Early September, Swedish anti-piracy group Rattighetsalliansen (Rights Alliance) reported on a trial that took place at the specialist Patent and Market Court in Stockholm.

 

A man and woman, a couple from Eskilstuna in eastern Sweden, faced accusations of running an illegal IPTV business and laundering the proceeds. The man, reportedly in his 40s, was said to have run two different IPTV services from which he generated around SEK 2.3 million (around US$213.2k) in revenues over an unspecified period.

 

The woman denied any knowledge of her partner being an IPTV operator and said that as far as she was concerned, he only repaired set-top boxes. Rights Alliance said that revenues were funneled to the woman from IPTV-related sales and as a result, she faced charges of money laundering.

Rights Alliance and Police Investigation

Following an investigation launched by Rights Alliance and taken up by the police in 2020 following a criminal referral, evidence showed that the man sold illegal IPTV subscriptions and set-top boxes pre-configured for piracy.

 

Documents released by Swedish police linked the couple to IPTV brand Nordens Bästa IPTV (The Nordics’ Best IPTV). Information released by Rights Alliance this week indicates the man sold subscriptions to NorthTV and PlayTV, which together offered access to live TV channels plus movie and TV show libraries.

 

Payments for PlayTV subscriptions were accepted via a PayPal account, which over a six month period in 2020 amounted to roughly SEK 1.2 million (around US$111,800). Other payments were received into the man’s Swish account.

Man Sentenced to Prison

This week the Patent and Market Court found that the scale of the crime was worthy of time behind bars. The man received a six-month prison sentence, which is a notable step up from some of the conditional and community sentences handed down in similar cases during the past year.

 

“By accepting payments, he has controlled which people have received the supply on the illegal services and by sending boxes, he has made the films in question available. He is therefore convicted as a perpetrator,” Rights Alliance says.

 

“The verdict shows once again that the people behind the illegal services cannot hide behind objections that they only did a minor part, such as posting boxes or answering questions from customers. The investigation also shows how the illegal services bring in large sums that end up directly in the pockets of the perpetrators.”

 

While a custodial sentence is significant, Rights Alliance and the police didn’t get everything they’d hoped for. The man and his partner were acquitted of money laundering charges after concluding that the evidence didn’t convincingly link the income to PlayTV and NorthTV.

Pirate IPTV is a “Big Problem” in Sweden

“Illegal IPTV is a big problem,” Rights Alliance says, commenting on the sentencing.

 

“It affects both the film and television industries as well as society at large. As many as 380,000 Swedish households (9%) pay for illegal IPTV services, according to Mediavision. This generates millions of kroner in revenue for criminals and organized crime.”

 

To combat threats from IPTV and similar illegal services, Rights Alliance and partners, including the MPA, IFPI, local film producers, and the gaming industry, signed a deal earlier this year with internet service providers in Sweden to simplify the blocking of pirate sites.

 

The signatories will also work together to help form clear legislation that will pave the way for a streamlined administrative site-blocking regime.

 

Website blocking has become an increasingly common anti-piracy tool around the globe.

 

In dozens of countries, ISPs have been ordered by courts to block pirate sites. In some cases, these blocking efforts are part of voluntary agreements.

Cloudflare ‘Pirate’ Blocking Orders

In the United States, these types of injunctions are rare. However, since the Internet has no clear borders, the effects sometimes spill over. The American Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare, for example, has been ordered to block pirate sites in Germany and Italy.

 

This week, Cloudflare published its latest transparency report covering the second half of 2021. The company explains that after weighing the potential impact on freedom of expression, it generally complies with blocking orders that target websites operated by its CDN customers.

 

These blocking efforts are not global. Instead, Cloudflare only blocks access to the location from where an order originates. These sites include DDL-Music in Germany and nearly two dozen sites in Italy.

 

“If we determine that the order is valid and requires Cloudflare action, we may limit blocking of access to the content to those areas where it violates local law, a practice known as ‘geo-blocking’,” Cloudflare explains in its transparency report.

Target: DNS

The aforementioned blocking orders apply to the websites of Cloudflare customers. However, Cloudflare also operates a DNS revolver that is the target of a newer anti-piracy campaign.

 

DNS resolvers are the address books of the web. They link domain names to the correct IP addresses to make these accessible through a web browser. They are a key component of a well-functioning Internet.

 

Interestingly, these DNS servers are often used by ISPs to comply with site-blocking orders. By removing a domain from the address book, users are unable to load the site in question.

 

This is a relatively simple blocking method that’s easy to circumvent by using an external DNS resolver, such as the ones provided by Google, OpenDNS, Quad9, or Cloudflare. For this reason, DNS resolvers have become the target of blocking requests as well.

