Last fall, the U.S. Government temporarily took down Z-Library, one of the largest book piracy operations in the world.

 

The feds seized the site’s main domain names and arrested two alleged Russian operators of the site, who now find themselves at the center of a criminal investigation.

 

This enforcement action came as a shock to millions of Z-Library users but the shadow library eventually recovered and remains online today. However, that doesn’t mean that the two alleged operators are out of trouble, on the contrary.

 

After their arrest in Argentina, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova remained in the country and both are actively resisting extradition to the United States.

Motion to Dismiss

In addition to the extradition proceeding, the alleged Z-Library operators also retained U.S. attorneys earlier this year. In June, these defense lawyers asked the New York federal court to dismiss the criminal indictment.

 

The motion argued that the allegations are not sufficient to support a criminal prosecution in New York, and that the fraud and money laundering claims are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction in the United States.

 

The defense also pointed out that the claims lack specificity, as they fail to allege that Napolsky and Ermakova ‘reproduced’ or ‘distributed’ books in the United States. In fact, the indictment doesn’t mention any specific copyrighted works.

U.S. Government Responds

This week, United States Attorney Breon Peace responded to the motion to dismiss. Without going into the merits, the U.S. argues that the defendants’ request should be denied because they are officially fugitives.

 

“The defendants are fugitives who have chosen to avoid the reach of this Court by remaining in Argentina. Until they submit to the jurisdiction of the United States, they have no ability to compel this Court to consider the present Motion—or any type of motion,” Peace writes.

 

The U.S. Attorney relies on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which aims to prevent defendants from seeking relief in a U.S. court while refusing to come to the U.S. to answer the charges against them.

 

The defense anticipated this counter and cited a case against French banker Muriel Bescond, where the doctrine didn’t apply. However, the U.S. argues that the Z-Library defendants are different, as they are not in their home country and actively concealed their identities.

 

“Unlike Bescond, the defendants were not openly doing their jobs. To the contrary, no public information tied them to Z-Library or made evident that this purported online library was run by Russian nationals relying on customer donations to enrich themselves and make personal purchases.

 

“Moreover, the defendants were apprehended in a remote region of Argentina and have no citizenship rights in Argentina, in stark contrast to Bescond,” the U.S. Attorney adds.

‘Merits Fail Too’

The prosecution believes that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss, without considering its merits. And if the court decides otherwise, it should be denied for a myriad of other reasons.

 

These include allegations that the defendant’s criminal conduct relied on U.S. companies and services.

 

“At trial, the government will prove that the defendants used servers in the United States to fuel their criminal copyright scheme. Without access to the computing power, bandwidth and other functions of these U.S.-based servers, the defendants could not have carried out their criminal copyright scheme.”

 

 

The U.S. Government admits that several claims are not directly tied to the Eastern District of New York. However, that doesn’t means that the case should be dismissed, it can be transferred instead.

 

“If the defendants are unwilling to waive venue, the government will pursue trial on Counts Three and Four in the courts where venue lies—and the defendants can face multiple trials regarding the same conduct.”

 

“In that case, the Court has the inherent authority to transfer the case to the appropriate districts where venue may lie,” U.S. Attorney Peace adds.

 

Since the parties have opposing views on the matter, the court must decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or not.

 

—

 

A copy of the U.S. Government’s memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)

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

 

There is little doubt that generative AI will lead to new breakthroughs, some with the potential to revolutionize many aspects of day-to-day life. At the same time, AI is causing grave concerns within the copyright industries.

 

The copyright angle is the topic of many debates and has already made its way to court in a few cases. It’s high on the agendas of governments around the world, which are poised to accommodate generative AI within copyright legislation.

 

While lawyers and lawmakers are working hard to explore this novel area, anti-piracy agencies are taking concrete action. A few weeks ago we reported that the RIAA had taken down datasets used to create voice models, for example.

Books3 AI Training Database

This week, Rights Alliance entered the arena with one of the most high-profile takedowns thus far. The Danish anti-piracy outfit sent a DMCA takedown notice to The Eye, targeting the “Books3” training dataset.

 

Books3 doesn’t sound as exciting as ‘The Lord of the Rings’ or ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ but these titles are likely covered in the plaintext collection of 196,640 books, which is nearly 37GB in size.

 

The dataset, which contains all books from the pirate site Bibliotik, was first published on The Eye in late 2020 and since then has been used to train several AI models, including Meta’s.

Initial ‘release‘ in 2020

 

The notion that AI models are trained on pirated books isn’t new. According to a recent lawsuit, which also mentions Books3, OpenAI also used books datasets that rightsholders believe were sourced from shadow libraries such as LibGen, Z-Library and Sci-Hub.

Anti-Piracy Group Targets Books3

In recent years, The Eye managed to keep the Books3 database online but recently removed the archive following Rights Alliance’s takedown notice.

 

The anti-piracy group acted on behalf of Danish book publishers whose works were featured in the database. They see this as an important step to limit access to unauthorized AI training materials, which can be exploited by commercial AI initiatives.

 

“It is absolutely crucial that we can prevent AI from being trained on illegal content,” Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund says, commenting on the takedown.

 

“We have a big task ahead of us in detecting and taking down illegal training datasets like Books3, but also in dealing with AI that has already been trained on illegal content and is now spreading on the internet.”

 

Rights Alliance stresses that it should be up to rightsholders to control how their works are used so the crackdown on unauthorized datasets will continue.

Books3 is Down, But not Everywhere

While the original and most widely circulated Books3 download link is offline now, the dataset hasn’t completely disappeared from the web. The file is still backed up by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and alternative download links are also being shared.

 

Shawn Presser, who first shared the Books3 dataset on X years ago, points out that it is still available elsewhere. For example, Books3 is part of ‘The Pile‘, an AI training dataset compiled by EleutherAI. A torrent for this dataset is still hosted on The Eye at the time of writing.

August 2023 Update…

 

In addition, the Books3 dataset is also available from direct download sources. In this sense, it’s not much different from traditional pirated books and movies, which are hard to take down permanently.

 

This shows that AI doesn’t just promise new technological breakthroughs, it also adds a new task to the roster of anti-piracy groups.

 

In July 2021, U.S. broadcaster DISH Network and subsidiary Sling TV filed a copyright lawsuit in a Texas district court against the unknown operators of four websites – SportsBay.org, SportsBay.tv, Live-NBA.stream, and Freefeds.com.

 

The complaint alleged that the unknown defendants circumvented (and provided technologies and services that circumvented) security measures employed by Sling and thereby provided “DISH’s television programming” to users of their websites.

 

According to the complaint, the defendants circumvented technological measures contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), and trafficked in circumvention technology and services contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) through their operation of the websites. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction, control of the defendants’ domains, and damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

 

Early September 2021, District Judge Charles Eskridge granted DISH’s request to start serving subpoenas on third-party service providers including Namecheap and WhoisGuard, Tucows, Cloudflare, Digital Ocean, Google, Facebook and Twitter, with the aim of identifying the still-unknown operators of the sites. In the same month, the sites listed in the complaint disappeared.

DISH Names Defendants in Argentina

According to DISH’s first amended complaint filed in January 2022, information obtained from the third-party service providers enabled the company to identify two men responsible for operating the SportsBay sites.

 

Juan Barcan, an individual residing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap and GitHub. Juan Nahuel Pereyra, also of Buenos Aires, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap.

 

On January 20, 2022, DISH sent a request to the Argentine Central Authority to serve Barcan and Pereyra under the Hague Convention.

 

On October 31, 2022, the Central Authority informed DISH that Pereyra was served in Buenos Aires on September 14, 2022. Barcan was not served so after obtaining permission from the court, DISH served Barcan via a Gmail address used to make payments to Namecheap for the Sportsbay.org, Live-nba.stream, and Freefeds.com domain names.

 

When the defendants failed to appear, DISH sought default judgment. As part of that process, the plaintiffs provided the following information to describe the functions of the four websites listed in the complaint.

 

When Defendants and users selected or clicked on a channel on Sportsbay.org or Sportsbay.tv, the websites connected to Defendants’ Freefeds.com website by embedding in an iframe content originating from a Freefeds.com Uniform Resource Locator. The Freefeds.com iframe then accessed the encrypted Sling programing originating from Sling’s computer server and delivered it to the embedded iframe on the Sportsbay.org and Sportsbay.tv websites.

 

The Freefeds.com iframe then connected to Defendants’ Live-nba.stream server in order to obtain the DRM keys necessary to decrypt the Sling programming so that it was displayed to Defendants and users on the Sportsbay.org and Sportsbay.tv websites

 

DISH informed the court that each time a user accessed Sling programming from the links on the websites, “a connection was made with Live-nba.stream to obtain encryption keys to decrypt Sling’s transmission.”

 

By framing each visit to the Live-nba.stream website as a circumvention violation under section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, and nominating a six-month period where that domain reportedly received 2,469,250 visits from users in the United States, DISH arrived at a “reasonable and conservative claim” based on minimum statutory damages of just $200 for each violation.

 

“The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion, award statutory damages in the amount of $493,850,000 for Defendants’ 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, and enter a permanent injunction barring Defendants from further violations,” DISH informed the court.

DISH Awarded Nearly Half a Billion in Damages

In his order handed down yesterday, District Judge Charles Eskridge entered a default judgment against Juan Barcan and Juan Nahuel Pereyra for violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

 

The defendants and anyone acting in concert with them are permanently enjoined from circumventing any technological protection measure that controls access to Sling or DISH programming, including through the use of websites or any similar internet streaming service. Then comes the award for damages.

 

“Plaintiffs are awarded $493,850,000 in statutory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Defendants’ 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA,” the order reads.

 

 

The order can be found here (pdf)

 

Under U.S. law, online service providers must respond to takedown notices and implement a meaningful policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

 

Many of the large social media platforms stick to these rules, but according to a lawsuit filed by several prominent music companies earlier this year, X is not among them.

