Since 2018 the European Commission has published an annual ‘Piracy Watch List’ detailing numerous piracy threats.

 

Based on rightsholder input, sites and services considered particularly troublesome are publicly named to raise awareness, focus minds, and shape policy to meet the challenges ahead. The USTR publishes a similar annual report that operates along broadly the same lines and shares similar goals.

 

This year’s Counterfeiting and Piracy Watch List features services including Mega and Fmovies. They are joined by several pirate IPTV providers that may attract additional attention over the next 12 months.

IPTV: A Billion Euro Problem for the EU

A new study estimates that pirate IPTV services illegally generate over a billion euros in annual revenue, in the EU alone.

 

It’s not uncommon for industry-commissioned reports to face skepticism; they exist to support lobbying efforts, tighter legislation, and if all goes to plan, an increase in profits. The EC’s Piracy Watch List is used in the same way but reading between the lines, rightsholders face significant challenges that go beyond a large headline monetary sum.

BestBuyIPTV – Persistent Pirates

According to the EC’s report, BestBuyIPTV offers more than 10,000 channels sourced from 38 different countries, plus 19,000 VOD titles in multiple languages. For maximum convenience, it’s available on multiple operating systems and according to its own claims, services over 900,000 users, has 12,000 resellers, and a network of 2,000 restreamers. If the brand sounds familiar, there’s a reason for that.

 

The MPA branded BestBuyIPTV a ‘notorious market’ back in 2018, noting that it was “likely” to be located in Italy. The MPA reported the service to the US Government again a year later, but in the 2021 ‘Notorious Markets’ report, Italy was no longer cited as a hosting location.

 

“Utilizes reverse proxy services to mask the location of its hosting servers,” the report declared.

 

Network configurations like this enhance security on millions of websites but can also hinder investigators looking for pirate servers. What happened next isn’t clear but in a follow-up announcement, the MPA said that BestBuyIPTV actually operates from Vietnam.

 

All hosting locations are subject to change but one thing is certain. Similar providers and their hosts are being configured from the ground up with obfuscation in mind and according to reports seen by TorrentFreak, enforcement problems can be severe.

Other Providers

VolkaIPTV.com is another persistent IPTV provider on the EC’s Piracy Watch List. According to the latest report it operates from Algeria. Or maybe Morocco.

 

It’s definitely popular in France though and depending on who provides the data, offers 7,500 TV channels or maybe as many as 9,000. As far as films and TV series go, the service has offered 17,000 and 1,000 respectively over the past few years, according to most reports.

 

The location or identity of the current operator isn’t mentioned by anyone but according to beIN, which nominated the service for inclusion on the list (pdf), VolkaIPTV was founded by a Tunisian national in 2015.

King365tv – Down? Out? Or Just Moving?

King365tv is another IPTV provider causing regular headaches. LaLiga reported the service to the US Government in 2020 but didn’t elaborate with a precise country or location.

 

Instead, it described this type of piracy as “particularly complex” and in most cases “organized cross-border crime,” with hosting, customer support modules, streaming and authentication servers rarely found in one place, or even one country.

 

“To determine to which country an IPTV belongs, a professional on-site investigation is required in order to identify who are the IPTV administrators and their location,” LaLiga said.

 

The new EC report says that King365tv reportedly operates from Algeria but the listed domains – theking365tv.pro and king365tv.com – are currently non-functional. Whether that’s the result of anti-piracy action is unclear but, at the time of writing, visitors to VolkaIPTV.com are immediately offered King365-branded IPTV packages on the front page.

 

Logically these may trace back to Algeria. Or maybe Morocco.

Significant Challenges Ahead

As highlighted by LaLiga, it’s not uncommon for IPTV infrastructure to cross borders, but in reality, any part could be anywhere and when necessary, still report as being somewhere else. In any event, anti-piracy groups can’t monitor everything all of the time, or even close to that.

 

Take the issue of source content, typically TV channels. These are captured all around the world and then sold to any number of intermediaries, who in turn may bundle those streams and sell them on to other interested parties, with their own individual goals.

 

Selling subscription packages directly to users is one option but some prefer to access the market via a network of resellers, who in turn are often already involved in other networks doing the same thing. From the top to the bottom, from both technical and human perspectives, global IPTV is a network of networks that defies boundaries and fuels even more piracy.

 

“This complex network of copying, re-selling, exchanging and re-streaming broadcasters’ content constitutes a parallel black market that explains the multiplication of a single stream of a TV channel, eventually available not only in hundreds of unlicensed IPTV services but also in illegal streaming websites and online content-sharing service providers,” the EC’s report explains.

 

“Moreover, this complex network is the result of cooperation of illegal operators from various countries, making it difficult to find out the identity and precise location of an IPTV operator.”

 

As touched on earlier, anti-piracy groups are all too aware of methods that mostly exist to frustrate enforcement. These issues can’t be solved overnight, but with the right kind of help, all things become possible.

 

We’ll publish details of a specific high-level approach in the coming days.

 

Member states of the European Union must allow rightsholders to protect their rights. Enforcement measures are of “paramount importance” according to Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive.

 

After 15 years of tuning across the EU, site-blocking injunctions are a priority enforcement tool.

 

Rightsholder applications target ISPs with evidence of subscribers and pirate sites infringing their rights. Since the ISPs now have ‘actual knowledge’ of infringement, they block the sites while maintaining liability protection under Articles 12 to 15 of the E-Commerce Directive.

Administrative Programs and Live Sports Blocking

Italy operates an administrative blocking program in accordance with Article 14(3) of the E-Commerce Directive. Telecoms regulator AGCOM (“the authority”) often issues ISP blocking instructions within days of an application, but to tackle live sporting events transmitted via pirate IPTV streams, rightsholders demand more.

 

Rapid blocking has been at the planning stage in Italy for some time, with a key focus on protecting Serie A, Italy’s top football/soccer league.

 

Early this month, the introduction of ISP blocking “without delay and in real time” took another step forward and this week, AGCOM revealed the next stage.

Rapid Blocking Put to Public Consultation

During a December 20 meeting, AGCOM announced that new powers to counter the threats posed by live, unlicensed IPTV streams, would be put to public consultation.

 

Under the umbrella of existing copyright protection regulations (Resolution no. 680/13/CONS – Italian, pdf), the focus will be the protection of football matches but will ultimately apply to all live sporting events (Resolution no. 445/22/CONS, Italian, pdf)

 

“The text submitted for consultation provides for the possibility of inhibiting users’ access to pirated platforms and sites as a precautionary measure in the very first minutes of the broadcast of sporting events,” AGCOM’s announcement reads.

IPTV Blocking and Proactive Measures

While AGCOM’s statement shows overall intent, the important part is the reference to blocking as a ‘precautionary measure’. While it appears that some pirate IPTV streams are indeed detected ‘live’ and then subsequently blocked, Italy prefers an intelligence-based system, similar (if not identical) to the one already deployed in the UK.

 

Due to continuous monitoring and identification of infringing IPTV streams, those most likely to transmit live matches will be known to AGCOM and its anti-piracy partners before games even begin, probably several days in advance and potentially earlier.

 

From there it’s simply a case of ISPs blocking the IP addresses while anti-piracy partners monitor for blocking countermeasures.

Consultation WIll Open for 45 Days

AGCOM says it has always been a leader on the anti-piracy front, but new tools are needed to counter the “organized criminals” behind some online piracy operations.

 

“All interested parties will be able to submit their observations on the measure, for
45 days from the publication of the draft resolution on the Authority’s website,” AGCOM concludes.

 

The consultation will be published on the AGCOM portal

 

As the holiday season approaches, many people choose Christmas movies to get into the festive spirit.

 

Given that some are considered classics in their own right, it’s no surprise that December viewings have become a beloved tradition for many families.

 

In most cases, Christmas movies are watched through legal channels. Behind the curtains of some homes, however, holiday entertainment arrives through TCP packets and The Pirate Bay, neatly wrapped in an MP4 container.

 

With just a few days to go until Christmas, we now reveal which Christmas classics are most popular among BitTorrent users. With help from IKnow, we scoured through millions of downloads to find pirates’ favorite films.

Home Alone On Top

Our data was collected over the past weekend and should be representative of average piracy activity during that time. Looking at the results, it wasn’t hard to spot a winner. The original “Home Alone” (1990) film undisputedly comes out on top.

 

As seen below, the Top 5 also includes the Home Alone sequel “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York” (1992) in second place. The third Home Alone installment didn’t make the cut, however.

 

Most downloaded Christmas Classics on BitTorrent

rank	show
torrentfreak.com
1	Home Alone
2	Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
3	The Grinch
4	Elf
5	How the Grinch Stole Christmas

 

“The Grinch” (2008) is another popular Christmas classic and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (2000) is not too far behind. The Top 5 is completed by the 2003 comedy, “Elf”.

It’s The Most Downloaded Time Of The Year

Looking at the bigger picture, the overall download numbers are relatively modest. Home Alone was the only title in the top 100 of most downloaded films in our sample, and it was at the bottom of that list.

 

We can clearly see, however, that the interest in these Christmas classics typically surges in December. When we look at last year’s data we see that Home Alone had a few thousand estimated downloads a day during the summer, shooting all the way up to 37,000 on Christmas day.

 

The boost at the end of the year is definitely Christmas-related. The chart below compares Home Alone downloads in our sample during a week in August and one in December, showing the non-Christmas-themed classic “Finding Nemo” as a control.

What About New Releases?

Pirates are not just interested in older Christmas classics of course. New releases are also doing well.

 

“Spirited” is by far the most downloaded release and the only one that has more downloads than Home Alone. “Christmas Bloody Christmas” and “The Boss Baby: Christmas Bonus” follow at a respectable distance.

 

All data reported here are based on a sample of millions of torrent downloads from last weekend. These numbers are not exact nor do they include other forms of piracy, such as online streaming and direct downloads.

 

Overall, it’s safe to conclude that there are still plenty of people who don’t mind breaking the law to fuel the festive spirit. Hollywood certainly doesn’t like this Scrooge mentality, but most pirates will likely see ‘sharing as caring’.

 

Adult entertainment conglomerate MindGeek owns several of the largest ‘free’ tube sites including Pornhub.

 

In the early days, these sites thrived on pirated content but over time, that changed. Today, MindGeek itself is one of the most protective copyright holders in the industry.

 

MindGeek subsidiary MG Premium, for example, has many thousands of works registered at the US Copyright Office. To prevent these videos from being shared online without permission, the company regularly takes legal action.

Victory Against DaftSex

In a recent case heard at a federal court in the Western District of Washington, MindGeek won a default judgment against Vasily Kharchenko, the suspected operator of Daftsex.com, Artporn.com, Biqle.com and Daxab.com.