 

In Germany, Quad9 was previously ordered to block a pirate site through its DNS resolver following a complaint from Sony. Similarly, in Italy, a court ordered Cloudflare to block several pirate site domains on the DNS level.

Cloudflare Opposes 1.1.1.1 Blocking

In its transparency report, Cloudflare makes a clear distinction between blocking requests that target its customers’ websites and those that apply to DNS functionality. DNS blocks can target any website on the web and are not easy to restrict geographically, the company writes.

 

“Because such a block would apply globally to all users of the resolver, regardless of where they are located, it would affect end users outside of the blocking government’s jurisdiction.

 

“We therefore evaluate any government requests or court orders to block content through a globally available public recursive resolver as requests or orders to block content globally,” Cloudflare adds.

 

Cloudflare doesn’t want to meddle with its DNS resolver, which puts the company in a tough spot that requires a creative solution.

 

The company says that, thus far, it hasn’t actually blocked content through the 1.1.1.1 Public DNS Resolver. Instead, it relies on an “alternative remedy” to comply with the Italian court order.

 

“Given the broad extraterritorial effect, as well as the different global approaches to DNS-based blocking, Cloudflare has pursued legal remedies before complying with requests to block access to domains or content through the 1.1.1.1 Public DNS Resolver or identified alternate mechanisms to comply with relevant court orders.”

 

The above clearly shows that the company is determined to fight DNS blocking orders in court. And even if it loses, Cloudflare will seek alternative solutions. What these alternatives entail is not clear, but Cloudflare likely has the know-how to find a technical ‘circumvention’ mechanism.

 

—

 

A copy of Cloudflare’s H2 2021 Transparency Report is available here (pdf)

 

Like most online services, pirate IPTV platforms use regular domains, IP addresses, websites, servers, and cloud services. But unlike most regular online platforms, they already know that rightsholders are watching their every move.

 

This means that they are mostly prepared for domain seizures and similar interference, IP address and DNS blocking, attempts to cut off payment processing, plus any other measures from the smorgasbord currently available.

 

No doubt that this is a major irritant for rightsholders attempting to shut them down. But what if there was another way, one that didn’t rely on the success of any of the above but is considered a crime?

Authorities Fail to Act

In common with its counterparts around the world, the Hungarian Communications Association (MKSZ) also has to deal with illegal IPTV services. The group says it has reported more than 100 illegal distributors to the authorities in recent years, but investigations are slow and ineffective.

 

Since 2018, just one case has been closed and while that ended in a guilty verdict and a damages award, the accompanying one-year suspended prison sentence wasn’t enough for the rightsholders looking to send a deterrent message.

 

As a result, they’d like to begin launching cyberattacks instead.

Cyberattacks – A Valid Option to Fight Piracy?

According to a statement sent to Hungary’s Media1, the Hungarian Communications Association says it is initiating a round table discussion with domestic stakeholders, including legislators, copyright holders, neighboring rights holders, Internet service providers, and broadcasters. The aim is to discover whether it’s possible to launch DDoS attacks against IPTV providers while enjoying protection under the law. The premise is as follows:

 

“For the sake of legal validity and international transparency, RIPE, at the initiative of the Hungarian communications authority, should designate a certain IPv4/IPv6 address range for the use of legal and registered DDOS attacks and make it publicly available,” the proposal reads.

 

“The authority should appoint a suitable professional organization, which would be entitled – subject to the necessary level of official supervision and control – after a preliminary expert investigation based on a stakeholder report, with the appropriate legal authorization, against the detected illegal service IP addresses launched from the authorized DDoS address range for a legitimate DDoS attack.”

DDoS Attack – Again and Again

If sanctioned, MKSZ believes such an attack would degrade the quality of an illegal distributor’s service and ruin the viewing experience for subscribers too. The plan is to keep up the pressure so that any mitigation methods are overcome.

 

“If the illegal service provider detects [a DDoS attack] and changes an IP address and continues the illegal signal distribution from there, he could only do this with a significant time delay, and the process could be used continuously with IP address tracking,” the proposal notes.

 

“By repeating this action several times, sooner or later, it would be possible within a short period of time that, on the one hand, the consumers of the person carrying out the illegal activity would stop their subscription due to the frequent poor quality and thus the perpetrator would not receive any income.”

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

If the mere suggestion of launching cyberattacks isn’t enough to sound alarm bells, another major red flag is that the potential for collateral damage has not only been considered, but may even be part of the strategy.

 

For example, disruption of innocent third-party services isn’t seen as a problem since the ensuing chaos would send a message to hosting companies to pick better customers in the future.

 

“On the other hand, if the service is not provided from [the operator’s] own server but from a rented server, the owner of the server that provides the technical background for the service should also consider it undesirable and terminate its contract with such a customer, and thus the perpetrator would not easily find a server to implement the illegal service,” the telecoms group adds.