‘Breeding Mass Copyright Infringement’

In a complaint filed at a federal court in Nashville, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others accused X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement. The company allegedly fails to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacks a proper termination policy.

 

“Twitter fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law,” the complaint alleged.

 

“While numerous Twitter competitors recognize the need for proper licenses and agreements for the use of musical compositions on their platforms, Twitter does not, and instead breeds massive copyright infringement that harms music creators.”

 

The music companies say that while many online platforms have agreed to licensing deals, X has shown little interest in compensating musicians. This hasn’t changed since Elon Musk took over.

 

Instead, Musk fanned the flames by describing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a “plague on humanity.”

X Asks Court to Dismiss Lawsuit

A few hours ago X responded to these copyright infringement allegations in court. According to the company’s lawyers, the music labels’ complaint fails to state any proper claims and should therefore be dismissed.

 

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

 

 

For example, liability for direct copyright infringement requires non-automated and intentional acts by the defendant, while many of X’s alleged wrongdoing related to passive and automated algorithms.

 

“The Complaint contains no allegations of active, intentional conduct by X, or any X employee, related to the allegedly infringing user posts—an omission that is fatal to the claim,” the company writes.

 

X’s alleged failure to properly respond to DMCA takedown notices could be seen as more active, but the defense notes that the music labels fail to show that X employees deliberately caused these infringements.

 

“[A]llegations that X delayed action or failed to take down specific infringing material are insufficient to plead direct infringement because there is no contention that X knowingly and deliberately caused the initial infringing act.”

‘Contributory Infringement’

The motion to dismiss goes on to refute the contributory copyright infringement claim. Musk’s lawyers stress that X has substantial non–infringing uses and that plaintiffs, therefore, have to show that the service took active and intentional steps to encourage infringement.

 

The complaint fails to make these claims, the defense notes. On the contrary, X has implemented anti-infringement policies and practices, including a DMCA policy. While the music companies allege that X could do more, that’s not sufficient to invoke liability.

 

“Although the Complaint paints X’s anti-infringement efforts as inadequate, it does not allege that these efforts were meant to encourage infringement. Rather, Plaintiffs’ position is that X can do more than it already does to prevent copyright infringement.”

 

Similarly, the suggestion that X didn’t license music, as other services have done, doesn’t mean that its actions were infringing.

 

“Whether X sought music licenses for users or elected not to do so has no bearing on this inquiry; it is not evidence of an intent to encourage infringement,” X’s attorneys write

‘Vicarious Infringement’

The final liability claim also lacks substance, according to X. To establish vicarious liability, the music companies must show that X has a direct financial interest in the infringement, and the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct.

 

“Here, the Complaint fails to allege that X received a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringement of Plaintiffs’ works. Nor could it.

 

“X is a service that offers a wide range of legitimate uses to subscribers; for example, the Plaintiffs in this case maintain their own X accounts that they use for promotional purposes.”

 

The music companies showed in their complaint that advertisements were running next to infringing content. However, according to X, this doesn’t mean that these advertisements were placed intentionally next to pirated content.

 

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have an entirely different view of the case. The music companies have yet to respond to X’s motion and, with many millions of dollars in damages at stake, they’re likely to counter with full force.

 

—

 

A copy of Twitter/X’s motion to dismiss the music company’s complaint 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. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 14 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	8.8 / trailer
2	(…)	No Hard Feelings	6.6 / trailer
3	(1)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
4	(…)	Heart of Stone	5.7 / trailer
5	(3)	The Flash	7.0 / trailer
6	(4)	Transformers: Rise of the Beasts	6.3 / trailer
7	(2)	Insidious: The Red Door	7.2 / trailer
8	(4)	Fast X	6.1 / trailer
9	(7)	John Wick: Chapter 4	8.0 / trailer
10	(9)	Avatar: The Way of Water	7.8 / trailer

 

 

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

 

The Internet is littered with shady IPTV services that offer a lot, for very little money.

 

These deals often seem too good to be true and in most cases they are; at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

Chasing IPTV Pirates

Anti-piracy groups around the world are actively trying to shut down these illicit operations. In Europe, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is at the forefront of the battle.

 

In 2017, BREIN booked a prominent victory at the European Court of Justice, which ruled that it’s illegal to sell devices that are pre-configured to access copyright-infringing content. The “Filmspeler” decision was the death knell for sellers of pirate streaming boxes.

 

Paired with the earlier GS Media ruling, which held that companies with a for-profit motive can’t knowingly link to copyright-infringing material, rightsholders could rely on a powerful enforcement tool.

Target: GoFastIPTV.eu

With these high-profile court rulings in hand, BREIN went after hundreds of pirate streaming tools and operators of IPTV services. One of its main targets was GoFastIPTV.eu, which offered unauthorized access to movies, TV shows and pay TV channels, plus more than 85,000 on-demand titles.

 

BREIN was initially unable to track down the operator through its regular private enforcement options. The paper trail went all over the world through companies in the UK and Brazil, eventually running dead at a hotel in Lisbon, Portugal.

 

There was one significant lead left, however, as the IPTV service used the Dutch Rabobank to process payments. The bank wasn’t willing to hand over data voluntarily, so BREIN decided to take the matter to court instead, where Rabobank was eventually ordered to cooperate.

Operator Located, Case Settled

The bank’s information led to a breakthrough that allowed BREIN to track down the IPTV operator in South America. The person initially failed to respond to communications but that changed when BREIN went back to court once more.

 

Through the renewed legal pressure, the anti-piracy group negotiated a conditional €70,000 settlement with the operator of the now-defunct GoFastIPTV.eu service. In addition, the operator faced a fine of €25,000 per day should the service be restored, plus a €10,000 fine for each future infringement.

 

 

This settlement was a major victory against the once-largest IPTV broker in the Netherlands and although the ink dried for a while, there was still one loose end to tie up. BREIN also wanted to seize the associated gofastiptv.eu, acs-hosting.eu, and iptvgo.eu domains, which were registered in the name of a fall guy.

Final Ruling to Seize EU Domains

This final kink couldn’t be sorted out as part of the settlement, as the operator didn’t control the domain names directly. This meant that BREIN had to go to court once again to secure the domain names.

 

In an announcement this week, BREIN reported that this final obstacle has been overcome. The anti-piracy group obtained a court order that required the ‘fall guy’ to hand over the domain names and while that person failed to do so, the EU registry did eventually cooperate.

 

The IPTV domains weren’t actively being used anymore but BREIN is pleased to see that the registry handed them over, meaning they can’t be used for piracy services in the future.

 

That said, the anti-piracy group would have preferred if the online intermediaries had been more cooperative from the get-go. That would have saved time, money, and multiple trips to court.

 

“The intermediaries involved could have cooperated faster and on a voluntary basis in ending this illegal trade and identifying the anonymous trader. That often happens but, in this case, the practice turned out to be unruly,” says BREIN director Tim Kuik.

 

“But perseverance wins. We persevered and in the end, all our claims were met.”

Seizures Can Work, Sometimes

After years of legal action, BREIN now has pretty much everything it wants from GoFastIPTV’s operator. The settlement amount hasn’t been paid in full yet, but there’s a payment arrangement that’s still ongoing.

 

Meanwhile, the group is redirecting the newly seized domain names to a page that informs people about the illegal nature of pirate IPTV services.

 

“Creating and offering great content costs money. Support that creativity and don’t let money disappear into the pockets of criminals and profiteers,” the notice reads, warning that users of these IPTV services also break the law.

 

Interestingly, that page displays an animated gif of The Pirate Bay logo that sinks after running into an iceberg.

 

 

The message BREIN is trying to send is clear, but The Pirate Bay example may not be the best. While some Pirate Bay domains were seized or suspended in the past, the main thepiratebay.org domain remains online to this day.

 

When asked about this, BREIN’s director admits that domain seizures don’t work that well for The Pirate Bay.

 

“There were attempts to seize TPB domain names, but these had no effect because new ones were immediately taken into use,” Kuik says.

 

Kuik notes that legal actions in several jurisdictions would be required for these seizures to work. But since The Pirate Bay actively evaded attacks on its domains, domain blocking is a better option.

 

Following its launch in 1992, Lux Vide established itself as one of the most successful TV production companies in Italy.

 

With Netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky deals under Lux Vide’s belt, in March 2022 TV giant Fremantle (X Factor, Got Talent) acquired 70% of Lux Vide leading to recent investment and expansion.

 

Lux Vide has also recently emerged from an extended copyright lawsuit, one that predates the coronavirus pandemic.

Lux Vide Sues File-Hosting Platform Easybytez

In a complaint filed at a Michigan district court in August 2019, Lux Vide (Lux Vide Finanziaria Per Iniziative Audiovisive e Telematiche S.p.A.) targeted more than 20 ‘Doe’ defendants accused of distributing 18 television series and movie titles online without permission. With the filing of a second amended complaint in February 2020, a clearer picture emerged.

 

Lux Vide targeted London-based Sven Hansche, the owner/director of Cyprus-based company Greatshaw Limited, in turn the owner of file-hosting platform Easybytez. According to the complaint, Lux Vide content was uploaded to Easybytez and each time users of the platform paid to access that content, the uploaders were paid an affiliate fee.

 

“Defendants provide third-party uploaders with a seemingly untraceable way to profit from the illegal distribution of pirated digital content, thereby incentivizing the continued piracy of Plaintiff’s Works and other pirated content,” the plaintiffs informed the court.

 

“As a result, Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic damage in the form of lost box office income, lost royalty income, lost advertising income, and other monetary damages stemming from Defendants’ illegal distribution of its Works.”

DMCA Takedown and ‘Repeat Infringer’ Failures

The complaint stated that after discovering Lux Vide content being made available on Easybytez, the company sent DMCA takedown notices to both the file-hosting platform and its hosting providers.

 

Easybytez reportedly complied with some (but not all) of the notices but then identical files “almost immediately” reappeared on new URLs and made available to the public. This allowed Easybytez to “continue to profit from the piracy of Plaintiff’s Works behind a thin veil of DMCA compliance,” Lux Vide informed the court.

