Google processes millions of takedown notices every day, most of them filed by copyright holders.

 

A separate stream of removal demands contains requests by government entities. These are not as common as copyright complaints, but across all Google platforms the numbers quickly add up.

Government Takedown Transparency

A few days ago Google quietly published its latest Government takedown transparency report. A closer look at the data reveals some interesting trends that reflect some of the global tensions where Russia takes center stage.

 

During the first half of 2022, Google received 35,221 takedown requests from governments, targeting 387,152 items. This includes search engine links but also YouTube videos and articles on the Blogger platform.

 

These numbers don’t say much in isolation. However, when we look at the country breakdown it becomes apparent that the vast majority of the requests come from Russia. From January to June, the country sent 21,841 takedown requests targeting 244,282 items. That’s 62% and 63% of the worldwide totals respectively.

 

These high percentages are indeed notable, but it’s worth mentioning that the Russian Government has been the top takedown sender for a few years already. What stands out most is how Google responded to the recent requests.

Google’s Rejections

During the previous reporting periods, Google complied with most of Russia’s takedown demands. On average, roughly 10% of the notices resulted in “no action taken,” which signals that there’s something wrong with these demands.

 

Over the past half year, this trend changed dramatically. As seen below, Google now rejects most takedown demands from Russia. More than 71% of all requests resulted in “no action taken”. That’s a drastic change that appears to be in part triggered by the Ukraine conflict.

 

Some of these questionable takedown requests have already made headlines. For example, YouTube refused requests from Russia’s telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor to remove 27 YouTube URLs, most of which relate to the war in Ukraine. The content included political speeches, news coverage, and commentary that Google wasn’t willing to take offline.

 

Russia wasn’t pleased with this refusal and a local court fined Google $372.5 million, a decision that’s still under appeal.

 

This high-profile example is just one of many. In the latest transparency report, Google provides several other takedown examples that have raised questions. They include videos calling for protests against Russia.

 

“We received requests from Rosco against 12 videos and 2 channels on YouTube calling for protests in Russia. The calls for protests were sparked by a general dissatisfaction with the current government,” Google writes, adding that it took down five that called for violence, leaving the others untouched.

More Ukraine Angles

Russia also attempted to have the apps from news outlets Dozhd and Echo of Moscow removed from the Play Store because it didn’t agree with its reporting on the Ukraine invasion.

 

“We received requests from Roskomnadzor to remove from the Google Play Store the apps of media outlets Dozhd and Echo of Moscow. Roskomnadzor claimed that both apps ‘purposefully and systematically’ distributed false information about the war in Ukraine, including about how many Russian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians have died.”

 

Google says that it refused to comply with the request because it could not properly verify the claim. The same is true for Russia’s request to take down a Compute Engine website that reports the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine.

 

“We received a request from Roskomnadzor to remove a Compute Engine site that seeks to document casualties among the civilian population of Ukraine,” Google writes, adding that it didn’t remove the site “in part because the grounds for removal were not clearly linked to the content of the site.”

 

The information shared by Google shows that the rise in “national security” removal requests is partly triggered by the Ukraine invasion. Russia clearly doesn’t agree with a lot that’s said and reported online, and aims to control the narrative.

Piracy and VPNs

Russia’s removal demands are not limited to the figures highlighted above. In 2017, the country also introduced a law that requires Google to remove links to VPNs, Tor, anonymizers, and proxies from its search engine.

 

This legislation is part of an initiative that requires ISPs and search engines to block pirate sites and online publications that are deemed problematic by Russia’s standards.

 

Google reports takedown requests under this “VPN law” separately. In the first half of 2022, Russia’s telecoms watchdog made 225 requests to remove a total of 682,612 URLs. Most of these were indeed delisted by the search engine.

 

Interestingly, the above means that the number of items targeted through the VPN law is actually greater than those detailed in regular takedown requests.

 

A full overview of Google’s transparency report is available here.

 

 

With much of the legal groundwork completed in Europe, blocking pirate sites and services is often a case of rightsholders following established procedures and waiting for the rubber stamp of approval.

 

The problem for rightsholders is that waiting for weeks or even days can introduce new complications. And for live sporting events, especially football matches, a 90 minute wait is effectively useless.

 

Rightsholders in the UK have developed some interesting strategies to implement blocking almost immediately and a similar system is also deployed in Canada. Predictably, other countries are interested in having access to the same tools.

Italy’s Blocking Machine

From an administration perspective, Italy’s site-blocking mechanisms are well developed. Domains are blocked every week and each process is officially recorded along with explanatory notes. Recent additions to the blocking list include ru-music.com, only-free-mp3.xyz, convertezilla.com, indirdur.ist, and radiomola.net, but the full list includes more than 3,000 domains.

 

Telecoms regulator AGCOM processes complaints quickly. After FPM, Sony, Universal and Warner complained about savemp3.app on December 1, 2022, a decision to block the domain was published yesterday. The system is efficient but nowhere near fast enough for live sports. What Italy wants is near real-time blocking, especially to protect Serie A, the country’s top-tier football league.

 

Teams playing in Serie A are the pride of Italy but in common with all regions, the country faces challenges from pirate IPTV providers. Rapid blocking measures were discussed in parliament during the summer and subject to approval, it was hoped that the new provisions would help to mitigate the problem.

Upgraded Blocking Proposals

Under the proposals, telecoms regulator AGCOM would be given new powers to order “urgent precautionary measures” to disable access to allegedly illegal content using DNS and IP address blocking, including any other IP addresses suspected of offering the same content.

 

None of this is particularly unusual but then talk switched to a new process to tackle situations that are even more serious and/or urgent, using a system that can block streams before they even start. Blocking during a live event, based on domain names and IP addresses supplied by rightsholders, was also part of the conversation.

 

Blocking requests sent to AGCOM would also be distributed to various parties, including service providers and search engines. They would be required to implement technical measures “without delay and in real time” to render content inaccessible, with administrative penalties available to encourage compliance.

Piracy and Taxes

Top-tier Italian football league Serie A is likely to be the top beneficiary if rapid blocking is put in place. The league has continually reminded fans that watching pirate streams is “killing football” and they should do their part by boycotting unlicensed providers.

 

Awkwardly, however, Serie A is sponsored by 1XBET, a supposedly bankrupt online betting platform, reported sponsor of pirate movies, and a prolific advertiser on pirate sites. Serie A’s anti-piracy and social responsibility pages still carry 1XBET logos, despite damning reports and allegations that 1XBET doesn’t meet its tax obligations.

 

Entirely separately and nothing to do with the 1XBET deal, many teams playing in Serie A have tax problems of their own. To reduce financial pressures faced by Serie A,B, and C clubs during the pandemic, in 2020 the Italian government extended their tax deadlines.

 

As a result, Italian football clubs now owe nearly half a billion euros in taxes, payable by December 22, 2022. Serie A teams account for €380 million of those unpaid taxes with Inter Milan (€50m) and Lazio (€40m) owing the most.

 

These teams believe that reducing piracy could help their financial positions while the government should be more understanding of their tax issues. Interestingly, they already have someone in place to deal with both.

Football, Politics and Piracy

Claudio Lotito is the president and majority owner of Lazio, which owes €40m in taxes. He’s been doing everything in his power to convince the government that the most appropriate way for all clubs to pay their taxes is via installments, spread over five years, but without any of the fines usually associated with late payments.

 

Claudio Lotito is also a politician and a Senator in the Upper house of the Italian Parliament. He’s with the Forza Italia party of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who happens to be the owner of another Serie A team, A.C. Monza.

 

A month ago, Senator Lotito was elected vice-president of the Budget and Economic Planning Commission of the Senate. In his acceptance speech he noted that “all citizens and businesses are in extreme difficulty” and that he would be working hard to bring a “tangible improvement to all the financial rules of the state.”

 

On Thursday it was announced that the deadline for Serie A clubs to pay their taxes had been extended for 60 months, with a token 3% added on top for late payment.

 

Good news for the clubs, of course, but Lotito hopes to deliver even more.

Forza Italia Demands Instant IPTV Blocking

An amendment to the Budget Law signed by Lotito, Dario Damiani, and Francesco Silvestro, insists that the type of advanced IPTV blocking discussed during the summer must be put in place to protect Italian football, Serie A teams especially.

 

According to local reports, the amendment states the following:

 

“If a precautionary order arrives to block access to IP addresses and sites through which illegal content is disseminated, service providers must ensure that it is carried out promptly and in any case within thirty minutes of the communication.”

 

Digital economy and innovation publication Cormcom.it describes the proposal as “unmanageable in practice” and a “further burden” on telecoms companies.

 

“The request for removal in 30 minutes proposed by [Forza Italia] is unmanageable : once the report has been received by Agcom, this should impose the immediate removal of the content by the Internet service provider. How does Agcom manage reports with these timings during the weekend (when the matches are broadcast)? And who pays for management and operations?”

 

A previous proposal submitted to the government said that AGCOM should receive one million euros annually to implement and manage an IT platform capable of administering this type of blocking. The proposal was ultimately shelved, but since the system would’ve been funded by taxpayers, it’s not hard to see a win-win situation for Italy’s football clubs.

 

The eventual introduction of this type of blocking is inevitable, however. Who will end up paying for it on paper remains to be seen, but one way or another, the bill will always be covered by the majority of fans who buy match tickets, buy TV subscriptions, or simply pay their taxes.

 

Following the example of the United States, the EU began publishing its very own piracy watchlist a few years ago.

 

The ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’ is compiled by the European Commission. As in the US, it relies on stakeholder groups to nominate several problematic sites and services for inclusion.

 

The third iteration of the EU watchlist, published a few days ago, provides an overview of some of the most problematic sites and services. The Commission stresses that the list doesn’t “have any legal effect” and is merely based on “allegations” from stakeholders. However, being mentioned leaves a mark nonetheless.

 

As in previous years, the EU Piracy Watch List includes a wide range of targets, including online marketplaces that are linked to counterfeiting. For this article, however, we will mainly focus on pirate sites and services.

Progress

The EU Commission starts with some positive news. Following the 2020 report, several of the mentioned pirate sites and services have disappeared.

 

Bookfi.net, for example, which later operated from 3lib.net, is no longer online. This latest domain name was targeted in the recent Z-library crackdown and currently displays a U.S. Government seizure banner.

 

The illegal IPTV service Electrotv-sat.com is no longer operating either and the same applies to cyberlocker Wi.to, and Youtubeconverter.io. The YouTube ripper was taken offline by Google through a WIPO domain name dispute

Usual Suspects and Newcomers

The European Commission’s latest Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List still includes plenty of targets, featuring many of the usual suspects. Torrent sites The Pirate Bay, Rarbg.to, Rutracker.org and 1337x.to are all mentioned, as they were two years ago.

 

The same is true for cyberlockers Uptobox.com and Rapidgator.net, stream rippers Y2mate.com and Savefrom.net, plus other pirate sites including Sci-Hub, Libgen and Seasonvar.ru.

 

The latest watch list also features several newcomers. These include YouTube downloader Snappea.com and the popular streaming portal Fmovies.to, both of which have millions of regular users.

 

In addition, the Commission has added more ‘problematic’ hosting companies that allegedly facilitate piracy, including DDoS-Guard, and piracy-supporting services such as 2embed.ru and Fembed.com.

Mega Problem

One of the newcomers that stands out is Mega, the file-hosting service originally founded by Kim Dotcom. Today, Dotcom is no longer involved with the platform and Mega itself aims to be a law-abiding company.

 

Unlike most pirate sites, Mega has a fully functional and transparent copyright takedown system.

