Hey Folks,

 

We’ve decided that we’re shutting down the project at the end of the month. Please make backups of your important files, you have about two weeks to do so.

 

Until then, the site will run without any changes.

 

There are several reasons for the closure:

 

– Since 2006 we have been on the market in an unchanged form, that is, as ad financed/free file hosting. However, you have been visiting in less and less over the years, as the arguably very simple formula of the services we offer is slowly running out of steam. I guess all the competing file storage service companies on the market look better, offer better performance and more features. No one needs a dinosaur like us anymore.

 

– All sorts of ad-blockers, whether built into the browser, as add-ons, or in the form of DNS services. Sure, we all use them, but they take away any control the site owner has over the site. Eventually we get to the point where a vicious cycle begins, in order to pay for the server infrastructure you are forced to place more and more ads, then users fire up more and more ad blockers and we get to a point like today.

 

– Rising electricity prices. Over the past year, electricity prices have gone up 2.5 times, which, with a large number of servers, gives a significant increase in costs that we have no way to balance.

 

There are still a bunch of smaller reasons, but we could write a book on this, and probably no one would want to read it.

To sum it up, we can no longer afford to maintain the site.

 

You can send us any comments to (we’ll read them all, we’ll probably respond to just a few):
support@zippyshare.com

 

Thanks for being with us over the years.

 

See you in the depths of the Internet. o7

 

Source: https://blog.zippyshare.com/?p=1211

Over the past two decades, online piracy has proven a massive challenge for the entertainment industries.

 

Some copyright holders have pursued legal action against individual pirates, but today it’s not uncommon for third-party intermediaries to also be considered legitimate targets.

 

Over the past several years, internet service providers, hosting companies, and VPN providers have faced infringement liability lawsuits. Most of the VPN companies chose to settle disputes but when LiquidVPN was sued, the provider simply ignored the lawsuit.

Filmmakers Win $15m in LiquidVPN Lawsuit

LiquidVPN was previously owned by David Cox, who was initially listed as a defendant. As the case progressed it emerged that Cox had sold the VPN provider before the lawsuit was filed, with Puerto Rico company 1701 Management identified as the buyer.

 

Despite facing serious allegations, 1701 Management and its alleged owner, Charles Muszynski, failed to answer the claims filed at a federal court in Florida. This prompted the film companies to request a default judgment of more than $15 million, which was eventually granted a year ago.

 

The default judgment marks the end of the road on the question of liability but doesn’t necessarily mean that the filmmakers automatically get the money. As it turns out, that can be quite a challenge.

Chasing The Money

Over the past several months, the filmmakers’ attorney Kerry Culpepper has submitted several writs of garnishment to the court. Through these requests, the court can order the seizure of property owned or controlled by the debtors.

 

In this case, those efforts targeted a yacht, docked at a Florida harbor, and various other types of properties. In addition, the filmmakers obtained a worldwide restraining order against the assets of Mr. Muszynski, 1701 Management, and the third defendant AUH2O.

 

This hunt for assets connected several companies to Muszynski, including the New Mexico company “WasteResources LLC.” According to the legal paperwork, there is evidence to show that the company is owned and controlled by the defendant.

 

In January, the filmmakers filed a request to apply the $15 million default judgment against garnishee WasteResources. Part of this judgment also includes trademark infringement damages in favor of a company owned by Kerry Culpepper, the attorney in this case.

$15m Judgment Against WasteResources

After considering the presented evidence, and without the waste company showing up at a court hearing, this week District Court Judge Beth Bloom granted the default judgment.

 

“At the Hearing, WasteResources did not appear. Plaintiffs presented multiple exhibits demonstrating that WasteResources is an alter ego of Defendants which the Court accepted into evidence,” Judge Bloom writes.

 

“Pursuant to the evidence presented […] the Court finds that Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against WasteResources is appropriate in the full amount of the unsatisfied Final Judgment against Defendants which is $15,172,403.00,” the judgment adds.

 

The default judgment is a big deal for the filmmakers, as it allows them to seize the company’s assets, including any payments owed by its customers.

Filmmakers Want Mr. Muszynski Arrested

The waste company isn’t alone in being targeted, there are other garnishees as well. Meanwhile, the filmmakers submitted a motion for an order to show cause why the defendants shouldn’t be held in contempt.

 

As part of this request, the rightsholders suggest that Mr. Muszynski should be arrested and held until he complies with the court’s orders.

 

In January, the court issued an order that requires the debtors to pay a fine of $500 per day, for as long as they fail to comply. The filmmakers note that this failed to move the needle.

 

“Neither a multi-million dollar judgment or a $500/day fine has persuaded Muszynski to comply with Court Orders. Accordingly, confinement of Muszynski will be the only means to coerce him to comply with the Court order,” the motion reads.

Two sides, Two Lawsuits

The above mostly represents the perspective of the complaining parties but in a rare move, Mr. Muszynski also made an ‘appearance’ in court, via letter (pdf) last month.

 

The former VPN operator noted that he doesn’t have any funds available, not even to pay for a lawyer. In addition, he maintains that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over him, since he’s a citizen of St. Kitt’s & Nevis.

 

Mr. Muszynski further stressed that he isn’t, and never was, the owner of the companies held liable in the initial judgment.

 

“I have made this letter to avoid ‘appearing’ in the US court and to avoid lending legitimacy to any claim that I ever so appeared. I have been, since 2019, a citizen and resident of St. Kitts & Nevis, have never been served in this matter, and was not an owner of 1701 Management, LLC or AUH2O.”

 

The letter also mentions that the filmmakers filed a separate lawsuit in St. Kitt’s & Nevis, asking the Florida federal court to await the result of that proceeding before taking any further steps.

Tip of the Iceberg

These events represent just the tip of a legal iceberg. The U.S. case alone has hundreds of docket entries, most of them filed after the final judgment was issued.

 

All in all, this lawsuit shows that after an initial judgment, a case can continue for months or even years. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that the filmmakers are willing to go to extreme lengths to collect what they’re owed.

 

—

 

A copy of the default judgment, issued by Florida District Court Judge Beth Bloom this week, is available here (pdf) and the associated order can is available here (pdf). A copy of the motion for an order to show cause why the defendants shouldn’t be held in contempt is can be found here (pdf)

 

Predicting whether specific torrent sites, streaming portals, or IPTV services will still be around in five years time, is difficult at best. At worst, almost impossible.

 

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has been tackling pirates of all types for the last 25 years. Not only has it seen huge numbers come and go, BREIN can claim direct responsibility for thousands going offline. A relentless production line of pirate platforms means that BREIN being around in five years’ time seems easier to predict.

458 Investigations, 449 Sites/Services Removed

Published this week, BREIN’s annual report for 2022 covers enforcement actions carried out on behalf of rightsholders across most sectors, including movies, TV shows, music, games, and publishing.

 

BREIN says it completed 458 investigations in 2022, leading to 449 illegal sites/services being removed from the internet. BREIN refrains from publicly naming its targets but these figures certainly aren’t unusual. BREIN reported the shutdown of 349 infringing platforms in 2021 and 466 in 2020.

 

While sites returning under new branding may play some role in these persistently high numbers, the fact that full-blown pirate sites can now be deployed in minutes could be a more significant factor. But whatever the circumstances, BREIN has a tool for every occasion.

Preventing Big Sites From Getting Bigger

The Netherlands has long been associated with large piracy platforms but not necessarily because they were operated or hosted there. BREIN’s persistence on the legal front means that some of the largest torrent sites – The Pirate Bay, RARBG, 1337x, YTS, EZTV, LimeTorrents and KickassTorrents variants – are now dynamically blocked by major ISPs under the terms of a Website Blocking Covenant.

 

At the end of 2022, 196 proxies and mirrors were also blocked by IP address and/or DNS. BREIN further reports that an additional 328 proxies were ‘stopped’ by other means last year.

 

Until relatively recently the sites mentioned above could still be found in Google’s search results, but BREIN helped to change that too.

 

In cooperation with Google late 2021, Pirate Bay domains were deindexed from search results. By the end of 2022, Google had deindexed all seven torrent sites mentioned above – 341 unique domains according to BREIN.

 

For domains and URLs not covered by the above, BREIN sends takedown notices directly to Google. In 2022, BREIN removed 290,324 results from Google search.

Other Strategies and Enforcement Action

In the event that users manage to circumvent the above, landing on a blocked site or any number of larger (and smaller) platforms, BREIN has a number of options available.

 

One is to interfere with a platform’s ability to generate revenue through advertising. In 2022, BREIN says it “addressed” 36 advertisers doing business on pirate sites and carried out 2,869 interventions against adverts promoting infringing content.

 

Since all pirate sites and services need people to run them, supply content, and in some cases sell a particular product, BREIN also targets key people in these roles.

 

Last year, BREIN says it brought the activities of 19 major uploaders, administrators, and ‘scripters‘ to an end. It also stopped 19 traders of IPTV/VOD subscriptions.

 

During the year, BREIN reached 45 settlements with individuals accused of various types of infringing activity. This included 16 unwelcome home visits, otherwise known as ‘knock and talks’.

 

In some of these cases, BREIN had already obtained an ex parte court order to restrain infringing activity so not answering the door wouldn’t have helped.

 

BREIN’s Annual Report 2022 can be found here

 

The Oscars are the most anticipated movie awards show of the year, closely followed by hundreds of millions of movie fans around the world.

 

This year’s Academy Awards ceremony received plenty of attention as well, with one film standing out from all the rest.

 

With seven awards overall, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress, ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once‘ was the star of the night. The independent film impressed the voters, despite having a relatively tiny budget compared to competitors including ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ and ‘Avatar: The Way of Water.’

 

The success didn’t come as a complete surprise. The film had already scooped up dozens of accolades, including two Golden Globes, but winning seven Oscars was an entirely different level.

Oscar Boost

Renewed attention from the press and film fanatics boosted interest among the broader public. This typically increases legal sales and views on streaming platforms, especially for relatively small releases.

 

‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ is no longer running in theaters, so there is no bump there. That said, there is another area where we observed a massive spike in interest, although that’s unlikely to please the filmmakers.

 

The Oscars typically have a direct impact on piracy activity, and the big Oscars winner is no exception. Based on a sample of torrent activity tracked by IKnow, we can report that pirated downloads of ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ skyrocketed this week.

Oscar Piracy

Before discussing the numbers, it’s important to highlight that pirated copies of the Oscars winner have already been circulating for months. The first high-quality copy leaked last May and it was in the top ten most pirated films for several weeks in a row.

 

Since its release, the film has been illegally downloaded and streamed millions of times. In January of this year, we observed two modest spikes in downloads, once after the Golden Globes win and again when the Oscar nominations were announced. After that, downloads leveled off again.

 

These earlier piracy boosts are notable, but they pale in comparison with the download boost observed in our sample this week. On Monday, pirated downloads of ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ increased by 761% compared to the week before.

 

This isn’t just a relative increase either; serious demand from pirates made the Oscar winner the most pirated film worldwide on Monday, beating many newer releases and blockbusters.

 

Interest dropped off on Tuesday, but there was still a five-fold increase in downloads compared to a week earlier. By then, however, Cocaine Bear had taken over the spot for the most pirated film.

More Oscar Effects

Oscar-related surges are nothing new. Last year we spotted a similar effect for Best Picture winner ‘CODA’ with a tenfold increase in downloads. In absolute numbers, it didn’t come close to this year’s winner, even when correcting for sample size.

 

The Oscar boost isn’t limited to the Best Picture winner either. Runner-up ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ won four Academy Awards and a 268% boost in pirate downloads. Meanwhile, Best Picture nominee ‘The Triangle of Sadness’, which didn’t win an award, failed to see a massive download boost.

 

The chart above shows the estimated number of pirated downloads for each of the three films over the past weeks, with ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ standing out with the most pronounced download surge.

 

In closing, we should stress that all data reported here are estimated based on a large sample of millions of global daily torrent connections. These numbers are not exact nor do they include other forms of piracy, such as pirate streaming sites and direct downloads.

 

It’s clear, however, that the Oscars continue to be a defining event for film enthusiasts, including those who can’t or don’t want to pay.

 

Focusing on MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL content, Hehestreams was no ordinary IPTV service.

 

Instead of copied streams, captured from broadcasts, HeheStreams users were directed to genuine streams offered by sports broadcasters.