 

In addition to claims of direct, contributory and vicarious infringement, for which it sought $150,000 per work infringed, the production company noted that Easybytez had failed to implement and enforce a repeat infringer policy as required under the DMCA.

Defendant Failed to Appear, Judgment for the Plaintiffs

Despite being served in September 2021, defendant Sven Hansche failed to appear. The court entered default against Hansche in September 2022 and in its motion for default judgment filed in March 2023, Lux Vide sought maximum statutory damages of $112,200,000. The court determined that the infringement was willful and statutory damages were appropriate, but not at the level demanded by the plaintiffs.

 

District Judge Robert J. Jonker found that the defendant displayed and distributed unauthorized copies of Lux Vide’s works through Easybytez.com, financially benefitted at the expense of the plaintiff, and allowed content to reappear on the platform despite receiving DMCA notices.

 

The only thing absent was information showing to what extent the defendant profited and to what extent Lux Vide lost revenue.

Award for Damages

“Proof of economic loss is not essential to an award of statutory damages, but it is a relevant factor to consider in fixing the proper amount of damage. When no such economic record exists, this Court will look for other relevant or comparable awards,” Judge Jonker notes in his order handed down last week.

 

Before arriving at a damages award, the Judge examined other cases considered relevant to the one in hand. They included a lawsuit filed against IPTV provider Nitro TV by member studios of the MPA, and a similar lawsuit filed against Area 51 and Altered Carbon.

 

As previously reported, the latter ended with a much lower award for damages than demanded by the plaintiffs. In the Lux Vide matter, Judge Jonker finds the same $2,500 per work to be applicable.

 

“An award of $2,500 per violation, resulting in an overall award of $1,870,000, is an appropriate balance of the relevant statutory factors on this record. It will generate meaningful deterrence, and it is consistent with other statutory damage awards in comparable cases,” Judge Jonker concludes.

 

Lux Vide was represented by Chris Newberg of Kuiper Kraemer PC in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Newberg informs TorrentFreak that the matter is not over yet.

 

“We intend to pursue post-judgment remedies similar to those seen in the DaftSex case and we believe that Mr. Hansche’s ring of infringing websites is considerably larger than just the EasyBytez brand,” Lux Vide’s attorney says.

 

The amended complaint, opinion and order, and default judgment are available here (1,2,3, pdf)

 

In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its ‘Open Library’ to a pirate site.

 

IA’s library is a non-profit organization that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying.

 

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book. These restrictions were temporarily loosened at the height of the Covid epidemic when IA launched the National Emergency Library.

Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

Patrons happily use the library but not all rightsholders are happy with IA’s scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but ‘authorized’ libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no such license.

 

As such, the publishers see IA’s library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it permanently taken down.

 

“Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites,” their complaint reads.

 

The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations. Stressing that the library offers a vital service, Internet Archive’s defense centered on the legal concept of transformative fair use.

Liability Ruling and Consent Judgment

After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

 

The court instructed both sides to come up with a consent judgment to determine how the ruling would be reflected in IA’s lending program. After several weeks of negotiations, a proposed agreement was submitted to the court last Friday.

 

The judgment comes with a permanent injunction that effectively bars the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the ‘covered books’ without permission from rightsholders.

 

These restrictions are subject to appeal, which means that the agreement could be rendered moot if IA wins its appeal, which is currently pending.

Covered Books?

The book publishers and IA agree on nearly all aspects of the proposed judgment except one. The parties still disagree on the term ‘covered books’ and leave this question open for the court.

 

The publishers would like all of their copyrighted works to be covered by the injunction, including those that are not available in ebook format. IA, on the other hand, believes that digitizing physical books is fair game if the publishers don’t offer a digital version.

 

“This case involved only works that the Publishers make available as ebooks and so the scope of any injunction should be limited accordingly,” IA explains.

 

The publishers disagree and stress that the court has already made it clear that IA is not allowed to digitize and distribute print books en masse without permission. Publishers should also have the right not to release ebooks, if they prefer.

 

“Of key significance, the law is clear that the right to decide whether or not to publish a book in electronic format belongs to its authors and publishers, not IA,” the publishers write.

Next Chapter

The court will now have to decide how broad the definition “covered books” should be. In their proposed judgment, the parties leave this question open, as shown below.

 

 

What’s clear, however, is that IA must make changes to its lending program. The organization says that it will communicate these to its patrons, once the judgment is approved.

 

At the same time, the library also made clear that it will fight the underlying order, as it believes that libraries should be able to digitize and lend books outside the strict licensing ecosystem.

 

“Libraries are under attack at unprecedented scale today, from book bans to defunding to overzealous lawsuits like the one brought against our library,” Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle says.

 

“These efforts are cutting off the public’s access to truth at a key time in our democracy. We must have strong libraries, which is why we are appealing this decision,” Kahle concludes.

 

Meanwhile, IA has a new legal battle on its hands as the non-profit was sued by several prominent record labels on Friday. The companies accuse it of blatantly infringing copyrights in hundreds of thousands of sound recordings.

 

—

 

A copy of the proposed consent judgment submitted to the court on Friday is available here

 

As the Internet Archive continues to deal with an adverse ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the world’s largest publishing companies, late Friday some of the world’s largest record labels launched similar legal action in the United States.

 

Filed in Manhattan federal court, the complaint lists UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Bicycle Assets, CMGI Recorded Music Assets, Sony Music and Arista Music as plaintiffs, with Internet Archive (IA), founder Brewster Kahle, Kahle/Austin Foundation, George Blood and George Blood L.P named as defendants.

Pre-1972 78rpm Records by Iconic Artists, All Deceased

The plaintiffs’ complaint focuses on the Internet Archive’s ‘Great 78 Project’ which aims to preserve, research and discover 78rpm records produced between 1898 and the 1950s.

 

“While the commercially viable recordings will have been restored or remastered onto LP’s or CD, there is still research value in the artifacts and usage evidence in the often rare 78rpm discs and recordings,” IA wrote following the launch of the project in 2017.

 

“Already, over 20 collections have been selected by the Internet Archive for physical and digital preservation and access. Started by many volunteer collectors, these new collections have been selected, digitized and preserved by the Internet Archive, George Blood LP, and the Archive of Contemporary Music.”

 

 

From IA’s perspective, the project is all about the preservation of art. From the diametrically opposed view of the plaintiffs, the defendants willfully made copies thousands of recordings to which they own the copyrights. The digitized copies were then uploaded to the Internet Archive from where they were illegally distributed to users of the website millions of times.

 

The complaint lists 2,769 individual works from some of the most fmaous artists of all time, including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, and Louis Armstrong. Listed songs include “White Christmas” by Bing Crosby, “Sing, Sing, Sing” by Benny Goodman, “Peggy Sue” by Buddy Holly, and “Roll Over Beethoven” by Chuck Berry.

Plaintiffs: Preservation Claims Are a “Smokescreen”

The nonprofit Internet Archive is known for its ambitious projects that aim to retain, restore and redistribute content that they believe should never be lost to history. For the plaintiffs, these grand ambitions are nothing but a “smokescreen” to hide what amounts to IA offering “free and unlimited access to music for everyone,” regardless of copyright.

 

“In truth, Defendants’ malfeasance springs from their disregard for copyright law and the rights of artists and content owners. Internet Archive and the other Defendants have a long history of opposing, fighting, and ignoring copyright law, proclaiming that their zealotry serves the public good. In reality, Defendants are nothing more than mass infringers,” the complaint reads.

 

The record companies further reject claims that the music being made available illegally needs to be ‘saved’. They claim that of the 2,749 recordings listed in the complaint, all but a “small sample” are already available to stream or download from licensed online platforms so they “face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”

 

The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction, and when it transferred those copies to the public, yet another. When it streamed unlicensed copies to the public, each time that constituted an unlicensed public performance.

 

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

Overall Infringement and Claims For Relief

The plaintiffs allege that the Great 78 Project contains more than 400,000 works that have been downloaded or streamed millions of times. In a letter sent by the RIAA to IA in 2020, the plaintiffs allege that IA owner Brewster Kahle was informed of the following:

 

“You and Internet Archive have reproduced thousands of sound recordings in which RIAA member companies own or exclusively control copyrights, and have made those recordings available to the public for unrestricted download and streaming, all without the consent of the rights owners.

 

 

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

 

The RIAA says that Kahle and the Internet Archive were ordered to “immediately cease and desist from their infringement” but the demand was ignored.

 

The complaint lists several causes of action against different combinations of defendants, including unlawful reproduction under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 1401(a)(1) for which the companies are entitled damages and any profits accrued. Alternatively the record companies seek statutory damages of $150,000 for each protected recording infringed, so with over 2,700 works in suit, damages could exceed $400m.

 

Other claims include infringing reproduction and distribution, infringing public performance, contributory copyright infringement, inducement of infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. The companies also seek injunctive relief to restrain “continuing infringing conduct.”

 

The complaint and list of sound recordings are available here (1,2, pdf)

With momentum building in favor of pirate site blocking measures elsewhere in Europe, Austrian ISPs took their opposition all the way to the country’s Supreme Court.

 

Despite concerns over the implications for net neutrality, rightsholders’ interests prevailed. Like many of their foreign counterparts, Austrian ISPs soon found themselves compelled by court order to block torrent and streaming sites, those offering unlicensed musical works, plus scientific article and textbook repositories.

Domain/DNS Blocking Received Surprise ‘Upgrade’

For years Austrian ISPs had deployed DNS blocking in response to court orders but in the summer of 2022, everything changed. New pirate site blocking orders not only contained domain names to be blocked, but also a list of IP addresses.

 

When the ISPs discovered that the IP addresses belonged to Cloudflare, arms were thrown up in despair. With no opportunity to contest the court-ordered blockades, ISPs had no other choice than to block the IP addresses, rendering countless innocent sites using Cloudflare inaccessible.

 

While this disruption was controversial and avoidable, the long term effect should be more positive.