 

It seems highly improbable that MKSZ and partners will receive special permission to carry out what would otherwise be a highly illegal act. However, should some kind of authorization be forthcoming, it might be prudent to consider the possibility of retaliation. Having legal services to sell won’t be much use if nobody can access them.

 

There are plenty of options for copyright holders to frustrate the operations of pirate sites, but one of the most effective is to attack their domain names.

 

In recent years, various entertainment industry groups have called on the domain name industry to help out on this front.

 

As a result, the MPAA signed a landmark agreement with the Donuts registry under which the movie industry group acts as a “trusted notifier” of “pirate” domains. A similar deal was later announced with the Radix registry.

 

Several of the largest players in the domain name industry have been more reserved in their responses. The Public Interest Registry, which oversees the .org gTLD, previously denied requests to take action against The Pirate Bay.

‘Verisign Should Help Curb Piracy’

That hasn’t stopped the calls for action from rightsholders who recently received backing from a group of US lawmakers. Representatives from the House and Senate, including Sen. Mazie Hirono, Rep. Ted Deutch, and Sen. Christopher Coons, urged Verisign to step up.

 

The Verisign registry is responsible for .com, .net, .cc and .tv domain names, among many others. This means that it’s one of the key players in the domain name ecosystem whose actions can affect millions of domain names.

 

According to the lawmakers, Verisign should use this position to assist copyright holders in their anti-piracy efforts.

 

“Verisign serves as the registry for almost half of all domain name registrations,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter cited by Deadline. “The company is therefore uniquely positioned to help curb this illegal activity. Its failure to do so has served as a significant contributor to the enormous scope and scale of the problem.”

 

The letter was sent last spring but wasn’t initially made public. However, after the Kiwi Farms problem reignited the debate about voluntary curation, it has now been brought to the forefront.

Trusted Notifier

Voluntary agreements between rightsholders and domain registries are not new. The Motion Picture Association previously partnered with Radix and Donuts, for which it acts as a “trusted notifier” by calling out pirate sites.

 

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono stresses that it is important to curb online piracy as it costs the economy ‘billions of dollars’ and leads to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of job losses. In addition, it leaves the public vulnerable to malware and scams.

 

“Domain name registration service companies have a responsibility to protect creators and consumers by working to stop online copyright piracy,” Hirono told Deadline, adding that she will continue to push Verizon to take the matter seriously.

 

Responding to the letter, Verisign CEO Jim Bidzos said that this is a complicated matter. The company has a decades-old agreement with the Department of Commerce that requires it to operate in a content-neutral way. This means that it can’t simply boot domains offline.

Verisign Sees Options

There appears to be some wiggle room, however. Verisign already has a “trusted notifier” agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to target websites that illegally sell opioids.

 

In addition, the registry works with the FBI to take down COVID-19 scam domain names and partners with the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to take down domain names involving child abuse.

 

The above means that there is room for Verisign to intervene without any judicial oversight. While the company stresses that there are due process, transparency and proportionality concerns to weigh, it doesn’t rule out voluntary anti-piracy solutions.

 

“[W]e believe that the protocols and processes we developed can also be used to address domain names associated with illegal copyright theft,” Bidzos replied to the lawmakers.

 

When online file-sharing hit the mainstream, entertainment company bosses tore out their hair in frustration.

 

They knew their products, ran tight businesses, and had the best possible grasp on the intricacies of their respective markets. Competing with ‘free’ was clearly impossible.

 

Today we know that by looking beyond the bare content, such as a music track or a movie, added value can be found in how content is presented, delivered, consumed, and ultimately appreciated by the customer. Legal content on its own may have problems competing with free, but as part of a premium content consumption experience, it’s not an absolute requirement.

Netflix – Changing Attitudes

When Netflix was ‘just’ a delivery platform, its pragmatic approach to the piracy problem was well known. But as Mike Tyson famously said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. As Netflix burned through huge sums making its own content, its ‘exclusives’ rose up the piracy charts as quickly as Hollywood’s. People don’t pirate platforms, but they love pirating content.

 

Netflix decided to join the MPA and by extension anti-piracy coalition ACE, adopting anti-piracy attitudes more or less aligned with those of the major studios. But Netflix has a legacy problem to solve, one that precariously spans paying customers and freeloaders, with implications for growth.

 

‘Password Sharing’ was once a strategically ignored activity that helped to foster good customer relations while introducing friends and families to legal streaming. After being subjected to a cynical rebranding campaign by its detractors, password sharing is now all but dead, replaced by its boogeyman brother – Password Piracy.

 

Netflix doesn’t use the term publicly but there is no doubt that the company wants to eliminate the phenomenon from its platform. How that can be achieved without damaging customer relations is a billion-dollar question. Adobe thinks it has the answer.