 

During the first three-quarters of 2022, MEGA removed more than 1.7 million files, which is less than 0.001% of all files stored on the platform. Thousands of users also had their accounts suspended for repeat copyright infringements.

 

According to the EU report, however, a lack of upload filters and a recent Russian court decision still warrant its inclusion.

 

“The stakeholders report Mega for the lack of preventive measures to avoid uploads of infringing content. According to their information, in January 2022, ISPs in Russia were ordered to permanently block the site following music rightholders’ actions,” the Commission writes.

Mega Unhappy

Mega is not pleased to be highlighted among the most notorious pirate sites. Not least because the EU Commission reportedly never reached out to hear their side.

 

“The inclusion of Mega on the watchlist lacks legitimacy and we refute their findings,” Mega’s executive chairman Stephen Hall informs TorrentFreak.

 

“Unfortunately the Commission never contacted Mega for clarification or comment so they misunderstand Mega and misrepresent our operations. Mega had no opportunity to correct their misunderstandings.”

 

The company doesn’t believe that its service is a cyberlocker under the Commission’s own definitions. In addition, Mega stresses that it takes its copyright takedown responsibilities very seriously.

 

Finally, Hall informs us that the Russian court decision cited in the report deserves some nuance. That order was issued without hearing Mega, and was reversed after a successful appeal.

 

“The claims by Universal Music were based on two public links which had immediately been disabled, consistent with Mega’s published process for dealing with reported copyright claims,” Hall clarifies.

Notable ‘Disappearances’

We expect that Mega will keep a close eye on future submissions to make its position clear in advance. That might prevent its inclusion in the next watch list.

 

A similar position was experienced by Cloudflare. The Internet infrastructure company was featured in the first EU piracy watchlist in 2018 and responded with rebuttals. Since then, the company is no longer labeled a ‘notorious market’.

 

Other sites and services have also dropped off the list. For example, the popular file-sharing service 4shared is no longer mentioned, and the same is true for the messaging app Telegram. Why these were removed is not clear.

 

Most sites and services understandably want to avoid a listing but being mentioned doesn’t have direct consequences.

 

According to the EU Commission, the report mainly aims to encourage the operators and owners, as well as local governments and enforcement authorities, to take appropriate action to reduce online piracy.

 

—-

 

A copy of the European Commission’s third Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List is available here (pdf). A list of all the online piracy targets and intermediaries can be found below.

 

Cyberlockers
– Mega.nz/.io
– Uptobox.com / Uptostream.com
– Rapidgator.net
– Uploaded.net (ul.to, uploaded.to)
– Dbree.org

 

Stream-Rippers
– Y2mate.com
– Savefrom.net /ssyoutube.com/sfrom.ne
– Flvto.biz and 2conv.com
– Snappea.com

 

Linking or referring websites
– Fmovies.to (and related domains)
– Seasonvar.ru
– Rlsbb.ru
– Rezka.ag

 

BitTorrent and P2P Sites
– ThePirateBay.org
– Rarbg.to
– Rutracker.org
– 1337x.to

 

Unlicensed download sites
– Music-Bazaar.com and Music-Bazaar.mobi
– Sci-hub.tw; sci-hub.cc; sci-hub.ac; sci-hub.bz and others
– Libgen.onl and mirror sites

 

Piracy Apps
– IPTV Smarters
– Ievpad.com
– Shabakaty

 

Hosting providers
– DDoS-Guard.net
– Private Layer
– “Amarutu”, also known as Koddos
– AS-Istqservers / Istqserverses (“Istq”)
– HostPalace Web Solution PVT LTD (“Host Palace”)

 

Unlicensed IPTV services
– BIPTV.best and BestBuyIPTV.store
– King365tv.com / Theking365tv.pro
– VolkaIPTV.com

 

Social media
– VK.com

 

Piracy Supporting Services
– 2embed.ru
– Fembed.com

 

After gaining serious momentum over the past seven years, the pirate IPTV phenomenon is now a major challenge for the entire audiovisual entertainment market.

 

While at times unpredictable, pirate subscriptions are now viewed as a credible market alternative. When compared to packages offered by legal providers, they are more comprehensive and less restrictive. And when cost enters the equation, there can only be one winner.

 

As one side pays millions to produce or license movies and TV shows, the other only has to worry about when they’re available to copy, so that subscriptions can be sold to the public. And anti-piracy groups making test purchases, of course.

Investigation Launched Against Smart IPTV

Anyone involved in the pirate IPTV market in Sweden runs the risk of attracting local anti-piracy group Rättighetsalliansen (Rights Alliance). As one of the key forces responsible for the prison sentences served by the founders of The Pirate Bay, Rights Alliance certainly understands torrent sites. Today, however, it finds itself fighting IPTV piracy, which presents different problems and new opportunities.

 

The anti-piracy group has just announced the indictment of a man suspected of being behind pirate IPTV service, Smart IPTV. The platform is described as “medium-sized and well-functioning”, offering a large selection of TV channels and movies. In common with many similar IPTV services, Smart IPTV only accepted cryptocurrency.

Investigation Began in 2019

What first drew attention to Smart IPTV isn’t clear but following an intital report by Rights Alliance, police launched their own investigation. Rights Alliance mentions no specific date but says that police targeted the home of a key suspect late 2021. Smart IPTV only accepted payment in bitcoin but that didn’t appear to slow down the investigation or lead to less evidence.

 

“Images from the house search show, according to the indictment, that the suspect at the time was handling Smart IPTV and was logged into both email accounts and crypto wallets with links to the service. Cryptocurrency was also taken into custody during the search,” Rights Alliance says.

 

During the raid, police seized five mobile phones and a computer. All were found to contain material related to IPTV and/or cryptocurrency. Among other evidence, police also found email exchanges with IPTV customers and discussions about a problematic server.

 

The indictment reportedly lists a sample 20 films but also seeks a seizure order of SEK 12,350,000, around $1.18 million. Rights Alliance says that during the preliminary investigation, the suspect denied committing any crimes, so guilt will have to be decided in court if there’s no change of course before then.

 

In the meantime, similarities exist between this IPTV case and another reported in Sweden. It also features a man arrested in 2021 in connection with a pirate IPTV service, the involvement of cryptocurrency, and a sudden twist on the final day of the trial.

Similar IPTV Arrest

In November 2021, local news outlet SVT reported that a “young man” had been arrested in Bromölla in southern Sweden. The arrest followed an investigation by Rights Alliance on behalf of major film companies including Nordisk Film and SF.

 

Predictably, police made a test purchase using bitcoin and then sought cooperation from payment services and domain companies, far detached from the assumed safety of the blockchain. It transpired that the man had purchased the IPTV service’s domain and then registered it in his own name.

 

During the raid, several phones and computers were seized along with SEK 94,000 (around $9,000) found on a bedside table in an envelope, but the real money was believed to be held elsewhere. According to investigators, customers paid to access the unnamed service using bitcoin and they believed that around SEK 1.5 million ($144,000) could have been generated by the suspect.

 

In a report published four days later, estimated revenues had escalated to SEK 2.8 million. In the earlier report, it was claimed that police had seized bitcoin worth SEK 358,000 ($33,400) from a wallet held on the man’s phone. That figure jumped to SEK 400,000 ($38,400) while the cash found in the envelope suddenly became cash found in a box.

 

Whichever details were accurate, all reports agreed that the police were much more interested in some other numbers, ones that could potentially unlock a much bigger haul. All they needed was a minor miracle or a little cooperation.

Hand Over The Codes? No, I Don’t Think So

According to a photograph supplied by police and published by Expressen, officers needed access to codes to unlock the suspect’s Trezor hardware wallet, possibly a top-of-the-range ‘Model T’ variant, according to the company’s website.

 

With just 14 tries left to guess a passphrase of up to 50 digits long, access to any digital assets seemed unlikely, so police asked the suspect to provide the code.

 

“I do not know it. Or it’s clear I know, but I don’t want to say,” he told police.

 

The device appeared to live up to its billing and no crypto was accessed. As far as a confession went, the man said he designed the IPTV service’s website and answered a few emails. People like him, he added, are simply on the front line.

 

“It is illegal television. There are those at the top and it’s like a pyramid, and it’s us at the bottom who get hit,” he said. The prosecutor agreed.

 

“We don’t know who is at the top of the pyramid. But he has an important role in the network,” Prosecutor David Ludvigsson said of the suspect.

On Trial for Copyright Infringement, Accounting Issues

Regardless of his claimed minor role, the man went on trial charged with copyright infringement. He also faced charges of improper accounting after failing to keep records of the money he received from selling illegal IPTV subscriptions.

 

Film companies, including Nordisk film and SF, originally sought damages of SEK 13.5 million ($1.3 million), an amount that’s very close to that now being sought from the man reported by Rights Alliance this week. When that trial will take place is unclear, but the movie companies will be hoping for a better result this time around.

 

The trial of the man who refused to hand over his codes took place earlier this year, and having considered the circumstances, the court preferred probation over a custodial sentence. While the Bromölla man would’ve welcomed that, he was then ordered to pay SEK 2 million ($192,000) in compensation to the rights holders.

 

Police still hadn’t been able to gain access to the hardware wallet. On the last day of the trial, it was emptied to the tune of several million kronor.

 

As widely reported for most of this year, French anti-piracy agency ARCOM and numerous rightsholders have been using all available tools to reduce the availability of pirate sites.

 

Questionable reports of unprecedented success aside, there’s no question that France is disrupting piracy as promised. Football, Formula 1, tennis and dozens of other sports, are benefiting from blocking measures available under various processes.

 

In September, the National Publishing Union, an industry group representing more than 700 members in the publishing sector, announced that a Paris Court (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) had ordered the country’s ISPs to implement blocking measures against more than 200 Z-Library domains.

 

Those domains were subsequently seized by the FBI but left Z-Library itself more or less intact. Nevertheless, by disabling access to Z-Library’s domains, it is now much harder to access the source of the infringing content.

 

New legal action underway in France may have a similar goal in mind. It targets just four sites but by going after sources of content relied upon by other sites, the overall impact could be much greater.

Movie Industry Giants vs. ISPs

According to journalist Marc Rees (paywall), the applicants are numerous and showing a clear and united front.

 

The National Federation of Film Editors (FNEF), the Video Publishing Union (SEVN), the Association of Independent Producers (API), the Union of Cinema Producers (UPC) and the Union of Independent Producers (SPI) are the most powerful groups in the video industry sector.

 

The targets of the complaint are local internet service providers – Orange, Bouygues, SFR, and Free – and the demands are relatively straightforward. The video groups want the service providers to block access to just four sites – Fembed, Uqload, Upvid, & Uvideo. Together these sites are good for millions of visits every month but the content delivery mechanism is key.

Sources Fuel The Supply Chain

If casual pirates were asked where they stream the latest movies and TV shows for free, well-presented sites featuring movie covers and organized categories would probably top the list. There are exceptions, but most of these sites don’t actually stream anything.

 

Much like YouTube videos embedded in countless websites, content delivery is handled by remote servers that directly supply video to users, often via an embedded player. Some are dedicated to the supply of pirated content and never take anything down. Others present themselves as responsible actors in full compliance with the law.

 

The film industry groups suggest this is a facade. They claim that Fembed, Uqload, Upvid, and Uvideo carry mostly pirated content which fuels third party sites. These often provide a Netflix-type experience but not a penny is seen by rightsholders.

 

The complaint further alleges the existence of payment schemes. Upvid reportedly pays affiliates $22 for 10,000 video views although reports on webmaster forums suggest that getting paid at all can be an issue. A message that appeared on the Upvid.co domain in October offered some kind of explanation.

 

Traffic to Upvid’s .co domain has been collapsing for some time, but it has many more domains, some with no traffic at all. Others show millions of visits per month, and it appears to be open for business, for now at least.