 

These sites have been a thorn in MindGeek’s side for years and MG Premium accused their operator of mass copyright infringement. DaftSex alone was good for dozens of millions of monthly visits.

 

The adult media company won by default after the defense failed to appear. Kharchenko was ordered to pay more than $32 million in damages and an injunction required domain name registry Verisign to sign over the valuable domain names to MG Premium.

Court Order Hijack Attempt

Apparently, someone had been keeping a close eye on the case. Shortly after the court issued its order, Verisign received an email from an MG Premium imposter trying to seize ownership of the contested domain names.

 

The identity of the imposter is unknown, but a new court filing MG Premium suggests that it could be Kharchenko’s attempt to retain control over the domain names. For as long as it lasts.

 

“On November 10, 2022, just days after this Court entered the Order of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, a fraudulent letter was sent to Verisign, Inc. purportedly from MG Premium requesting Verisign, Inc. to unlock the domains and send authorization codes to mgpremiumltd@gmail.com.”

 

“This is a fake letter, not sent by MG Premium. It is suspected Defendant Kharchenko may have sent this fake letter in an attempt to thwart the Court’s Order and the loss of the domains,” MG Premium writes.

 

The bold move ultimately failed, as the real MG Premium was already in touch with Verisign at that point. However, it was clear that someone had tried to hijack the court’s order.

Motion for Contempt and Sanctions

MG Premium suspects that DaftSex’s operator sent the email. Despite the court order and injunction, the pirate site is not giving up. After the domains were eventually signed over to MG Premium, the sites switched to new domains including Daft.sex, Dsex.to, and Biqle.org.

 

These new domains were made public through DaftSex’s Twitter account and remain in operation today.

 

To address this problem, MG Premium submitted a motion for contempt and sanctions against the site operator. And since more monetary damages aren’t going to help, the sanctions should be focused on taking all replacement sites offline. MG Premium also wants the Twitter account suspended.

 

“The Court must unfortunately look at Defendant Kharchekno as an irresponsible teenager who simply cannot follow simple rules nor show any respect to others, including the rule of law,” MG Premium writes.

 

“To force obedience with the Court’s Order, the Court should take away the utilized domains and the Twitter account promoting those domains. There is simply no other way to get this behavior to cease.”

 

The court has yet to rule on this motion but if MG Premium successfully takes over the new domain names, any new hijacking attempts will lack the element of surprise. Even then, MG Premium may have to return to court if DaftSex switches domains again.

 

—

 

A copy of MG Premium’s request for a finding of contempt and associated sanctions against Daftsex and its operator Vasily Kharchekno is available here (pdf)

 

In an effort to end or at least reduce rampant cheating in Call of Duty, Activision fought back with RICHOCET Anti-Cheat.

 

The system reportedly identified and banned 50K cheaters across Warzone and Vanguard during the first day, but also faced stiff opposition from cheat makers determined to undermine it.

 

Early January 2022, Activision filed a lawsuit against cheat makers EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A (both German companies), plus six named individuals (Valentin Rick, Leonard Bugla, Leon Frisch, Ignacio Gayduchenko, Marc-Alexander Richts, Alexander Kleeman) and 50 ‘Doe’ defendants.

 

The defendants faced claims of trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA, contract interference, and unfair competition. The situation was aggravated when a lawyer working for Activision claimed he’d been ‘trolled’ by the defendants, one of whom said they would never be found.

Determined Activision Applies Pressure

In common with similar cases, some of the ‘Doe’ defendants were known to Activision only by their online handles. The court allowed the gaming company to conduct broad discovery against a number of services, including internet service providers, payment providers, and social media websites, to help put more meat on the bones.

 

Activision’s amended complaint, supported by new information obtained during discovery, was months in the making but is far more substantial than the original.

 

In addition to the copyright infringement, contract, and unfair competition allegations, the defendants now face claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Two further counts of racketeering (RICO) relate to offenses that allegedly began as early as 2012 and remain ongoing.

 

Previously-named German corporate entities EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A are now listed alongside Garnatz Enterprise Ltd, a Belize corporation, according to Activision. Previously pseudonymous/anonymous defendants are further named as follows:

 

Leon Schlender, Erick Pfeifer, Bennet Huch, Zain Jondah, Ricky Szameitat, Marcel Bindemann, Alexander Kleemann, Remo Löffler, Marvin Baotic Neumeyer, Hendrik Smaal, Charlie Wiest, Dennis Reissleich, Tyler Byrd, Simon Masias, Nicholas James Baldwin, Antonio Median, Eemy Cartigny, Pascal Classen, Manuel T. Santiago, Katerina Disdle

Complex Case With Broad Geographical Spread

Activision previously advised the court that it would serve the defendants under the Hague Convention. Several defendants retained counsel in the United States, with Activision noting that others could be found in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, or the Netherlands.

 

In a recent order, District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled on a joint stipulation between Activision and defendants Rick, Schlender, Bulga, Kleeman, Richts, Gayduchencko, Frisch, Huch, Classen, Loffler, and EngineOwning UG, that requested more time to respond to the amended complaint.

 

With the extension granted, the defendants must now respond on or before January 13, 2023. If they move to dismiss, a collective memorandum of not more than 14,000 words will be allowed in support of their motion, with Activision allocated the same for any motion in opposition.

 

The order applies only to the defendants listed in the order dated December 19, 2022. The remainder will be handled separately or as the court sees fit.

 

The joint stipulation/order and first amended complaint can be found here (1,2, pdf)

 

For many years, U.S. lawmakers have considered options to update the DMCA so it can more effectively deal with today’s online copyright issues.

 

Many proposals have come and gone, without resulting in any significant updates. Calls to change current legislation persist, however.

Copyright Office’s Review and Conclusions

Following repeated nudges from Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, the Copyright Office launched a consultation on automated tools that online services can use to ensure that pirated content is less easily shared.

 

The Copyright Office also asked stakeholders whether it’s desirable to make certain standard technical measures mandatory for online platforms. Such measures could include upload filters to block pirated content from being reuploaded.

 

This week the Copyright Office presents its conclusions, which are also shared with Senators Tillis and Leahy in two letters. After reviewing thousands of responses and input from stakeholders in plenary sessions, the overall conclusion is one of clear disagreement.

Voluntary Technical Measures

With thousands of responses, the feedback the Office received on voluntary technical measures was overwhelming.

 

Most parties agree that it’s impossible to design an error-free takedown process but disagree on what error rate is acceptable when takedowns are automated.

 

Opponents of filtering technology warn that fair use and First Amendment rights are at stake. Rightsholders did not dispute that but noted that these issues don’t play a role when full copies of copyrighted content are shared.

 

When it comes to the implementation of voluntary measures, the Copyright Office doesn’t have any concrete suggestions. Instead, it will continue to back existing initiatives, while facilitating dialogue between various stakeholders.

 

“The public comments and the consultations confirmed that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to voluntary technical measures, and that there remains a lack of consensus in this area,” the Office writes.

 

“Nevertheless, the consultations served as valuable opportunities for dialogue among stakeholders, which may lead to further voluntary action. The Copyright Office proposed options to continue its role as convener of these conversations in the future.”

Mandatory Technical Measures

The Copyright Office also reviewed the option to expand the DMCA by making certain copyright protection measures mandatory. These could include upload filters that prevent pirated content from being reuploaded.

 

As expected, many rightsholders are in favor of far-reaching, government-backed anti-piracy measures. On the other side, tech companies and the public at large warn against the potential negative consequences, including the potential impact on freedom of expression.

 

The current DMCA already provides an option to formally adopt standard measures but that requires “broad consensus” among online services, which hasn’t been reached over the past two decades. Instead, many online platforms have developed their own in-house tools, such as YouTube’s Content ID system.

 

Many copyright holders expressed their frustration with the current status quo and would like the Government to step in. The Copyright Office is more cautious, however.

 

“While the comments share some common themes, we found a lack of consensus on the value of STMs and deep disagreement about proposals for legislative or regulatory action,” the Office writes in its letter to the Senators.

 

On the one hand, copyright holders argued that Government pressure could help to overcome the lack of cooperation from online platforms. However, there are serious concerns about the impact of ‘upload filters’ on freedom of expression.

 

“[M]any described technical measures that automatically take down or prevent the upload of purportedly infringing works as especially worrisome, as technology is not yet capable of accurately identifying fair use, public domain status, or even licensed uses,” the Office writes.

Tweaking the DMCA

All in all, the consultation elicited strong arguments, both for and against more sweeping changes. However, the Office prefers not to take drastic measures and suggests tweaking the current DMCA instead.

 

Updating the definition of “standard technical measures” should help to facilitate the implementation of these tools going forward.

 

“Specifically, the Office recommends that Congress amend section 512(i) to 1) clarify that the terms ‘broad consensus’ and ‘multi-industry’ require the support only of the industries directly affected by an STM; 2) state that technical measures qualify as STMs if they are recognized as such by a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers […] and 3) set forth a list of factors use in weighing whether a particular measure imposes substantial costs and burdens.”

 

Whether Senators Tillis and Leahy will follow these recommendations remains to be seen. They previously suggested a more far-reaching proposal in the form of the SMART Copyright Act of 2022.

 

—

 

The Copyright Office’s letters to the Senators are available here (VTM / STM)

 

In recent years, game companies have filed copyright infringement lawsuits against alleged cheaters, cheat makers, and sellers.

 

GTA V developer Rockstar Games and its parent company Take-Two Interactive were among the first to go down this path four years ago.

Infamous Lawsuit

In 2018, the game companies filed a lawsuit in Australia, targeting several people believed to be linked to the popular “Infamous” cheating mod.

 

This lawsuit stood out because the Federal Court of Australia signed off on several broad enforcement actions. Not only were the defendants restrained from any cheating-related activity, they were also the subject of a search and assets freezing order.

 

With the orders in hand, a search party was permitted to enter several buildings and search, copy, or remove evidence including any computers and documents that were linked to the alleged offenses.

 

The initial court documents listed the names of several people involved, which likely included aliases. As the case developed, Christopher Anderson emerged as the sole defendant.

 

Anderson is also the person who had several items seized from his home, including laptops, an iPad and an iPhone. In addition, PayPal froze the developer’s funds, which presumably included profits from the cheating business.

Liable for Copyright Infringement

After the early fireworks, the case proceeded quietly in the background, while confidential filings kept the general public out of the loop. One of the key rulings was handed down last year, with the Federal Court concluding that Anderson infringed GTA 5’s copyrights.

 

Justice Nicholas ruled that Anderson infringed Take Two’s copyrights by copying substantial parts of the GTA V software and authorizing cheat users to reproduce content without permission.

 

In addition, the developer and users of the “Infamous” mod breached the software’s license agreement and terms of service.

 

The court order also instructed both camps to reach an agreement on the profits generated from sales of cheats, plus interest, which Anderson should pay to Rockstar and Take-Two.