 

On one hand, that meant that HeheStreams didn’t run up huge server bills. On the other, streams were as reliable as any official stream, because they were official streams.

 

After being noticed by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, HeheStreams shut down mid 2021. A settlement agreement was reached but the terms remain confidential.

Bug Bounty Deal Gone Bad

When TorrentFreak reached out to Streit in the summer of 2021, he informed us that some official services had vulnerabilities. (Update: Specifically, MLB’s ticket inventory was being available for anyone, which was fully disclosed). He informed us that he’d been in discussion with one or more providers about disclosure.

 

A subsequent criminal complaint filed by the US Government confirmed that Streit had been in talks with MLB. Vulnerabilities were disclosed to the baseball organization and when Streit indicated that he should be paid for his work, the MLB asked for a specific amount. Streit indicated his work was worth $150K but was also informed there was no ‘bug bounty’ program at the baseball league.

 

An FBI agent later wrote that Streit had indeed made an approach and presented as helpful. However, he concluded that a “simultaneous intrusion” and “illegal streaming of MLB content” via HeheStreams indicated that the intent was “to extort MLB.”

Charged With Several Crimes, Pleaded Guilty to One

In October 2021, the Department of Justice charged then 30-year-old Streit with several crimes; accessing a protected computer in furtherance of a criminal act for financial gain, accessing a protected computer in furtherance of fraud, wire fraud, sending interstate threats, and illicit digital transmission.

 

After consulting with his attorney, Streit concluded that signing a plea deal was the most sensible course of action. The Minnesota man pleaded guilty to one count of ‘Computer Fraud – Unauthorized Access to Obtain Information From a Protected Computer’ and to the forfeiture of $500,000, an amount said to represent proceeds traceable to the commission of the offense.

 

Streit still faced a potential prison sentence of 51-60 months.

Pre-Sentencing Submissions

In advance of a sentencing hearing Thursday, family and friends shared letters with the court recalling their personal experiences with Streit.

 

One explained how Streit formulated a plan, hired a photographer, and built a website and reservation system for a family business in financial trouble, all for free. More personal submissions from those closer to Streit spoke of his kindness, generosity, and support in their difficult times, and of his support for those no longer around to thank him in person.

 

Another was submitted by Streit’s current employer; an “embarrassed and remorseful” Streit disclosed his predicament during the interview process, yet still landed the job. A good decision for the tech company since Streit went on to save the company $600,000 annually. Another spoke of how Streit had helped out with schoolwork, without which they would not have made it through class.

Streit Sentenced to Three Years in Prison

Streit appeared yesterday in a New York district court for sentencing. His plea agreement established guilt, all that was left was to determine his punishment. The Department of Justice claimed that “one of the victim sports leagues” sustained losses of approximately $3 million due to Streit’s conduct.

 

We understand that was MLB, the company that had reported Streit after he’d contacted them to discuss vulnerabilities in their systems.

 

“[A]t the same time STREIT was illicitly streaming copyrighted content from MLB, STREIT engaged in an attempt to extort approximately $150,000 from MLB via a threat from STREIT to publicize unrelated vulnerabilities in MLB’s internet infrastructure,” a Department of Justice statement reads.

 

“Specifically, in multiple communications with MLB employees, STREIT claimed that he knew MLB reporters who were ‘interested in the story,’ and stated that it would be bad if the vulnerability were exposed and MLB was embarrassed.”

 

United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter sentenced to Streit to three years in prison and three years of supervised release. In addition to $500,000 in forfeiture, Streit was ordered to pay $2,995,272.64, an amount previously determined by his plea agreement.

 

TorrentFreak understands the sentence will be appealed.

 

In recent years, site blocking has emerged as a preferred anti-piracy solution in dozens of countries.

 

These blocking measures are not bulletproof but pose a hurdle for casual pirates, which can bring down overall piracy rates.

 

In many countries blocking is a relatively new measure, but Denmark has years of experience. The first Danish blocks date back to 2006, when music industry group IFPI filed a complaint targeting the unlicensed Russian MP3 site AllofMP3.

 

Not much later, Denmark became the first European country to force an ISP to block access to The Pirate Bay. Since then, many other pirate sites have received the same treatment.

Denmark Expands Piracy Blocklist

This week, a new batch of sites was added to this ever-growing blocklist. The Court in Næstved issued an order targeting nine music piracy sites that reportedly had hundreds of thousands of monthly visitors from Denmark.

 

The Court’s verdict isn’t yet publicly available, but the complaint was filed by local anti-piracy group Rights Alliance, which acted on behalf of several prominent music industry organizations including IFPI, Sony Music, Universal Music, and Danish music group KODA.

 

Rights Alliance informs TorrentFreak that the order includes stream ripper domains ytmp3.cc, y2mate.com, yt1s.com, savefrom.net, loader.to, onlinevideoconverter.pro, yt5s.com, and ytmp3.plus. All of these sites can convert YouTube videos into downloadable MP3 files.

Outlier

The ninth site, Onebas.com, is a clear outlier as it’s a music streaming site, instead of a stream ripper. This service appears to mimic services such as Spotify, by playing embedded YouTube videos.

 

Playing embedded YouTube videos is fine as long as the rightsholder permits it. However, Onebas.com also offers full album downloads for registered users, charging $1 a piece. That’s something artists and labels certainly won’t be happy with.

 

The Court in Næstved agreed that all nine music sites should be blocked. On paper, the blocking requirement is limited to Internet provider Fibula. However, based on a ‘code of conduct‘ agreed between rightsholders and ISPs, other providers will follow suit.

239 Sites and 1146 Mirrors Blocked

The ‘code of conduct’ is illustrative of a blocking process that’s constantly being improved. The parties involved try to make the experience more effective, flexible and less cumbersome, except for the pirates. This also includes dynamic orders that allow rightsholders to add mirror domains of previously blocked sites.

 

Thus far, court orders have resulted in the blocking of 239 pirate sites. In addition, another 1146 mirror site domains have been added. This list continues to expand with new mirrors on a regular basis.

 

Rights Alliance is pleased with the latest blocking order. According to the anti-piracy group, it will help to reduce traffic to these sites.

 

“It is the Rights Alliance’s experience that blocking the illegal services contributes to the fact that the traffic to the services falls by 75 percent on average. This significantly reduces the scope of copyright infringements,” the group notes.

No Silver Bullet

In 2018, Denmark became the first country to target YouTube rippers with a blocking order. With the latest court ruling, rightsholders hope to make it harder for the public to download from streaming sites. However, history also shows that blocking is no silver bullet.

 

While some people may kick the piracy habit when they run into blockades, many others will simply switch to sites that remain available. This comes as no surprise to Rights Alliance and underlines why new blocking orders are still needed.

 

“Here, 5 years later, the technology is still widely used to illegally download music from YouTube,” Rights Alliance notes, referring to the stream ripper situation.

 

Even in the ideal situation where all pirate sites and mirrors are effectively blocked, piracy will remain a concern. According to a recent survey, 38% of all Danish pirates use VPNs to access blocked sites, while 36% switch to alternate DNS servers to do the same.

 

As part of its relentless campaign to shut down as many pirate sites as possible, on Wednesday the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment reported yet another big win.

 

The anti-piracy coalition’s latest victim is Streamzz, a stream hosting platform that reportedly supplied over 75,000 movies and 15,000 TV episodes, which helped to fuel more than 60 pirate streaming sites.

 

ACE says that a third of the site’s seven million monthly visits can be attributed to users in Germany, where Streamzz itself was based. Germany is also the home of ACE member Constantin Film, a film production and distribution company that worked with the coalition to take Streamzz down.

ACE Celebrates Win, Streamzz Infuriates Users

In an announcement Wednesday, ACE chief Jan van Voorn said that the closure of Streamzz shows that the coalition is capable of targeting pirates no matter where they exist in the chain of supply.

 

“The shutdown of Streamzz is fresh proof that no one in the content piracy ecosystem – whether they’re a streaming service, video streaming host or anything in between – is above the law. We will target piracy services of various kinds in order to protect the global creative economy,” he said.

 

Some users of Streamzz, meanwhile, have concerns about their own economies.

How it Started….

Streamzz (or simply Streamz) has been around since 2019, operating from several different domains. In a 2020 interview with Tarnkappe, one of the site’s operators declined to comment on future successes leading to the sipping of cocktails on a tropical beach. “We just let ourselves be surprised,” he said.

 

On March 14, three of the site’s domains – streamz.vg, streamz.cc and streamz.tw – had their records updated to reveal their new owner: Motion Picture Association, Inc. Domains still to be taken over currently deliver a message: “We currently have server problems. Please understand.”

 

Today’s situation is a far cry from the optimism and business drive of Streamz back in 2020. In order to build a popular service, Streamz needed two things; people to upload movies and TV shows to Streamz, and people to watch them on third-party streaming sites where they would be embedded.

Building Up, Building Trust

The image below shows that people were incentivized to upload popular content and generate traffic for the platform. For a considerable time, everything seemed to go broadly as planned.

 

With uploaders getting paid to upload movies and TV shows to Streamz, and streaming sites placing links to that content in their own indexes, everyone in the mini-ecosystem had the ability to generate traffic and make money.

 

To show that Streamz was indeed paying out earnings as promised, bonuses were paid to uploaders who posted screenshots of their payouts on a public forum. There appeared to be no shortage of people prepared to further compromise their security for a few extra dollars.

 

Still, these public records of payouts tend to suggest that up until the first or second week of February, Streamzz may have been operating normally.

Mass Deletions Begin

When reports began to surface that Streamzz had begun mass deleting movies and TV shows, that was a sure sign of major underlying problems. A message on BS.to, a large Germany-focused streaming platform, reported that Streamzz was “having a massive deletion wave” but the reasons for that were currently unknown.

 

The manner in which those deletions became apparent to the site’s uploaders and partners caused widespread confusion before spilling over into anger. It appears that when Streamzz deleted user-uploaded videos, they replaced them with random wildlife videos instead.

 

Some uploaders got a little bit upset. Others operating in more specialist niches catering to more specific tastes, were absolutely furious.

 

While zebra videos might have pleased David Attenborough, Naomi Foxx fans probably prefer videos that at least stay on topic. According to Streamzz, hardware issues were to blame.

 

“We are currently having a problem with the delivery of the videos as we are still waiting for a new raid controller. We will fix the problem as soon as possible and of course compensate for the downtime of the last days,” a spokesperson explained. Some weren’t convinced.

 

“I find instead of my links I get videos about nature or clickbait videos for Telegram or Instagram. Almost all my links are gone with this shit, no support, no response,” one user complained.

 

“I think it is appropriate not to utilize anymore, my site is not a Savannah Zoo, fuck.”

Animal Problems Disappear

As one observer wondered if the wildlife videos had appeared because Streamzz had servers “far from civilization,” suddenly there were no more animal videos. Or anything else for that matter.

 

Sometime late February, Streamzz ceased to exist beyond a handful of domains. As reported earlier, three of those domains are now controlled by the MPA and currently link to the ACE anti-piracy portal.

 

It’s possible that others will join them in the days to come.

 

Every day millions of people download or stream pirated movies, which are readily available online through hundreds of dedicated sites.

 

To the broader public, pirate sites and services are the gateways to a darker side of the entertainment world. In turn, however, these sites are heavily reliant on the crucial ‘suppliers’ at the top of the piracy pyramid.

The Piracy Supply Chain

Broadly speaking, there are two ‘supplier’ groups in this supply chain. On one side, ‘The Scene’, a conglomerate of often intertwined groups that release ‘their’ content on private topsites. Rules and security are key in The Scene, but in 2020, a series of raids demonstrated that it’s not impenetrable.

 

In addition to Scene groups, there are also P2P groups. The latter operate more loosely and are generally connected to private sites, including torrent trackers where they publicly release pirated movies and TV shows.

 

Scene releases eventually appear on the wider internet through third parties, but P2P groups often upload their content straight to the public.

 

Unlike The Scene, P2P groups don’t have to abide by a particular set of rules, but privacy is still a top priority. Release group members risk criminal prosecution and multi-year prison sentences should they be identified by anti-piracy groups or law enforcement agencies.