 

Fembed also has plenty of domains in storage, unlike Uqload which may only have two. Nevertheless, the latter still draws at least a few million visits per month, with most of its traffic generated by users in France.

 

These file-hosting sites are not the only content sources available to streaming portals and blocking them won’t end their businesses immediately. However, this is the first blocking action against file-hosting platforms in France and once rightsholders get over the first hurdle, they tend to return for more.

 

The European Commission is no stranger when it comes to addressing the online piracy problem.

 

Europe’s governing body facilitates piracy research and helps to arrange voluntary anti-piracy agreements. In addition, it releases its own bi-annual list of notorious pirate sites.

 

Most of these efforts aim to address external problems but this week we learned that the EU also has a piracy issue within its own ranks, one that deserves immediate attention.

Scammers Exploit European Union Websites

As it turns out, scammers have started to abuse the European Commission’s official website to advertise dubious ‘pirate’ sites. These advertisements come in the form of PDFs which are uploaded through public EU portals.

 

The abuse is broad and affects a variety of platforms. These include the Commission’s “Joinup” initiative which bills itself as the “one-stop shop for interoperable, open, and free digital government ICT solutions.”

 

Other sections of the official European Union site are also affected, including the European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON), the European Chemicals Society (ECHA), and the European community of adult learning professionals (EPALE).

Thousands of ‘Piracy’ Ads

TorrentFreak has found thousands of scammy PDF files on these sites that advertise ‘free’ access to copies of recent movies such as Black Adam, Nope, Enola Holmes, and Vesper. The documents are filled with keywords including the names of popular pirate sites such as 123movies and Fmovies.

 

One example is shown below, but there are many others in circulation, all inviting people to click on the image which has an embedded link.

 

“Are you looking to download or watch the new Nope online? Nope is available for Free Streaming 123movies. Nope full movie streaming is free here! Just click play below, and enjoy Nope streaming online – all without any registration or credit card required!”

 

The links we followed point to gatto.fun, which looks like a piracy site. However, streaming or downloading anything seems impossible. Instead, it redirects to other scammy URLs that are branded as malicious by several anti-virus companies.

 

It’s not uncommon for scammers to lure people with fake pirated content but these advertisements are not commonly seen on government websites.

 

The European Commission didn’t immediately respond to our request (see update at the bottom) for comment but is now aware of the problem since some of the PDFs have started to disappear. That said, plenty remain available at the time of writing.

 

It’s not immediately clear how the scammers uploaded these PDFs. It seems likely that they used public upload functionalities, instead of actually hacking the European Union sites.

 

The EU’s Joinup initiative currently informs visitors that it is . This could in part be a temporary measure in response to the recent influx of scammers.

SEO Gold

The scammers have struck gold by exploiting the EU websites. These official portals are seen as authoritative by search engines such as Google. As a result, the scammy PDFs are now among the top results for several piracy-related queries.

 

For example, when we searched for “watch vesper 2022 online for free” a scammy PDF on the European Chemicals Society website was the top result in Google.

 

How many people fall for these dubious advertisements is unknown. Most people will probably recognize the scams right away. Then again, it requires only a few victims to make it worthwhile for the scammers.

 

Update: A spokesperson for the European Commission informs us that they are aware of the issues.

 

“We have identified the origin of the incident. Concerned platform stakeholders have already taken the necessary measures such as removal of suspicious files and blocking further attempts for uploading them.”

 

“We are closely monitoring the situation and continue scanning websites for suspicious files. We cannot comment further on ongoing investigations.”

 

“On a general note, we must stress that we take cybersecurity very seriously and apply strict policies to protect our infrastructures, data and devices. We investigate every incident.”

 

TorrentFreak confirmed that the problem still persist. Some suspicious PDFs continue to get through today. Perhaps the Commission should consider an upload filter.

 

 

Pirate site blockades are the preferred anti-piracy tool for many copyright holders around the world. This is also the case in Australia, where blocking injunctions are commonplace today.

 

Today, a group of prominent movie companies including Disney, Netflix, and Village Roadshow, obtained the latest blocking order in Australia’s Federal Court.

52 Pirate Sites, 92 Domain Names

The blocking injunction, issued by Justice Nicholas, targets a broad mix of pirate sites. Many of these sites use variations of popular piracy brands, including YTS, Cuevana2, Movies123, and Tamilgun.

 

The movie companies convinced the court that these sites, some of which have millions of estimated visits per month, are clearly copyright infringing.

 

“(i)t is apparent from the evidence that the online locations facilitate copyright infringement on a large scale. Some act as proxy servers to other servers and some share Torrent files using the BitTorrent protocol,” the order reads.

 

The site operators were given the option to contest the blocking request but most didn’t respond. The infringing activities continued and a blocking injunction is therefore warranted according to the court.

 

This isn’t the first injunction of this kind. Most popular piracy havens are blocked already, but Disney, Netflix, and other movie companies, regularly expand the list to make it harder for the general public to find alternative pirate sources.

Mixdrop Injunction

Today’s injunction follows roughly two weeks after Justice Nicholas issued another order in favor of the movie companies. That one covered the popular cyberlocker Mixdrop.

 

The Mixdrop injunction is the first to target a file-hosting service. According to complaints from rightsholders, the site encouraged people to upload popular content, paying affiliates as much as $1,000 a week, depending on the number of views they generate.

 

Mixdrop has over 20 million estimated visits per month and the court order requires Australian ISPs to block the main domain name, Mixdrop.co, as well as several related domains and IP addresses.

 

Graham Burke, chairman of Creative Content Australia, characterizes the Mixdrop injunction as an important victory.

 

“Cyberlockers play a key role in the piracy ecosystem and this judgment will disrupt important criminal operators who facilitate pirated content via Mixdrop,” Burke said.

 

“Site blocking continues to be instrumental in the reduction of piracy in Australia. Ultimately though, it helps to keep consumers safe from the significant risks that come with accessing content unlawfully.”

Blocking Effectiveness?

There’s no question that site blocking helps to deter some casual pirates, but it’s certainly no silver bullet.

 

Earlier this year, a Creative Content Australia study found that blocking measures don’t affect all pirates. A survey of Australian pirates revealed that roughly half of them encountered a blocked site. Of this group, roughly a third gave up their pirate hunt or found legal alternatives.

 

The majority of the people who encountered a blocked site said that they would simply seek alternative pirate sites to find the content they were looking for.

 

Intriguingly, most pirates don’t appear to be very concerned about site-blocking measures. 58% of all adult pirates and 70% of all teen pirates actually agree that blocking pirate sites and apps is a good idea.

 

That’s easy to say, of course, once you know how to circumvent blockades. And indeed, the same survey found that VPNs and alternative DNS servers are commonly used in Australia, especially among persistent pirates.

 

—

 

A copy of Justice Nicholas’ Mixdrop order can be found here (pdf). Today’s blocking order (pdf) targets the following sites, some of which operated from multiple domains:

 

– Xemovie
– Moviecrumbs
– 2kmovie
– Freemoviesfull
– Watchseriesstream
– Openloadmovies
– Nunuyy
– HDToday
– Azseries
– 1movieshd
– Tamilgun
– Actvid
– Watchfilm
– 5movies
– Cda-hd
– Fullmovieshd4k
– Kissmovies
– Pttplay
– Sockshare1
– Tvshows88
– Movies4u
– Movieffm
– Bestseries
– Aa01
– Poppygreens
– Yts-on
– Icefilms
– Solarmovie
– Hindilinks4u
– Projectfreetv
– Ytsyify
– Yts.land
– Yts.zone
– Yify.pl
– Fboxtv
– Olevod
– Mudvod
– Bemovies
– Fbox.to
– Showboxmovies
– Soap2dayto
– Tvseries
– Watch0123movies
– 123enjoy
– 123films
– 123unblock.us
– 0gomovies.cm
– Movies123
– Yes!movies
– Dongphym
– Movies123-online
– Cuevana2

 

From a standing start in 2017, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment is now the largest and most successful anti-piracy coalition on the planet.

 

ACE now reports on developments every few days, but that barely scratches the surface. Official announcements represent just a fraction of its work and behind the scenes, an endless stream of sites, services, and related entities are shutting down under ACE pressure every week.

 

Producing articles on them all isn’t feasible but when ACE announced that United Media had joined the coalition this week, it stood out as something worthy of more detailed reporting.

United Media: No Stranger to Piracy

United Group BV began life in 2000 as a small cable company. Today, the Netherlands/Luxembourg corporation boasts revenues of over €2.43 billion.

 

As part of the United Group, United Media is the leading media company in Southeast Europe, broadcasting around 50 TV channels across several platforms, including the selection below.

 

Nova (Greece) and Nova (Bulgaria) are also part of the United Group, offering channels that, in common with those broadcast by United Media, are regular inhabitants of pirate IPTV playlists worldwide.

 

According to ACE, an estimated 750,000 subscribers of illegal IPTV services in Greece is just one of the problems faced by United Media. ACE reports that one streaming site received more than two million visits in the three months before it was shut down, but how it gained so much traction is unclear.

 

Greece has an aggressive ISP blocking scheme that currently spans more than 600 domain names and more than 600 IP addresses, so running up two million visits in a three-month period shows that blockades might not be a perfect solution.

 

The blocked domains below are all attributable to complaints filed by Nova, but this is just a small selection from a much bigger list handled by ISPs in Greece.

 

In Monday’s announcement, Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association and Chairman of ACE, welcomed United Media to the “rapidly growing” ACE coalition.

 

“With each new member, ACE’s network grows stronger and better equipped to eradicate piracy and protect the creative economy,” Rivkin said.

 

While it’s undoubtedly an important step, United Media has been rubbing shoulders with ACE members and affiliated anti-piracy groups for quite some time.

United Media Joined AAPA in 2018

In 2018, United Media joined the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA) which counts Sky, Discovery, Viaccess, Vodafone, Bein Sports Canal+, Premier League, LaLiga and Liberty Global among its member members. Top-tier anti-piracy specialists Nagra and Irdeto are part of the same group but AAPA membership offers something else too – assistance from powerful law enforcement agencies including Interpol and Europol.

 

In the same year that United Media became an AAPA member, the company chose Friend MTS as an anti-piracy partner, which in turn has close connections to both the Premier League and NHL in Canada.

 

Friend MTS offers dynamic, near real-time blocking of illegal IPTV streams and recent contract renewals (1,2) suggest that expectations are being met.

 

United Media’s deal with Friend MTS aimed to protect its flagship channels, including Sport Klub 1, Sport Klub 2, Sport Klub 3, TOP, Grand, N1, and Cinemania. The deal included fingerprint-based automatic content recognition, as well as subscriber-level identification, which aims to pinpoint the source of illegally streamed content.

 

Whether this partnership was responsible for what came next is unclear.

“Latest Detection Methods” Led to Arrests in Serbia

In 2019, police in Serbia reported the arrest of two men aged 40 and 31. They were charged with criminal copyright infringement offenses in connection with movies and TV shows made available via filmovi24h.com and serije.online. Police seized computer equipment and reportedly found evidence of financial transactions.

 

United Media was behind the complaint and welcomed the involvement of the Serbian government in internet piracy cases. According to news outlet N1 TV, itself part of United Media, the company had used “the latest detection methods to protect its content” and was continuing work with police to track down similar targets.

 

A month later, United Media was behind an operation against the suspected operator of several pirate sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Officers from the High-Tech Crime Department of the Criminal Police Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs seized equipment and took a man in for questioning.

 

United Media-affiliated news outlets unofficially named andrija-i-andjelka.com, filmovitica.com, serijehaha.com, serije.co, filmovi.ws, praveserije.com and serijefilmovi.com, as the sites targeted.