IP Address Blocking Violated Net Neutrality

In a series of reports published this week, local telecoms regulator Telekom Control Commission (TKK) states that the IP address blocks implemented last August amounted to net neutrality violations under EU law.

 

“In a decision dated August 7, 2023, the Telekom Control Commission decided on the admissibility of blocking networks by [various local ISPs] based on a warning from the rights holder SATEL Film GmbH in accordance with Section 81 (1a) UrhG,” one of the reports begins.

 

“The provider mentioned had set up DNS access blocks on the one hand and an IP access block on the other in its network at the end of August 2022. With regard to the DNS access blocks, no current violation of Art 3 Para 3 VO (EU) 2015/2120 was found and the procedure was discontinued in this respect.

 

“With regard to the blocking of access to the IP address 190.115.18.20, the Telekom Control Commission found a violation of Article 3 Paragraph 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, because the IP access block poses the risk of ‘overblocking’ any website content.”

 

 

In a follow-up announcement, TKK said that, since DNS-based blocking is generally sufficient to protect rightsholders, that will be the only method available to them moving forward.

Protecting Net Neutrality

After declaring IP address-based blocking prohibited in Austria, TKK explained its reasoning to a background of net neutrality and freedom of expression on the Internet.

 

“Since countless websites can be accessed from a single IP address, the risk of blocking websites or Internet services of uninvolved third parties is particularly high in the event of a block,” a TKK spokesman said.

 

“In Austria, network blocks have so far mainly been implemented with so-called ‘DNS blocks’. With this type of block, only individual domains are blocked and blocking notices are displayed instead. It is important that this practice is maintained in order to maintain the legally required proportionality in the future.”

 

TKK’s commitment to transparency includes publishing all blocking decisions and the domains they affect.

 

With nearly 14 million books available for download, Z-Library is one of the largest repositories of pirated books on the Internet.

 

The site has millions of regular readers who find a wealth of free knowledge and entertainment at their fingertips.

 

Z-Library’s very existence was put to the test last November when U.S. law enforcement agencies seized over 200 domain names connected to the site. The site survived this initial crackdown and a new round of domain name seizures in May also failed to take it permanently offline.

Alleged Operators Arrested and Indicted

While the shadow library remains operational, two alleged operators of the site are in serious trouble. Following an FBI investigation, the authorities identified Russian nationals Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova as prime suspects. The pair were arrested in Argentina last year and now face potential extradition to the United States.

 

According to the U.S., the Russian duo amassed over a million dollars a year through donations, while engaging in criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering,

 

With extradition proceedings still underway, the defendants have asked the New York federal court to dismiss the criminal indictment. U.S. prosecutors are yet to reply to this motion but in the meantime, the remaining Z-Library team is gathering support for its stance.

Z-Library Petitions U.S. & Argentina

A few hours ago, Z-Library published a petition on Change.org, calling for an end to the ‘illegal’ criminal prosecution and the restoration of unobstructed access to the shadow library.

 

The petition is directed at U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Argentina’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Santiago Cafiero.

 

“We call for the restoration of Z-Library and for a fair solution that takes into account both the rights of authors and the need for people to have free access to educational resources. We also demand an end to interference in the digital sovereignty of other countries,” it reads.

 

“In the era of information technology, blocking access to knowledge undermines the basic principles of freedom of information, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the petition adds.

 

 

In addition to books, Z-Library also ensures unauthorized access to dozens of millions of scientific articles. Blocking access to these works seriously undermines academics and the progress of science, the team notes.

Support for the Z-Library Defendants

The petition further suggests that errors were made in the legal process. Specifically, Z-Library alleges that the arrests of the Russian defendants last year took place before approval from the court was secured.

 

“Their detention occurred without compliance with legal norms and with numerous procedural violations. For example, a court sanction for arrest has been issued after the arrest,” Z-Library writes in a separate message to its readers.

 

These claims are typically something to be brought up by the defense in court. In that regard, the petition is unlikely to lead to any immediate changes but it may help the site to sway public opinion in its favor.

 

“Today, we are calling on you, our community to stand with us in our fight for the Z-Library project. This project represents more than just a platform; it’s a gateway to knowledge for people all over the world,” the team stresses.

 

At the time of writing the petition has been up for a few hours. Thus far, it has gathered a few thousand signatures but considering the massive support the shadow library received in the past, this number could soon run into the tens of thousands.

 

Two years ago, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov.

 

A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of several prominent music companies after the defendant walked away from the lawsuit.

 

According to the order, there is a clear need to deter the behavior of Kurbanov who failed to hand over evidence including server logs. “A less drastic sanction is unlikely to salvage this case,” the judge wrote.

$82 million Damages Award?

Following this win, the RIAA asked for an injunction to stop the sites’ worldwide stream-ripping activities and demanded $83 million in damages. Both of these requests were taken up in a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Buchanan.

 

“Defendant’s Websites caused the Plaintiffs to lose profits and streaming revenue because of the enormous internet traffic to and use of the Websites’ stream-ripping functions,” Judge Buchanan wrote.

 

The recommendation was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton last year, securing a multi-million dollar win for the music companies. That same order also spelled the end of the stream-ripping sites, at least in theory.

Appeal?

The Russian operator of FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com didn’t give up immediately. Shortly after the million-dollar judgment came in he requested an appeal and last month the case was docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

 

The filing suggested that Kurbanov would like to continue the fight but this week it became clear that won’t be the case. On the contrary, the appeal was dismissed voluntarily, before it even started.

 

“[T]he parties hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs. Defendant-Appellant is responsible for paying any Court fees that are due,” the filing reads.

 

Money Ran Out

The voluntary dismissal doesn’t necessarily mean that the operator accepts the lower court’s judgment. Instead, TorrentFreak is informed that he doesn’t have the money to fund a proper challenge.

 

Speaking with TorrentFreak, defense attorney Val Gurvits explains that Mr. Kurbanov simply ran out of money. The lawyer still believes, however, that the District Court’s decision was worth challenging.

 

“It is disappointing that a person who has never once set foot in the United States and who has only operated a website accessible anywhere in the world can be ordered to appear in a court half way around the world,” Gurvits says.

 

“And, if he fails to do so – or simply can’t afford to do so – that he can be hit with millions of dollars of damages even when there has been no evidence that the Plaintiffs actually suffered any damages as a result of his conduct.”

What Now?

Absent an appeal, the $83 million damages award in favor of the RIAA stands, although that might be hard to pay without funds. In addition, the court’s order also prohibits Mr. Kurbanov from keeping FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com up and running.

 

At the time of writing, both YouTube rippers are still accessible in most parts of the world but the site’s operator previously decided to ban all U.S. traffic, which is still the case today.

 

 

TorrentFreak asked the RIAA whether it has any plans to ensure that the YouTube rippers comply with the court order but the music group prefers not to comment any further at this time.

 

Mr. Kurbanov hasn’t commented publicly on his decision or future plans but his attorney notes that the defense would have liked to take the appeal forward.

 

“We would have loved to be able to continue this fight on the merits, but unfortunately our client was unable to do so,” Gurvits says.

 

Copyright infringement lawsuits against pirate IPTV providers and those accused of assisting them, usually have a few common elements.

 

To compensate for massive infringement, a demand for damages running to no less than eight digits often sets the stage, while an obligatory demand for a trial by jury shows early commitment to see things through.

 

What typically follows are months of litigation followed by an announcement that there will be no trial because, against all odds, the parties have agreed to settle their differences after confidential negotiations.

Similar Lawsuit, Unusual Answer

A lawsuit filed by US broadcaster DISH against UK-based DataCamp claimed that the CDN company failed to take meaningful steps to prevent ongoing infringement. DISH argued that after sending 400+ DMCA notices to DataCamp complaining about several pirate IPTV providers using its services, the hosting company had clear knowledge of the infringement and could be held secondarily liable.

 

Unlike similar lawsuits seen elsewhere, DataCamp didn’t immediately succumb to the pressure. Indeed, the company appeared to be putting up quite a fight, at least until the case took a familiar turn; settlement talks and maybe an end to the dispute.

DataCamp Paused…Then Came Out Swinging

Late July, DataCamp filed its answer and delivered a bombshell allegation: DISH has no standing to sue for copyright infringement. The company has distribution agreements for TV channels, but no exclusive rights to any identified copyrighted works, DataCamp informed the court.

 

That raised questions over the validity of the 400+ DMCA notices and their stated aim of protecting copyrighted works, but DataCamp wasn’t done.

 

The company claimed that during negotiations, DISH attempted to “bully” DataCamp into an agreement to create a “False Public Judgment for tens of millions of dollars which DISH would agree, in private, never to execute on..” According to DataCamp, the theoretical ‘big money’ judgment would’ve been used to “terrorize” other hosting companies in a similar position.

 

After that came the counterclaims including fraud, deceptive practices, racketeering, and conspiracy. Suddenly it was DataCamp’s turn to demand damages and a trial by jury.

Joint Motion to Strike

In a joint motion to strike DataCamp’s answer and its counterclaims, this week the parties asked the court for a stay in proceedings to allow for the “completion of documents finalizing settlement” of the lawsuit.

 

“DISH believes that Datacamp’s counterclaims are frivolous and include allegations that should be stricken for violating settlement conference confidentiality,” the motion reads.

 

“DISH informed Datacamp that it would move to strike the counterclaims and that DISH also intends to move for sanctions under Rule 11 and move to dismiss the counterclaims.”

 

No surprise that DataCamp sees things rather differently.

 

“Datacamp believes that: (a) its Counterclaims are valid and meritorious, (b) there has been no violation of Settlement Conference confidentiality, and (c) that any DISH motion to strike, dismiss and/or for sanctions would likely be frivolous themselves and subject to a Rule 11 Motion.”

 

Despite yet another major difference of opinion, the motion states that DataCamp has agreed to have its answer and counterclaims stricken “solely to accommodate DISH and facilitate and expedite the finalization of the settlement.”

Parties Still At War Agree to Settle

The motion contains little additional information to suggest that DISH/DataCamp relations have improved.