EVO – The Leak Kings

EVO, short for EVOLUTiON, is a high-profile P2P group whose activities stood out in recent years. The group released a steady stream of new movie and TV show titles and gained pirates’ admiration by leaking many screeners way ahead of their official premieres.

 

For several years in a row, EVO opened the “screener season” by releasing leaked copies of upcoming films. This included Oscar contenders, but also several Netflix titles that originated from festival screenings.

 

EVO was also the first to release an early Blu-Ray copy of ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ last year, and a high-quality copy of the blockbuster “Dune” in 2021, ahead of its official U.S. premiere.

 

Needless to say, movie industry insiders viewed EVO as a major threat. There was little doubt that rightsholders were doing everything in their power to track down the group. A few months ago, those enforcement efforts paid off.

EVO Arrests

Last November EVO stopped releasing new titles. This was highly unusual as EVO previously uploaded over a dozen titles each week. This suggested that something had happened to the group and the rumor mill led to suspicions of a potential bust.

 

At the time, TorrentFreak heard from several sources claiming that EVO had been dismantled by the authorities, but none could provide solid proof. One mentioned an operation in Spain, while another referred to an undocumented raid where equipment was seized.

 

We also reached out to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) last November due to its involvement in many enforcement operations. At the time, ACE was unable to share any further insight, but that position has now changed.

 

A few days ago, ACE boss Jan van Voorn informed TorrentFreak that several people connected to EVO were tracked down by ACE last year. This culminated in an enforcement action last November and ACE continues to collaborate with Portuguese authorities as part of an ongoing investigation.

 

“I can finally confirm that we identified the leaders of the EVO release group and are actively working with the Portuguese authorities on the case,” Van Voorn said.

 

The statement is in line with information we received from another source last November, which stated that EVO was a Portuguese group.

Active Investigation

The fact that the investigation isn’t yet complete means that very little can be shared publicly at this stage. We pressed for further details but most of our follow-up questions remain unanswered.

 

After discussing the matter with the Portuguese authorities, ACE was able to confirm that “several arrests have been made” without mentioning the location of these suspects.

 

When EVO disappeared last year, another prominent release group called iFT also went quiet. ACE couldn’t confirm that iFT is linked to the investigation, nor can it share how the suspects were tracked down.

 

ACE notes that the alleged crimes of the people involved relate to intellectual property, but there are other charges as well. Unfortunately, however, the anti-piracy coalition is unable to share further information, at least not at this time.

No Leaked Screeners

The crackdown is a major win for ACE and the broader film industry. EVO was known for its early leaks of prominent screeners and in an interview, openly blamed Hollywood for keeping piracy relevant.

 

The recent arrests also appear to have had an immediate impact on the availability of leaked screeners. For the first time in the history of online piracy, no notable screeners leaked last year.

 

ACE also noted the lack of screener leaks. The enforcement action last November appears to have effectively shut down EVO and likely spooked others who may have had access to screeners.

 

“Yes, EVO has been one of the most prolific release groups out there. Actions by ACE and the Portuguese authorities put an end to their activities,” Van Voorn notes.

 

Brazil’s crackdown against pirate sites, IPTV services, infringing apps, and other mechanisms delivering illegal content to the masses, continues to press ahead.

 

In the wake of similar operations in previous years, including action reported in August 2022, a new phase of Brazil’s ‘Operation 404’ anti-piracy initiative was announced on Tuesday.

Operation 404.5 – Phase 5

The launch of the 5th phase of Operation 404 is described by Brazil’s Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) as an “international mobilization” coordinated by the MJSP, through the National Secretariat for Public Security (Senasp), with support from police in eight states.

 

“The objective is the removal of audio and video content, such as games and music, blocking and suspension of illegal streaming websites and applications, de-indexing of content in search engines and removal of profiles and pages on social networks,” an MJSP announcement reads.

 

“In this 5th phase, eleven people were arrested: four in São Paulo, two in Paraná, one in Bahia and four in Minas Gerais,” the government ministry reports.

 

Search and seizure warrants to locate computer equipment were executed in the states of Pernambuco, São Paulo, Paraná, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia, Ceará and Rio de Janeiro.

 

“199 illegal streaming and gaming sites and 63 music apps were also removed, in addition to blocking 128 domains,” the ministry says.

 

A total of six “messaging app channels” with more than 4,000 subscribers were also blocked, reportedly for distributing music that had not been officially released.

International Cooperation

The local operation received significant international support. Authorities say they collaborated with the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and the British Embassy, Peruvian intellectual property protection agency INDECOPI, MPA Latin American, anti-piracy group Alianza, and US-based videogame industry group Entertainment Software Alliance (ESA).

 

TorrentFreak obtained what appears to be a notice directed toward visitors to seized sites and domains. In addition to the groups listed above, it reveals the participation of the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, Brazil-based music industry group APDIF, and global music industry group IFPI.

 

According to the latest figures, Operation 404 has led to the blocking of 1,974 websites and 783 apps since it began in 2019. The names of the sites and apps are never mentioned in material released to the public.

 

During a Ministry of Justice press conference Tuesday, there was a clear effort to associate pirate sites with malware and a “certainty” that people downloading music or watching pirate streams would have their private information exposed.

 

That led to a moment of unexpected dark humor (and concerned faces) when a journalist suddenly mentioned a Globo report containing claims that Brazil operated a secret system capable of monitoring the locations of up to 10,000 people by simply entering their phone numbers.

Focus on Pirate TV Services

A key focus area for Brazilian authorities is the illegal TV market, encompassing pirate IPTV services, illegal streaming websites, and the flood of set-top boxes that have saturated the local market.

 

In a late December 2022 announcement, Brazil’s National Film Agency (ANCINE) revealed a “reformulation” of its anti-piracy operations. Citing overlapping activities that risked straying into areas where the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) has authority, ANCINE said that it would “move away” from actions targeting the TV piracy market.

 

Moving forward, ANCINE said that its focus would be on the protection of locally produced audiovisual works. As a result, technical cooperation with the Motion Picture Association in Latin America would come to an end.

 

The involvement of the MPA in the 5th phase of Operation 404 suggests that overall cooperation continued.

 

Earlier this year, ANATEL said that its work to disrupt the pirate TV market would continue using various means. Increased pressure on the sale of non-certified, non-approved set-top boxes, for example, and actions against illegal pay TV services that distribute content via the internet or otherwise rely on it.

 

Following our report last summer that Brazil planned to visit Portugal and Spain to learn more about their ISP blocking programs, we can confirm those visits went ahead and that Brazil views widespread blocking as a key weapon in the fight against piracy.

ANCINE and ANATEL Announce New Partnership

After announcing the signing of a ‘Technical Cooperation Agreement’ last week, it appears that ANCINE and ANATEL will now work together to combat pirate TV services.

 

The agreement covers an initial period of 24 months and will see ANCINE tracking and monitoring pirate services. Based on ANCINE’s complaints, ANATEL is expected to issue instructions to ISPs for the services to be blocked.

 

“With this exchange of information, ANCINE will signal the content that is being transmitted illegally and ANATEL may request the blocking of the channel or the pirated site”, says ANATEL’s Moisés Moreira.

 

“The idea of this exchange of information is to have speed, because in a case involving a sports match, for example, you have to be quick. It’s a different scenario from a website or channel that is, for example, airing a TV series.”

 

Last month ANATEL said it had already begun blocking IP addresses in an effort to disrupt ‘gatonets‘, a mishmash of subscription piracy TV services accessed via set-top decoders, IPTV devices, and various software applications.

 

In a move designed to protect Japanese animation content, last month Brazilian authorities said they had shut down two of the largest dedicated anime piracy sites in the region.

 

 

Operating a mixtape site is not without risk. By definition, mixes include multiple sound recordings that are often protected by copyright.

 

Popular hip-hop mixtape site and app Spinrilla, which has millions of users, is well aware of these risks. In 2017, the company was sued by several record labels, backed by the RIAA, which accused the company of massive copyright infringement.

 

“Spinrilla specializes in ripping off music creators by offering thousands of unlicensed sound recordings for free,” the RIAA commented at the time.

Spinrilla Fought Piracy Accusations

The hip-hop site countered the allegations by pointing out that it had installed an RIAA-approved anti-piracy filter and actively worked with major record labels to promote their tracks. In addition, Spinrilla stressed that the DMCA’s safe harbor provision protects the company.

 

As the case progressed, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The music companies requested rulings to establish, before trial, that Spinrilla is liable for direct copyright infringement and that the DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply.

 

Spinrilla countered with cross-motions, filed under seal, in which they argued the opposite. Judge Amy Totenberg eventually sided with the record labels in 2020, concluding that the mixtape site is indeed liable.

Millions in Potential Damages

In her ruling, Judge Totenberg concluded that 4,082 copyrighted sound recordings were streamed, at least once, through Sprinrilla’s website or app.

 

The scale of the damages will be decided at trial and after several delays, the jury is currently set to gather in a few weeks. With thousands of copyrights at stake, damages could potentially exceed $600 million if the jury finds that the infringement was willful.

 

With the stakes this high, both sides will do their best to present their most favorable arguments. That also means efforts to prevent witnesses, evidence, and even specific words being presented to the court.

 

These requests come in the form of ‘motions in limine’ where the parties ask the court to keep certain information from the jury. Several of these motions were submitted to court over the past few days.

Piracy and Theft

According to recent filings, Spinrilla is particularly concerned over potential piracy stigma. The company notes that the music industry has spent years painting a picture of being under siege by “pirates,” “thieves” and “trespassers”.

 

This type of rhetoric might make the jury more likely to see Spinrilla’s activities as willful, which could increase the damages award. This should be prevented by banning these disparaging terms at trial, the platform says.

 

“Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will continue to refer to piracy and pirates so that the jury will be predisposed to find the Defendants acted willfully,” Spinrilla writes.

 

“These terms are not evidentiary, have no probative value, and are highly inflammatory such that they will create undue prejudice. Accordingly, the Court should bar Plaintiffs from referring to Defendants as ‘pirates’ or having engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft’ other similarly disparaging words.”

‘Piracy History is Irrelevant’

In a separate motion, Spinrilla asks the court to bar the music companies from discussing the history of online piracy. Piracy may have hurt the music industry’s revenues over the years but that shouldn’t impact an appropriate award for damages, the mixtape service says.

 

“Spinrilla is not liable for the entirety of online piracy that started with Napster. Nor can Spinrilla be required to pay statutory damages that are calculated based on the injury to record labels by companies that operated years before Spinrilla was formed.”

 

According to Spinrilla, the music companies want to discuss historical piracy issues because that would increase the chances of a higher award for damages.

 

“The evidence is not tethered to the facts of this case. Rather, it is designed to brand into the brains of the jurors, that Defendants should be punished for the cumulative effects of infringement that Defendants had no hand in creating,” Spinrilla argues.

Record Labels Want Financials Excluded

The above is just a selection of the motions submitted by Spinrilla. At the same time, the music companies are fighting equally hard for the court to keep specific information from the jury.

 

According to one of the filings, Spinrilla included over 2,000 pages of consolidated financial reports for Universal Music Group, Sony Corporation, and Warner Music Group, the plaintiffs’ parent corporations.

 

These financial documents are misleading, according to the music companies, as they also include revenue from entirely unrelated businesses such as semiconductors, batteries, and film revenues.

 

The plaintiffs believe that this information could be used to create a misleading and prejudicial impression of their financial resources, which has no relevance to the damages calculation.

 

“Overwhelming the jury with voluminous combined financial statements of Plaintiffs’ parent corporations would confuse the jury, who would be left to wonder about the relevance of this information in calculating the amount of statutory damages they should award.

 

“The simple and undeniable fact is that this information has absolutely no relevance to that calculation,” the music companies add.

 

All in all, it is clear that both sides are trying to establish the best possible base before presenting their arguments to the jury. At the time of writing the court has yet to rule on these motions ahead of a trial scheduled to start next month.

 

—

 

Spinrilla’s cited motions in limine are available here (1,2 pdf) and the music companyies’ motion can be found here (pdf)

 

Having developed a highly automated system that attempts to deal with huge and increasing instances of piracy, YouTube has shown it can handle copyright complaints on an unprecedented scale.

 

Whether the next stages of development will tackle widespread abuse of the takedown system remains to be seen but the High Court of Justice, via the Business and Property Court in Birmingham, UK, hopes to reduce the volume, if only by a little.