ACE Has Experience in Key Areas

Two years on from these operations, ACE executed a successful cease and desist action near Belgrade, Serbia. The target was the operator of Premiumcccam, a card-sharing and IPTV subscription service providing access to more than 6,000 TV channels, 3,000 movies and 16,500 TV shows owned by ACE members Sky, Viacom Media, and Canal+.

 

It’s likely that United Media indirectly benefited from this operation but as a fully signed-up member, the company will be in a position to encourage further action against targets across its key markets – Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Greece and Bulgaria.

 

“United Media’s strategic determinant is to create quality and attractive content. We invest in production, people, technology, we believe in our ideas, and it is our duty to do everything in our power to ensure copyright and legal operations of the entire market,” says United Media CEO Aleksandra Subotić.

 

“We believe that ACE is the perfect partner in this mission, and we are looking forward to working together. We are confident that we will strengthen the creative economy with our joint efforts.”

 

ACE now has 43 members but notes that in the coming weeks, even more media companies will join the coalition.

 

WOW! is being sued by a group of smaller movie companies, including Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures.

 

The filmmakers accuse the ISP of failing to terminate the accounts of subscribers who were repeatedly flagged for sharing copyrighted material. They want to hold WOW! liable for these pirating activities, which could lead to millions of dollars in damages.

 

The ISP challenged the claims and filed a motion to dismiss the case. Among other things, it argued that an IP address is not sufficient to prove that subscribers downloaded or shared any infringing material. The filmmakers opposed this motion, which has yet to be decided on by the colourado federal court.

Filmmakers Want Subscriber Details

In the meantime, another issue has raised its head. Both sides are gathering evidence to prepare for the case moving forward. As part of that process, the filmmakers have demanded the personal details of roughly 14,000 subscribers whose WOW! accounts were allegedly used to pirate content.

 

WOW! objected to this request, arguing that the names and addresses of its subscribers are irrelevant to the core question of whether it reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy. The filmmakers disagreed, noting that the information can be cross-checked to determine whether the ISP notified its subscribers and terminated accounts in response to infringement notices.

 

After hearing both sides, the Court eventually came up with a compromise. The filmmakers offered to reduce the targeted IP-addresses to the 375 top pirating unique IP addresses. The Court saw this as a reasonable request, especially considering the damages at stake.

168 Objections

The Court said that objections from subscribers would be dealt with at a later stage. That time has come. Over the past several months, 168 subscribers filed objections and the filmmakers and WOW! disagree on how these should be handled.

 

The subscriber’s arguments are not available to the public, but the filmmakers suggest that aside from two subscribers who passed away, they boil down to straightforward denials.

 

The filmmakers are not convinced by the objections. They want WOW! to hand over the data nonetheless, as these will allow them to check whether the ‘repeat’ notices were sent to the same subscribers each time.

 

“[T]he subscriber names are relevant because they will show whether the IP address was assigned to the same subscriber during the duration of the notices,” the filmmakers informed the Court.

Links to YTS and Reddit Users?

The filmmakers also want to check if the subscribers had accounts with the popular torrent site YTS. The companies previously obtained data from the YTS user database as part of a settlement with the torrent site. Since then, this information has been used as evidence in several lawsuits.

 

On top of that, the movie companies argue that they may be able to link the publicly available data of two Reddit users. These anonymous Redditors claimed to use WOW!’s service to pirate content.

 

“Moreover, the subscriber names are relevant because Plaintiffs can compare the subscriber names to the email addresses of the users that registered for accounts with the piracy website YTS or to those that have boasted on social media how Defendant allows them to pirate content without any problems.”

 

If the filmmakers find any links to YTS or the two Reddit users, they may argue that the subscribers in question are deliberate and repeat infringers.

WOW! Can Help without Exposing Subscribers

WOW! doesn’t agree with the filmmakers’ reasoning. The ISP believes that it’s not necessary to share the personal details of subscribers, as there are alternative means available.

 

For example, the Internet provider says that it can check its own systems to establish whether a particular IP address was assigned to one subscriber or multiple subscribers over time.

 

Instead of handing over the names and contact information, WOW! can simply share the associated account number, which would suffice. The ISP can also help to determine whether any of the objecting subscribers were YTS users, by cross-referencing data on their end without exposing their personal information.

No Signs of YTS and Reddit Users

Thus far there are no signs of YTS users. The filmmakers previously shared an exhibit with nine IP-addresses and emails of YTS users, but none of these matched the objecting subscribers.

 

“None of those IP addresses corresponds to an Objector, and Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise,” WOW! writes.

 

“Plaintiffs could obtain information concerning the alleged YTS users without involving Objectors or other third parties, for example by serving discovery on WOW regarding whether WOW’s subscriber records include any of the nine email addresses referenced in Plaintiffs’ exhibit.”

 

Similarly, the ISP argues that there’s no public information that suggests that the two Redditors are among the objecting subscribers.

 

“There is no reason to believe these two users are among the Objectors. In fact, from the objections the Court has received, it is apparent that none of Objectors’ names have any passing resemblance or connection to ‘Servalpur’ or ‘rickselest’.”

 

In addition to the arguments discussed above, the parties also disagree on the type of notice that’s required before any data is handed over.

 

After hearing all parties involved, the Court now has to decide how to move forward. Does WOW have to hand over all data, or are objections warranted?

 

—

 

A copy of the filmmakers’ motion to compel is available here (pdf) and WOW!’s objections can be found here (pdf) and 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 05 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	(…)	Troll	5.9 / trailer
3	(3)	Spirited	6.6 / trailer
4	(2)	Triangle of Sadness	7.8 / trailer
5	(4)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
6	(5)	Bullet Train	7.4 / trailer
7	(…)	Black Panther: Wakanda Forever	7.3 / trailer
8	(7)	Smile	6.8 / trailer
9	(8)	The Woman King	6.7 / trailer
10	(…)	Thor: Love and Thunder	6.3 / trailer

 

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

 

The Blender Institute develops Blender, a free and open source 3D graphics tool used to create animated films.

 

“Blender is Free Software. Free to Use. Free to Change. Free to Share. Free to Sell Your Work,” a statement from Blender reads.

 

The team at Blender Studio drive Blender development by providing help and training courses to Blender users in an open environment, sharing everything in public and making all content available under free licenses. They call themselves The Creators Who Share.

 

Sintel and Big Buck Bunny are among Blender’s most recognizable titles and due to Creative Commons licensing (CC BY), they are widely shared, used, remixed and reshared. According to original Blender creator Ton Roosendaal, “Open licenses are essential for sharing our films and their source material.”

 

According to some, this almost utopian model with ‘free’ and ‘sharing’ underpinning everything, had no chance of survival. Blender has clearly shown otherwise which makes events of the last few days particularly disappointing.

 

Right now, a company is claiming that Blender’s free content is actually their content and as a result, must be immediately removed from the internet. We’re talking about content that was created with Blender’s explicit blessing but even after multiple appeals, not even YouTube will see reason.

TV Company Claims Ownership of Blender Film

Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz is the co-founder and CTO at AI-focused driver safety company, Nexar. On Sunday he informed TorrentFreak that he’s also an independent film composer and producer, working with music production libraries, and distributing to the main music platforms.

 

“I am a composer and producer for film music, and I use Blender videos for rescoring, as Blender Studio provides the video, dialogue and SFX under a CC BY 3.0 to which I can add my own music on top,” Bruno said. “I do this because it’s hard to find video footage available for scoring, except in music scoring competitions.”

 

TorrentFreak contacted Bruno after noticing a post he made on a music production forum. He wrote that after uploading a video containing a clip from the Blender movie Caminandes 3 – Llamigos, YouTube notified him that a rightsholder had filed a copyright complaint, his video had been taken down, and a copyright strike had been issued to his account.

 

The complaint, sent by Uzbekistan-based media/news company ZO’R TV, was not the result of automatic matching under Content ID. It was filed as a formal DMCA notice, meaning that someone probably reviewed the details before sending the complaint.

 

The notice claimed that Bruno had infringed ZO’R TV’s copyrights by reproducing content (6:21 to 8:26) from this YouTube video published in 2018.

 

 

Since the content in question is obviously from Blender’s film Caminandes 3, ZO’R TV was in no position to issue a DMCA notice. On that basis, Bruno followed the recognized procedure by sending a DMCA counternotice to YouTube. It didn’t go well.

YouTube Correspondence

After filing his counternotice with YouTube, Bruno was informed that since he’d provided insufficient information, YouTube could not process it. However, YouTube did inform Bruno of the risks of filing a counternotice, including that his name could be sent to the claimant, ZO’R TV in this case.

 

Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked him for filing it – but still declined to process it.

 

YouTube’s email advised Bruno that counternotices should only be filed in case of a mistake or misidentification. Consulting with a lawyer first might be helpful, YouTube added.

 

Bruno explained that his video had been “incorrectly claimed” and that “ZO’R TV is NOT the copyright holder for the content in my video” so shouldn’t be allowed to submit a takedown request.

 

“The content in my video is owned by Blender Studio who has the full copyright. I have a license to this content under the Creative Commons License BY 3.0,” he added, linking directly to Blender Studios’ upload on YouTube.

No Rights to Post Video on YouTube

After three attempts to restore the video and have the copyright strike removed, YouTube responded once again. The message contained yet more disappointment for Bruno.

 

“Based on the information that you have provided, it appears that you do not have the necessary rights to post the content on YouTube. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honour your request,” it advised.

 

This signaled the end of the debate as far as YouTube was concerned and by rejecting Bruno’s right to send a counternotice, the platform denied him an opportunity to have the video restored, stand up for Blender’s rights, and get the strike removed.

“Respecting Copyright in a Strange Way”

Bruno is clearly unhappy with the way things have played out. In this case, at least, a Creative Commons license appears to have carried no weight. It’s possible it was completely ignored.

 

“I feel that the manual reviewers are respecting ‘copyright’ in a strange way, as the reviewer saw the license and ignored it, probably because it was not a commercial license, and the only thing that I feel would make them change their mind is if the works were in the public domain (which they are not and don’t need to be),” Bruno told TorrentFreak.

 

“Primarily, I feel this is a lack of executive understanding of this problem, mixed with a combination of lack of training and proper playbooks for the editorial specialists looking at copyright strikes to understand that open source licenses are valid licenses to copyright content.

 

“At the end of the day, it is money talking, big studio take downs are followed up without challenge and counter notifications ignored.”

 

Bruno suggests this could be tested by having Blender take down the ZO’R TV video using the Blender Studio content, but how Blender feels about this issue is currently unknown. Bruno has sent an email to Blender but at the time of writing, he’s yet to receive a response.*

 

*(Update: Blender responded quickly at start of business Monday. See details below)

 

Overall, Bruno is unimpressed with YouTube and its appeal process, describing it as “opaque, generic, and intimidating” while favoring large rightsholders.

 

“I feel we have no rights honestly, and that the DMCA achieves exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. There is no course of action anymore for me vs the platform, YouTube. My only option now is to take this court, but clearly I won’t since I am just an independent composer and can’t bear the legal costs.

 

“The process is totally asymmetric,” he concludes.

Bruno is Not Alone

The video published by ZO’R TV appeared on YouTube in March 2018 and since then has amassed 324 views. Whether the person actually watched the video is unclear, but a solitary user comment posted yesterday suggests that Bruno isn’t alone.

 

User: chANIMEnnel

 

Hello, I sent you a copyright infringement email that you sent to my YouTube channel chANIMennel. Give feedback. The associated video is released under the copyright law of Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) “Sharing is the copying and distribution of material in any medium or format.” You have copyrighted my channel because of a video that does not belong to you. Retract this unfair notice. (translated from original)

 

Update Dec 5:After notifying Blender on Sunday (a non-working day), Bruno received a personal response from Blender developer Ton Roosendaal early Monday. The email is reproduced here with permission.