 

It’s alleged that during a deposition on August 2, DataCamp’s representative refused to answer questions concerning DataCamp’s counterclaims after being instructed by the company’s counsel not to respond. For its part, DataCamp accused DISH of refusing a “common professional courtesy request” for an extension to file a responsive pleading, so was forced to file its answer and counterclaims on July 31.

 

To a background of copyright infringement allegations and damages running to eight figures, and counterclaims that insist that only copyright holders can sue for copyright infringement, so there can be no damages at all, this lawsuit remains hotly disputed yet apparently ready for settlement.

 

“The Parties have reached an understanding on settlement terms that will fully resolve this litigation,” the motion concludes.

 

While those terms are unlikely to be made public, the real interest lies in the allegations placed in the public domain due to DataCamp’s counterclaim. The potential effect on similar lawsuits moving forward will be something to look out for, at least working on the assumption there will be any at all.

 

The joint motion to strike can be found here (pdf)

 

At least on the surface, the story of Sdarot, Israel’s most popular pirate site, sounds quite similar to that of The Pirate Bay. Loved by millions and loathed by entertainment companies, both have demonstrated an unusual ability to remain online, despite overwhelming odds.

 

But while The Pirate Bay has generated considerable revenue over the years, Sdarot’s existence and its ability to generate profit seem inexorably intertwined. The subscription fees, paid by some (but not all) of its users in return for access to Israel’s top premium TV channels, are the main attraction. They’re also the reason the people behind Sdarot’s are among the most hounded pirate site operators on the planet.

Legal Action in the United States

With legal victories and blocking injunctions proving all but useless in Israel, companies including United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication, filed three copyright infringement lawsuits in New York, with Sdarot one of the main targets. The companies requested an award for damages and then received one worth $23 million, not bad all things considered.

 

A decision by the entertainment companies to go hard with their injunction demands, including that every ISP in the United States should be forced to block Sdarot’s domains, was outrageously ambitious yet somehow received approval from the court in 2022.

 

What followed was an ill-thought-through attack on Cloudflare and universal disapproval from Big Tech. That led to the blocking demands being withdrawn and a mostly secret process to degrade Sdarot’s ability to conduct business online.

Sdarot Remains in Business; But For How Long?

Reports emerging over the past few days indicate that in addition to legal problems in the United States, Sdarot now faces a new lawsuit in Israel. Following an investigation by Zira, an anti-piracy group that has hounded Sdarot for years, a lawsuit was filed at the Tel Aviv District Court against 14 people alleged to be involved in the operation of the pirate TV show platform.

 

According to Israeli news outlet Walla, the letter of claim describes a “well-oiled criminal system” that illegally records and distributes copyrighted content, and then launders the revenue, hiding it from tax authorities. Those behind the platform are also accused of exploiting minors, an allegation we’ll return to in a moment.

 

Zira reportedly engaged an unnamed European cybersecurity company to “follow the money” or, more accurately, cryptocurrency wallets used to receive payments from users before forwarding to other wallets. As published by Walla, the document below appears to be part of the evidence package and claims to show a BTC wallet with an extremely healthy balance.

 

BTC transaction document (credit: Walla)

 

In common with the investigation that eventually took down Megaupload, Zira appears to have avoided discrimination based on the type or scale of alleged offending at Sdarot. From the top of the site to the very bottom, anyone involved seems eligible.

Owner Through to Facebook Moderator

The alleged owner of Sdarot (TV shows) and sister site Sratim (movies) is named in the lawsuit as Michael Ben-Ami, a former resident of Dimona who no longer lives in Israel. Seeing Ben-Ami’s name in print after years in the shadows provokes a trip down memory lane.

 

When local TV companies were trying to shut down and/or block Sdarot in 2013, the name of the site’s operator was initially unknown. After subsequently identifying Ben-Ami as the main suspect, police raided his home looking for evidence. Reports at the time claimed that officers were confronted by Ben-Ami’s then-wife/partner who pulled out a knife and turned a ‘normal’ police drama into a potential crisis.

 

As far as we know, no one was injured, which left Ben-Ami – a former police officer – to deny all involvement in the site.

 

The lawsuit goes on to name Ephraim Fishel Shtroch as a central figure in the streaming operation. The resident of Beit Shemesh stands accused of developing the site’s mobile and smart TV applications. Also among the accused is Ashdod resident Aviel Twito, who reportedly provided hosting services for Sdarot in Israel, plus Ariel Eisental and Bar Lubinger, who stand vaguely accused of helping the site to make pirated content available.

 

The list concludes with those who helped to run the site, such as Shaul Amedi and Daniel Levy, and those who moderated social media channels; Shoval Reshef and Lipez Nossen (Discord), David Shemesh (Telegram), plus Alik Abramson and Yuval Abramzon (Facebook). Idan Yuval stands accused of designing Sdarot’s website while Yarin Shimoni is said to have provided voice-overs for content released on the platform.

 

Commenting on the lawsuit, CEO of Zira Ido Natan said an important step had been taken against widespread copyright infringement in Israel. According to the person behind Sdarot’s Twitter account, Zira’s more recent steps against infringement have been going on for quite some time.

No Love Lost Between Sdarot and Zira

After celebrating Sdarot’s 1,000,000th member on June 16, early July the person controlling the Twitter account spoke of experiencing “somewhat significant technical malfunctions” due to Zira’s activities against the site. That turned out to be the seizure of Sdarot’s server in Israel which in turn solicited a response from Sdarot containing a threat against someone allegedly involved.

 

 

On July 12, alarm bells rang more urgently at Sdarot HQ, wherever that might be.

 

“The site is under attack on several different fronts at the same time now, in at least four different countries! The site is currently only active for subscribers until we return to full normality in a few days,” an announcement declared.

 

What followed were public allegations against Zira CEO, Ido Natan. The tweet in question claims that Natan previously worked as the Minister of Justice’s personal assistant and then suddenly became CEO of Zira.

 

A day later Eli Cohen, the pseudonym used by the owner of Sdarot, offered to close down the site if certain conditions were met.

 

 

With memes quickly descending into more personal insults, Sdarot acknowledged the existence of the Zira lawsuit on August 2 and also appeared to shine light on allegations that the site “exploited minors.”

 

“I heard that Zira reached the bottom of the ladder. They decided to sue 14 people, some of whom live in Israel. Some of them are minors, all because they claim to have been part of the site’s team about a decade ago,” the tweet reads, adding: “You increased our motivation to continue.”

 

This week Sdarot announced two things: 1) the operation to shut the site down (Operation: Mechta Shemesh) had come to an end. 2) On September 7, 2023, Sdarot is expected to make a full comeback.

 

In 2020, the RIAA infuriated many players in the open source community by targeting YouTube-ripping tool, youtube-dl.

 

The RIAA sent a takedown notice to GitHub, claiming that the software bypassed technological protection measures, in violation of the DMCA.

 

GitHub initially complied but later changed course. After consulting legal experts, including those at the EFF, it restored the youtube-dl repository and launched a million-dollar defense fund to assist developers in similar disputes.

Targeting youtube-dl’s Host

This episode was a massive setback for the music industry, which had been fighting stream-ripping tools for years. However, instead of laying down their arms, Sony, Warner and Universal went after Uberspace, youtube-dl’s website hosting company in Germany.

 

A German court previously ruled that stream-ripping software bypasses YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ download protection. This is seen as a circumvention of technical protection measures, a violation of intellectual property law in Europe.

 

Earlier this year this line of reasoning was also adopted by the district court of Hamburg. While the open source youtube-dl software is hosted on GitHub, Uberspace was held liable as the host of the youtube-dl.org website because it linked to the developer platform.

 

In its defense, Uberspace argued that the protection can be circumvented using any regular web browser and in any case, the youtube-dl software has plenty of legal uses. These arguments failed to sway the court.

 

The court recognized that YouTube’s rolling cipher protection is far from perfect but concluded that it’s good enough to signal to average users that downloading content from YouTube is not permitted.

 

“[T]he average user must recognize that YouTube content, unlike media content on other websites, cannot be downloaded with a simple right-click and must be aware that this is achieved using technology on YouTube and that youtube-dl ‘overrides’ this protection. It is therefore to be assumed that the average user acts in bad faith,” the Hamburg Court wrote.

Ban Enforced

The ruling was published in March but Uberspace wasn’t required to take action right away. The hosting company decided to appeal, which meant that the youtube-dl.org site remained online, unless the music companies posted a €20,000 bond.

 

Initially, it didn’t appear that the labels would enforce the order, but that changed a few days ago. The plaintiffs informed Uberspace that they had posted the security, leaving the company no other choice than to take the site offline.

 

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Uberspace owner Jonas Pasche says that his hands are tied. Failure to comply with the order would either result in a massive fine, or worse, a prison sentence.

 

“I received that information from the plaintiff’s side on July 27, with proof that they did the security deposit at a bank. So I no longer have a choice but to follow the judgment. Otherwise, I would face a fine of €250,000 or jail time,” Pasche notes.

 

 

For several days, people who visited youtube-dl’s website saw a blocking notice instead, which is shown above. At the time of writing, the website doesn’t load at all.

Appeal ‘Censorship’ Order

Uberspace will continue the legal battle and is prepared to fight the order up to the highest court possible. If the appeal is successful, Pasche will gladly unblock the site.

 

“We are confident that a higher court will overturn the judgment of the Hamburg Regional Court, so we will be able to unblock the site as soon as this happens,” he says.

 

Uberspace is not the website’s domain registrar, so youtube-dl may yet decide to point its domain elsewhere. For now, that hasn’t happened. The software remains available on GitHub where it also has a dedicated website.

 

The hosting company previously told us that the Hamburg court’s ‘devastating’ order opens the door to privatized censorship, citing this threat as one of the main reasons to fight back.

 

“The consequences of this will be that hosting providers receiving complaints will most likely kick out their customers without a court ruling, for things that might be perfectly legal,” Pasche said at the time.