Two Can Play The Takedown Game

Those with both the time and the patience to read the judgment handed down last week in Moviebox Megastores International Ltd & Ors v Rahi & Ors will likely emerge from the other side with a) a headache and b) relief that relatively few copyright takedown abuse cases ever get near a courtroom.

 

The judgment references a trial related to three sets of proceedings that were consolidated by court order in 2021.

 

The Court’s timeline of the dispute dates back to February 2017 when singer and claimed songwriter Mohammad Rahi emailed Kamraan Ahmed, a director of music publisher Moviebox Megastores International Limited. Rahi warned that if his music albums weren’t removed from Moviebox’s YouTube channel and from iTunes, legal action would follow.

 

When Ahmed refused to remove the albums, Rahi responded by setting up his own YouTube channel, populated with music he claimed to own. A month after that, in April 2017, Rahi filed copyright claims at iTunes for four of his albums published by Moviebox, and six published on iTunes by the second claimant in the case, Oriental Star Agencies Ltd. All complaints were rejected.

 

In May 2017, Moviebox used YouTube’s Content ID system to take all revenue generated by Rahi in respect of four albums he’d uploaded to his newly-created YouTube channel. Two years later in October 2019, Rahi began filing applications at the Intellectual Property Office in Pakistan seeking copyright certificates for a number of songs, and a book in which several songs were written.

Game On: Laying the Foundations

The background to the dispute is an extraordinary maze of claims, counterclaims, and bitterness spread out over several years, during which documents were forensically examined and fingerprints subjected to professional scrutiny.

 

The Court’s judgment, dated March 8, 2023, is concise yet still manages to weigh in at almost 54,000 words; our focus here will be on the YouTube takedown campaign and the subsequent fallout.

 

Rahi’s albums were legally obtained by one company and then transferred to another; both companies operated under Moviebox branding. It was alleged that two of Rahi’s co-defendants, Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor (both singers), entered into a scheme to transfer rights to hundreds of songs, including some already published on the Moviebox YouTube channel, for which Qureshi later filed copyright claims.

 

The two Moviebox companies (Moviebox hereinafter) and the other claimant, Oriental Star Agencies, alleged that Qureshi and Manzoor’s actions were designed to fuel Rahi’s malicious YouTube takedown campaign. Since neither defendant responded in court, both had default judgments entered against them.

 

That led the Court to conclude that Qureshi and Manzoor did indeed conspire or act together in a common design to unlawfully cause loss to Moviebox. The Court needed to determine whether Rahi was part of that conspiracy.

Dishonest Evidence, Falsified Documents, Copyright Strikes

The judgment describes Moviebox director Mr Ahmed as an honest witness. The Court found that Rahi was not. As per the judgment, the singer relied on falsified evidence, lied to YouTube, falsely claimed to have written lyrics he did not, and lied about his connections to the rights reassignment matter, among other things.

 

In February 2020, Oriental Star Agencies Ltd (the second claimant alongside the two Moviebox companies) uploaded 41 of Rahi’s solo albums to iTunes. Rahi filed copyright complaints at iTunes but all were rejected. Two months later, Rahi filed objections with YouTube over the earlier Content ID claims against albums on his channel, and the revenue still being paid to Moviebox as a result.

 

In response, Moviebox filed copyright complaints against Rahi’s channel to take the four albums down. For this, Rahi received copyright strikes. Rahi responded by filing DMCA counternotices and in June/July 2020, followed up with copyright claims against YouTube channels operated by Moviebox and Oriental Star.

 

Using a copyright certificate obtained earlier in Pakistan, in July 2020 Rahi started proceedings against Moviebox and Oriental Star at the Intellectual Property Tribunal in Lahore, claiming copyright ownership over songs published in a book.

Celebrating Suspensions

In September 2020, with copyright strikes accumulating, YouTube’s repeat infringer policy kicked in and Moviebox had its channel suspended. According to the judgment, Rahi celebrated the suspension on his Facebook page the very next day.

 

“In a video posted on Mr Rahi’s Facebook channel in which he, and his lawyer, Mr Zahoor appear, Mr Rahi says ‘…and those companies and that Mafia should keep this matter in their mind, who I have confronted, I am giving this message to them that you have established your companies to make money….. I talked to Sister Shazia Manzoor and she also told me that brother these people have done injustice to me..,” the Court’s account reads.

 

Meanwhile, Moviebox filed a claim against Rahi and obtained a “without notice injunction” requiring Mr Rahi to retract his strikes issued to YouTube. Less than two weeks later, Rahi agreed to comply.

Not Done Just Yet

Just three weeks after Rahi’s undertaking, Qureshi started filing takedown notices against Moviebox’s YouTube account and, in common with Rahi, began legal proceedings in Pakistan. Qureshi used the previously-mentioned reassignment of rights in hundreds of songs to a) support his YouTube claims and b) an application for an injunction against Moviebox and Oriental Star to prevent them from infringing his rights.

 

In November, Moviebox received another blow, this time from YouTube. Moviebox had sent DMCA counternotices to YouTube but since Qureshi had filed for an injunction against Moviebox in Pakistan, YouTube said it would disregard Moviebox’s counternotices.

 

Meanwhile, YouTube was threatening to disable Oriental Star’s YouTube channel. To counter that, Oriental Star obtained an injunction compelling Rahi to retract the complaints he sent to YouTube.

 

In December 2020, the two companies under Moviebox branding issued proceedings against Rahi, Manzoor, and Qureshi, obtaining an injunction against the latter pair. Three months later default judgments were issued against both, damages pending. The rights reassignment agreement was canceled.

Rahi’s Actions Caused Loss to the Claimant

The judgment published last week states that Rahi caused loss to Moviebox “as a result at least of: (a) its main YouTube channel being de-activated by YouTube from 9 September 2020; and (b) YouTube preventing the First claimant from uploading new content to its other YouTube channels.”

 

Rahi also caused loss to Oriental Star; YouTube required the removal of 12 videos from its channel and prevented the company from uploading new content. Rahi caused loss to both claimants via Qureshi and Manzoor’s rights assignment scheme, the judgment adds.

 

Handing down permanent injunctions against Rahi in respect of three claims, the presiding judge elaborated as follows:

 

In simple terms, the reason why I consider this appropriate is that Mr Rahi has displayed a willingness, acting in his own name and through others to pursue a relentless and fraudulent campaign aimed at damaging the economic interests of [Moviebox and Oriental Star], either as an end in itself or as a means of forcing the Claimants to stop exploiting songs sung by Mr Rahi for their own commercial benefit, in order to leave Mr Rahi free to do so.

 

The Claimants are entitled, in my judgment, to the protection of a suitably worded injunction which may serve the dual purpose of: (a) dissuading Mr Rahi from issuing any strikes himself against the Claimants’ YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so (and dissuading others from doing so at Mr Rahi’s encouragement); and (b) enabling the Claimants to demonstrate to YouTube that there is in place an extant injunction that prohibits Mr Rahi from engaging in issuing strikes against the Claimants YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so.

 

The High Court of Justice/Business and Property Court judgment is available here but somewhat unsurprisingly, this dispute seems destined to run and run.

 

In January 2023, Rahi filed a copyright infringement complaint against Moviebox and several UK-based record labels. He alleges that the defendants falsely claimed ownership of his music and had no right to upload his songs to YouTube.

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have four newcomers on the list. “Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre” is the most downloaded title. Note, this list ends on Sunday and doesn’t include the Oscar effect.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 13 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre	6.5 / trailer
2	(…)	Luther: The Fallen Sun	6.5 / trailer
3	(1)	A Man Called Otto	7.5 / trailer
4	(3)	Puss in Boots: The Last Wish	7.8 / trailer
5	(2)	Black Panther: Wakanda Forever	7.0 / trailer
6	(…)	Missing	7.2 / trailer
7	(…)	Marlowe	5.5 / trailer
8	(5)	The Whale	7.8 / trailer
9	(6)	Plane	6.6 / trailer
10	(7)	Avatar: The Way of Water	8.1 / trailer

 

 

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

 

As Reddit fights to protect the identities of users who simply participated in piracy-related discussions, two new cases filed last Friday may also prove controversial.

 

On February 17, 2023, Marvel’s Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania officially kicked off ‘Phase 5’ of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Distributed by Disney to lukewarm reviews, the movie took $105 million at the box office in its first week and then plummeted 70% to $32 million in week two.

 

Thanks to a leak posted online around a month before the movie’s theatrical debut, some fans already had an idea of how the movie would play out. Marvel’s pursuit of the leakers is likely to have a storyline all of its own.

MVL Film Finance LLC Targets Google

When MVL Film Finance LLC (MVL) was incorporated in 2004/5, its purpose was to finance Marvel Studios’ production of 10 “live-action or animated films” based on up to 10 of Marvel’s comic book characters. Several related business entities, including Marvel Studios and parent company Marvel Entertainment, are owned by The Walt Disney Company.

 

Last Friday at the United States District for the Northern District of California, Marvel Studios’ submitted a declaration in support of a DMCA subpoena application targeting Google. Matthew Slatoff, Marvel’s Vice President, Global Security & Content Protection, informed the Court that his responsibilities include monitoring and addressing infringement of MVL Film Finance’s rights.

 

According to Slatoff’s declaration, on January 21, a Disney anti-piracy analyst submitted a copyright infringement notice to Google after discovering that Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania content had been uploaded to systems operated by Google, without MVL’s authorization. The takedown notice, submitted via Google’s webform, contained a prompt from Google and a response from the rightsholder.

 

Identify and describe the copyrighted work: Unreleased leaked script of the new Disney movie Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

 

Marvel supplied a docs.google.com/document/ URL as the location for the allegedly infringing content. The content no longer exists at that location.

 

On January 23, Disney’s analyst received confirmation that while the takedown notice had been received by Google, the company wasn’t able to take any content down. Sometime during the previous couple of days the file had already been removed, leaving Google with nothing to do.

 

That didn’t mean the document couldn’t be retrieved from elsewhere, however.

The Document Detailed in the DMCA Subpoenas

The document in question reveals a few interesting details. It’s 63 pages long, and in an introduction written by an unidentified person, the ‘script’ text is attributed to screenwriter Jeff Loveness and described as “translated dialogue.”

 

The script was edited and/or displayed in a Portuguese web interface, but since both Portugal and Brazil are mentioned in the source, neither can be ruled in or out. Other evidence points to the likelihood that the text was intended for use in subtitles. A date reference is also interesting.

 

The Reddit thread mentioned in the document is still online. It provides a number of spoilers but doesn’t carry any text from the leak.

 

The ‘leaked’ document Marvel is interested in mentions the Reddit thread above as being two months old at the time the document was written or edited. Both DMCA subpoena applications seek information relating to Google and Reddit users and their alleged activities between January 15 to February 15, 2023.

 

The timeframe seems relevant; around January 20 it was reported that the entire plot of the movie had been leaked online.

 

While that ties in with the newer Reddit thread, the older Reddit thread suggests a much earlier plot leak, around October 2022. Substantial plot leaks date back even further than that but nothing on the scale of an entire script.

MVL Wants Reddit to Unmask Leakers

When information about the script/subtitle file was posted on Reddit mid-January, leak-loving Marvel fans were both excited and impressed. “Yeah this is some next level leak” and “This legit might be the biggest leak in this subs history” set the tone, but the fun didn’t last.

 

A moderator of the subreddit commented that since the information was receiving copyright notices, any “future sharing of the material will result in a ban.”

 

The thread is still live today and there’s no doubt that Marvel is aware of it.

 

The DMCA subpoena application specifically mentions the thread alongside an email from Reddit’s legal team, which had previously agreed to take the infringing content down.

 

In common with the takedown notice sent to Google, the allegedly infringing content may have been deleted before Reddit could remove it. There’s no mention of a copyright complaint, instead the post notes, “Sorry, this post was deleted by the person who originally posted it.”

 

At this point concern shifts to the rest of the thread, which talks about the document hosted by Google and how the mod team “took the google doc down” to ensure that existing links to the file would no longer lead to it.

 

On one hand that’s a positive response to a copyright complaint. On the other, it links the document to the Reddit thread. The original post listed in the DMCA subpoena did an even better job of that.