 

Hi Bruno,

 

Thanks for notifying me of the situation. It’s very sad that Youtube does not even check for the license of content, and disrespects people who contribute to free culture and Creative Commons that way.

 

I need time to study the right steps though, we have no staff here available to go after situations like this, I should be busy with other things, like securing a good future for Blender.

 

One way that could work is that we escalate it to the Creative Commons organization. After all, it’s their mission.

 

Best regards,

 

-Ton-

 

A decade ago prominent voices issued dire warnings that blocking would “break the internet,” but of course, the internet survived, just as blocking advocates said it would.

 

That meant tacit permission for more piracy blocks, then faster blocks, and then both – with less involvement of the courts and unnecessary public oversight. And with the groundwork done, other countries could quickly implement the same kinds of systems because the Internet is doing just fine.

 

Those who issued those warnings a decade ago weren’t supporters of piracy – but they did know what was coming. Dozens of countries now have site-blocking systems in place and ISPs actively help to set them up. The recent moves against DNS providers are alarming but in time, they too will become the latest uncontested standard before implementation of the next incremental step, followed by the next.

 

Of course, it would be alarmist to even imply that blocking, censoring, or diverting other types of information might suit future governments worldwide. Uruguay certainly doesn’t think so. Freedom of expression is fully guaranteed for citizens, groups and the press, without any kind of censorship, including the internet. With some exceptions, apparently.

Uruguay Implements Site-Blocking

Following legal action by Fox Networks Group Latin America, in 2018 a criminal court in Uruguay instructed local ISPs to block popular sports streaming portal RojaDirecta.

 

The head of the Fox Networks’ anti-piracy unit described the ruling as “the beginning of judicial awareness on online piracy issues.” It was indeed just the beginning.

 

The government made its intentions clear in 2020 with Article 712 of Law No. 19,924, which envisioned the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (URSEC) taking the lead to ensure that allegedly infringing content was blocked by local Internet service providers, before it could reach consumers in Uruguay.

Time to Start Blocking

Uruguay’s Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining (MIEM), issued a decree on October 25, 2022. It states that since it is “the obligation of the State to ensure the protection of intellectual work and copyright,” the introduction of a pirate site blocking regime is the government’s response.

 

“The issued decree was conceived to eliminate the broadcasting of television signals broadcast through the Internet or similar networks, for unauthorized commercial purposes, which violates laws 9,739, on literary and artistic property, and 17,616, on the protection of intellectual property,” a government statement reads.

 

Any complaints concerning illegal TV streams must be sent to the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (URSEC). If the regulator is satisfied, instructions will be issued to service providers to implement blocking or similar measures within four days.

 

What sets this system apart from those available in most other countries is that applications for blocking can be filed by companies that aren’t necessarily the ultimate rightsholders of TV shows or movies.

TV Services and Intermediaries

As Article 1 of Decree No. 345/022 explains, operators of licensed television services in Uruguay can report pirate services to URSEC for evaluation and if the regulator agrees, comprehensive blocking measures will follow.

 

[T]he holders of television services for subscribers may file a well-founded complaint with the URSEC, as an affidavit, so that the Unit can evaluate it and order, if applicable, the notification to platforms and/or independent intermediaries or the provision of a temporary electronic blockade that is necessary to prevent access from the national territory to IP addresses (Internet Protocol) and/or Internet domains (DNS) and/or URLs (Uniform Resource Locator), corresponding to specific offers of infringing products, services and/or content, as appropriate, that are used to develop such activities, under the sole responsibility of the person filing the complaint.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, when the platform and/or the independent intermediary have their own complaint mechanisms for the removal of content and/or sales offers of allegedly illegal products and/or services, the owner or representative of the complainant, may appeal through the means provided by the intermediary, in order to assert their rights through the fastest and most effective means.(Translated from Spanish)

 

The decree’s Article 3 details the rest of the process, including that assumed pirate services will initially face blocking for up to 30 days in advance of a judicial review.

Blocking vs. Freedom of Expression

The Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry (LACNIC) appreciates the new blocking regime is designed to protect content from piracy. However, it has fears that freedom of expression could be a casualty due to an absence of skills to implement accurate blocking.

 

“Recently the state published a decree in which the authorities can block sites that violate intellectual property rights, in essence: television signals that are transmitted illegally,” says Oscar Robles Garay, executive director of LACNIC.

 

“It’s okay to protect the intellectual property of others, but sometimes when you do that without enough technical expertise, other rights can be affected: websites, government sites, schools and more, which is clearly not the focus of these measures.”

 

A decision on whether live streams should be blocked within 30 minutes of a complaint has been delayed until next year but, given moves in other regions, implementation seems is only a question of time.

 

After that, requests for complex dynamic injunctions will likely follow and when they aren’t considered effective enough, interference with DNS records seems the next likely blocking candidate. By then, even more aggressive blocking options will become available, most likely across 45 to 50 countries, covering just hundreds of millions of internet users, and countless ISPs and intermediaries.

 

When none of these measures return the required results, tougher measures will undoubtedly follow. But whatever they are, the internet will never, ever break. Promise.

 

Without doubt, Reddit is one of the most popular user-generated content sites that exists on the Internet today.

 

The community-driven news and discussion platform has been around for more than 17 years and, over time, its popularity has steadily increased.

 

In addition to rising visitor numbers, copyright enforcement complaints have skyrocketed to previously unimaginable levels. That includes the volume of incoming DMCA takedown notices.

 

Reddit detailed these trends a few days ago in its latest transparency report. Previously the company shared fresh data annually but then switched to a bi-annual schedule to provide more timely updates.

Reddit Takedown Record

Regular updates are helpful because a lot is happening behind the scenes. In the first half of this year, many of the key figures already exceed volumes for the whole of 2021, including the number of DMCA takedown notices.

 

During the first months of the year, copyright holders asked Reddit to remove a record-setting 738,010 pieces of content. Images and videos are included, along with links that point to infringing content shared elsewhere. The majority of these flagged items were removed by Reddit.

 

“From January to June of 2022, Reddit received 176,959 copyright notices reporting 738,010 pieces of content. We removed 564,730 pieces of content in response to these takedown notices,” the company writes.

 

For comparison, during the whole of 2021, rightsholders reported 665,898 pieces of content, and a year earlier, only 517,054 were flagged as copyright-infringing.

 

Reddit doesn’t offer an explanation for the recent increase in takedown volumes, but the platform makes it clear that not all removal requests are blindly followed up. In fact, nearly a quarter are rejected.

Fair Use

This rejection percentage is relatively high, but it’s mostly due to ‘duplicate’ takedown requests. Other, less common rejection reasons, include a lack of copyright infringement and fair use.

 

To illustrate a fair use example, Reddit reports that a religious organization requested the removal of a video post that included part of a livestreamed worship service. This falls in the fair use category, according to the platform’s operators, as it was used for the purpose of criticism.

 

“Because the creator of the Reddit post used only a limited portion of the livestream to make a critical point about the religious organization and its teachings reflected in the clip, we rejected the notice on the grounds of fair use,” Reddit writes.

Subreddit and Use Bans

Links and posts are not the only things at risk; users and subreddits can also be banned for repeated copyright infringements. Two years ago this was relatively rare, with Reddit removing 303 users and 514 subreddits for excessive copyright infringement.

 

Since then, the situation has changed.

 

During the first half of 2022, the numbers were much higher. Responding to repeated copyright complaints, 3,859 users lost their accounts while 1,543 subreddits were banned.

 

These user bans are in part the result of legal obligations. Under the DMCA, Reddit is required to implement a reasonable policy to deal with repeat copyright infringers on its platform.

 

/r/PiratedGames was one of the subreddits targeted earlier this year. The thriving community of more than 300,000 members explicitly prohibited links to infringing content but some posts and comments still slipped through, resulting in a ban.

 

Interestingly, that episode also showed that bans can be undone. A few hours after we wrote about the subreddit ban, Reddit informed us that the community had been reinstated and it’s still thriving today.

 

—

 

Reddit’s latest transparency report covering the first six months of 2022 is available here

 

Development of Genshin Impact began in 2017 and when it launched in 2020 utilizing a free-to-play model, a development budget of $100 million was on the line.

 

Few could’ve predicted the astronomical success to come. With 16 million monthly players during its launch in September 2020, there was little doubt that developer miHoYo had hit the jackpot.

 

During the next 12 months alone, reports indicated that Genshin Impact’s gacha game/loot box approach had generated a record-setting $3.7 billion in revenue.

 

In August 2022, Genshin Impact serviced 63 million players, including hardcore fans who can’t get enough of the game and want to experience content before the developers actually release it. With the lost art of patience in short supply, dedicated teams of leakers make it their business to show new content early, supported by proof – much of it copyrighted.

Ubatcha – One of the Most Popular and Prolific Leakers

Thanks to a seemingly endless series of high-profile leaks, Genshin Impact specialist Ubatcha has become extremely popular among the game’s massive fanbase. Ubatcha’s Twitter account has more than 465K followers and there’s an official Reddit community boasting over 351K members.

 

When we checked a few hours ago, Ubatcha’s ‘Wangsheng Funeral Parlor’ Discord channel had over 272K members and almost 66,000 of those were actually online. By most standards these are impressive numbers and a sign that Genshin Impact is going nowhere and Ubatcha is giving the fans what they want.

 

The problem, however, is that Genshin Impact publisher Cognosphere PTE Ltd has a very different idea of whose release schedules should be adhered to.

Content on Discord Pushed the Wrong Button

On or around July 16th, Ubatcha published a tweet. It was subsequently deleted but, around a month ago, the Genshin Leaks subreddit received a DMCA takedown notice; the first ever according to the post announcing it. But more was to come.

 

In recent comments on social media, Ubatcha revealed that Discord had issued a warning over leaks being posted on the Wangsheng Funeral Parlor channel. Two other people also received similar warnings.

 

Complaints about content, posted by Ubatcha and other leakers on another channel, resulted in the server being completely shut down. The owner of the channel had his account deleted.

 

When these events took place wasn’t immediately clear but, on exactly the same day the original Tweet was posted by Ubatcha in mid-July, leaked content was also being posted to Discord. Anti-piracy agents acting for Cognosphere were there to witness it and several months later things are beginning to escalate.

Cognosphere Files DMCA Subpoena Application

This week a Los Angeles law firm filed a DMCA subpoena application in a California district court on behalf of Genshin Impact publisher Cognosphere.

 

“Petitioner, Cognosphere Pte. Ltd. through its undersigned counsel of record, hereby requests that the Clerk of this Court issue a subpoena to Discord, Inc. to identify alleged infringers at issue, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’), 17 U.S.C. § 512(h),” the application reads.

 

DMCA subpoenas compel service providers such as Discord to hand over information they hold on alleged infringers, Ubatcha in this case. Cognosphere’s law firm wants Discord to hand over Ubatcha’s name, address, telephone number and any email addresses connected to the Discord account Ubatcha#2791.

Cognosphere Sent Discord a DMCA Takedown Notice

A DMCA subpoena can only be requested once the applicant has sent a DMCA takedown notice to the service provider requesting the removal of the allegedly infringing content. The court filing reveals that Cognosphere sent a takedown notice to Discord on November 29.

 

It requested the removal of copyrighted images, videos and various items related to features of Genshin Impact, citing one item in particular: [3.0 Beta] New ‘Moss’ Seelie showcase.