 

“This is a shameful day for the freedom of speech. It’s paving the way for privatized censorship. Do we as a society really want this? We strongly believe we’re on the right side of history here.”

 

Adult entertainment company MG Premium has left no stone unturned in its three-year legal standoff with the operator of piracy sites including the hugely popular ‘DaftSex’.

 

The first public sign of the battle ahead arrived courtesy of a huge MG Premium DMCA takedown campaign that aimed to remove 832,000 DaftSex URLs from Google search.

 

Mass copyright takedowns like these should a) make sites like DaftSex harder to find and b) trigger Google’s downranking mechanism which reduces search engine placement in response to DMCA notices.

 

Then came MG Premium’s application for a DMCA subpoena targeting Cloudflare in the summer of 2020, which hoped to obtain the identity of DaftSex’s operator.

 

 

At the time DaftSex was pulling in tens of millions of visits per month and MG Premium’s goal was to reduce that to zero, through the courts if necessary.

MG Premium Files Lawsuit Against the Operator of DaftSex

Filed at the federal court in the District of Washington in 2022, MG Premium went after Vasily Kharchenko, the alleged operator of Daftsex.com, Biqle.com, Daxab.com and other affiliated sites. In response, Kharchenko dug in his heels, failed to appear in the lawsuit, then sat back as District Judge Benjamin Settle awarded MG Premium $32,145,000 in damages in November 2022.

 

The Judge also signed off on an injunction that authorized the transfer of several domains away from Kharchenko and into MG Premium’s possession.

 

The MindGeek subsidiary took control of some domains very quickly and redirected them to its own platforms including RedTube. DaftSex acted quickly too; it switched to new domains including Daft.sex, Dsex.to, plus biqle.ru and biqle.org.

 

In December 2022, MG Premium asked the court to hold Kharchenko in contempt for breaching the injunction. The company also requested permission to take control of the new DaftSex domains at Daft.sex, Dsex.to, and Biqle.org. Since Daftsex was using a Twitter account to inform users of new domains, MG Premium asked the court to issue an order compelling Twitter to either shut down the account or transfer it to MG Premium.

Kharchenko Ignores Order to Show Cause, Judge Runs Out Patience

In his March 2023 order, Judge Settle described MG Premium’s evidence showing Kharchenko violating the injunction, as both “clear and convincing.” Nevertheless, Kharchenko was given yet another chance to participate and informed that he had 30 days to show why he should not be “subject to a bench warrant, to an order holding him in contempt, or to monetary sanctions.”

 

Having boycotted the entire process to date, and despite being served, Kharchenko failed to comply with the March order. In an order handed down last week, Judge Settle considered MG Premium’s evidence and the laid out the consequences.

 

After finding that MG Premium’s 2,143 copyrighted works were still being displayed on Daft.sex, Dsex.to, and Biqle.org, Judge Settle found Kharchenko in contempt for violating the injunctions. With that alone unlikely to prevent further infringement, the court came up with a solution to help reduce visibility of the infringing sites.

Judge Declares MG Premium the New Owner of ‘Pirate’ Domains

The section of the order dealing with Kharchenko’s domains initially reads like bad news for MG Premium but then suddenly starts to improve.

 

“MG Premium has not persuaded the Court that it can or should order non-parties to take concrete steps to prevent the infringement, or as a sanction for Karchenko’s wrongful conduct and his contempt of court,” it begins.

 

“The Court will not, therefore, Order third parties take affirmative steps to transfer domain name registrars to MG Premium. It will ORDER instead that MG Premium is entitled to ownership of the domain names.” With that, Judge Settle issued the instructions below.

 

(1) MG Premium or its designee is entitled to be the registrar of record for the domain name Daft.sex, and this Order demonstrates that right to the operator of the .SEX registry, ICM Registry and/or Registry Service, LLSC. Any resulting transfer shall be done at MG Premium’s reasonable expense.

 

(2) MG Premium or its designee is entitled to be the registrar of record for the domain name Dsex.to, and this Order demonstrates that right to the operator of the .TO registry, Tonic Domains Corp. Any resulting transfer shall be done at MG Premium’s reasonable expense.

 

(3) MG Premium or its designee is entitled to be the registrar of record for the domain name Biqle.org, and this Order demonstrates that right to the operator of the ORG registry, Public Interest Registry. Any resulting transfer shall be done at MG Premium’s reasonable expense.

Twitter and GitHub Ordered to Eject Kharchenko

Further instructions relate to Kharchenko-operated accounts on Twitter/X and GitHub. The order notes that since MG Premium “is entitled to be the owner of record” of the Twitter account used to communicate with DaftSex users, it should be transferred to the company at “reasonable expense.” The same applies to daftsex.github.io and daftpost.github.io which have been used to inform DaftSex users of new domain names for many months.

 

Whether any of the above will be enough to prevent ongoing violations of MG Premium’s rights and the terms of the permanent injunction, remains to be seen. Events to date indicate there’s a solid chance that Kharchenko will find ways to circumvent the order. He may have been served but we suspect that his geographical location represents a major roadblock that’s unlikely to be removed for the next several years.

 

The March order and last week’s contempt order can be found here (1,2,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. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 07 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3	8.2 / trailer
2	(…)	Insidious: The Red Door	7.2 / trailer
3	(3)	The Flash	7.0 / trailer
4	(7)	Fast X	6.1 / trailer
5	(4)	Transformers: Rise of the Beasts	6.3 / trailer
6	(2)	The Little Mermaid	7.2 / trailer
7	(6)	John Wick: Chapter 4	8.0 / trailer
8	(…)	Oppenheimer	8.6 / trailer
9	(8)	Avatar: The Way of Water	7.8 / trailer
10	(9)	The Super Mario Bros. Movie	7.3 / trailer

 

 

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

 

In 2021, the US Department of Justice launched a criminal proceeding against two men suspected of running 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.

 

Last year, the first defendant confessed to his part in the copyright swindle by pleading guilty. Webster Fernandez admitted it was a simple scheme: find Latin American music that wasn’t yet monetized on YouTube and claim the content as their own.

 

In February of this year, the second defendant pleaded guilty. Jose Teran signed a plea agreement admitting that he was part of the conspiracy, engaging in wire fraud and money laundering.

First Defendant Sentenced to 70 Months Prison

Teran wasn’t the initiator of the scheme and hoped to get away with a relatively mild sentence. The defense requested a probation or home confinement sentence, which would allow the defendant to continue to care for his family.

 

The Government, however, called for a substantial 70-month sentence, arguing that this was necessary to send an appropriate deterrent message.

 

At a sentencing hearing in June, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas L. Rayes sided with the Government’s position, sentencing the defendant to more than five years in prison followed by three years of probation.

Second Defendant Requests Lower Sentence

A few days ago, the attorney for Webster Fernandez submitted a memorandum for the upcoming sentencing of his client. According to the defense, the alleged initiator of the Content ID scam deserves a reduced sentence.

 

The defendant admits to his part in the fraudulent scheme. Through the company MediaMuv he and his co-defendant defrauded YouTube [Y.T.], rights management outfit AdRev [A.R.], as well as many artists.

 

“Jose Teran and Webster Batista Fernandez fraudulently created contracts with companies which purportedly managed certain artists, and then emailed the contracts to Y.T. and A.R. for the purpose of deceiving Y.T. and A.R., and continuing their fraudulent operation,” the defense attorney notes.

 

“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.”

Music Career

Fernandez was born in the Dominican Republic and immigrated to the United States in 2002. The Content ID scam was the 35-year-old defendant’s first felony offense and he promises to do everything in his power to get his life back on track.

 

Mr. Fernandez previously worked in the music industry for major labels including Sony. He produced videos and also has a YouTube channel which brought in approximately $200,000 per month. His arrest brought his career to an abrupt halt.

 

 

While the defense doesn’t deny wrongdoing, it believes that a reduced 46-month prison sentence should be sufficient. After that, he would like to be there again for his young family.

 

“Clearly, Defendant Webster Batista Fernandez has learned a significant lesson and wants to reform his life, as demonstrated through his post-arrest conduct in this case. Ultimately, Mr. Batista Fernandez wants a second chance to be a positive role model for his children, and to provide substantial restitution to the victims.

 

“Based on the mitigating factors in this case, a sentence not to exceed 46 months’ imprisonment will provide just punishment, allow for adequate deterrence, protect the public, and promote respect for the law,” the defense adds.

 

The Government has yet to issue its recommendation but given that it requested a substantially higher sentence for the other defendant in this case, it seems likely that it will do so here as well.

 

After that, it’s up to the court to issue a final sentence, which is expected to arrive later this year.

 

—

 

A copy of the sentencing memorandum submitted by the attorney of Webster Batista Fernandez is available here (pdf)

 

This is a bit of an unusual post, but we believe that it’s important to let people know that our Twitter / X account was been hijacked and put to new use without our knowledge.

 

The username and handle were updated as well, and there doesn’t appear to be an easy way to sort this out without direct help from X, which isn’t proving easy.

 

The account still has our followers so please know that everything that’s posted by the account can’t be trusted. The same is true for all direct messages and other communications.

 

We hope that the situation can be ‘fixed’ soon and we will update this article when additional news arrives.

 

Roughly 25 years ago, Google started its business as a simple and straightforward search engine.

 

The startup swiftly captured a dominant market share which it managed to retain and grow as the years passed by.

 

Google’s position as a search leader also brings responsibility, an issue copyright holders hammered on for a long time. Slowly but steadily, Google tweaked its policies to hinder pirate sites.

 

The most direct way for the search engine to address the piracy problem is by responding to DMCA notices. If copyright holders spot pirate sites in search results, they can direct Google to remove these links from its indexes.

Seven Billion Reported URLs

Google first started to keep track of these takedown notices at the beginning of the last decade. In the spring of 2012, Google launched its Transparency Report which publishes all DMCA requests the company receives, including the targeted links and their senders. This provided fuel for hundreds of news reports as well as academic research.

 

A few days ago, Google reached a new milestone when it processed the seven billionth removal request. It’s a mind-boggling number that comes less than a year after the six billionth takedown was recorded.