AU$130,000 Profits and Interest

After more than a year, both sides eventually agreed that the profits and interest add up to AU$130,000 (~$86,000). In an order issued law month, Justice Nicholas writes that Anderson must pay this amount within 30 days.

 

The “Infamous” website went offline years ago and, as far as we know, never made a comeback. The court previously clarified that Anderson should destroy all copies. In addition, he must do everything possible to make previously sold cheats inoperable.

 

“[Defendant shall do] all things necessary and desirable that are within his power to do to cause the Infamous Mod to be made permanently inoperable, including but not limited to permanently disabling any authentication service upon which the Infamous Mod relies,” Justice Nicholas wrote.

 

—

 

A copy of the Federal Court’s order requiring the payment of AU$130,000 in profits and interest is available here (pdf).

 

When the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment launched in 2017 it signaled a new approach to anti-piracy enforcement.

 

Rather than acting in isolation, ACE members pooled their resources, and today the results speak for themselves.

 

Hundreds of sites have either been shut down or disrupted in the last five years, and new casualties are recorded every month, mostly every week. It’s no surprise that other industry players are taking notes and coming up with their own plans.

New Coalition Sees Benefits of Teamwork

Centered around South America-based non-profit organization CERTAL (Center for Studies for the Development of Telecommunications and Access to the Information Society of Latin America), the Global Anti-Piracy Pact (Pacto Global Antipiratería) was officially formed this month.

 

Around 20 entities, including companies from the video and telecoms sector, plus regulators and government representatives, began promoting the initiative in November. A tour of South America was followed by a summit and a signing ceremony this month at the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington DC.

 

“The objective of this pact is to demonstrate that isolated actions of the owners or of the participants in the distribution chain of intellectual works are not enough, but that joint and coordinated efforts between private parties and public-private articulation are required,” CERTAL explained late last week.

Public/Private Partnership

How the coalition will function day-to-day is currently unclear, but its mission statement covers familiar anti-piracy tactics.

 

The pact foresees companies in the IP/telecoms sector working with governments (including Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina) to raise awareness of piracy and inform the public of its effects on content production, distribution, and beyond. Global Anti-Piracy Pact will also propose/establish new standards and best practices to protect the legal market from unlawful competition.

 

A key focus for CERTAL is the fight against IPTV piracy, audiovisual content in general, and live sporting events, so tackling illicit providers will be a key aim of the coalition.

ISP Blocking Measures

Several countries in South America already block pirate sites, but the coalition is expecting much more than that. All governments working with the coalition are required to put administrative blocking procedures in place, i.e only those that require limited judicial involvement.

 

Countries that don’t already have administrative blocking must incorporate the issue into their 2023 legislative agendas. Meeting that standard on paper may not be impossible but implementing rapid blocking, especially to cover live events, requires careful preparation. Fortunately, ISP signatories are prepared to make everything as straightforward as possible.

 

Governments must “guarantee an expedited path through specialized entities to order the blocking of Internet service providers in their respective countries. (ISPs) of retransmissions of illegal content over the Internet, whether on demand or live,” the mission statement reads.

 

For their part, teleco signatory companies will “actively promote and cooperate with respect to the implementation of the aforementioned blocking mechanisms.”

Other Anti-Piracy Measures

The parties acknowledge that the illegal offer of content has as its ultimate purpose the generation of illegitimate economic income for those who carry out such criminal activity, and there are no altruistic purposes.

 

This extract from the agreement is followed by three common monetization methods – advertising, subscription payments, and the sale of preconfigured hardware devices. Signatories will be expected to establish “effective mechanisms” to demonetize online pirate services in respect of the above and “any other that may arise in the future.”

 

The agreement further notes that content watermarking and similar systems are underutilized in South America, meaning that tracking pirated content back to the source can be more difficult.

 

As a result, all rightsholders and distributor signatories must implement this type of technology and actively demand implementation by others in the chain. These solutions should be “mandatory” and should be considered a “basic necessary standard” to operate in the market.

 

CERTAL says that “criminal organizations” are behind today’s piracy platforms. They are “extremely dynamic, constantly evolving” so can adapt almost immediately to technological changes.

 

Global Anti-Piracy Pact/Pacto Global Antipiratería’s objectives document (pdf, Spanish)

 

Over the past several years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in U.S. federal courts.

 

These lawsuits target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Rare Files-Sharing Trial

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard of again. On occasion, however, a defendant decides to push back and a case filed against a “John Doe” at a Florida federal court is now heading to trial.

 

It’s unusual for such a file-sharing case to be so heavily litigated. The prospect of a potential jury trial is even rarer but a few days ago the parties submitted their joint pretrial statement, bringing a trial one step closer.

 

The case has plenty of nuances but, in essence, the main question is whether John Doe downloaded and shared 36 of Strike 3’s porn videos without permission. According to the adult company, the evidence is clear as day.

Strike 3 Piracy Evidence

In the pretrial statement, Strike 3 explains that it repeatedly found that an IP address, assigned to John Doe, shared the pirated movies. This is backed up by technical evidence as well as other expert testimony.

 

The adult company further accuses the defendant of destroying evidence by wiping data from his desktop computer, mishandling a hard drive, and reinstalling the operating system on his laptop.

 

“Even if Doe were not the infringer, he made sure to destroy and conceal evidence of his innocence,” Strike 3 writes in the pretrial statement.

 

The alleged misconduct is made worse due to the defense’s “fee-split” agreement, Strike 3 argues. The lawyers would allegedly submit a higher fee to the court than they billed the Doe, and agreed to “split” the difference between themselves and their client.

John Doe Counters

The defense characterizes the “fee split” allegations as a red herring. Instead, they draw the court’s attention to Strike 3’s evidence, suggesting that it’s below par.

 

The adult company uses tracking software to monitor the IP-addresses in BitTorrent swarms. Similar to other rightsholders, this is then recorded in ‘PCAP’ evidence files. However, Strike 3 developed the “VXN” tracking technology in-house. This makes it little more than ‘circumstantial’ evidence.

 

“Strike 3’s computer system: ‘VXN’ that was used to collect the PCAP’s in 2019, was not tested by Strike 3’s until 2022. VXN had no user’s manual, no design documentation, and was never verified by an independent third party. There is no known false positive rate of VXN, since it was never measured,” Doe’s attorney writes.

 

The defense submitted a motion in limine asking the court to exclude this evidence from trial.

 

In addition, the defense wants the court to exclude evidence taken from Doe’s social media profiles and comments from his neighbors, who testified on the strength of his WiFi signal.

Troll Ban

Strike 3 has also submitted a motion in limine to restrict information the defendant can use at trial. Among other things, the company doesn’t want the term “copyright troll” to be used.

 

The copyright troll moniker is often applied to companies that file many piracy lawsuits against invividuals. Even courts have used the term, even though there’s no official definition.

 

According to Strike 3 it is clear, however, that being called a ‘troll’ isn’t something positive and it wants to prevent a jury from being influenced by this type of ‘prejudicial’ language.

 

“Through the expert Dr. Eric Fruits, Doe has called Strike 3 a ‘copyright troll’ or ‘troll,’ a term that has no established legal or dictionary definition, but which is undeniably negative,” Strike 3 writes.

 

“Name-calling has no place in civil litigation,” the company’s lawyers add, noting that the label is inaccurate and thus irrelevant.

 

In a similar vein, the adult entertainment company also wants to exclude blogs, media, and other Internet coverage from the potential pool of evidence, as these contain subjective comments.

 

“The Court should also preclude Doe from referring to any Internet blogs, media coverage, or articles on Strike 3 for any purpose,” Strike 3 writes.

 

“The Internet and media articles target Plaintiff and its counsel and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose.”

Going Forward

The court has yet to decide on these and other requests to exclude evidence before a trial can get underway. In addition, both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment which could still impact the course of the case.

 

Earlier this week the parties attempted to reach a settlement in court through a mediation process, but they eventually reached an impasse.

 

—

 

A copy of the pretrial statements can be found here (pdf), and the motions in limine are available here (1, 2, pdf)

 

Earlier this month, we reported on a series of FIFA World Cup-themed domain name seizures by US law enforcement.

 

In the initial wave, Homeland Security Investigations took down 55 domain names operated by pirate sports streaming sites.

 

Many of the sites had millions of regular visitors who were confronted with a seizure banner featuring seals of prominent law enforcement outfits. This action was later officially confirmed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.

 

As expected, the crackdown was related to the FIFA World Cup. The authorities confirmed that they were tipped off by a FIFA representative in September. Homeland Security Agents in Maryland subsequently picked up the case and confirmed that the sites were indeed linked to infringing World Cup streams.

Comebacks

The seizures affected a wide variety of sites with Hesgoal and Weakstreams as prominent targets. While these domains indeed became inaccessible, the streaming portals were not easily deterred and swiftly switched to new domain names.

 

Taunting U.S. law enforcement was a bold move but not without consequences. Maryland’s U.S. Attorney’s Office kept a close eye on the action and conducted a follow-up seizure round, starting last Friday.

 

This new action, now officially confirmed, targets several ‘comeback’ domains including hesgoal.pro, hesgoal.me and weakstream.net which had only been actively used for a few days.

 

“After the initial round of seizures executed on December 10, HSI Agents in Maryland observed public internet messages and social media posts identifying additional, alternative sites offering illicit streams of World Cup matches.

 

“Agents then reviewed World Cup games and other infringing content being offered through these sites and confirmed a list of additional domain names subject to seizure,” the Attorney’s Office adds.

Whack-A-Mole Continues

The new seizures are a setback for the site operators, but not all are so easily deterred. At the time of writing, Weakstreams already appears to have made a comeback at a .org domain.

 

Hesgoal also had its Twitter handle suspended over the past few days. While that was replaced with a new one, it didn’t immediately launch a backup domain name as far as we can see.

 

The follow-up seizure round timed right before the World Cup final, also targeted some streaming platforms that hadn’t been listed before. This includes Soccerstreams.net, which has a dedicated following on Reddit.

 

The seizure banner shocked many regular visitors but, like some of the other platforms, Soccerstreams isn’t throwing in the towel. Instead, it appears to have moved to reddit-soccerstreams.net.

 

Other new domains that were seized include releasesky.com, wizwig1.com and futbollatam.com. We haven’t examined all of these domains in detail but the latter has a Twitter account that promoted the comeback domain.

 

The above suggests that Maryland’s U.S. Attorney’s Office has more work to do, but since the FIFA World Cup ended yesterday, priorities may change.

High Stakes Power Play

These types of piracy-related domain seizures are not a new phenomenon, but they are quite unusual. It remains unclear what specifically prompts criminal law enforcement agencies to take action.