 

If Discord couldn’t remove the content, Cognosphere said the entire channel should be removed. The sample screenshots are low quality after being sent by fax but the main item is clear enough to be identified.

 

What happens next is known only to Discord, Cognosphere, and its attorneys. The DMCA subpoena application has been approved, so if Discord doesn’t have it already, it soon will. It seems unlikely that Discord will put up a fight so within days Ubatcha’s details will be handed over to Cognosphere and/or its attorneys – if Ubatcha hasn’t taken measures to render them useless, of course.

 

No one can say for sure but given the size of Ubatcha’s fanbase, follow-up legal action in the form of a copyright lawsuit may prove counterproductive for Genshin Impact. That being said, Cognosphere didn’t go through all this trouble for nothing. Stopping future leaks may be the priority but the company may be interested in how the content was obtained, by what means, and perhaps crucially, by whom.

 

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

 

With nearly 12 million books, Z-Library advertised itself as the largest repositories of pirated books on the Internet.

 

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

 

This success was vigorously interrupted last month when the U.S. Government seized the site’s main domain names. The problems were later exacerbated when two alleged Russian operators were arrested as part of a criminal investigation.

Pirates Seek Alternatives

Despite the gravity of the accusations, the public demand for pirated books hardly waned. Social media platforms, TikTok in particular, are crawling with young people eager to gather knowledge, but less capable of paying for books.

 

In recent weeks, this situation has triggered a search for Z-Library ‘alternatives’. Some simply went to ‘Zlib’s’ darknet site on the Tor network, while others experimented with IPFS. These sites are just as illegal, of course, but harder to take down.

 

The troubles have also pushed activists trying to fill the knowledge gap under the spotlight. Anna’s Archive, for example, launched a search engine that can find pretty much any book on shadow libraries, but there are other solutions too.

Telegram Bots

On Telegram, “ultrascientist” and freedom fighter ‘Nexus’ stepped up with an advanced book download bot.

 

“Z-Library books are now available in @libgen_scihub_6_bot. Most credits go to Anna PiLiMi team which managed to preserve Z-Library books before recent events,” Nexus wrote, illustrating the move with a militant photo.

 

These types of download bots are nothing new on Telegram. Z-Library already had its own dedicated bot and many alternatives were also available. But, with rightsholders and the U.S. authorities paying close attention, announcing a new version amidst the controversy was quite a bold move.

 

Nexus’s Z-Library addon for the bot was welcomed by many people but when rightsholders took notice, they clearly didn’t like what they saw. At least one sent a complaint to Telegram, which pulled the popular @libgen_scihub_6_bot bot offline.

 

Those who try to access it today will get a notification informing them that the “bot is unavailable due to copyright infringement.”

 

Telegram isn’t decentralized so any copyright-infringing channel or bot can easily be taken offline. This isn’t limited to books; we have seen dozens of IPTV-related channels disappear as well, some of which had more than 100,000 users.

Enter the Hydra

Nexus isn’t giving up that easily though. Instead of offering a single bot, they created a bot that allows anyone to create their own book download bot. This opens the door to a hydra of book download bots, which isn’t easy for rightsholders to track.

 

“Assholes inspired by Z-Lib troubles are sending claims about the book bot. We have the answer – now you may create your own book bot,” Nexus writes, explaining their motivation.

 

Creating a book download bot is quite simple for those who have some basic knowledge of how Telegram bots work. These bots can even be totally private, making them harder to trace.

 

Nexus shared a hydra image with his announcement. In piracy circles, people regularly bring up the “hydra,” a mythical multi-headed creature that can easily regenerate when a head is chopped off. In this case, shutting down one bot would lead to many new ones.

 

The resilience of this bot is yet to be tested but rightsholders are already paying close attention. They will do everything in their power to find a weak spot and will likely find law enforcement on their side.

 

That said, the opposition against the Z-Library takedown is real, and making the problem go away isn’t as straightforward as some might have believed.

 

A lawsuit filed in 2021 targeting businesses, owners and individuals behind the Wallhax, SecureAC, SecureCheats and CODHax platforms, is just a small part of a larger Bungie campaign.

 

Faced with growing numbers of cheaters in its online games, Bungie filed several lawsuits in the U.S. They sent the clearest possible message that similar behavior can have serious consequences.

 

For regular gamers honing innovative strategies to triumph within the parameters of clearly defined rulesets, elimination of cheaters can’t come soon enough.

 

Filed in 2021, the lawsuit against Wallax identified some defendants by name and others by their online handles. All faced allegations of copyright infringement, violations of the DMCA’s anti-cicumvention provisions, RICO violations, conspiracy, plus sundry other charges

 

In June 200, Robert Nelson and two companies under his control admitted copyright infringement after violating Bungie’s copyrights and injecting code into Destiny 2, thereby creating unlicensed derivative works. Bungie’s damages award was $13.5m.

 

Information provided by Nelson enabled Bungie to pursue developer Daniel Larsen in Denmark, and when he failed to appear, Bungie obtained an entry of default. Information also led Bungie to Germany where ‘Badger’ was identified as Patrick Schaufuss. He also agreed to settle by cooperating with Bungie.

Amended Complaint Unmasks More Defendants, More Details

Filed this week in a Washington District Court, Bungie’s first amended complaint identifies former Doe defendants ‘Luzypher’, ‘Yimosecai’, ‘Rulezzgame’, ‘Sentinent’, ‘CHENZHIJIE402’, and ‘Mindbender’ (aka ‘Bluegirl’), by their real names.

 

It also provides additional detail on some of the other defendants, including the entity ‘Dsoft CVR36454303’.

Daniel Larsen / Dsoft CVR36454303

Previously alleged to be just the administrator of Wallhax, Larsen is now described as the owner. Working under the pseudonym ‘Gokke’, it’s alleged he developed the code framework for the Wallhax cheat and was involved in designing, coding, updating and maintaining cheats for Destiny 2.

 

“Larsen and the other partners in the Wallhax business share in its profits and losses and engage in joint decision-making, with Larsen having particular say in matters in his area of expertise (software engineering),” Bungie writes.

 

“Defendant DSoft, registered with the Danish Business Authority under CVR 37454303, (‘DSoft’) is Larsen’s registered sole proprietorship, with a principal place of business located at [redacted address] in Denmark.”

 

Bungie says the Dsoft corporate entity was used to conduct business and accept funds relating to the Wallhax cheating operation.

Other Targets Identified

According to Bungie, ‘Luzypher’ is a Wallhax senior support specialist and moderator of the Wallhax forums. The company already knew that ‘Luzypher’ lives in the Netherlands but now identify him as Sebastiaan Juan Theodoor Cruden along with a specific address in a central region of the country.

 

Previously just a ‘Doe’ defendant, Bungie has added ‘Goodman’ to its complaint. The developer still doesn’t know his name but believes he’s in Sichuan, China, from where he sells Wallhax cheats and shares revenue with other Wallhax defendants. Chenzhijie Chen (aka chenzhiji402) of Shangai, China, faces identical allegations.

 

The defendant previously known as ‘Yimosecai’ is now identified as Yunxuan Deng of Shangai, China. Together with Eddie Tran (aka Sentient) of California, Anthony Robinson (aka Rulezzgame) of Germany, and Marta Magalhaes (Mindbender/Blue Girl) of Portugal, all stand accused of reselling Wallhax cheats.

 

Bungie frames their actions rather more elaborately, describing the defendants and others yet to be identified as complicit in a racketeering exercise. Other previously named defendants, including ‘Riddell’ and ‘piskubi93’, are absent from the amended complaint but for reasons not cited in the complaint.

Escalation Strategy

At least from the information available in court documents, it seems that Bungie is using compliant defendants (i.e those who have agreed to settle) as a means to identify others. That’s nothing out of the ordinary and can prove extremely effective.

 

As an abstract example unrelated to this case, if we take Defendant 1 as the main target in a civil action, he may know a lot about partner defendant 2, so if Defendant 1 starts to cooperate under threat of financial ruin, Defendant 2 is rendered vulnerable.

 

Lower players, let’s call them Defendants 6 and 7, may be happy to share personal information with each other, feeling they’re largely unimportant. But if Defendant 4 knows either and happens to be friendly with Defendant 3, none of the group are secure if Defendant 2 throws in the towel.

 

Defendant 5, meanwhile, may feel that settling is the only option because apparently everyone else has. Pressure to settle may not always work though, especially in far-off lands with different legal standards and potentially uncooperative governments.

 

The amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

 

To the global audience, Ulož.to may not be a household name, but in the Czech Republic, it is massive.

 

The file-sharing and hosting service is listed among the most-visited websites in the country, while its mobile apps are frequently used as well.

 

Like many other file storage platforms, Ulož can be used to share a wide variety of files but according to copyright holders, many people abuse the platform to share pirated music, movies, and TV shows.

 

This criticism isn’t new. Over the years, Ulož has been reported to the US Trade Representative as a notorious pirate site several times. In addition, the platform was taken to court by the Czech anti-piracy outfit Dilia, which demanded the implementation of an upload filter.

 

Ulož lost this upload filter battle at the Supreme Court this year, but that certainly didn’t end the controversy. The service still resists the use of broad keyword-based upload checks.

Uloz Competitors Start Filtering

This topic has become relevant again this month after Hellspy and Hellshare, two other Czech file-sharing platforms, signed a deal with rightsholders to filter uploads and search results. The agreement is the result of lengthy discussions with the Association of Commercial Television (AKTV) over how and what should be filtered.

 

The end result appears to be a fairly rudimentary filtering mechanism where the file-sharing services use filenames, duration, and types of files to flag potentially infringing content. This is more basic than the hash-matching technologies major tech companies such as Google and Facebook use.

 

Hellshare’s parent company I&Q Group said that the first filtering results are positive. According to CEO Jan Hřebabecký, the measures are easy and effective. And as an added bonus, the filters also ensure that the service fulfills its obligations under the EU’s updated Copyright Directive.

 

Whether these filtering measures are necessary or sufficient is open for debate. Some rightsholders may believe that it doesn’t go far enough while others may see the basic filters as a threat to the free flow of information. Fellow file-sharing service Uloz.to finds itself in the latter camp.

Overblocking Fears

The site responded critically to the Hellshare and Hellspy deals. According to Uloz, the proposed blocking mechanisms are not “smart” at all. On the contrary, basic keyword filters will likely lead to overblocking.

 

“This is not a smart filtering of content, as it appears in some media, but a simple blocking of keywords, which significantly limits the rights of users,” Uloz notes.

 

“If someone wants to use the word street in a file name, for example, they are now out of luck on these platforms. By applying this principle, there will soon be no words left, and commercial entities will gradually parcel out the formerly free Internet.”

 

Jan Karabina, CEO of Uloz’s parent company says that they will continue to push back on broad blocking requests, both in- and outside of court.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

Uloz booked a victory in an earlier filtering case but, as previously noted, the file-sharing platform lost an important legal battle against local anti-piracy group Dilia this summer.

 

Uloz is unhappy with the ruling and is challenging the censorship part at the Constitutional Court. According to Uloz, the current verdict restricts people’s freedom of expression, which violates the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

“We are also under pressure to introduce overblocking. However, we consider such a step unconstitutional and in violation of users’ rights. In this context, we have already filed a constitutional complaint, which specifically concerns overblocking,” Karabina says.

 

In addition, Uloz doesn’t agree that it is obligated to implement basic upload checks under the EU Copyright Directive either. While Article 13 does indeed hint at upload filters, the legislation also stresses that overblocking should be avoided.

 

By implementing rudimentary upload checks, which Hellspy and Hellshare appear to use, Uloz’s CEO believes that overblocking is impossible to avoid and would actually violate EU law.