 

 

Looking more closely at the timeline, we see that a billion URLs were reported to Google search in less than nine months. For comparison, it took twice as long to go from five to six billion, suggesting that the takedown volume picked up again after a previously reported decline.

 

There’s no denying the recent surge in reported links but much of the increase was generated by a single rightsholder in an effort to remove a particular pirate operation from Google search.

Two Domains, One Pirate

Around the start of the year MG Premium began to increase its takedown efforts. The company is an intellectual property vehicle of the MindGeek conglomerate, known for popular adult sites such as PornHub. One of MG Premium’s main goals is to shut down ‘unlicensed’ sites or at least make when unfindable.

 

Last year, MG Premium scored a multi-million dollar damages win in a U.S. federal court against pirate ‘tube site’ Daftsex . This order also took down the main .com domain, but that didn’t stop the site. Daftsex simply continued using alternative domains which remain available to this day.

 

This defiant stance prompted MG Premium to start a DMCA takedown spree on a scale never witnessed before. In the first few months of the year, the company flagged more than a quarter billion Daftsex URLs, mostly dsex.to and daft.sex.

 

 

The surge is clearly visible in the graph above and at times the company was averaging more than two million takedown requests per day. More recently the volume has come down a bit, but it’s been a major contributor to Google’s takedown uptick.

7 Billion in Perspective

The seven billion figure itself also deserves some clarification. This number only refers to the URLs that were reported to Google, and includes duplicates, as well as pages that were not in Google’s index. The latter category is placed on a special watchlist to make sure they’re not added again in the future.

 

Google also rejects millions of takedown requests because they fail to show links to infringing content. This applies to more than one hundred TorrentFreak URLs that were flagged incorrectly, as well as pages from Netflix, IMDb, The White House, NASA, and even the FBI.

 

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that not all takedown notices are sent by the people or companies listed in them. Over the past several years, we have seen numerous imposters sending notices on behalf of legitimate rightsholders. These are often sent by pirate site owners attempting to take out the competition.

 

Last week the Financial Times reported that UK pay-TV broadcaster Sky had obtained a novel blocking injunction at the High Court in London.

 

The report claimed that the country’s leading ISPs will be required to block pirate IPTV services nominated by Sky, to protect its “best selling” football games and content broadcast on linear channels including Sky Atlantic.

Premier League Also Obtains IPTV Blocking Order

While Sky attempting to protect its linear content seems like an entirely logical progression, the mention of Sky protecting the most popular football games from piracy seemed somewhat redundant. The most popular games on Sky are Premier League fixtures and since the football body obtains and executes its own blocking injunctions, doubling up wouldn’t make much sense.

 

With no announcements from Sky or the Premier League, and the associated court orders not yet in the public domain, the scope of the Sky order remains unclear. What we can confirm today is that just days after Sky’s injunction win, the Premier League also obtained an injunction at the High Court. Given the pattern established a few years ago, this seems likely to be an extension and upgrade of a previously obtained order.

 

An order covering the 2019/2020 season ran out on July 27, 2020, but was quickly followed by a “sealed order” covering the 2020/2021 season. While that timed out on July 27, 2021, blocking continued during the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 seasons under the authority of the High Court.

 

With zero transparency now a feature of these orders, information is harder to come by. What we can confirm is that the Premier League obtained a blocking injunction/extension during the last week of July, just days after Sky obtained its own IPTV blocking order. The injunction allows the Premier League to block pirate IPTV services during the 2023/24 season and then the 2024/2025 season after that.

New Details on Sky’s IPTV Blocking Order

The new injunction obtained by Sky and revealed last week wasn’t the broadcaster’s first foray into the world of ISP blocking orders. Sky previously teamed up with the MPA in 2022, but in the July order the broadcaster seems to have acted alone.

 

We still can’t explain why Sky would block Premier League games already subject to blocking, so for now we’re going to assume that isn’t the case and a more plausible explanation will appear in due course. In the meantime we understand that the order obtained by Sky may only be valid for a relatively short period; August, September, October, and November 2023.

 

Another unusual aspect is the provisional blocking information made available to the major ISPs. As far as we’re aware, existing orders are very flexible and not especially restricted in respect of which IPTV providers are eligible for blocking. Whether that’s the case here is unknown, but Sky will be homing in at least six named brands linked to the supply of infringing streams; BunnyStream, Enigma Streams, GenIPTV, CatIPTV, GoTVMix and IPTVMain.

Messy Market, Little Respect for ‘Trademarks’

Given that copycat branding is commonplace in all piracy markets and registered trademarks aren’t really a thing, identifying the exact providers targeted here isn’t straightforward. Existing information may help to narrow things down, however.

 

Operating from various domains, the brand GenIPTV has been a target for rightsholders for some time. Under instructions from Italian regulator AGCOM, geniptv.com and its ‘portal’ subdomain have been DNS blocked in Italy for several years. Genip.tv, which is linked to geniptv.com, appeared in the MPA’s submission to the USTR’s Notorious Markets report 2021. The studios claimed that, at least in part, the service was operated out of the UK.

 

BunnyStream-branded variations exist in forms from .com through to .co.uk, and in plural as BunnyStreams. With no obvious way to shorten the odds, moving on to IPTVMain is much more productive.

 

A short trawl through the Lumen database shows that Sky has taken significant interest in iptvmain.com (1,2,3), iptvmain.co.uk (1,2) and iptvmain.live (1). The service was also mentioned a lot on Twitter back in May, with comments along similar lines to this recent review we spotted on Google Maps.

 

 

Why Sky may be interested in these services above all others isn’t immediately obvious. One thing that does stand out is the disproportionate use of .co.uk domains among the targets, which may suggest a focus on the UK. But of course, these consumer-facing websites aren’t the most important targets, their streaming server IP addresses are, for the next few months at least.

 

Piracy is a complicated phenomenon but most consumer research surveys on the topic are relatively straightforward.

 

Since most pirates don’t like to have their online activity monitored, piracy studies generally rely on self-reported data instead.

 

These types of surveys are very common in all sorts of areas but they tend to come with several inherent biases. That’s particularly true if respondents are asked about behavior that’s against the law, which applies to piracy in most parts of the world.

 

One can imagine that some people, consciously or not, will downplay how often they use pirate sites and services. The opposite could be true for more defiant personality types, of course.

Making Piracy Confessions More Honest

Most researchers take these biases for granted and assume that comparisons over time will still be able to spot important trends. However, a new working paper from University of Portsmouth researchers suggests a simple way to make pirates more ‘honest’ in their reporting.

 

 

In a series of two studies, Kate Whitman and colleagues asked respondents to fill out a survey on a variety of subjects. This included a question where they had to estimate how many times they downloaded or streamed pirated content over the past week; if they pirated at all.

 

This is a basic question that regularly appears in piracy surveys. The researchers, citing the social desirability bias, assume that the average respondent will underreport their piracy activity by default. However, it also predicts that this tendency can be manipulated with a simple trick.

 

Psychology research has shown that using certain filler questions to ‘cue’ or ‘prime’ people towards positive or negative behavior can impact their follow-up answers on unrelated topics.

Priming Pirates

In the first study, the research applies this principle to see if these cues can change people’s piracy answers by contrasting them with control groups where no cues are used. Since men and women tend to respond differently to these cues, gender is taken into account as well.

 

The researchers used these cues in the form of questions where respondents were asked to answer on a 5-point scale whether they agreed or not. Both positive and negative attitudes and behaviors were used as primes, but positive attitudes only had a significant impact.

 

 

These cues asked respondents to indicate to what degree they support the creative industries, by paying for Spotify or Netflix or going to the movies, for example.

Positive Cues Boost Piracy Confessions

These cue questions were eventually followed by piracy estimates. When analyzing the results, the researchers found that pirates estimated higher piracy usage after completing these positive behavior cue questions.

 

A likely explanation for this finding is that the cues make people more honest. After pirates have the opportunity to display support for the creative industries, it is apparently easier to rationalize piracy.

 

Men tend to pirate more and this ‘rationalization’ effect is somewhat stronger for them as well. That finding is in line with earlier research, which showed that men are more likely to use these types of rationalizations to overcome cognitive dissonance.

Social Desirability & Gender

The second study aimed to confirm these findings. In this case, the researchers only used positive behavior cues and the control group. Because they expected people’s tendency to show socially desirable behavior to be an important factor, that was also measured through the survey.

 

The findings of this follow-up showed that, overall, respondents who scored high on the social desirability scale reported lower piracy ‘consumption’.

 

Interestingly, the positive cues also increased people’s self-reported piracy but that effect wasn’t found for respondents who have a lower social desirability score.

 

The positive cues appear to work best for men, as the first study also suggested. The cues increase the reported piracy volume regardless of the social desirability bias level. For women, however, the cues only worked for respondents with a high social desirability bias.

The Implications

The main takeaway of the studies is that survey design and the framing of questions can steer people’s reporting. That’s important for researchers and applies to marketing and communication fields as well.

 

“Overall, the research underscores the significance of positive cues in increasing honest reporting of undesirable behaviors and sheds light on gender differences in response to survey primes,” the paper notes.

 

“We estimate that the positive cues treatment increases the amount of piracy participants are willing to report by 42%.”

 

 

By taking these findings into account, researchers can potentially obtain more honest responses, also when people are asked about activities that are more criminal in nature.

 

“This intervention is easily adopted by market researchers and may extend beyond improved past behavior reporting to include attitudes and intentions. Moreover, the method may have broader implications for eliciting truthful responses from individuals involved in more serious criminal or sensitive activities.”

 

Future research will have to show how these results hold up in other populations and whether other variables also play a role.

 

Currently, the researchers assume that people are underreporting their piracy habits by default, but that may warrant follow-up research too. Ideally, researchers should measure piracy directly, but for some reason, we think that pirates will change their habits if they know they’re being monitored.

 

—

 

A copy of the working paper is available here.

 

Kate Whitman & Zahra Murad & Joe Cox, 2023. “Confessions of a pirate: Gender difference in survey prime to increase honest reporting,” Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2023-05, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.