 

As a result, Marvel now wants Reddit to hand over “All Identifying Information for the user ‘u/MSSmods’,” which throws another unpredictable element into the mix.

 

/u/MSSMods was created in March 2021 and declared as a shared account, meaning that at least one, or some, or perhaps all of the subreddit’s moderators have used it at some point.

 

That’s not ideal when one person posted the controversial thread but the information requested includes “any information provided when an Infringing User established their Reddit account, including the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es); (b) any IP address(es) used by such user; and (c) account number(s).”

 

From there, the DMCA subpoena application attempts to throw a generalized dragnet, not just over the moderation team, but the entire subreddit and its users.

 

– All Identifying Information for any other user(s) responsible for posting, editing, and/or maintaining the content previously available on the Reddit Site, including, without limitation, any moderator of the MarvelStudioSpoilers subreddit involved in uploading content on or about January 20, 2023 to the Reddit Site comprising and/or related to the dialogue of then-unreleased motion picture “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania”

 

– All Identifying Information for any user involved, between January 15, 2023 and February 15, 2023, in posting and/or editing the Infringing Content. (edited for clarity)

 

Another issue here is that no infringing content was ever posted to the Reddit thread, meaning that nobody was in a position to edit the content either. The allegedly infringing content was hosted on Google, the thread simply provided a link.

 

Even under the circumstances (Reddit considered the original DMCA takedown notice and found a prima facie case for removal), the idea that Reddit must conduct an investigation to determine the involvement of anyone potentially involved may provoke opposition.

 

In the meantime, Reddit finds itself in the middle of another controversy and, as one Reddit user commented at the time of the leak, the subreddit’s moderators aren’t in the best spot either.

 

“Somewhere out there, Feige [President of Marvel Studios] is loading his gun and sharpening his knives,” the user wrote.

 

“I pity the fool who leaked this.”

 

The DMCA subpoena applications can be found here (G1/G2, R1/R2)

 

ChatGPT has captured the imagination of millions of people, offering a glimpse of what an AI-assisted future might look like.

 

The new technology also brings up novel copyright questions. Several people are worried that their work is being used to train AI without any form of compensation, for example.

 

Parent company OpenAI may in turn be worried that third parties are exploiting the ChatGPT model without permission. That’s what a recent DMCA takedown notice sent to Google tends to suggest.

OpenAI’s Takedown Notice

The takedown request lists OpenAI as the sender and targets several ChatGPT-related links. These include the ChatGod app, which has since been removed from Google Play, as well as the Chat AI Pro app for iOS.

 

The notice isn’t just restricted to apps. It also lists a PC Guide article with information on the chatbot, which appears to be relatively harmless.

 

This isn’t the first time that an OpenAI takedown notice has shown up in Google’s transparency report. In December, a similar DMCA request asked for the removal of an AI writing tool’s GitHub repository.

Legitimate?

These enforcement actions are certainly newsworthy, but we can’t independently confirm that OpenAI sent them. In the past, we have seen plenty of imposters claiming to be reputable rightsholders, and it could be the case here as well.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to OpenAI to confirm or deny the legitimacy of the notices but the organization didn’t respond. Google’s view on the matter is also unknown. What we do know is that the search engine hasn’t removed any of the reported URLs.

 

Without a comment from OpenAI, we considered binning this article, but then realized that ChatGPT may be able to help out here.

ChatGPT Weighs In

Unfortunately, ChatGPT can’t verify the notices but the AI language model explained that “it is possible that OpenAI has sent DMCA requests to Google in the past” since it’s a “common legal mechanism for requesting the removal of copyrighted material from search results.”

 

“OpenAI might send a DMCA request to Google’s search engine if they have found that their copyrighted material is being hosted or distributed illegally by a third-party website that appears in Google’s search results.

 

“This can include cases where websites are reproducing OpenAI’s content without permission, or distributing OpenAI’s content in a way that violates their terms of use or intellectual property rights,” ChatGPT added.

 

The AI model also added some nuance, noting that OpenAI would not typically ask Google to remove URLs with legitimate ChatGPT-related content. Those include articles discussing the technology or apps that use ChatGPT with proper authorization.

ChatGPT Can Help

ChatGPT was also able to confirm that the AI model itself is not behind these takedown notices since it does not have the legal authority or capacity to initiate legal actions such as DMCA requests.

 

That said, ChatGPT could assist OpenAI in the process, and it kindly provided an example of what this would look like, as well as a , and even a rare .

 

We could go as far as asking ChatGPT to draft a potential follow-up lawsuit, but that’s something for another time, perhaps.

 

—

 

For context, the ChatGPT session that resulted in the answers above is available here in chronological order (, , ).

 

In the wake of the music industry’s destruction of Napster, hopes of a file-sharing vacuum were overwhelmed by a laundry list of protocols and software clients, some pre-existing, some new.

 

DCC, Gnutella, Freenet, eDonkey2000, Kazaa/FastTrack, WinMX, Bearshare, Grokster, Morpheus – the list went on and on – but with no social media, various news and discussion forums took off. Sites like Slyck, Unite the Cows, and Zeropaid became the subreddits of the day, but even 20+ years ago, these platforms were hardly a piracy free-for-all, far from it.

 

Unlike today, where users happily post direct links to infringing content on social media in their own name, two decades ago – in a legal environment far less developed than it is today – that was generally forbidden and respected as such.

 

Reddit’s /r/piracy, which celebrated its one-millionth member this week, has an exponentially larger task on its hands but, considering its scale, does a remarkably good job of stifling users intent on breaking its rules and ultimately getting the community banned by Reddit’s administrators. Other piracy subs haven’t been so lucky.

Reddit Bans For Excessive Infringment

During the first half of 2022 alone, Reddit banned 1,543 subreddits for excessive copyright infringement. Many of those went down in flames after failing to self-censor, but that’s not the only way to break up a community.

 

Reddit’s /r/iptv subredditt was created on Mar 6, 2011, and with 123,000+ members, ranks in the top 1% of subreddits according to data in its sidebar.

 

For those starting out in the world of pirate IPTV services or those already established, /r/iptv was a thriving community to learn about IPTV, discuss services and the pros and cons of software, solve technical issues, and much more. Today the community is almost completely silent.

 

The reasons for this have two key components. Firstly, /r/iptv’s moderators have a history of ensuring that the subreddit stays within Reddit’s global rules. That’s obviously important given its connections to related (but not necessarily affiliated) subreddits.

 

Generated using Anvaka’s SayIt, the image above reveals the names of subreddits related to /r/iptv, of which many have already been banned:

 

/r/RedditbayPro, /r/TheSellSpot, /r/IPTVresell, /r/IPTV_Services, /r/iptv4us, /r/Goodieiptvsolutions, /r/RedditBay_Official, /r/iptvsellers, /r/shoppingbay

How the IPTV Subreddit Avoided the Ban Hammer

Using the Wayback Machine we can see that in 2015, when the subreddit gained enough traction to boast 431 subscribers, the rules were simple: “There are none. As long as it’s related to IPTV its good to go.” That uncomplicated approach continued in 2016 and 2017.

 

In 2018, most likely due to IPTV providers continually advertising their services, there were no rules “Except for spam. You will get banned immediately.”

 

By 2019, there were rules. No link spamming, no posting IPTV service reviews, and no asking for service recommendations.

New Rules to Prevent Breaches of Reddit’s Rules

2020 was a big year for new rules. In addition to the three new rules introduced earlier, another nine were added to the list.

 

In summary, don’t post links any links to IPTV services or anything related to them, don’t post ‘sensitive info’, don’t solicit IPTV business in public or via message, don’t ask or provide trials, don’t post ads, don’t even name IPTV services, and don’t mention other subreddits Discord/Telegram channels involved in IPTV.

 

The following year saw a few new restrictions including “don’t mention you have customers” or link to YouTube channels mentioning IPTV. Certain rules came with a warning that Reddit could issue a community-wide ban if they were breached – asking to buy or offering to sell IPTV subscriptions, for example.

15 Rules Essentially Banned Everything

By the end of 2022, submitters on /r/iptv had to ensure that 15 rules hadn’t been broken. That triggered a moderator pre-approval process and a wait for their post to appear. Some may believe this was an unnecessary response but it was obvious the climate had changed and backs were pressed firmly to the wall.

 

According to the sub’s moderators, every day people requested IPTV service recommendations, people named them, and people tried to sell them. Scammers were also attempting to extract money from the less experienced members. Something else was causing issues too.

 

“[T]he providers are at risk of getting shut down when you talk about them on Reddit. This seems like a simple concept to grasp, but many don’t understand that you can be talking to anyone on Reddit,” an announcement from the moderators explained.

 

“Do not respond to DMs asking what service you use. You think you’re being helpful but you have no idea who that person is and what they are doing with the info. 3 years ago things were much different.”

 

The announcement went on to warn IPTV resellers that doing business on Reddit and social media in general, meant they were exposing themselves to “potential legal settlements, lawsuits and even prison time.”

Overreaction or Common Sense?

Opinions will vary but facts tend to speak for themselves. As multiplying arrests and other action showed, the warnings were valid. By selling subscriptions on social media, Reddit in particular, people were indeed exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. For some, those risks turned into a real-life crisis.

 

Make no mistake, Reddit is a goldmine of information that has been used in anti-piracy investigations in the past and is currently being used to obtain information on services today. Perhaps not from /r/iptv though.

 

When filtering by ‘new’ posts on /r/iptv today, the most recent are six months old. It appears that some posts have been ‘cleared up’ but as things stand, new public posts on the subreddit are more or less a thing of the past.

 

But as the moderators pointed out, few other choices were available to them, short of shutting the entire subreddit down. Or have Reddit do it for them.

 

After reading hundreds of copyright reports, anti-piracy studies, lobbying documents, and submissions to government and law enforcement agencies, anything that strays from the norm tends to stand out.

 

Last month the Industry Trust For IP published ‘Taking a Whole Society Approach to Infringement in the UK’, a report promoting ‘collaboration’ and ‘understanding’ to reduce piracy levels in the UK.

 

Our initial article focused on just one item in the report but something much more fundamental ran throughout. A pleasant surprise, even.

Softer, More Cooperative Tone

There is no such thing as a friendly anti-piracy report, the topic immediately rules that out, but the language and tone in the Industry Trust’s publication is interestingly close. Considering that companies behind the Industry Trust include Sony, Universal, Disney, and Warner, not to mention Sky, Premier League and the Federation Against Copyright Theft, that seemed a little unusual.

 

Familiar themes are present – calls for tech platforms to do more and hosts to implement ‘Know Your Customer’ regimes to help identify pirates, for example. However, forceful language such as “must be required to implement X’ and ‘should be prevented from doing Y’ are mostly replaced by scenarios where various entities ‘could’ be a real help if they did A, B or C.

 

Policymakers could update the UK Policy framework with due diligence protocols for intermediaries providing commercial services to online businesses

 

Technology companies could support enforcement efforts by introducing improved customer identification and verification

 

Technology companies could implement technical measures that introduce greater friction into infringement journeys

 

This type of language and tone certainly fits the overall sentiment of a collaborative campaign but also unusual enough to warrant a closer look.

 

Whether by pure coincidence or otherwise, the government appears to have concluded that aggressive messaging over online piracy may “seem at odds” with the “cooperative tone” that it considers “advisable in communications this year.”

 

It’s hard to say whether the Industry Trust’s recent report should be viewed as a product of government advice or independently prudent, but these themes are under discussion at government level.

UK Government Assesses ‘Behavior Change’ Opportunities

The Intellectual Property Office’s ‘Online Copyright Infringement Tracker’ is an annual survey of the latest trends in copyright infringement. Covering consumption habits in 2022, the most recent ‘Wave 12’ report is as detailed as ever but also carries some initially overlooked information.

 

One of the aims of the annual survey is to identify ‘behavior change’ opportunities. In 2022, this was achieved by way of an ‘Online Community’, a week-long internet-based series of guided activities in which participants interacted with each other and discussion moderators, the government says.

 

Participants in the community were presented with historical and potential campaigns, some linked to piracy and some not, in order to assess “attitudes towards infringement and behavior change campaigns.”