 

The sports streaming sites were obviously problematic, but there are thousands of pirate sites. Some have been around for nearly two decades without running into trouble with U.S. law enforcement.

 

This includes Hollywood nemesis The Pirate Bay, which actually moved to a Swedish (.se) domain name over a decade ago when it feared a domain seizure by U.S. law enforcement.

 

That seizure never came. On the contrary, its .se domain name was taken over by Swedish law enforcement following a lawsuit. Ironically, this prompted the torrent site to return to its original .org domain.

 

It’s unclear why U.S. law enforcement agencies decided to take action against sports streaming sites. Apparently, FIFA had a rather convincing case and perhaps it doesn’t hurt that the United States is co-hosting the next World Cup.

 

Thus far, no arrests or indictments have been announced in relation to the seizures. That said, the seizures are definitely a warning that U.S. law enforcement can take the matter rather seriously.

 

—

 

U.S. authorities haven’t identified any of the additional 23 domain names that were seized but information obtained by TorrentFreak suggests that it likely includes the following.

 

– hesgoal.pro
– hesgoal.me
– weakstream.net
– vipleagues.net
– soccerstreams.net
– rojadirectatvonline.net
– futboltv.live
– rojadirecta.global
– rojadirecta.me
– futboltv.biz
– wizwig1.com
– tenorsky.com
– releasesky.com
– ovopremium.com
– librefutbol.com
– futboltv-envivo.com
– futbollatin.com
– futbollatam.com

 

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. “The Fabelmans” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on December 19 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	The Fabelmans	7.9 / trailer
2	(1)	Black Adam	7.1 / trailer
3	(…)	The Banshees of Inisherin	8.0 / trailer
4	(2)	Emancipation	5.6 / trailer
5	(…)	Bones and All	7.1 / trailer
6	(3)	Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio	7.9 / trailer
7	(6)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
8	(7)	Bullet Train	7.4 / trailer
9	(…)	Avatar: The Way of Water	8.1 / trailer
10	(8)	Black Panther: Wakanda Forever	7.3 / trailer

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

 

Following a limited launch in 2007 with just 1,000 titles, Neflix now carries more than 6,600 movies and TV shows for the enjoyment of more than 223 million subscribers.

 

There’s little doubt that Netflix password sharing contributed to the company’s growth and by publicly condoning it, the practice was completely normalized – globally.

 

The message was clear – Netflix loves you, you love Netflix, and now all your friends love Netflix too. Thanks for sharing.

 

Netflix and similar streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime and Disney+, still want you to love them, but password sharing? Not so much.

Password Sharing is Not Love – It’s Piracy

Five years after Netflix’s now-infamous tweet, the ground is shifting. For the first time in its history, Netflix subscription numbers decreased earlier this year and competition from rivals Amazon Prime, Disney+, HBO and dozens of others is fierce.

 

In the background and across the entire industry, ‘password sharing’ is receiving a reverse makeover. Nobody loves today’s ‘password piracy’ and within the ACE anti-piracy coalition, which includes all of the streaming services mentioned above, the situation is no different.

 

Given the obvious sensitivities, ACE publicly prefers “unauthorized password sharing” as a descriptor and elsewhere the phrase “without permission” is in common use. In Denmark, anti-piracy group Rights Alliance describes password sharing as “not allowed” but this summer there was a small but significant step forward.

 

“The extent of password sharing among Danes is therefore alarmingly high and eventually on a par with other forms of illegal consumption of content,” the group said.

UK Government Declares Password Sharing Illegal

Since password sharing is almost always a violation of streaming services’ terms of service, observers have tended to paint it as such. The general tone is that password sharing is not illegal per se but Netflix & Co. aren’t particularly fond of it anymore.

 

In a low-key announcement today, the UK Government’s Intellectual Property Office announced a new campaign in partnership with Meta, aiming to help people avoid piracy and counterfeit goods online.

 

Other than in the headline, there is zero mention of Meta in the accompanying advice, and almost no advice that hasn’t been issued before. But then this appears:

 

TorrentFreak immediately contacted the Intellectual Property Office for clarification on the legal side, particularly since password sharing sits under a piracy heading.

 

The IPO’s response was uncompromising, to put it mildly.

Password Sharing is Illegal & Potentially Criminal

Fraud has been the key charge in several big UK piracy cases over the last few years, despite the key offenses having a direct link to copyright law. Fraud is a criminal offense in the UK and a conviction could easily prevent or even end a career. On a ‘being reasonable’ basis, we ruled fraud out.

 

According to the IPO, nothing can be ruled out.

 

“There are a range of provisions in criminal and civil law which may be applicable in the case of password sharing where the intent is to allow a user to access copyright protected works without payment,” the IPO informs TorrentFreak.

 

“These provisions may include breach of contractual terms, fraud or secondary copyright infringement depending on the circumstances.”

 

Given that using the “services of a members’ club without paying and without being a member” is cited as an example of fraud in the UK, the bar for criminality is set very low, unless the Crown Prosecution Service decides otherwise, of course.

 

A subscription streaming service pursuing a password-sharing subscriber for fraud might present itself as a legal option, but a PR disaster is never a commercial option, especially when password sharing could be ended today using technical means. So what else is on the table?

Other Legal Options

Other options mentioned by the IPO are directly linked to contract law and licensing, both of which govern subscriber behavior. So-called ‘terms of service’ are part of the agreement when people subscribe to a streaming service like Netflix.

 

Of course, few people read every term in detail (including when the terms are varied via email) but Netflix’s agreement document grants specific rights to the subscriber under contract and copyright law, neither of which allows password sharing beyond specified limits.

 

It’s of some interest that sharing a password can be described as “unauthorized” or “not allowed” by anti-piracy groups and rightsholders yet be considered a serious criminal offense under existing law. Either way, the Intellectual Property Office didn’t label password sharing illegal and a potential crime for no reason.

 

Overall, deterrence seems to be the goal here. Criminalizing tens of thousands of people is a self-inflicted headache the UK doesn’t need and in practical terms, couldn’t begin to cope with.

 

If streaming services really wanted to stop password sharing, they already have the means to do so. Whether they have the will is another matter.

 

Carrying a filing fee of less than $50, DMCA subpoena applications are certainly cheap. When approved, as they usually are, even the most powerful corporations must comply with their terms.

 

Early December, TorrentFreak discovered that prolific Genshin Impact leaker ‘Ubatcha’ had been named in a DMCA application filed by game publisher Cognosphere.

 

The initial aim of the application was to compel Discord to hand over Ubatcha’s name, address, telephone number and email addresses. Barring complications, Cognosphere may have them already. It’s worth noting that it could’ve filed a copyright lawsuit first and then moved to discover these details later, but certainly not for $50.

 

No outsider can predict what will happen next, but past events can help paint a general picture of potential outcomes. Since Cognosphere has taken the initiative, let’s stand in their shoes for a while to see how that feels. After that, we’ll step into Ubatcha’s world.

Creators Take Pride in their Work

When thousands and thousands of hours have been poured into a title like Genshin Impact, it’s not only financial success that’s important. Games are made by creative human beings meaning that developers, artists, animators, audio engineers and beyond, are motivated when people show appreciation for their art.

 

So after being fine-tuned down to the last pixel, the last coating of gloss is applied. Fans will finally see the game exactly as the creators intended, and the feedback satisfaction will have made it all worthwhile. Anticipation mounts and the big day arrives. This is it – minus the surprises and with no secret left untold.

 

For the past several months, gamers have not only learned that someone is planning a surprise party for them, but have watched the room being decorated, the cakes being mixed and baked, and already know the names of everyone invited, including someone they haven’t seen for 10 years.

 

It’s not difficult to see why the organizers of that party might be upset and how that scenario applies to a game in development. When leaks happen again and again and again, asking people to stop spoiling the surprises seems entirely reasonable. But what if they just don’t understand?

DMCA Takedowns: Please Stop – Or Else

In the copyright world, it might be possible to prevent leaks using an informal email, but a DMCA takedown notice is quick, more formal, removes the allegedly infringing content, and is required in the event that infringers don’t cooperate and a DMCA subpoena is needed.

 

This week Ubatcha acknowledged that he’d received “a warning” on Discord, but which content should be removed was apparently unclear.

 

“The only notice I personally received was a warning on discord in Aug which did not state what content had to be removed, just that ‘you may not share any content…’ so the ‘ubatcha’ account stopped posting on discord in order to comply with the warning received,” Ubatcha wrote.

 

Who sent that warning isn’t clear, so whether it met the legal requirements of a DMCA notice is unknown. Ubatcha previously acknowledged that two other people had also received warnings, details of which are also unknown. These details can be crucial in court, but getting involved in a copyright lawsuit that can be avoided is ill-advised.

 

Even if delivered informally, the important thing is the clarity and tone of the underlying yet unwritten message: Please stop leaking our pre-release content because we really don’t like it. Please cooperate this time, before things get out of hand.

 

Multiple DMCA notices and/or personal warnings suggest a copyright holder running out of patience. For the record, the takedown notice sent to Discord late November and submitted as evidence in the DMCA subpoena application, is very clear indeed.

Genshin Impact Fanatics

This week Ubatcha told hundreds of thousands of followers that things had already come to an end. All potentially infringing content had been deleted, and there would be no more Genshin Impact leaks moving forward.

 

“I have not received anything nor has Discord notified me if they shared any of my details. Either way, whatever happens I’m done,” Ubatcha wrote.

 

That’s a helpful statement on the legal side but led to disappointment among Ubatcha’s several hundred thousand followers and Genshin Impact fans.

 

Leaks that appear courtesy of Ubatcha (and others) seem to keep Genshin Impact players continuously engaged with the game. They may lose some surprises but it’s glaringly obvious they care deeply about the game and need it to have a future. By engaging with leaks, they feel more informed, more in touch, and even closer to the game. It’s a conundrum with no easy solutions.

Intent, Sacrifice, Compromise

Motivation is important and in Ubatcha’s case, there’s no malicious intent on display, no master plan to ruin the Genshin Impact world. On the contrary, it appears that ridiculous commitment to the game, albeit in unconventional ways, has become some kind of obligation, maybe even an obsession, to point of being detrimental to health and wellbeing.

 

“On a more personal note, the recent beta release felt like such a weight lifted off my shoulders when I could just go to sleep in peace rather than spending over 24hrs awake to post content and work irl at the same time. It seems so silly but I haven’t had that in over a year,” Ubatcha wrote.

 

While obviously extreme, this sounds like a credible take. For some people games are not just games, they’re a way of life, a life that slowly gets eaten by one game above all others. The big question is whether this carries any weight in light of recent copyright infringement allegations and wherever they may lead.

Lawyers Are Instructed To Achieve Goals

The law firm handling the DMCA subpoena is Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, and they have a lot of experience in similar cases. In fact, MSK worked with the RIAA back in 2003, obtaining subpoenas against ISPs to identify MP3 pirates.