 

“In accordance with Article 17, we consider overblocking unacceptable, as well as yielding to the pressure of commercial entities at the expense of the rights of ordinary users,” Karabina soncludes.

App Troubles

The above clearly shows that Uloz puts the rights of its users first. This position isn’t welcomed by rightsholders, which will undoubtedly keep up the pressure.

 

Defeating the file-sharing service will be easier said than done, however. Earlier this year Uloz had its official app removed from the Google Play but it was reinstated a few weeks later after a successful appeal.

 

The app was reportedly removed by anti-piracy outfit Weemazz and will likely end up in court.

 

“We are taking legal action against the company Weemazz s.r.o. because such deliberate abuse of the platforms’ processes cannot be tolerated,” Uloz said in an earlier statement.

 

After two decades of perpetual battles with pirates, rightsholders and their anti-piracy partners are showing momentum.

 

There’s no victory on the horizon, but a recent surge in collaborative efforts shows that pooled resources and combined skillsets are much more effective than costly lone missions.

 

When law enforcement agencies support these initiatives thanks to direct government backing, opportunities for action can open up signficantly.

Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

Significant rightsholders facing challenges in the UK can seek help from the fraud specialists at the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Subsequent actions such as raids, arrests and investigations, are publicized to boost deterrent messaging.

 

Other announcements carry too little information to warrant an article.

 

Unlike PIPCU’s press releases, the tweet doesn’t offer an instant story on a plate. However, any mention of the Film Content Protection Agency (FCPA) is significant and all but confirms the arrest of a specific and important type of movie pirate.

Cammers vs. Film Content Protection Agency

By recording the latest movies directly from the silver screen using concealed devices, ‘cammers’ fuel the illicit piracy market that thrives during the first few days of a film’s initial release. Hollywood believes that these ‘cam’ copies cause significant damage to the cinema industry, an opinion shared by the UK’s Film Distributors’ Association.

 

The Film Content Protection Agency (FCPA) mentioned by PIPCU is the FDA’s big-screen anti-piracy unit. It works hard to prevent UK camming incidents, but with over 4,500 screens nationwide, it’s impossible to monitor them all, all of the time. Events during the summer seem to have taken everyone by surprise

 

An industry report seen by TorrentFreak reveals that in a three-month period starting in June, at least four movies were recorded in the UK during their theatrical release windows. We cannot confirm the titles of these movies but where they were recorded is more straightforward.

 

Sources confirm that the copies were traced back to two multi-screen cinemas, both of them in Liverpool, the location mentioned by PIPCU.

Movies Were Shared on TorrentGalaxy

TorrentGalaxy (TGx) is among the top 10 most-visited torrent sites online today. TGx is an open platform with an active and lively community, a relative rarity in today’s streaming-dominated market. Competition among uploaders ensures that most content is uploaded quickly and since TGx is easy to navigate, many users consider it their online home.

 

The issue facing the site today concerns the movies recorded in Liverpool. Whether every film recorded in those cinemas appeared on TGx first is unknown, but the site is clearly named as a key source for the cammed movies. Considering the potential for even more movies to appear, identifying the cammer was always the top priority.

FDA & FCPA Call For Backup

To assist anti-piracy groups, movies shown in cinemas are protected by forensic watermarks that persist in pirate copies. They can identify the cinema’s location, the screen where the recording took place, and a specific time.

 

Some specifications claim to calculate recording distance and angle to identify where the camming pirate was sitting, but matching the recording time with CCTV footage or matching online booking records with pre-booked seats can also be effective.

 

We’re informed that the suspected pirate in Liverpool was caught on security cameras with support from evidence obtained from ticketing/payment records. The FDA/FCPA investigation received support from PIPCU/City of London Police, the UK Government’s Intellectual Property Office, and unidentified cinema operators. The suspect never stood a chance.

PIPCU & Organized Crime Unit Make Arrest

The PIPCU tweet announcing the arrest was dated October 5, 2022, but we believe it occurred weeks earlier, around September 7th/8th/9th. Officers from PIPCU and the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit (NWROCU) arrested a man in his mid-twenties at an address just a few miles from Liverpool city center.

 

How long the man has been in the UK isn’t clear but we’re informed that he was born in Eastern Europe. The suspect is further described as a professional videographer, an obvious eye-catcher under the circumstances, but other details are even more curious.

 

We’re unable to go into specifics but we understand that a piece of recording hardware with wireless functionality raised suspicions of a connection to rogue online casino 1XBET. At this early stage, any allegations are no more than that, and no evidence is available to us to show any 1XBET links to the suspect, direct or otherwise.

 

What can be easily verified is the huge number of 1XBET-branded releases indexed on TorrentGalaxy, the site identified as offering the movies recorded in Liverpool cinemas. To put things mildly, 1XBET is an extremely controversial brand in piracy circles but that’s just a small part of a much bigger story.

1XBET’s Links to Piracy

Over the past few years, 1XBET has become the star of its very own Netflix-worthy thriller. Russian authorities identified one of its operators as a former head of the Internal Affairs Directorate, a government department with responsibility for preventing cybercrime.

 

Today, 1XBET remains synonymous with movie piracy. Advertising for 1XBET has appeared in thousands of pirate releases, most of them first-run movies. In one six month period alone, 1XBET ads appeared on 1,200 pirate sites and in 2019 the company was identified as having the third-largest advertising spend in Russia.

 

The achievement was carefully noted by Hollywood and considering the MPA’s direct links to the UK’s FDA, yet more reports to the US Government seem likely.

 

Three men connected to 1XBET remain international fugitives with Russian authorities still keen to discuss an estimated 63 billion rubles, more than US$1.1 billion at today’s rates, generated between October 2014 and May 2019 without appropriate licensing.

High-Quality Cams Surprise Pirates

The names of the movies allegedly recorded in Liverpool are currently unknown, so further research into their quality is impossible. What we can confirm is a relatively recent and surprising upturn in cammed copies with exceptional image quality. Some say these could be the best copies that have appeared, not just in years, but since camming began.

 

Opinions are inherently subjective but there’s little doubt that Hollywood panic is directly linked to the quality of first-run pirate copies, and that quality is directly linked to the scale of any response.

 

In the meantime we understand that the camming suspect has already appeared in court and is currently out on bail. Until he’s informed otherwise, he must stay away from every cinema in the country.

 

With over half a billion active users around the globe, Telegram is one of the most used messaging services.

 

The application is particularly popular in India, where more than 20% of its user base resides. This includes a small subset of rather persistent pirates.

 

Telegram doesn’t permit copyright infringement and generally takes swift action in response to complaints. This includes the removal of channels dedicated to piracy but for some copyright holders that’s not enough; they also want to know who the copyright-infringing users are.

Rightsholders Request User Data

In India, this resulted in a legal battle against Telegram that began in 2020. The case in question was filed by Ms. Neetu Singh and KD Campus. The former is the author of various books, courses, and lectures, for which the latter runs coaching centers.

 

The rightsholders complained about the infringing activity and the messaging service properly addressed it. The court became involved because Telegram refused to hand over information that could identify the alleged pirates and channel operators.

 

In late August, the Delhi High Court sided with the rightsholders. Judge Prathiba Maninder Singh ruled that Telegram had to share all identifying information it has on file. This includes the phone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses of uploaders and channel operators.

Telegram Complies

A new court filing reveals that after a period of quiet, Telegram has indeed complied with the order. While Telegram says that some of the requested data is no longer available, it shared everything it could, under seal.

 

“The said data, which is in the form of a chart, has been perused by the Court. It shows that the names of the admins, the phone numbers, and IP addresses of some of the channels as are available with Telegram have been filed,” Judge Singh writes.

 

The Judge says that this data may be shared confidentially with the rightsholders and should only be used for the present lawsuit. However, in a somewhat confusing statement, she stresses that the information in question can also be shared with the Government and police.

 

“[N]either the Plaintiffs nor their counsel shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings. To this end, disclosure to the governmental authorities/police is permissible,” the order reads.

Objections Failed, Precedent Set

The original disclosure order was issued despite fierce opposition. One of Telegram’s main defenses was that the user data is stored in Singapore, which prohibits the decryption of personal information under local privacy law.

 

The Court dismissed this argument on the basis that the ongoing infringing activity is related to Indian works and will likely be tied to Indian users. And even if the data is stored elsewhere, it could be accessed from India.

 

Telegram also brought up the Indian constitution, which protects people’s privacy, as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression. That defense was unsuccessful too.

 

The Court’s initial order appears to have set a precedent as it’s now widely cited. Last week, the Delhi High Court ordered Telegram to hand over data in another piracy case, and the precedent was also cited in a defamation case involving YouTube.

 

—

 

A full copy of the order from the Delhi High Court that confirms the data handover, is available here (pdf), courtesy of Live Law

 

Last year, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld the first pirate site-blocking order in the country.

 

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

 

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

 

In addition, blocking windows were limited to the broadcasts of the games and the order only applied to the 2021/2022 season, which was already in its final stages when the court order was issued.

2022/2023 NHL Piracy Blockade

It was no surprise when the media companies, which include Rogers, Bell, and The Sports Network, sought similar blocking measures at the Federal Court for the new season that got underway in October.

 

After reviewing the motion, last week Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné granted the new blocking order. The injunction applies to the current NHL season which ends next year after the final of the Stanley Cup

 

“Third Party Respondents shall, during each of the NHL Live Game Windows […], block or attempt to block access, by at least their residential wireline Internet service customers, to each of the IP addresses for the Target Servers..,” Justice Gagné writes.

 

The game windows and server IP addresses are confidential but likely cover several of the most popular IPTV streaming services in Canada. These IP addresses can also be updated during the season if streaming services try to circumvent the blockades.

‘Effective and No Complaints’

Before issuing the new blocking measures the court reviewed a report from independent expert Mr. David Lipkus on the effectiveness of the earlier blockades. Mr. Lipkus concluded that most Internet providers were able to block the infringing IP-addresses effectively. In addition, there were no serious over-blocking complaints.

 

“Mr. Lipkus found that nine out of ten Third Party Respondents [the ISPs] were able to block 100% of the tested IP Addresses, and that there were no legitimate complaints from any of the individuals or businesses related to the blocking,” Justice Gagné writes.

 

Together with another expert, they concluded that the availability of pirated streams declined without any significant costs. This means that the measures are seen as effective.

 

“Mr. Lipkus and Mr. Wilkins concluded that the empirical data supported an assessment that the overall supply of infringing copyrighted content was reduced and that the Original Order met the necessary conditions for effectiveness, because it delivered that measurable benefit for a low cost.”

Little Pushback, More Blockades

None of the Internet providers objected to the latest blocking request. However, CIPPIC intervened and will keep a close eye on developments to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.

 

The most recent injunction further clarifies that if new independent experts are appointed in the future, CIPPIC should be consulted in the selection process. The current expert, Mr. Lipkus, appears to be working for the sports leagues, which can raise neutrality questions.

 

All-in-all, it’s clear that blocking measures are now part of the standard anti-piracy repertoire in Canada. Internet providers have also stopped protesting but without any changes in blocking mechanisms, that would likely prove futile anyway.

 

That said, compared to some other countries there are robust safeguards in place to prevent over-blocking. They require all parties to remain cautious and careful, which ultimately is best for all parties involved. Aside from the pirates, perhaps.

 

—

 

A copy of the latest interlocutory injunction, issued by the Federal Court’s Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné, is available here (pdf)

 

When the U.S. Government shut down Megaupload in 2012, similar platforms were presented with a practical example of what could happen to their businesses too.

 

A few dozen armed police officers and helicopters swooping in for Kim Dotcom was certainly eye-catching, but the world learned something else too; hosting files can make people ridiculously rich and with Megaupload gone, there was a big gap in the market.