In common with a growing list of EU Member States, Spain operates an ongoing domain blocking program with the aim of reducing traffic to pirate sites.

 

Amendments to Spain’s Copyright Act (Law No. 2/2011) led to the formation of an administrative body known as the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission (S2CPI).

 

Launched in 2012 under Spain’s Ministry of Culture and Sports, S2CPI has the authority to issue instructions which require local internet service providers to restrict access to pirate sites. The process begins when rightsholders file an application with S2CPI with a request to block a specific domain (or domains) directly linked to the unlawful distribution of their copyright works.

 

Blocking applications 2012-2023 (S2CPI data)

 

In 2012, the Commission received 362 applications, a record that still stands today more than a decade later. The significant caveat is that 250 of those applications were abandoned after failing to meet filing requirements.

Spain’s Blocking Program: Latest Figures

S2CPI’s quarterly report published this week reveals that since its inception, 843 applications for site blocking were filed at S2CPI but for reasons including errors, insufficient grounds for the application, and sites suddenly disappearing, 328 applications were closed. Just 15 applications have been officially rejected since 2012, a third of those during the last three months.

 

The full list of domains blocked following orders from S2CPI is fairly lengthy and as the sample below shows, mostly focused on Spanish language pirate sites. The Pirate Bay’s current main domain makes an inevitable appearance, as does its .se variant, despite its confiscation by Swedish authorities several years ago.

 

 

Along with EU Member States Germany, Portugal and Denmark, Spanish stakeholders and local internet service providers established a voluntary code of conduct which promotes self-regulation between the creative industries and the telecoms sector. A key aim is to ensure that administrative blocking is effective, particularly in respect of persistent pirate sites subject to existing blocking instructions.

 

S2CPI reports that by the end of June 2023, parties to the agreement were sending around 100 queries, generally on a weekly basis, relating to more than 637 domains which in turn had deployed almost 2,000 sub-domains, presumably to avoid blocking.

 

Under the terms of the voluntary code, all were blocked by Spain’s internet service providers “using the most appropriate technical measures at all times to prevent or significantly reduce, in a real and effective manner, access to these infringing websites, which has meant the impossibility of access to millions of works (books, musical works, video games, audiovisual works, etc.) protected by IPR, made available illegally on such infringing websites.”

Other Measures to Restrict Pirate Sites

S2CPI reports that in line with local law, requests have been filed with local domain registry Red.es to cancel .es domains when they are used by pirate sites subjected to blocking. To date, a total of 15 domains have been canceled following S2CPI requests, the administrative body reports.

 

In numerous jurisdictions, the blocking of a pirate website is interpreted as a green light to place the platform under increased pressure, often by attempting to restrict access to both current and potential business partners, advertisers in particular.

 

In 2020, the Ministry of Culture and Sport signed a memorandum of understanding which saw Spain join WIPO ALERT, a platform operated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Through a global pirate site ‘blacklist’ comprised of domains submitted by countries like Spain, advertisers and agencies are encouraged to boycott WIPO-Alert-listed domains and conduct their business elsewhere.

 

WIPO declines to publish a full list of domains but does offer an online tool which allows the curious to discover whether a specific domain is on the global list. That list currently comprises national ‘infringing website lists’ submitted by Italy, Russia, Spain, Peru, Ecuador, Lithuania, Greece, and the United Kingdom.

 

S2CPI publishes Spain’s list of infringing domains in its quarterly reports, the latest of which is available here (pdf). There are almost 500 domains on the current list with one site – the now infamous DonTorrent – receiving disproportionate attention, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

June 2022 marked the end of a legal battle that despite modest roots, went on to become one of the most interesting copyright cases in recent years.

 

After paying just $47, a shadowy business entity hoped to obtain a DMCA subpoena that would compel Twitter to hand over the personal details of an alleged copyright infringer. Pseudonymous Twitter user MrMoneyBags had previously posted controversial photographs on Twitter and, as a result, the alleged copyright holder sought to pull back the veil, ostensibly for the purposes of protecting copyrights.

 

After Twitter defended its user’s rights in court, a favorable ruling meant that MrMoneyBags retained their anonymity. More than a year later, a new DMCA subpoena application filed against Twitter finds itself on the cusp of similar controversy.

DMCA Subpoena Seeks to Identify Twitter Users

The background to this dispute is less than straightforward and for those fresh to the controversy, all but impenetrable. Since the allegations, counterclaims and shifting narratives only serve to distract, our tight focus here relates to part of the fallout; a single DMCA subpoena application seeking an extraordinary amount of personal data belonging to three Twitter users.

 

The DMCA subpoena application was filed on July 14, 2023, at a U.S. district court in California, San Francisco division. The applicant is Michael Williams who appears to be involved in the cryptocurrency/blockchain world. Williams has a Twitter account where participation is restricted. His targets, three Twitter accounts, are mostly wide open.

 

The first account mentioned in the subpoena is operated by Brooke Lacey, who describes herself as a technologist and Cybersecurity Masters Student. Twitter user ‘peabeeandjelly’, whose account no longer exists, and GIRL_SQUAD_OG, an account that remains open but is less easily categorized, complete the trio. Suffice to say, Williams and the Twitter users have not been seeing eye-to-eye lately.

Allegations in the Application

The application, filed by Williams himself, seeks to “identify one or more alleged infringers” said to have posted “copyrighted images” owned by Williams, on Twitter, without first obtaining his authorization.

 

Williams claims that on July 12, July 13, and July 14, notifications were submitted to Twitter via email which identified the content in question, as required under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A).

 

Lacey’s recent retweet of an attorney’s tweet, suggests that at least some allegedly-infringing content was indeed removed.

 

 

The copyrighted material to which Williams claims to hold exclusive rights is listed in the DMCA notices sent to Twitter. Described in one notice as “my personal photo” and accompanied by a URL where it can be viewed for reference, various URLs are identified on Twitter where the users allegedly reproduced the image, in breach of Williams’ rights.

 

Another notice references additional images (MBW-2 to 9) publicly published on the same website, presumably in support of the DMCA takedown notices sent to Twitter.

 

 

Despite Williams appearing pro se, the takedown notices are clear and well-formatted. Whether the images were posted in breach of Williams’ rights largely depends on the context. Liability could be disputed under the doctrine of fair use but since that’s a defense in response to an actual lawsuit, any details would require scrutiny – at huge expense – under the supervision of a judge.

 

In the meantime, disclosure demands attached the DMCA subpoena application are of immediate interest. A court clerk usually signs off on DMCA subpoenas without a judge getting involved. In this exceptional application, the details suggest that this process is unlikely to be straightforward and also risks much broader controversy.

Proposed DMCA Subpoena

DMCA subpoena applications regularly seek significant levels of personal information held by service providers. A request typically aims to obtain names, email and physical addresses, IP addresses, login times, even details of financial transactions, such as payment of invoices or subscriptions, for example.

 

In most cases these alleged infringers are intentionally anonymous and since the point of a DMCA subpoena is to enable rightsholders to identify anonymous infringers, any grain of information has the potential to progress an investigation. In the Twitter matter discussed here, at least one of the alleged infringers, Brooke Lacey, is well known online so it’s very unlikely that a DMCA subpoena is the only means of identifying her.

 

As for the rest of the disclosure demands, ‘comprehensive’ may lack suitable scope. Our summary of those demands are listed as follows:

 

– All direct messages exchanged between @brookejlacey, @peabeeandjelly since May 1, 2023
– Full names, email/physical addresses, dates of birth, gender, occupations, and photographs
– All past and current usernames, including dates when usernames changed
– Dates and times when profiles were created and the associated IP addresses
– All IP address-containing logs along with dates, times and users’ physical locations
– All direct messages, both sent and received, by the users, since May 1, 2023
– Details of websites or other links in the users’ biographies
– Every Tweet and copies of all photographic images the users have ever posted
– All IMEI (unique cell phone identifier) numbers collected from the users’ phones
– All user data collected from any website posted to the users’ biographies
– Information of accounts (open/closed) linked to the users’ IP addresses or IMEIs
– The users’ billing information
– Details of other apps the users’ downloaded to their mobile phones

 

Several aspects of these requests are not unusual; after all, disclosure of personally identifying information is the clear purpose of DMCA subpoena applications.

 

Among other things, the key issues here relate to the scope of the information being sought, whether that information is purely for the purpose of protecting copyright, and how such disclosures might affect innocent third parties.

Privacy Risks, Irrelevant Disclosure

While disclosure of dates of birth may have relevance when dealing with a minor, the relevance of someone’s gender or occupation to what appears to be a relatively minor copyright claim, seems minimal. Obtaining copies of the users’ personal photographs seems overly personal, not to mention ironic given the circumstances.

 

In general, overly broad requests for information predating alleged infringements and even those more current, raise questions of strict relevance to the matter in hand. Information obtained via a DMCA subpoena process cannot be used for any other purpose beyond protecting copyright but since enforcement is almost non-existence, limited but sufficient disclosure is essential.

 

Open-ended requests for disclosure of all IP addresses logs, physical locations, and the actual content of all direct messages, have enormous privacy implications for the Twitter users and any number of entirely innocent people. When taken as a whole, the entire package of demands seems more suited to a process overseen by a judge as part of a properly filed lawsuit. A $47 administrative matter seems an entirely unsuitable venue given the issues at stake.

 

One final thought relates to the impact this type of request may have on Twitter itself. It raises the prospect of any Twitter user posting a single picture without permission, having almost every detail of their online and private lives even remotely connected to Twitter, being disclosed to any third party, based on a simple allegation. Copyright disputes have a tendency to favor rightsholders but as last year’s case shows, opportunities to push back definitely exist.

 

For these and related reasons it seems highly unlikely that Twitter will comply to the extent demanded in the application. Unfortunately, surprises happen all the time, often at the worst possible time.

 

The DMCA subpoena application can be found here (1,2, pdf)

 

Image credit: Geralt/Pixabay