 

In this case, however, that is unimportant. One phone call or email from Cognosphere can end this today or take things to the next level, and the one above that. It’s impossible to predict what will happen next but if the company feels it needs to do something, it might. But it doesn’t absolutely need to.

Demands & Opportunity

The main goal on the facts presented is simple: the leaks need to stop and stop permanently. The company may take a ‘wait and see’ approach but may also want a signed guarantee it can rely on. After all, it asked nicely in the past and got nowhere. Only court involvement produced the desired result, it might argue.

 

Cognosphere might also feel that unless it sets an example, other leakers won’t get the message. If they hit Ubatcha hard and in public, that could act as a deterrent, but that carries the risk of alienating growing parts of the Genshin Impact community and generating negative press that will only serve as an undeserved distraction.

 

One thing is 100% guaranteed, however. Making an example of Ubatcha will not stop the leaks. The only thing that will work long-term is by connecting with these types of gamers, encouraging them to feel the creative process, and helping them to understand that their fanatical support is appreciated, but not to the extent that lawyers need to get involved.

 

In short, what we appear to have here is an unofficial Genshin Impact marketing collective of several hundred thousand people, led by someone who works 24 hours a day and never gets paid. It needs a bit of polishing/corrective work but if someone can’t turn that into something useful, we’re all doomed. And the leaks will continue regardless.

 

Z-Library has become the go-to site for many readers in recent years by providing access to millions of books, for free.

 

This position was put to the test last month when U.S. law enforcement seized over 200 domain names connected to the site. Two alleged Z-Library operators were arrested as part of a criminal investigation.

Z-Library Aftermath

Despite the gravity of the accusations, the public demand for pirated books hardly waned. On social media platforms and elsewhere, Z-Library users openly discussed what to do next.

 

Technically, Z-Library isn’t completely offline. The site continues to offer books through its darknet site on the Tor network and the IPFS version of Z-Library remains online too. Accessing either requires additional technical knowledge, however.

 

This situation allowed others to step in and profit from Z-Library’s troubles, by launching knockoff sites with the same brand, hoping to lure visitors through search engines, for example.

 

Indeed, if we search for Z-Library today, Zlibrary.to comes up as one of the top results. While this site offers free ebooks, it has very little to do with the original Z-Library project. Still, the site welcomed millions of new visitors last month, and the operator appears to be quite protective of this newly obtained fame.

Copycat Takedowns

Over the past weeks, Zlibrary.to has become the target of many takedown requests from book publishers. Interestingly, however, the site itself also sent a takedown notice to Google, targeting another book portal.

 

Apparently, Zlibrary.to wants several URLs from Ebookchase.com removed from the search engine because it’s “stealing” their works.

 

“This website keeps stealing our works with full copyright. Our company strongly urges the other party to conduct self-examination, take down all infringement books, and promises to never use any means to infringe on our company’s works,” the notice reads.

 

We don’t know for sure that Zlibrary.to is behind this request but it’s definitely unusual, as pirate sites generally don’t hold copyrights to the content they host.

Alternative Takedowns

Further Z-Library-related takedown notices also piqued our interest. They include a series of DMCA notices sent by the website Rationalinsurgent, which published an article about “Z-Library alternatives”.

 

This site claims that Z-Library is “legit” and offers a list of alternatives people can try while it’s inaccessible. Apparently, this article was copied by other sites, which prompted Rationalinsurgent to request the takedowns.

 

“This Website is copying my client’s content daily without any consent. Such wrong doings have created huge impact on my client’s website SEO and ranking,” the notice reads.

 

The takedown effort appears to have produced results as both of the reported sites have removed the contested articles, returning 404 errors instead.

‘Scam’ Takedown

Finally, Google received another unusual Z-Library-related takedown notice. This one is a bit harder to grasp. All we know for sure is that it requests the removal of a Reddit post about the copycat site Z-Lib.is.

 

The Reddit post characterizes the site as a scam, perhaps because it has nothing to do with the real Z-Library. Also, there are no downloadable books on the site, and visitors are encouraged to download and install a mysterious desktop client instead.

 

It turns out that someone named “Mahut Aydin” doesn’t like this Reddit thread, so asked Google and Reddit to remove it.

 

“copyrights belonw z-lib project library scam dmca 512 request take down this post fast from google search and console, also reported to Reddit.com to remove content, illegal, DMCA 512 Z-Lib, Z-Library, Z-lib.is belongs to its respective owners,” the confusing notice reads.

 

Based on this request we’re not entirely sure whose copyrights are infringed in the thread. And we are not the only one with doubts, as neither Google or Reddit have taken action in response.

Meanwhile at Z-Library…

The notices show that Z-Library remains a hot topic, and not just among authors and users of the site. Interestingly, there are some developments regarding the official Z-Library service as well.

 

Over the past few days, several people have reported that the 1lib.to domain name, which is linked to the original Z-Library team, allows them to access the site pretty much as usual.

 

Various comments in a Reddit discussion suggest that access might be limited to mods, people who’ve donated, or older accounts. This isn’t something we were able to verify independently, but it could mean that the site can be accessed from a clear web domain, at least by some.

 

Meanwhile, there is no notable progress in the criminal case against the two alleged operators of Z-Library. The docket at the Eastern District of New York hasn’t seen any new updates over the past few weeks.

 

Determined to reduce overall piracy, the UK government first asked and then threatened Google over pirate sites appearing in its search results.

 

A deal announced in 2017 revealed that Google would adjust its algorithms (pdf) to make pirate sites less easy to find.

 

While this ‘code of conduct’ didn’t feature whole site deindexing, the MPA and BPI celebrated the ‘landmark’ agreement. Interestingly, Google itself had very little to say. In 2021, when TorrentFreak discovered that whole site deindexing was already underway in the Netherlands, Google was no more talkative than four years earlier.

Voluntary Deindexing Confirmed Elsewhere in Europe

Just weeks after deindexing was confirmed in the Netherlands, a similar pattern emerged in the UK.

 

As reported in February 2022, notices published on the Lumen Database referenced well over one hundred pirate sites, all of which had been previously blocked for copyright infringement under the orders of the High Court in London. They too were destined for search result oblivion.

 

The MPA finally acknowledged that deindexing was underway this March, noting that Google had already removed 10,000 domains.

 

As noted in our previous reports, Google will deindex entire domains if rightsholders submit a court-sanctioned ISP blocking order. Google isn’t named in these orders so there’s no legal mandate, but Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN suggested that if an injunction eventually named Google, it would have to comply anyway.

 

Since then, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have been added to the silently growing list.

 

Search engine deindexing/delisting isn’t being promoted as one might expect, even though popular YouTube-ripping sites are some of the latest targets. Significant anti-piracy achievements are usually considered opportunities to keep content protection in the spotlight, but not in this case – with one recent and notable exception.

Lithuania Makes Official Announcement

Rightsholders in EU member states can request injunctions against intermediaries to mitigate online infringement. ISPs are generally required to block pirate sites’ IP addresses and/or tamper with DNS to prevent customers from accessing them, but legal processes vary from country to country.

 

Along with countries including France (ARCOM), Italy (AGCOM), Spain (IPC), and Greece (ΕDPPI), Lithuania’s site-blocking program is also handled by an administrative authority. The Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (RTCL) is an independent body, a regulator of broadcasters and video platforms, and the entity responsible for online copyright protection.

 

In an announcement last week, RTCL (also known as LRTK) said that increased cooperation with Google will lead to entire pirate sites being deindexed. The statement also confirms ‘dynamic’ deindexing, meaning that any mirrors and proxies introduced in the future will also be removed from Google’s search results.

 

LRTK will file court-sanctioned orders against such sites, requesting their removal in accordance with the process established by Google. This means that the domain names of all websites blocked by LRTK decisions and their copies will not be published on the Google search platform.

 

The LRTK notes that the unique addresses (URL, Uniform Resource Locator) of websites that access specific illegally published objects of copyright and related rights have already been removed from the Google search system before.

 

Whether the end paragraph is a nod towards repeat infringers, a ‘takedown/staydown’ system, or something else, the end result is the same. Pirate sites subjected to ISP blocking on one domain will not only have replacements, proxies and mirrors blocked by ISPs, but won’t feature in search results either, at least for any significant time.

Implications of Deindexing

Being removed from Google search is clearly a problem for pirate sites hoping to attract new users. Google previously insisted that search isn’t as important for piracy discovery as rightsholders might suggest, but the Lithuanian announcement adds another point of interest.

 

LRTK also draws attention to the fact that the aforementioned websites use other services for the commercialization of illegal activities, therefore, removing the websites from Google search results will limit the possibility for their managers or administrators to make a profit by publishing works without the consent of the rights holders.

 

As noted earlier, any deindexing by Google seems reliant on some kind of court order and LRTK/RTCL is an administrative body, not a judicial one. In this case, however, presenting court orders isn’t an issue.

 

Based on rightsholder complaints, LRTK/RTCL makes decisions on website blocking within 14 days, but before ISPs are compelled to block, approval must be sought from the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, which then sanctions the blocking orders. In the case of dynamic blocking covering subsequent mirrors and proxies, returning to court is not required.

 

Confirmation that Lithuania is already working with Google can be found on the Lumen Database under ‘Government Requests’. The image below shows a typical example and for the curious, a few deindexing requests are linked here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

ISPs in the United States service millions of subscribers who use the internet as they see fit. At least in principle, ISPs are not responsible for subscribers’ behavior, but circumstances can dictate otherwise.

 

Copyright law states that ISPs must terminate the accounts of subscribers repeatedly flagged as copyright infringers. These customers are typically BitTorrent users, so when their ISP receives multiple complaints of unlawful file-sharing, the ISP is required to terminate their accounts “in appropriate circumstances.”

 

Several lawsuits, filed by music and movie companies over the past few years, claimed that ISPs failed to terminate repeat infringers. An early case saw record company BMG take on Cox Communications, with the former eventually walking away with a “substantial” settlement.

 

A new lawsuit filed this week by BMG and several industry partners lists several thousand songs and alleges millions of infringements. Potential damages could exceed a billion dollars.

BMG Takes on ISP Optimum

Filed in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the complaint features BMG Rights Management, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Music Group, and Concord Bicycle Assets as plaintiffs.

 

The defendants, Altice USA and connected company CSC Holdings, are described as the operators of one of the largest ISPs in the United States. Available in at least 21 states, these high-speed connections are sold under ‘Optimum’ branding and according to the plaintiffs, used by thousands of persistent pirates.

 

After a brief BitTorrent explainer, including its ability to “exponentially increase the availability of unauthorized copies of pirated works to millions of people,” the record companies allege that Altice knowingly contributed to (and profited from) infringements committed by thousands of subscribers.