Govt. Weighed Potential of Piracy ‘Snitch’ Campaign

Unmoved by the colloquialisms of the masses, the government doesn’t use the word ‘snitch’ or the British variant, ‘grass’. Instead, the word ‘report’ is used when referring to citizens reporting fellow citizens to the authorities for alleged infringement.

 

The questions posed to the ‘Online Community’ aren’t detailed in the report but, to be blunt, the first seems to have been ‘Did you know you could grass on a neighbor or family member for piracy?’ As it turns out, people were generally unaware that they could.

 

“Across the community, many said they were not aware that they could report others for IP infringement. Generally, they felt it was not a fact that was well known in general,” the study found.

 

“It was not seen as something which necessarily concerned participants because many felt that others they knew also accessed content this way or that no one would realistically have reason to report them.”

Brits Don’t See The Benefit

“Asked whether they would report someone for infringing, most said they would not and stated various reasons,” the report continued, listing three main reasons as follows:

 

– There would be no benefit to themselves of reporting someone

 

– It would seem hypocritical if they used unofficial sources themselves/there could be danger of vindictive behaviour against them

 

– The police have higher priorities to be dealing with than IP crime

 

While these responses are entirely predictable, the questions behind them illustrate the disconnect between how ‘regular’ people tend to think and how the government thinks people think.

People Will Start Asking Questions

As the first response highlights, people are generally motivated by some kind of benefit. The proposition as it stands seems to entail doing unpaid anti-piracy work. In practical terms, fill in a form on our new website telling us everything you know but sorry, “we can’t promise to get back to you.” No feedback mechanism or obvious benefit isn’t a great motivator.

 

Response two speaks for itself; people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones because it might not be long before their own windows need to be replaced. As motivational feedback mechanisms go, that couldn’t be more negative.

 

As for response three, the notion that police have resources to deal with online piracy but hardly any to tackle burglaries or car thefts would not be well received. Asking the public to make their own situation worse by reporting people they actually know would be extraordinary.

 

However, when framed slightly differently, some in the ‘Online Community’ were more positive about the proposal.

Deterrent Messaging

According to the government study, when the Online Community were asked whether they would consider incorporating the fact that someone could report another individual into a campaign, the subject of deterrent messaging was seen as a plus.

 

“(s)ome felt this could be an opportunity as it might deter some people who were thinking about infringing for the first time or were nervous about it,” the report notes.

 

The big question is whether any of the above will find its way into a future campaign. An even bigger question is whether the government would be prepared to be the ‘face’ of this type of messaging or whether those in the background who stand to benefit have enough confidence to put their own brands on the line.

Possible Potential, But Not Right Now

At least for now, it seems likely that 2023 will come and go without any big moves. The government doesn’t seem excited about this type of campaign in the current climate, despite the positive feedback on potential deterrent messaging.

 

“Yet, it would be worthwhile to consider the cooperative tone which is advisable in communications this year given the current circumstances and whether such a message would seem at odds with this ethos,” the government added in a soothing, non-confrontational tone.

 

During lockdown UK citizens were encouraged to report neighbors to the police for breaking social distancing laws. While that would’ve amounted to a crime, police didn’t like the idea. The public didn’t either, but that didn’t stop hundreds of thousands reporting neighbors to the authorities.

 

The report is available here

 

Image credit: Pixabay/geralt

 

Viral videos are big business. Therefore it’s no surprise that specialized companies emerged to help the lucky few to monetize their viral content.

 

These companies typically take care of licensing and legal issues. This is also the case with Videohat, which uses the ‘catchy’ tagline “Rights = Money”.

 

Unfortunately, however, getting paid isn’t always straightforward. When a video goes viral, thousands of copies are made without permission, even by mainstream news outlets, other licensing companies, and some of the world’s largest copyright businesses.

Viral Gum Video

This is also what Youssef Abu Bakr noticed when he uploaded a TikTik video of Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti, sharing one of his ‘trademark’ chewing gums. This gesture generated millions of views on TikTok and was reposted thousands of times without permission.

 

Bakr licenses his videos through Videohat and the latter found out that rights don’t always equal money, not directly. In addition to thousands of smaller accounts, mainstream companies including ESPN also copied the clip, as shown above.

 

Hoping to get rewarded, Videohat reached out to ESPN with a licensing deal but that didn’t get the desired result. This eventually prompted the company to file a formal case at the U.S. Government’s Copyright Claims Board (CCB) which was launched last year to deal with these types of smaller disputes.

ESPN Hit With Copyright Claim

According to the claim, ESPN is a renowned network that should be quite familiar with copyright law and licensing requirements. Despite this, ESPN reportedly failed to cooperate when Videohat reached out.

 

The alleged wrongdoing isn’t limited to the TikTok video either. Similar posts appeared on ESPN’s Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts. The latter pair had been removed at the time of writing.

 

Instead of agreeing to license the video, or reaching out to the original creator, Videohat says that ESPN continues to show the clip without permission to this day. How would ESPN act if the tables were turned, the licensing outfit questions.

 

“The question is: if we or one of our clients has uploaded a sports event owned by ESPN, would it be ok? Of Course not. Same should apply to ESPN distributing our content without permission,”

 

“We are asking for a relief of 1500USD per license per URL. (Total of 4500USD),” Videohat’s claim adds.

beIN Complaint

ESPN wasn’t the only sports network hit with a copyright claim, beIN received the same treatment. In a nearly identical complaint, Videohat accuses beIN’s American arm of copying the video without permission and posting it to Facebook and YouTube.

 

Interestingly, Videohat demands a higher damages figure from beIn, namely, $2,500 per URL for a total of $5,000. At the time of writing, the Facebook post is still online.

 

Whether the Copyright Claims Board will get to decide on the issue is unknown at this point. The board provides a relatively cheap option to resolve copyright disputes but it’s not mandatory; the accused party has the right to opt out of the proceeding. If that happens, Videohat can still choose to go to federal court.

Copyright Claims Progress?

Thus far the Copyright Claims board hasn’t led to a wave of rulings. On the contrary, of the 383 cases filed, only one resulted in a full decision.

 

Plagiarism Today reports that in this pioneer case, the board awarded $1,000 to a photographer who discovered that his work was used on the website of a California-based law practice. This is significantly lower than the $30,000 that was initially requested.

 

More than half of the CCB cases (198) have been closed for other reasons. This often happens when a complaint is not fully compliant and, as expected, there’s also a significant percentage of defendants who opt out.

 

Millions of subscribers to Western streaming services will testify to the South Korean content explosion of recent years.

 

The ‘Korean Wave’ cultural phenomenon, boosted by movies and TV shows such as Squid Game, Train to Busan, and Parasite, is something to behold.

 

From the successes of BTS and Psy’s Gangnam Style to the magnificent ‘Oldboy’ released two decades ago, South Korean entertainment quite rightfully receives worldwide appreciation. If everyone actually paid for these pleasures, that would be the icing on the cake for South Korea.

Oppa Anti-Pirate Style

In a combined effort to crack down on piracy of local content, major South Korean broadcasters, including KBS, MBC and JTBC, the Korea Film and Video Copyright Association (film producers and distributors), plus streaming platforms TVING and Wavve, have announced the formation of a new, piracy-fighting coalition.

 

The Video Copyright Protection Council (이하 영보협) will receive support from the South Korean government’s Copyright Commission as it works to curtail both local and overseas pirates. An interesting factor here is that the project involves the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the world’s largest anti-piracy coalition.

First Official Target Revealed

The new coalition is expected to file a criminal complaint in South Korea today targeting pirate streaming giant Noonoo TV. While unfamiliar to many in the West, the site offers movies and TV shows to an audience of tens of millions, making it one of the more obvious choices for enforcement action.

 

The anti-piracy coalition blames Noonoo TV for falling subscriber numbers on legal streaming services. According to various reports, in February Noonoo TV’s operator claimed that the platform’s video content had accumulated more than 1.5 billion views, a figure that would outstrip traffic to legal alternatives.

Alleged Damages: 5,000,000,000,000 South Korean Won

Five trillion won at today’s rates equates to roughly $3.78 billion, an unprecedented damages claim for a copyright case. Ahn Sang-pil, deputy director of MBC’s legal team, says the amount is justified.

 

“The amount of damage to the domestic video industry caused by Noonoo TV is estimated to be 4.9 trillion won when simply calculated considering the number of views and VOD,” he said.

 

“Until now, companies have been responding individually to copyright infringement, but illegal distribution of videos using torrent downloads as well as Noonoo TV has become serious, so we have decided to join forces.”

 

Thus far, efforts to stop Noonoo TV have yielded limited results.

ISP Blockades Were Quickly Countered

Rightsholders say that NooNoo TV generates significant revenue from gambling advertising. Gambling is prohibited in South Korea under laws that forbid anyone from achieving monetary gains (or losses) from wagers that attempt to predict the outcome of activities based on chance.

 

A cursory view of the site’s homepage reveals the presence of gambling adverts but accessing the site isn’t straightforward. Originally operating from Noonoo.tv, the site has deployed dozens of domains to circumvent ISP blocking measures implemented in 2022.

 

After starting out with noonoo.tv, blocks were countered with noonoo1.tv, noonoo2.tv and noonoo3.tv. After burning through sequential variants, at the time of writing the site’s Telegram channel says it can be found at noonoo32.tv but how long that will last is difficult to say.

 

As most people testing any of these domains will quickly discover, accessing Noonoo TV isn’t straightforward. The site geo-blocks visitors from outside South Korea and, in many cases, even a VPN fails to solve the problem.

 

Where the site is operated from isn’t clear either. Until fairly recently it was claimed to operate out of Paraguay but more recently attention has shifted to the Dominican Republic. It’s certainly possible – if not likely – that the site operates out of neither.

 

The coalition, meanwhile, seems particularly keen to find out.

 

To the global audience, Hellspy may not be a household name, but in the Czech Republic, it’s widely known.

 

Founded in 2009, the file-sharing and hosting platform grew out to become one of the country’s most-visited websites. This didn’t go unnoticed by copyright holders, including the RIAA, who repeatedly complained about widespread piracy on the platform.

 

Operating in the face of legal pressure is a challenge, but Hellspy always felt that it had the law on its side. If users uploaded copyright-infringing content, the company would swiftly remove it after being notified by rightsholders.

EU Copyright ‘Filter’ Directive

This approach worked well for Hellspy and its parent company, I&Q Group. However, when the new EU Copyright Directive passed a few years ago, dark clouds started to form. The indirect upload filter requirements it contained were particularly troublesome.

 

Article 17 of the Copyright Directive requires online services to license content from copyright holders. If that is not possible, service providers must ensure that infringing content is taken down and prevented from being re-uploaded to their services.

 

Many operators of online services interpret this as an indirect upload filter requirement, as that is the only way to ensure that content remains off the platform.

Voluntary Filters

Hellspy also came to this conclusion. Late last year it decided to voluntarily implement filtering technology. This was much needed, as the Czech Republic planned to update its copyright law in January 2023, to comply with the new EU rules.

 

The upload filters were implemented in collaboration with the local Association of Commercial Television (AKTV). According to early comments from I&Q Group CEO, Jan Hřebabecký, these appeared to be working well.

 

“[T]hey provide relatively easy and effective filtering of copyrighted content, which is especially important for services of our type in light of the upcoming amendment to the copyright law, which imposes new obligations on us in this area,” Hřebabecký said.

 

Hellspy stressed that wasn’t happy with these changes but it respected the law. This meant that upload filters were the only viable way to keep the service afloat.

Hellspy Announces Shutdown

Fast forward a few weeks, and Hellspy reached an entirely different conclusion. The site notes that the new legislation places disproportionate burdens on user-generated content platforms. And despite its earlier commitment to start filtering, it has now chosen to shut down.

 

“Given the legislative situation in the Czech Republic and the maximum transparency of Hellspy to our users, we want to inform you about the end of Hellspy on 1.4.2023,” the site wrote in an email to its users, shared by novinky.cz.

 

While announcements involving April 1st should always be treated with caution, there are no apparent signs that Hellspy is joking. According to the email, users can request a refund if their paid access plan extends beyond the shutdown date.

Traffic Plummeted

The file-sharing site doesn’t go into detail to explain why it chose to shut down after all. The initial reaction suggested that the technical filtering implementation wasn’t particularly problematic.

