Europe	France	Gravelines	OVH SAS
37.xx.x.x	Europe	Bulgaria	Sofia (Multiple IPs)	Host9x Web
141.xx.x.x	Europe	Germany	Limburg	OVH SAS
194.xx.x.x	Asia	Hong Kong	Cent/West	369 IntoNet
45.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands (Disputed/UK)	Amsterdam (Ping suggests .NL not .UK)	IT Web
103.xx.x.x	Europe	Germany	Frankfurt	UK2/GZ Remittance
95.xx.x.x	Europe	UK	Maidenhead	Iomart Hosting
143.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands	Amsterdam	Datacamp
62.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands	Naaldwijk	WorldStream
149.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands (Disputed/.MX)	Amsterdam (Ping suggests .NL not .MX)	Cogent Comms.
45.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands (Disputed)	Amsterdam/Ukraine (Tests inconclusive)	Sollutium EU
95.xx.x.x	Europe	UK	Maidenhead	Iomart Hosting
89.xx.x.x	Europe	Germany	Frankfurt	Datacamp
82.xx.x.x	Europe	Netherlands	Amsterdam	Parsun Network
176.xx.x.x	M/East	Jordan (Disputed)	Amman	Ipxo**
193.xx.x.x	M/East	Iran	Tehran	IR Research Org
185.xx.x.x	NAM	U.S. (Disputed/.UA)	New York	Virtual Systems* (See below)
149.xx.x.x	NAM	U.S.	Los Angeles	LogicWeb

* The entry 185.xxx. geolocates to the U.S. There are claims its true location is Kyiv, Ukraine.
**IPXO is a marketplace for IP addresses (see here) IP address geolocation data may indicate two locations; e.g the entry above beginning 46.XXX locates to both Mariupol, Ukraine, and also the UK (AS49999)
*** The entry 193.xxx. geolocates to the Netherlands. Sweden seems more likely based on ping data

 

While records exist to link IP addresses to the companies/entities with ultimate control, mapping IP addresses to physical locations is an inexact science. Even companies operating in the ‘IP to location’ market supply data with caveats, so the same also applies to the information listed above.

 

There are disputes over the true locations of many IP addresses in the list, and it’s likely that at least some of that confusion exists for that very purpose. In respect of blocking an IP address, none of it really matters in the end, but bouncing between the UK, U.S, and Ukraine can make a traceroute look pretty.

 

 

Basic tests on these and related IP addresses reveal that around a third most likely act as reverse proxies (ports 80, 443, 8081) while others suggest the presence of software linked to encoders, playlists and other related tools.

 

Full IP addresses were used in our tests but are limited here to the first octet.

 

In recent years, many people have canceled their expensive cable subscriptions, opting to use cheaper Internet TV instead.

 

Those who choose the cheapest plans often end up at pirate services. These may work flawlessly for years, until they suddenly don’t.

Fiscal Police Raid IPTV Service

Last May, Dutch fiscal police (FIOD) landed a major success in the battle against this type of piracy by shutting down one of Europe’s largest IPTV operations. This wasn’t just a random target either. The operation presumably offered its services to countless smaller IPTV sellers, which served over a million subscribers.

 

Little detail was released about the main defendants but authorities report that four people were arrested. The available information also suggested that GLOBE Datacenter was a key target and that more than 1,200 servers were taken offline.

 

The authorities didn’t mention any specific IPTV services but the operation was massive. Local anti-piracy group BREIN reported that TVs in hundreds of thousands of homes went dark due to the raids. Europol, which also assisted in the operation, said that the service had over a million users across Europe.

 

Faced with an operation of this size, law enforcement initially failed to see that the websites of innocent companies were also taken down in the process. The problem was addressed after TorrentFreak requested clarification.

Criminal Prosecution

The prosecution of those behind the illegal IPTV operation is just getting started. This week, there was a ‘pro forma’ hearing in the case against defendant Hicham O. The 30-year-old is a manager and shareholder of Globe Datacenter and Satellite Wholesale BV in Almere, two companies that were targeted in the raids.

Some of GLOBE’s Servers (via)

 

The defendant is seen as a key player in the criminal IPTV operation and stands accused of laundering more than 17.5 million euros. He was arrested last May and remains in custody. AD reports that, according to tapped conversations, Hicham claimed to generate half a million euros in revenue per month, of which 200,000 euros was pure profit.

 

During the pro forma hearing, the defendant requested to be released pending trial, fearing that his family could lose their home as they no longer have an income. He cited mental struggles as well.

 

The request was denied, according to local media, as the court sees Hicham O. as a flight risk and potential recidivist.

 

The prosecutor mentioned that the defendant, who has Dutch and Moroccan nationality, has plans to flee to Morocco. Tapped conversations with family and fellow suspects revealed that he would like to relaunch the IPTV business to start making money again.

No-Brainer?

The public prosecutor further said that pirate IPTV subscriptions have become very common in recent years. In some parts of society, people believe that you’re crazy if you pay for a legitimate streaming subscription.

 

“Why would you pay hundreds of euros a month for streaming services if you can watch it all for ten euros a month?” the prosecutor questioned, adding that streaming platforms such as Viaplay are in financial trouble as a result of this attitude.

 

“What you see happening is that a company like Viaplay is in financial trouble because part of society is willing to take a walk with the property rights of these companies,” the prosecutor added.

 

How the prosecutor knows that Viaplay’s financial troubles are caused by IPTV services isn’t clear, but the tone is set.

 

The full trial against Hicham O. is currently scheduled to take place sometime next year. There are several other defendants as well, but these cases will be handled separately on different dates.