Failure to Terminate & Infringement Liability

The lawsuit itself follows a very familiar format. The record companies claim to have detected millions of infringements carried out by Altice subscribers and reported them to the ISP.

 

The plaintiffs claim that Altice was required to take action, including terminating accounts, but failed to do so.

 

“Those notices advised Altice of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Altice’s service to illegally distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works using BitTorrent,” the complaint notes.

 

“Rather than work with Plaintiffs or take other meaningful or effective steps to curb this massive infringement, Altice chose to permit infringement to run rampant, prioritizing its own profits over the Plaintiffs’ rights.”

“Direct Interest” in Infringing Activity

The music companies state that liability for infringement carried out by others is clearly laid out under copyright law.

 

When a party knowingly and materially assists someone engaging in copyright infringement, it is liable for that infringement. When a party holds a direct financial interest in the infringement but fails to intervene, despite having the ability to do so, liability is also incurred.

 

The complaint alleges that Altice incurred liability when it turned a blind eye to subscribers’ infringements and continued to take their money. The infringement notices sent by the record companies meant that the ISP knew about ongoing infringement, had the ability to stop it, but failed to do so.

Egregious Repeat Infringers in Texas

The plaintiffs state that a number of the most egregious repeat infringers reside
in Texas, including those who repeatedly infringed one or more of their copyrighted works.

 

Subscribers listed under two specific IP addresses allegedly committed 1,000 acts of infringement each, but despite receiving notifications, the ISP ‘permitted’ the infringements to continue “over and over again.”

 

In keeping with similar ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits, the record companies claim that Altice profited from customers who, due to their file-sharing habits, were willing to pay more for faster internet connections. Some of these infringers, the complaint adds, continued to infringe for months, even years at a time.

 

Overall, Altice reportedly received over a million infringement notices relating to 20,000 of its subscribers. “Many hundreds” infringed the plaintiffs’ rights up to tens of thousands of times, the complaint adds.

Claims For Relief

Describing Altice’s contributory infringement as “willful, intentional, and purposeful,” the plaintiffs claim damages and profits for each infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).

 

Alternatively, the record companies claim statutory damages of to up $150,000 per infringed work under 17 U.S.C.§ 504(c).

 

A second count of vicarious copyright infringement, where infringement could’ve been controlled and where there was direct financial interest, the plaintiffs again claim damages and profits for each infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) or statutory damages of to up $150,000 per infringed work under 17 U.S.C.§ 504(c).

 

The precise number of allegedly infringed works is absent from the complaint but Exhibit A, a 175-page attachment featuring songs by David Bowie, Justin Beiber, Katy Perry, Keith Urban, Lady Gaga and many more, carries roughly 45 songs per page. Perhaps as many as 7,800, give or take.

 

In addition to roughly a billion dollars in damages, the record companies also demand an injunction to prevent ongoing infringement. An undisclosed settlement behind the scenes might also be acceptable, in line with similar lawsuits disposed of recently.

 

The complaint can be found here (pdf)

 

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

 

While there are plenty of legal streaming options available, there’s also a broad offer of IPTV services that are specifically set up to deliver content but without permission from rightsholders.

€1 Billion Pirate IPTV Revenue

These high-quality pirate IPTV services are often sold through monthly or yearly subscriptions. Over the years, this business model has transformed into an industry generating serious revenue. According to a new report, income surpassed €1 billion in Europe last year.

 

The research, commissioned Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA), was carried out by the Centre for Intellectual Property, Policy & Management at Bournemouth University. It draws on data from rightsholders as well as the European Audiovisual Observatory, which produced a comparable study three years ago.

 

The new findings show a slight increase in IPTV service revenue compared to the previous study, from €941.7 million to €1.06 billion. The average spend on illegal IPTV subscriptions is now slightly more than 5 euros per month.

 

Interestingly, the number of Europeans (27 EU countries + UK) who use pirate IPTV services shows even more growth – 13.7m to 17.1m – an increase of around 25% in three years.

 

The fact that revenue grew slower can be explained by lower monthly subscription costs. Contrary to the prevailing inflation trend, pirate IPTV subscriptions have actually become cheaper.

Youth in the Lead

There are large differences in illegal IPTV service use between age cohorts. Most subscribers are younger, and among 16 to 24-year-olds, 11.8% have access to these unauthorized services.

 

The researchers note that piracy is a bigger draw for the youth as they generally have less money to spend. Younger generations are also more used to streaming content and generally have a more accepting attitude toward piracy.

 

“[D]ifferences are explained by not only a perception toward IP and piracy but also by other factors such as average income, internet use, and TV viewing habits that differ significantly between age groups.”

 

“Overall, young Europeans have a more tolerant attitude towards pirated online content,” the researchers add, referring to EU’s latest Intellectual Property and Youth Scoreboard published earlier in the year.

Geographical Differences

The scale of the IPTV problem varies from country to country. The Netherlands and Luxembourg have the highest percentage of pirate IPTV users, with 8.2% and 7.9% respectively. In Romania and Poland, it’s far less common with 0.8% and 1.5%.

 

In absolute numbers, the UK poses the biggest problem, with well over 3 million pirate IPTV users.

 

Germany and France are not far behind with 2.5 and 2.4 million users respectively. And while Luxembourg has one of the highest percentages of IPTV pirates, this translates to ‘only’ 37,561 users.

€3.2 Billion Lost Revenue

The report adds a new element by estimating the potential revenue that legal IPTV providers are losing due to widespread piracy. The estimate is based on legal subscription prices and the share of users who would be willing to pay for IPTV subscriptions.

 

This ‘willing to pay’ estimate is based on data supplied by AAPA members. This presumably assumes a fictitious scenario where pirate IPTV alternatives are not available. Based on these numbers the report estimates that legal pay-TV providers incurred a loss of €3.2 billion last year.

 

Commenting on the findings, AAPA’s Executive Vice President Sheila Cassells notes this loss also affects consumers because fewer profits lead to less investment into innovation and new content.

 

This talking point will also be communicated to lawmakers, as AAPA will use the report to lobby for more effective anti-piracy measures in Europe and elsewhere.

 

“In the face of current challenges, the efforts of AAPA are ever more required to promote efficient and effective legislation and intellectual property rights enforcement. This research acts as an information tool to raise awareness among European citizens, policymakers, law enforcement and the industry,” Cassells notes.

 

—

 

A copy of the AAPA full report titled “Illicit IPTV in Europe” can be found here

 

For millions of different reasons, Christmas is special for roughly two billion people globally.

 

Traditions in the U.S. include a family outing to the cinema in search of the latest blockbuster and this year Avatar: The Way of Water will undoubtedly attract the crowds.

 

For increasingly depressing reasons, new U.S. movies like Avatar 2 can’t be enjoyed in Russian cinemas on Christmas day, or on any other for that matter. Or at least that’s the theory.

 

Due to sanctions, Russians officially have a choice between watching older movies or local movies, but a third option is also gaining traction. Pirate screenings of Western movies are now common, and with the local cinema industry edging towards collapse, they’re increasingly acceptable too.

Cinema Owners Plan Pirate Screenings

Russians traditionally prefer celebrations around the New Year, but if they can watch Avatar 2 in cinemas come December 25, everything will be according to plan. Officially released this week in the U.S., James Cameron’s three-hour science fiction epic is made for the big screen and Russian cinema owners don’t want to miss out.

 

News outlet IZ recently contacted cinema owners in several areas of the country and was informed that if a decent copy becomes available, Avatar 2 will feature in their line-ups. In common with all pirate releases, quality is one of the most important factors. Timing also plays a key role, and as things stand, nobody can predict a specific date.

Quality and Timing

There are many moving parts in the piracy machine. Early cammed copies are commonplace, as are high-quality releases later on, but when everything comes together, big things can happen.

 

Marvel’s Black Panther: Wakanda Forever was reportedly leaked on the day of its official worldwide release and was immediately screened in some Russian cinemas but not all. Early screenings were reportedly restricted to cinemas with the ability to cover the costs associated with a pirate copy, presumably one good enough to show on a big screen

What Cost Piracy?

The exact cost of a pirate copy in Russia depends on a number of factors, IZ reports. It mentions none specifically but quality and timing are obviously important. In the end, however, nothing trumps availability. Access to pirate copies in Russia can cost as little as 50,000 rubles (US$790) but at the other end of the scale, 1,000,000 rubles (US$15,800) can sometimes be the going rate.

 

Some cinemas say they are prepared to screen Avatar 2 using a ‘экранку,’ better known in the West as a ‘cam’ or ‘camrip’. A more significant proposition is outlined too – access to the audio, image and data streams that together become a Digital Cinema Package (DCP).

 

“Large cinemas, primarily network ones, receive copies of perfect quality, DCP with unique ‘keys’. Moreover, these copies not only come with professional Russian dubbing, but also comply with modern Russian legislation,” IZ reports.

 

“Where and how copies get into Russian cinemas is kept secret, but Izvestia’s sources say that there is no single supply line and each case is negotiated separately.”

Draft Law Wants The Above Made Legal

A perfect copy of Avatar 2 hitting Russian cinemas via a DCP source seems unlikely but crazier things have happened recently, including a global pandemic and a major war in Europe. In the end, however, even cammed copies are illegal in Russia but, with no access to big movies, the country’s cinema industry is in a downward spiral.

 

With revenues down by up to 70%, the Association of Theater Owners begged the government for financial support to get them through a crisis the government caused. Support still hasn’t arrived and an announcement this week offered no specifics on when it might.

 

Facing what appears to be an existential crisis, the Association of Theater Owners is now supporting Russian senators and a draft law that would allow Russian cinemas to show unlicensed movies without legal consequences.

 

The text obtained by RIA Novosti (below) proposes extending special powers to the government so that it can temporarily limit rightsholders’ ability to enforce their rights. Translations of legal texts always carry risks of misinterpretation but exclusive rights aren’t called that for no reason, even if rightsholders receive an undetermined sum in compensation.

 

Establishment of the procedure for the fulfillment by residents to foreign right holders of monetary obligations related to the use of certain results of intellectual activity, including cases of using such results of intellectual activity without the consent of the right holders, but with the payment of remuneration to them, a list of results of intellectual activity in respect of which certain results of intellectual activity cannot be applied provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Translated from Russian)

 

U.S. broadcaster DISH Network has already booked a string of successes against pirate IPTV services this year, securing millions of dollars in damages.

 

A few days ago, another victory was added to the list when a district court in Texas issued a default judgment against local resident Yahya Alghafir.

Super Arab IPTV

The case began in 2020 when Dish filed a complaint against four defendants. In addition to Alghafir and his company Texas Communication and Technology LLC, the lawsuit also targeted a pair of Chinese corporations, Street Cat Technology and Jiemao Technology.