 

In addition to the filters, Hellspy reportedly disabled the search functionality as well. These measures had a direct impact on visitor numbers, which plummeted to new lows in recent months. This is likely to have factored into the shutdown decision.

 

Hellspy is not the only Czech file-sharing platform that has responded to the new law. Ulož.to, which refuses to implement upload filters, remains online but now points its users to a third-party site to search for content.

 

After entering a guilty plea some time ago, former pirate IPTV service operator Bill Omar Carrasquillo was sentenced Tuesday in a Philadelphia court.

 

Last month the U.S. government called for 15.5 years in prison for crimes related to Carrasquillo’s pirate IPTV service, Gears TV, which was shut down by the FBI in 2019.

 

That was still a far cry from the 500+ years thrown around in the earlier stages of the case, but after causing an estimated $167 million in damages to TV providers Charter Communications, Comcast, DirecTV, Frontier Corporation, and Verizon Fios, perhaps not completely out of the question.

Plea Agreement

Some details were already settled prior to sentencing. In Carrasquillo’s plea agreement, the YouTuber acknowledged a laundry list of crimes, from the most serious copyright offenses to fraud and money laundering crimes.

 

Among them, conspiracy to commit felony & misdemeanor copyright infringement, circumvention of access controls, access device fraud, & wire fraud, circumvention of an access control device, reproduction of a protected work, public performance of a protected work, and wire fraud against the cable companies. Other crimes included making false statements to a bank, money laundering, and tax evasion.

 

Financial penalties included forfeiture of just over $30 million, including $5.89 million in cash seized from bank accounts, Carrasquillo’s now-famous supercar collection, and multiple pieces of real estate in the Philadelphia area.

Hearing in Philadelphia

In a hearing scheduled for 2:30pm yesterday at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Carrasquillo appeared in courtroom 16A before Judge Harvey Bartle III.

 

In a sentencing memorandum for the defense, details of Carrasquillo’s early life – most of which had already been made public by Carrasquillo in videos posted to social media – make for depressing reading.

 

One of 38 children, Carrasquillo had no stable care or supervision. Physically and sexually abused by family members, Carrasquillo was intentionally committed to mental health facilities by one supposed caregiver, purely for the purposes of obtaining prescriptions for narcotics which were then sold.

 

Carrasquillo’s mother was deported for various crimes and then died as a result of drug addiction. The only constant in his life was his father, who taught a 12-year-old Carrasquillo how to cook crack and sell drugs.

 

“Omar battles constant battles of depression because he questions his own self-worth. He could have easily accepted that there is no ‘better’ for him,” his attorney said, adding: “HE DID NOT!”

 

“He began to look for opportunities that did not require formal training or a high school diploma. He found passion and love in the business of marketing and internet sales.”

 

Despite no formal training or schooling beyond the 11th grade, Carrasquillo developed a highly successful YouTube channel and a construction company, among other legal businesses. The story of how he entered the IPTV business and generated millions in profit is well-documented, but today his “legal loophole” theory has been discarded.

 

“Omar is not asking for a pass,” his attorney assured the Court. “Protected works should not be copied. Period. He crossed the line and he knew he should not have.”

Sentencing

All parties agreed that the TV companies are entitled to restitution and together they will receive $$10,761,573.20. A similar position was adopted for the IRS, which is entitled to restitution in the amount of $5,717,912.02.

 

From 500+ years imprisonment through to a theoretical 98 years for the crimes listed in the plea agreement, the U.S. government recently acknowledged that the advisory guidelines of 24 years would be “highly unusual” for a copyright matter. Instead, government attorneys recommended a sentence of between 188 and 235 months.

 

When sentencing Carrasquillo Tuesday, Judge Harvey Bartle III decided that 66 months would be enough to punish Carrasquillo and send a deterrent message to any of his followers considering the same type of behavior.

Carrasquillo: Judge Was “Super Fair”

In video recorded outside the Court, Carrasquillo said he’d been dreading the sentencing hearing but is pleased with the outcome.

 

“I feel like the Judge was super fair. He heard everyone’s testimony about my character [from] everyone who came to Court. The judge ordered me to 66 months of federal prison, which I thought was fair, especially how much money I made,” he said.

 

“I’ve got to pay ten point something million in restitution [to the TV companies] which they already have, which will be applied. And I got to pay another $5.7 million in restitution to the IRS. So you know, I’ll be home in the next two to three years.”

 

After being raided by the FBI in 2019 and being charged in 2021, Carrasquillo said the day had “been a long time coming.”

 

“You know, the Judge was super lenient but fair, but also [wanted to] deter other people from committing the same type of TV piracy that I committed. But it’s over,” he said.

 

“I already know what I’m doing, I know what I’m getting. There’s no more stress, no more nothing. I know when I come home, everything will be fine. I’m good. 66 months was super fair. And you know, it sucks for my kids, but I’m happy with it.”

 

Well-known for his ability to transform dust into gold and losses into wins, Carrasquillo revisited his well-documented struggles with weight and noted an opportunity ahead.

 

“It’s probably salvation for my fat ass to lose some weight anyway,” he said.

 

In 2021, Sony Music obtained an injunction ordering DNS resolver Quad9 to block the popular pirate site Canna.to.

 

The injunction, issued by the District Court of Hamburg, required the Swiss DNS resolver to block its users from accessing the site to prevent the distribution of pirated copies of Evanescence’s album “The Bitter Truth“.

Quad9 Appeals Site Blocking Injunction

The Quad9 Foundation fiercely opposed the injunction. The not-for-profit foundation submitted an appeal to the Court hoping to overturn the blocking order, arguing that the decision set a dangerous precedent.

 

The DNS resolver stressed that it doesn’t condone piracy. However, it believes that enforcing blocking measures through third-party intermediaries, that don’t host any content, is a step too far.

 

This initial objection failed; the Regional Court in Hamburg upheld the blocking injunction last December. However, this was only a preliminary proceeding and Quad9 promised to continue the legal battle, warning of a broad impact on the Internet ecosystem.

Sony Files Main Proceeding

After Sony’s preliminary victory, the music company initiated a main proceeding at the Leipzig court. This was the next step in the legal process and allowed both sides to provide more evidence and expert opinions.

 

Sony, for example, referenced earlier jurisprudence where Germany’s Federal Court ruled that services such as YouTube can be held liable for copyright infringement if they fail to properly respond to copyright holder complaints.

 

Quad9’s expert, Prof. Dr. Ruth Janal, contested this line of reasoning, noting that, under EU law, DNS resolvers shouldn’t be treated in the same fashion as platforms that actually host content

 

Quad9 is more akin to a mere conduit service than a hosting provider, Prof. Janal countered. Courts could instead require Quad9 to take action through a “no-fault” injunction, a process that’s already used in ISP blocking orders. In those cases, however, the intermediary isn’t held liable for pirating users.

Court Confirms DNS Blocking Requirement

After hearing both sides, the Regional Court of Leipzig ultimately handed a win to Sony. This means that Quad9 is required to block the music piracy site canna.to globally. If not, those responsible face a hefty fine, or even a prison sentence.

 

“The defendant is liable as a perpetrator because it makes its DNS resolver available to Internet users and, through this, it refers to the canna.to service with the infringing download offers relating to the music album in dispute,” the Court writes.

 

Judge Werner argues that Quad9 should have taken action when the copyright holder alerted it to a pirated copy of the Evanescence album. Its intentional failure to act makes the DNS resolver liable.

 

In its defense, Quad9 warned that blocking measures have a significant impact on its system architecture and performance. The Court wasn’t receptive to this argument, as the DNS resolver already actively blocks malware as one of its features.

 

Thus far, Quad9 has blocked Canna.to only for German users. However, the court order suggests that a global blocking order is reasonable and warranted, which is in line with Sony Music’s demands.

 

“It would also be harmless if, in accordance with the defendant’s argument, websites were blocked globally and irrespective of a specific jurisdiction for all Internet users who use the defendant’s DNS resolver.

 

“Even worldwide, no legitimate interest of Internet users in accessing this website with obviously exclusively illegal offers is apparent, so that the question of overblocking does not arise,” Judge Werner adds.

‘Absurdly Extreme’

Quad9 is disappointed with the verdict. According to the non-profit foundation, the court order opens the door to widespread global blocking orders that go far beyond the jurisdiction they’re issued in.

 

“Quad9 believes this is an exceptionally dangerous precedent that could lead to future global-reaching commercialized and political censorship if DNS blocking is applied globally without geographic limitations to certain jurisdictions.”

 

In addition, the DNS resolver believes that the Court mistakenly labels the service as a liable ‘wrongdoer’. Expanding liability to seemingly neutral services that don’t host any content is “absurdly extreme”, Quad9 notes.

 

“To put this into perspective, applying wrongdoer liability in this setting is akin to charging a pen manufacturer with fraud because a stranger forged documents while using the manufacturer’s writing utensil,” the Foundation writes.

Quad9 Continues to Fight

According to Quad9, Sony Music hand-picked a relatively small player with limited means, to obtain a favorable precedent. However, Quad9 isn’t giving up the fight. The company will appeal the judgment at the Dresden Court of Appeal, with help from the German Society for Freedom Rights (GFF).

 

GFF project coordinator Felix Reda, who previously served as a Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, believes that the Leipzig Regional Court has made a glaring error of judgment.

 

“It treats Quad9 as if the service itself were committing copyright infringement, even though it merely resolves a website name into an IP address,” Reda tells TorrentFreak.

 

“If one follows this reasoning, the copyright liability of completely neutral infrastructure services like Quad9 would be even stricter than that of social networks, whose copyright liability was extended by the controversial EU Copyright Directive.”

 

In common with Prof. Janal, Reda stresses that Quad9 should receive similar treatment as ISPs, instead of equating the service to a hosting provider.

 

“The Digital Services Act makes it unequivocally clear that the liability rules for Internet access providers apply to DNS services. We are confident that this misinterpretation of European and German legal principles will be overturned by the Court of Appeals,” he notes.

 

For now, Quad9 says it will comply with the court order. This means that it will block access to the Canna.to domain. Whether this will make much of a difference is unknown, as the site moved to the Canna-Power.to domain name a while ago.

 

—

 

A copy of the Regional Court of Leipzig’s order is available here (German, pdf) and a translated English copy can be found here (pdf)

 

Two years ago, Internet provider RCN was sued by several film companies, including the makers of The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, London Has Fallen, and Hellboy.

 

The filmmakers accused the provider of failing to act against customers accused of piracy. Rather than terminating the accounts of persistent copyright infringers, the Internet provider looked away, they argued.

Subpoena to Unmask Redditors

Many other ISPs have faced similar claims in recent years, but the RCN lawsuit drew attention recently when Reddit was brought into the mix. The filmmakers took an interest in several comments posted by anonymous Redditors, which could potentially help to back up their claims against RCN.

 

In January, Reddit received a subpoena asking it to uncover the identities of these users. The social discussion platform largely rejected this request, arguing it would violate their users’ First Amendment Right to anonymous speech.

 

Reddit further argued that the filmmakers served their subpoena before discovery had begun. This wasn’t mentioned in our previous coverage but behind the scenes it had already ignited significant turmoil.

Disputed Discovery Date

According to the filmmakers’ attorney, Kerry Culpepper, discovery started when the subpoena was sent (January 7) and any claim to the contrary is “grossly negligent”, “untrue”, “outrageous”, or even “libelous”.

 

The lawyer reached out to Reddit asking the company to ‘correct’ the record before it could be reported by the media, fearing that a failure to do so would damage his reputation.

 

“I extend Reddit the opportunity to file an amended opposition by the end of today […] that deletes that argument and all references to it, explicitly notes that it was completely false, and extends an apology to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court for accusing Plaintiffs’ counsel of blatantly violating the rules,” Culpepper wrote.

 

Reddit wasn’t convinced by this request. Citing the court docket, the discussion platform believes that there is no need to correct anything.

 

“We do not take your accusations lightly. We have again reviewed the DNJ docket and see a January 26, 2023, docket entry instructing that ‘discovery relevant to all claims and defenses shall commence’.”

 

“We therefore disagree that any portion of our brief is false and decline your invitation to revise the brief. As for your settlement offer, Reddit respectfully declines,” Reddit’s attorney adds.

 

Ironically, the contested discovery date wasn’t mentioned in our reporting or that of Ars Technica. However, it’s in the news now.