 

Founded in 2011, AnonFiles.com became known as a popular hosting service that allowed users to share files up to 20GB without download restrictions.

 

As the name suggests, registering an account wasn’t required either; both up and downloading files was totally anonymous.

 

The same also applies to BayFiles.com, an affiliated file-hosting service that was launched by The Pirate Bay. Both sites launched around the same time and shared a similar design and identical features.

 

While AnonFiles and BayFiles had their ups and downs over the years, their no-nonsense approach attracted a steady user base. This included legitimate users but also people who shared a wide variety of shady or outright illegal content.

”Notorious Pirate Site”

Both sites had millions of visitors but AnonFiles stood out with over 18 million visitors a month. This popularity didn’t go unnoticed by rightsholders, who repeatedly flagged AnonFiles as a “notorious” pirate site.

 

In 2021, for example, the music industry’s anti-piracy watchdog RIAA reported the file-hosting service to the U.S. Trade Representative.

 

“The site rarely responds to notices and, as such, is widely used as a storage and distribution medium for numerous pirate sites, including those distributing pre-release content. The site does not provide any method of communication other than a web form, thereby limiting our ability to escalate,” RIAA wrote.

 

AnonFiles Shuts Down

Rightsholders and law enforcement authorities were not the only ones unhappy with the illegal content posted to the site. For AnonFiles’ operators, it caused major problems too.

 

The current owners purchased the site two years ago but didn’t expect the abuse to be so massive that the only option would be to shut it down. According to a goodbye message posted on the site, they simply can’t continue.

 

“After trying endlessly for two years to run a file sharing site with user anonymity, we have been tired of handling the extreme volumes of people abusing it and the headaches it has created for us.”

Unlimited Abuse

The operators tried to contain the abuse by setting up all sorts of automated filters and filename restrictions, taking thousands of false positives for granted, but that didn’t help much.

 

With tens of millions of uploads and petabytes of data, no anti-abuse measure was sufficient. And when the site’s proxy service pulled the plug a few days ago, AnonFiles decided to call it quits.

 

“We have auto banned contents of hundreds of thousands files. Banned file names and also banned specific usage patterns connected to abusive material,” the AnonFiles team writes.

 

“Even after all this the high volume of abuse will not stop. This is not the kind of work we imagine when acquiring it and recently our proxy provider shut us down. This can not continue.”

 

 

TorrentFreak reached out to the site, hoping to get more details on the types of abuse, but the operators didn’t immediately reply to our request for comment.

 

While the current AnonFiles team has thrown in the towel, the name itself may not disappear. The current owners dare someone else to buy the domain and give it a try. Whether the same applies to BayFiles.com, which has also gone offline, is unknown.

 

Japanese manga comics remain massively popular online but with that comes high levels of piracy that publishers are struggling to contain.

 

On top of dedicated websites pulling in tens of millions of visits each every month, there’s a thriving market of Android and iOS apps offering premium manga content for free but without appropriate licenses.

 

Many of these apps, especially those Android-based, are made available outside official app ecosystems, but some still make their way onto Google Play and Apple’s App Store, with all the convenience that entails. To have the apps removed, publishers file takedown notices with Google and Apple but as recent court documents suggest, takedown notices aren’t always successful.

Kadokawa Sent Takedown Notices, Apps Stay Up

On June 16, 2023, manga publisher Kadokawa sent two takedown notices, one to Google and another to Apple. In broad terms the notices are identical, the only differences being the recipient and links to the content to be taken down.

 

Kadokawa takedown notice (Apple)

 

The notice sent to Google lists works by manga artist Kugane Maruyama and requests the removal of two apps; one titled ‘SuA Manga Đọc truyện tranh’ and another titled ‘Mangalek’.

 

 

The takedown notice sent to Apple lists three works by two manga artists – Shachi Sogano and Patora Fuyuhara – and requests the removal of three apps: ‘Manga Reader: Comic & Webtoons’, ‘Manga Reader: Top Manga Here’, and ‘Manga Reader – Comics and Novels’.

 

 

Whether these takedown requests are more complex than they first appear is unknown, but it seems that neither Google nor Apple removed the apps in question. At the time of writing they remain available both on Google Play (1,2) and Apple’s App Store (1,2,3).

Kadokawa Files DMCA Application at California Court

It’s possible that Kadokawa always intended to take further action, whether its takedown notices were effective or not. In any event, the manga publisher has now filed requests with a California court to compel both Apple and Google to hand over the identities of the apps’ developers.

 

The information requested from both companies is broadly the same and comprehensive. (Apple request shown below)

 

– Any and all information showing all names, addresses (including postal codes and addresses used for address (PIN) verification, e-mail addresses (including email addresses used for recovery or other purposes), and telephone numbers (including, but not limited to, those required for Apple account registration);

 

 

– Any and all information showing access log (including dates, times, IP addresses, and access type) of each of the Infringer’s Accounts, including access log along with timestamp for each login (namely, login history);

 

 

– Any and all information showing (a) all names, telephone numbers, and addresses (including postal codes), any payment method, including but not limited to credit card holders, bank accounts, registered with; and (b) the type of the payment method and the name of the company or financial institution associated with such payment method registered with any and all of the Infringer’s Accounts.

 

Publicly available information suggests that some of these apps and/or their developers may have links to full-blown pirate sites, so any information obtained here may prove useful in progressing investigations elsewhere.

 

Kadokawa’s DMCA subpoena application can be found here (Google 1,2 / Apple 1,2,3, pdf)