 

The Texas resident stood accused of selling the IPTV service “Super Arab IPTV” or “Super IPTV” through a variety of vendors, including Amazon and Walmart. Dish claimed that the service infringed its rights, as it included rebroadcasts of protected Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera Arabic News, and CBC channels.

 

In an attempt to stop this copyright-infringing activity, Dish sent repeated takedown notices to all parties involved, including Amazon and Walmart, but the sales continued nonetheless.

 

The defendants all played unique roles. The IPTV service was offered by Street Cat Technology, but Jiemao, Alghafir and his company were seen as key intermediaries who helped to make the service available in the United States.

$2.1m Default Judgment

After the defendants failed to answer the complaint, Dish requested a default judgment. This was granted by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. who finds Street Cat liable for direct copyright infringement. The other defendants are seen as contributory infringers.

 

“Alghafir, TCT, and Jiemao are contributorily liable for copyright infringement because they served as the intermediary between third parties who directly infringe DISH’s exclusive distribution and public performance rights and Super Arab IPTV users, who became a necessary component of the infringement – the audience.”

 

The court further agrees to a maximum statutory damages award for copyright infringement, a total of $2,100,000 for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.

 

“This amount consists of $150,000 for each of the 14 registered, copyrighted works that DISH owns and that Defendants willfully and maliciously infringed by transmitting and providing access to without authorization on the Super Arab IPTV service,” the order reads.

 

The ‘jointly and severally’ part is important because full damages can be recouped from any defendant. Dish may have a hard time collecting from the two Chinese companies so Alghafir may have to pay a bigger share.

Broad Injunction

The court order comes with a broad permanent injunction that will provide ammunition for Dish to go after others who attempt to sell the same IPTV service. Specifically, it prohibits all dealers, distributors, and retailers from offering Super Arab IPTV set-top boxes.

 

The injunction also prohibits CDN providers and hosting companies from doing business with the IPTV service. In addition, domain name registries, including Verisign, are ordered to disable associated domain names including superarabiptv.com, iptvarab.com and superarabiptv.net.

 

As far as we can see, these domain names haven’t been active in a while, but the order is still a win for Dish and its partners, which includes the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP).

 

IBCAP’s anti-piracy lab and NAGRA assisted with evidence collection in this case. According to IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling, the court order should act as a clear deterrent for operators and sellers of pirate IPTV services.

 

“An award of more than $2 million against an individual residing in Texas reinforces our repeated message to dealers of pirate services — participating in copyright infringement by selling pirate services is not worth the risk,” Kuelling says.

 

“We will enforce this order against dealers of the Super Arab service, non-parties associated with Super Arab, and the transfer of domains critical to the operation of the service.”
—

 

A copy of the final judgment issued by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. is available here (pdf)

 

Last Friday we reported that a new round of piracy-related domain name seizures was likely being carried out by U.S. law enforcement.

 

Dozens of popular sports streaming sites became inaccessible, replaced by a seizure banner featuring seals of prominent law enforcement outfits.

 

T action was officially confirmed a few hours ago by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. The Office explains that 55 separate websites were targeted for allegedly live-streaming games of the ongoing FIFA World Cup.

Illicit FIFA World Cup Streams

The authorities don’t mention specific domain names, but we can confirm that several popular streaming sites with millions of visitors are affected, including hesgoal.com, 9goaltv.to, freestreams-live1.com, weakstreams.com, istream2watch.com and yalla-shoots.com.

 

These domain names have been taken over by the U.S. Government and visitors see a warning banner when they try to access them.

 

“This domain name has been seized by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the banner reads, warning that offenders risk criminal prosecution.

 

A FIFA representative referred the infringing domain names to the authorities in September. Homeland Security Agents in Maryland subsequently picked up the case and confirmed that the sites were indeed linked to infringing World Cup streams.

 

An affidavit, filed in support of the domain name seizures, explains that the sites exploit copyright-protected content to draw traffic. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the traffic is monetized through ads.

 

“Based on the pervasive use of advertising on each site, the affidavit alleges that the purpose for distributing the infringing content is the private financial gain to these websites’ operators,” Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office notes.

 

“By seizing the subject domain names the government prevents third parties from acquiring the name and using it to commit additional crimes, or from continuing to access the websites in their present forms.”

Comebacks

The domain seizures undoubtedly have a major impact and some site operators may be deterred by the enforcement action. In recent days, however, we observed several of the targeted sports streaming services simply switching to new domains.

 

Weakstreams, for example, has moved to a new domain name at weakstream.net and remains accessible. The same is true for Streamtowatch, Freestreams-live1, and Hesgoal.

 

Interestingly, the new Hesgoal.me domain name put up a message that it will no longer stream UEFA matches because it respects the rights of copyright holders. Whether that also applies to FIFA is unclear.

 

Freestreams-live1, meanwhile, mentions that the site “had some issues” without referring to the domain seizure at all.

Seizures Will Continue

Whether these new domains will be around for long remains a question. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) says that it will continue to target pirate sites going forward.

 

“HSI will continue to focus on removing websites that facilitate digital piracy, and other intellectual property violations, from the internet,” said Special Agent in Charge James C. Harris III of HSI Baltimore.

 

“While many may believe that such websites do not constitute serious threats, the infringement upon rights holders of any intellectual property is a growing threat to our economic viability.”

 

The HSI agent adds that these pirate sites can be conduits for other criminal activity, but arrests or forthcoming indictments have not been mentioned.

Rojadirecta

This isn’t the first US crackdown on sports streaming sites. Since 2010, US authorities have seized several of these portals under the flag of “Operation In Our Sites.”

 

These early seizures also targeted Rojadirecta, which eventually managed to get its domain name back after a legal protest.

 

Interestingly, the most recent round of domain seizures also includes several Rojadiracta-branded domain names such as rojadirectatvlive.com. It’s not clear whether these are linked to the original Rojadirecta. In any case, getting them back now may not be easy.

 

—

 

A list of all affected domain names that we’re aware of is posted below. This may be updated in the future.

 

– tvrojadirectaonline.net
– toplivematch.net
– live-sports-stream.net
– 88zhibo.net
– 247football.net
– crichd.pro
– rojadirecta-futbol.live
– mythethao.live
– ghiban1.live
– bongtron1.live
– polysportstv.info
– eplsite.football
– yalla-shoots.com
– weakstreams.com
– tructiep99.com
– toplivematch.com
– tarjetarojaonlinetv.com
– soccer24hd.com
– score808.com
– rojadirectatvlive.com
– rojadirectaliga.com
– mythethao.com
– koragol.com
– juventus-live-stream.com
– istream2watch.com
– ijube.com
– hesgoal.com
– guduballs.com
– ghiban2.com
– freestreams-live1.com
– cado89.com
– beeduball.com
– amzfootball.com
– acrackstreams.com
– 222live.com
– 9goal.tv
– 9goaltv.to
– rojadirecta.vip

 

Two years ago, the RIAA caused outrage by taking down the open source YouTube-ripping tool youtube-dl from GitHub.

 

The RIAA cited the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, arguing that the tool could be used to download their artists’ musical works from YouTube, in breach of copyright.

 

With little supporting case law in the United States, the RIAA referenced a German court ruling instead. This court concluded that YouTube’s “rolling cipher” should be considered an effective technological protection measure. Therefore any attempt to circumvent it can be classified as copyright infringement.

 

Not everyone agreed with this conclusion, however. After discussing the issue with legal experts and advisors, GitHub restored the project and placed $1m in a takedown defense fund.

 

“We are taking a stand for developers and have reinstated the youtube-dl repo. Section 1201 of the DMCA is broken and needs to be fixed. Developers should have the freedom to tinker. That’s how you get great tools like youtube-dl,” GitHub CEO Nat Friedman said at the time.

Yout Sued the RIAA and Lost

GitHub’s support was a morale boost for operators of YouTube-ripping sites. Among them was Yout.com owner Jonathan Nader, who launched a pre-emptive lawsuit against the RIAA around the same time.

 

At the Connecticut district court, Yout wanted to confirm that the site does not violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. That battle was lost a few weeks ago when the court declared a victory for the RIAA.

 

The music group soon followed up with a request for $250,000 in attorneys fees. This added to Yout’s troubles and could potentially hinder the appeal, which has yet to get started.

Stay Pending Appeal

Ideally, Yout would like to put the attorneys’ fees issue on hold pending the appeal. This was also proposed to the RIAA directly, but the music group refused to play along, leaving the YouTube ripper no other option than to turn to the court again.

 

In a filing submitted a few days ago, Yout’s attorney asks the court to stay the fees request while the appeal is pending.

 

The court can grant such requests under certain conditions. Among other things, the decision to delay the fees determination should weigh in favor of the public interest. According to Yout, that’s clearly the case here.

Legality of Youtube-dl Based Software?

Yout explains that its service is based on a modified version of the open source youtube-dl software. The legal status of this software hasn’t been fully litigated and warrants a proper review by an appeal court.

 

“(i)t is in the public interest that the appellate court determines if services such as Yout, and others that are also based upon the open-source software project youtube-dl (whether commercially exploited or coded and deployed by individual users) constitute circumvention pursuant to the DMCA as held by this Court.”

 

This issue isn’t limited to Yout; many other projects and developers also rely on the youtube-dl software.

 

“Given that the reach of this Court’s holding in this matter goes far beyond just this one small business software provider, it is in the public interest that the Second Circuit reviews the merits on appeal.

 

“This important and necessary review will be crippled if the instant matter concerning attorneys’ fees is not stayed. This factor weighs strongly in favor of granting a stay,” Yout adds.

 

These arguments clearly suggest that the open source youtube-dl software might play a key role in the appeal and could impact other stream-rippers and the software’s developers too.

Irreperable Harm

Yout goes on to argue that, if he has to pay the RIAA, there will be fewer funds available to finance its appeal. This could irreparably harm Yout by limiting its legal firepower.

 

The music industry group, meanwhile, is backed by a billion-dollar industry and wouldn’t be financially crippled if the attorneys’ fees question is delayed.

 

“(i)t would be quite difficult for Yout to satisfy Defendant RIAA’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees while at the same time pursuing this very important appeal which, as noted above, would advance the public interest.

 

“On the other hand, Defendant RIAA is in a much better financial position to withstand such a stay during the pendency of the appeal,” Yout adds.

 

Based on these and other arguments, Yout hopes that the district court will grant the temporary stay. The RIAA has yet to respond to the motion, but given its earlier refusal will likely oppose the request.