Filmmakers Respond in Court

The email exchange above is highlighted in the filmmakers’ latest filing, where they respond to Reddit’s objections. The rightsholders maintain that all targeted Reddit users can provide key information and therefore they would like to receive their personal details.

 

Reddit was initially concerned that its users could be targeted with legal claims, but the filmmakers stress that this is not the case. Reddit still refuses to hand over the information, however, in order to protect the anonymous speech of its users.

 

The filmmakers tell the court that this First Amendment argument should meet a high standard, which isn’t warranted in this case.

 

“This Court should reject Reddit’s attempt to treat comments boasting of piracy or complaining of RCN’s browser hijacking as political or religious speech and order Reddit to disclose the requested information in accordance with the proposed order,” Culpepper writes.

 

Some of the users didn’t mention RCN specifically. For these, the filmmakers propose that Reddit can first share their IP-addresses, so they can check whether they’re subscribers to RCN or an affiliated ISP.

Tensions

The filings and related documents show that tensions between the sides are rising. Culpepper’s declaration, for example, mentions that Reddit has “numerous active forums that openly discuss and support piracy.”

 

The attorney adds that Reddit’s alleged false statements about the discovery deadline could be a retaliatory move for requesting information about Reddit users, while Reddit can portray itself as having put up a good fight against copyright holders.

 

Reddit previously described the subpoena as a “wholly unjustified fishing expedition” that would violate the First Amendment and unduly chill speech.

 

All in all, it is clear that both parties have completely opposite takes on the matter. This isn’t a mud-throwing contest, though, and eventually the court will have to decide whether Reddit must disclose the requested information, or not.

 

—

 

A copy of the filmmakers’ reply in support of the motion to compel third-party Reddit to respond to the subpoena is available here (pdf)

 

In May 2022, Elon Musk declared overzealous use of the DMCA a “plague on humanity.”

 

As CEO of Twitter, Musk understands that his platform has certain obligations if it wishes to maintain protection from liability under copyright law. On receipt of a properly formatted and submitted takedown notice, allegedly infringing content must be taken down.

 

A dispute that boiled over yesterday began with these two steps but ended up with the copyright holder having his account suspended, presumably by Musk himself or on his instructions.

 

The two people at the heart of the original dispute are both Twitter users. Since most tweets relating to the initial dispute have since been deleted or disabled, here we rely on archived and cached copies for evidence. Since one user’s account has been suspended, links to the account and its tweets are included but are likely to fail.

Adrien Mauduit (@NightLights_AM)

Adrien Mauduit (@NightLights_AM, Norway) operates the currently-suspended Night Lights account. He describes himself as a professional nature cinematographer, astrophotographer, and an “Aurora chasing specialist.”

 

A review of Mauduit’s recent posts suggests that his Twitter account is mainly used to post content he creates himself, usually videos or photographs.

 

Mauduit’s pinned tweet is/was a stunning short video dated March 4, 2023. It’s described as a “double solar storm punch that created a G3 (max) geomagnetic storm.” This video sits at the heart of the dispute.

 

Posted on March 3, the video was well received. Comments under the original tweet include: “INCREDIBLE! Feast for the eyes and spirit,” “This one is off the charts!” and “Wow Adrien! Absolutely killing it! Thanks for sharing!”

Massimo (@Rainmaker1973)

Massimo (Italy) operates the @Rainmaker1973 account. He describes himself as an engineer who uses his account to “build the big picture of #science via selected & curated pics, videos & links.”

 

A review of Massimo’s recent posts suggests that his Twitter account is mainly used to post content created by third parties. The usual format is the inclusion of a photograph or image, a description of the image, a hyperlink to the original source, and sometimes a link to a secondary source with additional information on the current topic.

Dispute Between Mauduit and Massimo

On March 6, Massimo posted the now-deleted tweet seen below. The format detailed above is maintained; a description of the third-party content (this time owned by Mauduit), the content itself (the clip) and two links – one linking to Mauduit’s original tweet (here) and another linking to a secondary information source (here).

 

Massimo also cited the source of the clip: “This beautiful display was filmed by @NightLights_AM on Feb 26th in Swedish Lapland.”

 

According to a now-deleted tweet published by Massimo, this is what happened next.

Mauduit Filed DMCA Notice to Have Massimo’s tweet Removed

“Yesterday I posted this tweet, tagging the author @NightLights_AM and embedding his clip, without uploading anything,” Massimo’s tweet begins.

 

“He sent a DMCA report which blocked my account: this means I’m on the brink of the permanent suspension. I contacted him and he asked for money.”

 

Massimo claims that Mauduit had yet “to set the price” but said he would let Massimo know when he’d decided. Copies of these communications have not been made public, so their nature remains unknown. Whether this was a simple request for cash or a business discussion about the cost of licensing the video is unknown.

 

“I run this account since 2014 without earning any money from it for pure educational purposes. On the other hand he has a business. He was also a follower of mine, until yesterday. But he said ‘I’m the one who breaks Twitter’s rule’,” he continues.

Massimo Alleges Blackmail

According to Massimo, such requests for payment are not uncommon on Twitter. To keep his account open he has paid off multiple ‘blackmailers’ over the years, he says.

 

“I’ve been blackmailed like this so many times, and I honestly thought this was over,” he reveals.

 

“I was hit by DMCA tens of times since 2014 and I was suspended once for 3 weeks. I paid more than $1,500 to keep this account open, I’ve paid all those have blackmailed me. I’ve been blocked in error several times and I’m struggling going on like this.”

 

Massimo then reveals that he received a cash demand from another alleged rightsholder in late 2022.

 

“I may pay for keeping this account open, but I had another DMCA on Dec 30: it was a virtually resolved case as the author said he would send a retraction, but the case was never formally resolved after more than 2 months,” he says.

 

“This is not stability, this is not peace of mind for me. This account helped me a lot, I’m still in hospital for a severe post-transplant complication and this is really hurting me.”

 

After writing in hope that “a solution can be found”, an unexpected third-party suddenly chimed in.

Elon Musk – Weaponization of DMCA Won’t Be Tolerated

In a tweet posted last evening, Musk warned that anyone found to be repeat abusers of the DMCA takedown system faces being sanctioned by Twitter.

 

“Accounts engaging in repeated, egregious weaponization of DMCA on Twitter or encouraging weaponization of DMCA will receive temporary suspensions. That said, reasonable media takedown requests are, of course, appropriate and will always be supported,” the Twitter CEO wrote.

 

Whether it happened before or after the publication of this tweet, Mauduit’s account was suspended.

 

While there was no mention of any review of the evidence before Mauduit’s account was suspended, Musk went on to mention one of Twitter’s priorities.

Enable Monetization By Content Creators

“It is a major priority to enable monetization by content creators!” Musk declared in a follow-up tweet.

 

“People need to make a living and prosper from their work. We need to make it possible to upload the content in the first place. That’s getting there.”

 

Under the circumstances, there appears to be a disconnect here. If people need to make a living from their work, and it’s important to enable copyright holders to upload their original works, that was achieved when Mauduit uploaded his own content. Massimo’s references this himself.

 

“I run this account since 2014 without earning any money from it for pure educational purposes. On the other hand [Mauduit] has a business,” he wrote yesterday.

 

Since the original content and the reformatted presentation are both unavailable to view live, that should be taken into consideration. However, it may be relevant to look at how this business proposition is playing out for Mauduit (original content creator) and Massimo (no-profit hobby account).

Content Creator v Content Curator

Massimo admittedly makes no money but has a million followers on his account. Mauduit’s account has 40,100 followers and reportedly generates revenue, but how much is completely unknown.

 

Until Mauduit’s account is reinstated only one side of the story is being heard. The details of his correspondence with Massimo seem particularly relevant; one man’s ‘blackmail’ could be another man’s licensing terms, we just don’t know.

 

There is already fierce debate relating to any fair use protections Massimo may have, or may not have, according to opinion. That debate will rage on but we did notice something peculiar.

 

When Mauduit published the original video (image above) the running time was listed as 1 minute 26 seconds. When it appeared on Massimo’s channel, the clip had shrunk to 1 minute 18 seconds. Massimo insists he “embedded” the original video but this discrepancy may suggest the copies are different, possibly due to copying or transcoding.

 

In any event, the outcome is that an original uploader of unique content has been suspended. That in itself is likely to prove controversial. Some are wondering why Massimo chooses to republish another Twitter user’s original content when retweeting the source could’ve avoided this entire controversy.

 

And then there’s the revelation that a hobbyist Twitter user has paid off alleged copyright holders multiple times just to keep his account open. That raises the question of how deep this goes and how many people are paying others off.

 

In this case a genuine rightsholder appears to have requested payment, but the opportunity for scammers to exploit other users must be enormous.

 

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. “A Man Called Otto” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 06 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	A Man Called Otto	7.5 / trailer
2	(3)	Black Panther: Wakanda Forever	7.0 / trailer
3	(4)	Puss in Boots: The Last Wish	7.8 / trailer
4	(1)	Knock at the Cabin	6.2 / trailer
5	(2)	The Whale	7.8 / trailer
6	(6)	Plane	6.6 / trailer
7	(9)	Avatar: The Way of Water	8.1 / trailer
8	(back)	Black Adam	6.3 / trailer
9	(7)	Babylon	7.4 / trailer
10	(8)	M3GAN	6.5 / trailer

 

 

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

 

Most people born in the 1960s or later will be familiar with Scooby-Doo, the most recognized Great Dane in the world.

 

For those more advanced in years, think Enid Blyton’s Famous Five; four young people continuously run into mysteries and then solve them with help from a talking dog.

 

Scooby-Doo fans have been gripped by the format for more than half a century but the twilight years may already be here.

Scooby on the Chopping Block

Last August, David Zaslav, President and CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, said the company had done a “reset” and would no longer release expensive films direct to streaming platforms. One of the first casualties was the almost complete Batgirl movie that reportedly went into company accounts as a tax write-off.

 

“We’re not going to launch your movie until it’s ready. We’re not going to launch a movie to make a quota. And we’re not going to put a movie out unless we believe in it,” Zaslav said.

 

Batgirl was joined on the shelf by Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which cost $40 million and was almost finished. Scooby-Doo and the Haunted High Rise was also canned along with Scooby-Doo! and the Mystery Pups.

 

With reports suggesting that Scooby-Doo And Krypto Too! might meet the same fate, this weekend fans were thrown an unexpected but tasty Scooby snack.

Scooby-Doo And Krypto Too! Leaks Online

South Korean animation studio Digital eMation began work on Scooby-Doo And Krypto Too! in 2021 and stills from the film appeared online last year.

 

Then this weekend, amidst considerable uncertainty, the question of whether the film would ever see the light of day was answered when the entire show leaked online.

 

Nobody seems to know who leaked it, much less why, but Warner clearly doesn’t want the film to be seen in public.

Warner Tries to Plug The Leaks

Whether the company intends to release the film or not, Warner’s anti-piracy department is now working hard to take infringing copies down, including on YouTube where fans uploaded copies obtained elsewhere.

 

Twitter users who shared the excitement (and links to the leaked film) have also been targeted by Warner’s takedown team. For reasons that aren’t immediately clear, Brazilian Scooby-Doo fans appear to be among those most excited.

 

One slightly over-enthusiastic Twitter user found their account hit with five successive copyright complaints, presumably after posting links to pirate copies.

 

The question of who leaked the movie remains unanswered but two discussion platforms have been repeatedly mentioned as candidates for the first upload – Twitter and 4chan.

Initial Uploader Anonymous

While anything is possible, a post that appeared on 4chan Saturday afternoon has been attracting quite a lot of attention.

 

In 4chan tradition, a user under the name ‘Anonymous’ posted a link to the film and a screenshot, then disappeared.

 

At the time of writing the linked .mp4 file has been downloaded close to 6,000 times but that’s from just one platform. Copies of the movie are now widely available elsewhere, including on various torrent sites.

 

Interestingly, the copies being shared via BitTorrent have a much larger file size than the 1.19GB variant linked by the poster on 4chan.

 

The Lumen Database currently lists other DMCA takedown notices targeting a full upload to Archive.org and a copy of the movie hosted on a Google Drive account.

 

Whether Warner will be able to identify the leaker is unknown. Right now, it looks like they’ve got another mystery on their hands.