 

Founded in 2005 and acquired by Switzerland-based Cyando AG in 2012, file-hosting platform Uploaded wasted no time attracting new customers and the wrong type of attention. In 2015, the RIAA bemoaned Uploaded’s 100 million monthly visits, its status as the “third biggest copyright infringer” based on Google data, and the existence of reward schemes.

 

According to users who upload popular files to Uploaded, those reward schemes haven’t been living up to expectations for quite some time. But in just a couple of days, maybe even less, Uploaded itself will cease to exist.

Uploaded Throws in the Towel

Visitors to Uploaded.net today see a normal-looking site with no shutdown notice or solemn eulogy. But when a site won’t take your money, that’s never a good sign.

 

Whether it’s a payment of $5.99 for 48 hours or $103.99 for two years, nothing works – much like the site’s SSL certificate over the past few weeks.

 

The reason for this is laid out in at least two emails sent by Cyando. The first variant targets Uploaded users who may have relied on the site for their offsite backups.

 

“Dear Customers,” it begins. “Please be advised that our services will be shut down on November 30th 2022. Should you need to backup any files, we recommend to do that until this date. Kind regards, Cyando AG.”

 

November 30 ends in less than two days, but the email’s wording (specifically the word ‘until’) doesn’t inspire confidence that Uploaded will still be online this Wednesday. Those looking for clarification or additional information won’t find it in the second email variant either.

 

“We are very sorry, but unfortunately the situation is such that http://uploaded.net has to be closed. Management will contact you with all other information related to your account in the next few days. Thank you for your understanding and we wish you all the best,” it reads.

 

Given the apparent urgency of Uploaded’s exit, which doesn’t even allow for a reasonable period to retrieve files, timely refunds and sudden affiliate payouts seem somewhat unlikely. Years of legal problems that started badly and then deteriorated don’t improve things either.

Uploaded’s Copyright Quagmire

Uploaded’s problems with copyright holders date back at least eight years.

 

In 2014, the Regional Court of Hamburg in Germany found that the service failed to delete copyrighted content quickly enough in the face of takedown notices. But that was just the beginning and a sign of things to come.

 

Uploaded’s parent company Cyando was sued by publisher Elsevier for distributing pirated books as far back as 2013. Music producer Frank Peterson, who also sued YouTube and Google for making his music available without permission, had his copyright complaint against Cyando heard at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, which in turn referred questions to the EU Court of Justice.

 

In 2021, the EU’s top court ruled that online services are not directly liable for users’ copyright infringements, at least in principle. When users share files, the online platforms themselves don’t automatically ‘communicate’ infringing content to the public, but liability can still be incurred if platforms fail to meet certain obligations.

 

Not taking down infringing content “expeditiously” following a rightsholder complaint could lead to liability, the Court said. The same applies to services that know their users are uploading infringing files but fail to implement “appropriate technological measures” to mitigate infringement.

 

Liability can also be incurred when a service “provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing.” Services that have a “financial model that encourages users” to share infringing content also face infringement liability, the EU’s top court added.

 

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) took the guidance into account and clarified that online platforms can be held liable for infringement, if such responsibilities are neglected. In that respect, prospects looked bleak for Uploaded.

Critical Mass

While the Frank Peterson case attracted most media interest, various rightsholders and collecting societies also filed lawsuits against Cyando in Germany. Seeking injunctions and declarations that Uploaded is liable for infringement and damages, these cases began in regional courts and eventually reached the BGH.

 

At its very best, Cyando/Uploaded’s position seems precarious. In June 2022, the BGH published detailed comments on six cases before referral back to the courts of appeal for new hearings.

 

In one case it was determined that by failing to take down a music album in response to a rightsholder notification, the threshold for the file-hosting site to be considered as “communicating to the public” had been met. The remaining five were covered together.

 

The BGH said that there are “important indications” that Uploaded’s keyword filters and manual checks were insufficient to mitigate infringement. In respect of Uploaded’s business model, it could hardly have been worse.

 

“There are also strong indications for the assumption that the defendant’s business model is based on the availability of infringing content and is intended to induce users to share infringing content via the defendant’s platform,” the BGH wrote.

Not Much Sunshine Ahead

Uploaded’s emails to users and affiliates seem to clear up the future of its file-hosting business but what that means for the pending lawsuits is much less clear.

 

Uploaded’s parent company Cyando AG operated from Switzerland for several years but according to a criminal investigation conducted by Swiss authorities, that’s no longer the case. For at least three years, Cyando also had a business in the UK but no accounts were ever filed.

 

The company may not have too many problems dumping customers by email at short notice but corporate legal matters tend to be a bit less straightforward and always more expensive.

 

Whatever the outcome, Uploaded’s business model is likely to be held up as a prime example of what not to do, as if that wasn’t clear enough already.

 

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 five newcomers on the list. “Black Adam” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on November 28 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	(…)	Triangle of Sadness	7.8 / trailer
3	(3)	Spirited	6.6 / trailer
4	(5)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
5	(6)	Bullet Train	7.4 / trailer
6	(…)	Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile	6.2 / trailer
7	(2)	Smile	6.8 / trailer
8	(…)	The Woman King	6.7 / trailer
9	(…)	Slumberland	6.7 / trailer
10	(…)	Armageddon Time	6.8 / trailer

 

 

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

 

 

Many private torrent sites track user traffic to ensure that when content is downloaded, an agreed amount is uploaded back to the rest of the community.

 

Users can independently maintain their own transfer records, which help them keep track of overall bandwidth used and compliance with site rules, whenever traffic volume is an important factor.

 

But whether they’re held locally, on a torrent site, or by an intermediary service, the usefulness of logs is reversed when they fall into the wrong hands.

DanishBytes User Arrested Then Prosecuted

Early November 2021, Denmark’s Public Prosecutor for Special Economic and International Crime (SØIK) announced that six people had been arrested following criminal referrals by Rights Alliance. All were members and/or operators of ShareUniversity and DanishBytes.

 

Prosecution of site operators is not uncommon but when it’s deemed in the public interest, pirate site users can also face charges. Every case is unique so criteria differ, especially across national borders, but when evidence shows large volumes of infringement, successful prosecutions become more likely. That was the case when a former DanishBytes user was sentenced last week.

 

According to Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance, the 28-year-old man was a regular site member and wasn’t involved in running the site. That being said, evidence showed that for the period January 2021 to November 2021, he downloaded and/or uploaded no less than 3,000 copyrighted works, including movies, TV shows, music, books, audiobooks and comics.

Guilty Plea and Sentencing

Information released by the National Unit for Special Crimes (NSK), a Danish police unit focused on cybercrime, organized crime, and related financial crime, reveals that the user’s traffic statistics interested prosecutors.

 

“During the period, the man downloaded no less than 100 TB and uploaded no less than 20 TB of copyrighted material,” NSK says.

 

BitTorrent trackers operating a ratio model usually insist on a better ratio of downloads to uploads but DanishBytes’ situation was out of the ordinary.

 

The site launched in January 2021 in the wake of other sites being shut down, so had to get going from a standing start with no users. Even when arrests were being made, the site still had a relatively small userbase, which can limit opportunities to upload more. That may have been a blessing in disguise.

 

Faced with the evidence, the man decided to plead guilty and was sentenced last week at the Court in Vibourg. In common with similar prosecutions recently, he received a suspended conditional sentence of 60 days’ probation, 80 hours of community service, and confiscation of his computer equipment.

 

“I am satisfied with the verdict. With a sentence of 60 days of suspended imprisonment, the court sends a clear signal that not only the masterminds, but also users of illegal file sharing services can risk being punished,” says Beytullaah Karacan, deputy prosecutor at NSK.

Rights Alliance Welcomes Conviction

The case against the DanishBytes user began with a Rights Alliance investigation and a referral to the police. As part of his sentence, the man must pay the anti-piracy group DKK 5,000 (US$600) in compensation but Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund is focused on the deterrent effect of another successful prosecution.

 

“In the Rights Alliance, we have been very focused on getting those behind illegal file-sharing services convicted. But it is equally important that we bring to justice the users who are on these illegal services and who help to keep the services running,” Fredenslund says.

 

“It is an important signal to send that it is not only masterminds who risk prison sentences, but also systematic users. Therefore, it is satisfactory that yet another user has been convicted, and we expect more of these lawsuits in the future.”

 

Earlier this month another DanishBytes user received a suspended sentence for his role on the site. The 34-year-old was user who for two months worked on the site’s staff. Importantly, he also used hacked Netflix credentials to obtain content before sharing it with other users of the site.

 

Day in and day out, dozens of new movies and TV shows leak online. It’s become so normal that most pirates take it for granted.

 

While millions of people consume this content, only a few people know who supplies it. This secrecy is much needed, as members of release groups risk criminal prosecution and multi-year prison sentences.

EVO Goes Quiet

This threat became salient again a few days ago when prolific release group EVO stopped sharing new uploads. A few days or even weeks between releases is normal for many groups but for EVO it’s highly unusual. The potential for something serious happening behind the scenes is certainly not out of the question.

 

Another factor to consider is that EVO is not alone; release group iFT has also stopped uploading new content recently. Both groups are connected to private torrent trackers where they release content first so their unexplained absence has quite a few people worried.

 

Over the past few days we have seen a wide variety of anonymous rumors and claims. According to some, EVO has been busted, but there is no evidence that officially confirms that. The only thing we know for sure is that EVO is a prime target for Hollywood and that carries risks.

EVO’s High Profile Screener Leaks

Despite its high profile, EVO hasn’t shunned the piracy limelight in recent years. The P2P release group has leaked many prominent movies, including advance screener copies of “Nomadland”, “Uncut Gems” “The Power of the Dog“ and “My Salinger Year”.

 

While some groups prefer to stay away from screener leaks because of the inherent risks, EVO has repeatedly claimed first place when ‘screener piracy season’ begins.

 

The group was also responsible for publishing an early Blu-Ray copy of ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’. In addition, it shared “Dune” with its pirate audience before the film was available via HBO Max and US theaters.

A Hobby

When we interviewed the group a few months ago, they told us that money isn’t their motivation. EVO said that they leaked movies “for fun” and to help people with limited means.

 

“We don’t get any profit at all from this ‘hobby’. We do it for fun,” EVO informed us, adding that they like to help people. “We know we are helping lots of people that can’t afford to go to theaters.”

 

EVO also pointed a finger at Hollywood for making it quite expensive for people to enjoy films. EVO suggested that increased fragmentation of the streaming landscape, with every service pushing its own exclusive releases, helps to keep piracy relevant.

 

“Maybe, if studios would care a bit more about the consumer, there wouldn’t be much piracy on the internet. But they don’t care anymore, what matters is profit, profit and profit.

 

“If you are an average person these days, basically, either you are rich or you are fucked. It’s Disney+, its Netflix, its Prime, its Paramount+. God knows what else they come up with,” EVO added.

Where’s EVO?

TorrentFreak reached out to EVO over the weekend but the group didn’t respond. This means that the mystery and rumors will likely continue, at least until the group returns or more information becomes available.

 

There is no evidence to confirm that law enforcement is involved in any way but if that’s the case, it wouldn’t be the first time that a release group has been brought down.

 

Two years ago, U.S. law enforcement indicted several members of the Scene release group SPARKS. This action spooked the entire Scene and to date has resulted in the conviction of one member.

 

In 2011, the notorious IMAGiNE movie piracy group was dismantled by the feds. The group released large numbers of movies onto the Internet, many of which were still playing in theaters.

 

This attracted the attention of the MPA which launched an investigation. This led to the arrest and prosecution of four U.S. residents, who received sentences ranging from 23 months up to five years in prison.