 

—

 

A copy of the motion to stay RIAA’s motion for attorneys’ fees is available here (pdf)

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “Black Adam” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on December 12 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Black Adam	7.1 / trailer
2	(…)	Emancipation	5.6 / trailer
3	(…)	Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio	7.9 / trailer
4	(…)	She Said	7.3 / trailer
5	(2)	Troll	5.9 / trailer
6	(5)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
7	(6)	Bullet Train	7.4 / trailer
8	(7)	Black Panther: Wakanda Forever	7.3 / trailer
9	(3)	Spirited	6.6 / trailer
10	(4)	Triangle of Sadness	7.8 / trailer

 

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

 

When several major studios filed a copyright lawsuit against PrimeWire last year, it shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. It did nonetheless – it was a long time coming.

 

More than a decade ago, a successful pirate streaming site called LetMeWatchThis reportedly ran into domain issues, and after a swift rebranding exercise, returned as 1Channel. What prompted the site to change its name yet again isn’t clear but, after adopting the name PrimeWire, traffic poured in from all over the world.

 

Due to Hollywood legal action, PrimeWire was among the first 30 sites to be blocked in the UK back in 2013, but that was just the beginning. Similar blocking injunctions followed in Australia, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Portugal and beyond.

 

Despite being given the opportunity to protest at least some of these blocking measures, PrimeWire never appeared in court to mount a defense, even by email. When the MPAA reported the site to the USTR in 2013, it was hoped PrimeWire would fold but, despite additional reports over subsequent years, it carried on regardless.

 

Becoming a permanent fixture on the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s ‘Infringing Website List’ was meant to increase the pressure. However, as far as we’re aware, Hollywood never filed a lawsuit. Roughly nine years ago the MPA believed PrimeWire’s servers were in Estonia but, while access to hardware can be useful, hard drives can’t be sued.

Movie and TV Giants Sue PrimeWire

Then, out of the blue in December 2021, Paramount, Universal, Warner, Columbia, Disney, and Netflix filed a lawsuit against PrimeWire in the U.S. They demanded millions in damages and an all-important injunction, the first of which was granted early 2022.

 

Maintaining its long-held traditions, PrimeWire immediately moved to neutralize potential domain seizures while carrying on as normal, in defiance of the injunction.

 

Just weeks after that, PrimeWire suddenly ‘went legal’ by removing all links to pirated movies and TV shows, and then pledged to install upload filters to prevent any more piracy. There was even some email correspondence with the plaintiffs which, if anything, was even more surprising.

Traffic Tanks, Hollywood Piles on the Pressure

After removing pirated content, PrimeWire’s traffic immediately collapsed by more than 60%, but the studios weren’t impressed. Based on past behavior patterns, they believed that PrimeWire could make a comeback, so they pressed for a default judgment and permanent injunction.

 

The court agreed and awarded a partial default judgment with damages to be decided at a later date. PrimeWire was ordered to shut down – whether or not any pirated content was still available via the site. Some registrars still hadn’t complied with the terms of the preliminary injunction, meaning that PrimeWire still had domains and a web presence.

 

PrimeWire didn’t officially appear in the lawsuit so was never likely to win. Importantly, it didn’t shut down either and in July attempted a comeback but that was soon thwarted by the MPA’s investigators.

 

Filings in the case during October revealed that the MPA had gone to extraordinary lengths to track down PrimeWire’s operator but had ultimately run into shell companies, various obfuscation measures, and eventually a dead end. Specifically, a small but notorious property in the UK linked to international crime, money laundering, and fried chicken.

MPA Could Not Prove PrimeWire’s Actual Profits

Despite the studios’ best efforts to quantify PrimeWire’s profits, the odds were always stacked against them. Instead, they requested a judgment of $20.7m, which in the scheme of things was pretty reasonable. Earlier this year PrimeWire was allegedly offering 10,000 titles owned by the plaintiff studios and in October 2021, received 20 million visitors from the United States alone.

 

The studios aimed low by listing just 138 infringed works, but with maximum statutory damages of $150,000 available for each work, that can soon add up. In his judgment dated December 9, Judge Mark C. Scarsi agrees that the anonymous PrimeWire defendants were well aware that their conduct was unlawful.

Particularly Egregious Infringment, Maximum Damages

“The Court finds that Defendants committed willful infringement, meriting an award of enhanced damages. Defendants’ conduct is particularly egregious. Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated attempts to hale Defendants into court, Defendants have either ignored Plaintiffs’ emails or anonymously denied any wrongdoing,” Judge Scarsi’s judgment reads.

 

“Further, Defendants have evaded the Court’s injunctions by transferring operations to different domain names, citing ‘recent legal action’ on their now-defunct webpage. Additionally, the substantial web traffic Defendants gained from illegally streaming Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works has likely created a heavy windfall in advertising revenue at Plaintiffs’ expense.”

 

Noting that the defendants’ conduct “leaves little doubt” that maximum statutory damages are warranted, Judge Scarsi highlights the value of the studios’ copyrights, the revenue lost through PrimeWire’s actions, and in particular the negative effect on the legitimate streaming market.

 

“Defendants’ unauthorized and uncompensated use of the copyrighted works causes significant revenue loss because illegitimate streaming sources, like Defendants’, divert potentially millions of dollars of paid viewership away from licensed sources contributing to Plaintiffs’ revenue streams,” the judgment continues.

 

“The high value of Plaintiffs’ copyrights also supports a finding that Defendants’ infringement causes significant revenue losses. And finally, maximum statutory damages would serve the purpose of deterring Defendants and others from infringing Plaintiffs’ valuable works.”

 

In line with the studios’ request, the court awarded maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, a total of $20,700,000 for the 138 works in suit. The court also awarded $417,600 in attorneys’ fees, an amount described as “reasonable and appropriate.”

 

The proposed judgment, final judgment, and minutes can be found here (1,2,3, pdf)

 

YouTube is an incredible site with an unbelievable amount of content covering every conceivable topic. But it’s certainly not perfect.

 

Most complaints relate to the volume of advertising on YouTube, which seems to know when to interrupt a video at the most inappropriate time. Background play isn’t available as standard either, unless users pay for a subscription, which many prefer not to.

 

These problems and more were solved by an unofficial YouTube project called ‘YouTube Vanced’, or simply ‘Vanced’ for the trademark aware. Since users didn’t need to root their phones or pay out any money, the app developed a considerable audience but in March 2022 and for mostly unspecified legal reasons, Vanced shut itself down.

ReVanced: The Second Coming

When ‘ReVanced’ burst onto the scene to pick up the torch, former Vanced users were delighted. Readily accessible on Github and via its own domain, ReVanced wasted no time filling the gap in the market with a widely appreciated end application.

 

Importantly, it also avoided the legal issues that killed off its predecessor but in the space of just 48 hours this week, ReVanced was hit with not one, but two DMCA notices. A knee-jerk reaction might pluck YouTube out of the air as an obvious sender, but that certainly isn’t the case here.

First DMCA Notice Sent to Github

The first notice dated December 6 was filed by the developer of the Android app ‘AnyTracker‘. The app detects changes on websites and at least officially, is only available on Google Play.

 

According to the developer, ReVanced’s patch repository contained a patch that enables users to access AnyTracker’s premium functions, but without having to pay.

 

The complaint alleged breaches of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions but based on the information provided, GitHub could not determine a valid circumvention claim. However, GitHub did find grounds for other copyright claims so processed the notice anyway.

Second DMCA Notice Sent to Github

In a DMCA takedown notice dated December 7, German companies Garzotto GmbH and Kachelmann GmbH made similar claims. They own a weather app called “Pflotsh ECMWF” and subscriptions can be purchased via Google Play.

 

Tools available in the ReVanced repo bypass the need for payment, the companies said.

 

This notice also alleged infringement due to unauthorized circumvention but GitHub processed the claim based on other copyright infringement(s). GitHub’s responses to both notices also contain the following text:

 

One or more repositories in this DMCA takedown notice has been processed in accordance with GitHub’s prohibition on sharing unauthorized product licensing keys, software for generating unauthorized product licensing keys, and/or software for bypassing checks for product licensing keys.

 

GitHub responded by removing the repo containing the patches, entirely as expected. The main ReVanced repo was left intact but the removal of the patch repo still represents a setback.

ReVanced Patch Repository Disabled

The ReVanced patch repo contained software (patches) that modify YouTube’s official Android app in specific ways. The image below shows just a small sample (another list here) but these are the modifications that define ReVanced’s functionality.

 

None of this means the end of ReVanced. An announcement by the project explains that GitHub won’t be used for patches in future but the show will go on.

 

“ReVanced will stop distributing patches on GitHub for the time being until the current situation has been evaluated properly. Everything is subject to revision in the future and we will inform you of any further updates.

 

“ReVanced is always available at revanced.app,” it concludes.

 

Sports piracy is prevalent around the world, with more than half of all sports fans regularly using unauthorized streaming services.

 

Football, also known as soccer in some parts of the world, is particularly problematic. It’s seen as a gateway sport that turns fans of other sports into streaming pirates.

 

This is of particular concern now that millions of pirates are tuning into the World Cup. Keeping this in mind, it’s no surprise that U.S. law enforcement authorities appear to have taken down some of the most used sports streaming piracy domain names today.

Feds Seize Sports Streaming Sites

A few hours ago, popular sites such as score808.com, hesgoal.com, 9goaltv.cc, freestreams-live1.com, weakstreams.com, and istream2watch.com became inaccessible.

 

Most of these sites have millions of monthly visitors looking to stream sports content for free. That is not an option today. Instead, visitors are welcomed by a seizure banner, displaying the seals of U.S. law enforcement outfits.

 

“This domain name has been seized by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the banner reads, warning that offenders risk criminal prosecution.

 

It’s not immediately clear whether the seizures were carried out through domain registrars, which include at least one foreign company, or the Verisign domain registry. However, the latter seems more plausible as Verisign oversees both .com and .cc domains.

Seizedservers.com

The domains’ nameservers were pointed at SEIZEDSERVERS.COM. These nameservers are controlled by the US Department of Justice and are often used to shut down sites as part of criminal proceedings. The same happened to several Z-Library domain names last month.

 

The domain seizures haven’t been officially confirmed but it appears to be a coordinated attack on sports streaming sites. TorrentFreak reached out to the Department of Justice and the IPR Center but we received no immediate responses.

 

Whether anyone has been arrested, as seen recently in the Z-Library crackdown, remains unknown. There are no immediate signs that any servers have been taken offline either.

Domain Name Switch

The seizures are undoubtedly a major blow to the sites, most of which have millions of monthly visits, but whether they will stay offline is unclear.

 

Stream2watch, for example, has already moved to a new domain name at istream2watch.stream and remains accessible. Other sites may also attempt similar comebacks.

 

This isn’t the first time that U.S. authorities have cracked down on sports piracy sites. In fact, one of the first rounds of domain seizures, back in 2012, targeted several popular sports streaming sites and was specifically timed around the Super Bowl.

 

Update: 9goaltv.to is seized as well.

 

—

 

This is a breaking story and this article will be updated with any new information