Big Problems Need Comprehensive Solutions

Adobe prefers the term ‘credential sharing’ to ‘password piracy’ but doesn’t downplay its implications. Citing a 2020 study, Adobe says that up to 46 million people in the U.S. could be accessing streaming services with credentials that aren’t theirs while paying nothing for the privilege.

 

Citing potential losses of $9bn per year – three times those of rival Disney+ – Adobe says Netflix suffers most from credential sharing. The company believes that if streaming video is to avoid the fate of streaming music where free content is expected, action is needed sooner rather than later. But it needs to be executed with care.

Existing Options Can Frustrate The Wrong People

Efforts to reduce password sharing can include repeatedly requesting login information, strictly enforcing device limits (including deactivations/reactivations), aggressively enforcing concurrent connection limits, and multi-factor authentication. While these mechanisms are meant to deter password sharing, they irritate everyone – even the person who pays the bill.

 

Adobe believes that since every user is different, any actions taken against an account should form part of a data-driven strategy designed to “measure, manage and monetize” password sharing. The company’s vision is for platforms like Netflix to deploy machine learning models to extract behavioral patterns associated with an account, to determine how the account is being used.

 

These insights can determine which measures should be taken against an account, and how success or otherwise can be determined by monitoring an account in the following weeks or months.

 

Ignoring the obviously creepy factors for a moment, Adobe’s approach does seem more sophisticated, even if the accompanying slide gives off a file-sharing-style ‘graduated response’ vibe.

 

That leads to the question of how much customer information Adobe would need to ensure that the right accounts are targeted, with the right actions, at the right time.

Account IQ – Sophisticated Machine Learning

Adobe’s Account IQ is powered by Adobe Sensei, which in turn acts as the intelligence layer for Adobe Experience Platform.

 

In theory, Adobe will know more about a streaming account than those using it, so the company should be able to predict the most effective course of action to reduce password sharing and/or monetize it, without annoying the account holder.

 

But of course, if you’re monitoring customer accounts in such close detail, grabbing all available information is the obvious next step. Adobe envisions collecting data on how many devices are in use, how many individuals are active, and geographical locations – including distinct locations and span.

 

This will then lead to a ‘sharing probability’ conclusion, along with a usage pattern classification that should identify travelers, commuters, close family and friends, even the existence of a second home.

Time to Take Action

Given that excessive sharing is likely to concern platforms like Netflix, Adobe’s plan envisions a period of mass account monitoring followed by an on-screen “Excessive Sharing” warning in its dashboard.

 

From there, legal streaming services can identify the accounts most responsible and begin preparing their ‘graduated response’ towards changing behaviors. After monetizing those who can be monetized, those who refuse to pay can be identified and dumped.

 

Or as Adobe puts it: “Return free-loaders to available market”.

 

Finally, Adobe also suggests that its system can be used to identify customers who display good behavior. These users can be rewarded by eliminating authentication requirements, concurrent stream limits, and device registrations. As an added bonus, all good users can be given a hefty 50% subscription discount.

 

The discount part is admittedly a poor attempt at sarcasm on my part, but the rest of the paragraph is entirely genuine.

 

It appears to suggest that customers who use their accounts as agreed, will be able to do so in peace. On top they will be rewarded with a whole bunch of new freedoms to enjoy, specifically those that could propel them directly to the ‘password piracy’ naughty step and associated corrective measures.

 

Having said all that, please relax and have fun watching the movie. Any aggressive monitoring is for the greater good (of streaming platforms) and to ensure that customers get exactly what they paid for – not a fraction more.

 

Last year, Sony Music obtained an injunction that orders DNS resolver Quad9 to block a popular pirate site.

 

The injunction, issued by the District Court of Hamburg, required the Swiss DNS resolver to block access to a site that links to pirated music.

 

The name of the targeted site wasn’t revealed, but we deduced that Canna.to was the target. That site was also targeted by a voluntary blocking agreement previously signed by rightsholders and ISPs.

Quad9 Appealed Site Blocking Injunction

The Quad9 foundation fiercely opposed the injunction. The DNS resolver submitted an appeal to the Court hoping to overturn the blocking order, arguing that the decision set a dangerous precedent.

 

The foundation stressed that it doesn’t condone piracy but believes that enforcing blocking measures through third-party intermediaries goes a step too far.

 

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

Sony Files Main Proceeding

After Quad9 maintained the pressure, Sony has now initiated a main proceeding at the Leipzig court. This is the next step in the legal process and allows both sides to provide more evidence and expert opinions.

 

“This is important as additional evidence, such as via witnesses or expert opinions can be utilized, which is not typical in the preliminary proceeding where we have previously only filed our own affidavits,” Quad9 explains.

 

This extra evidence is now being filed with the court which has yet to schedule a hearing. It is clear, however, that the verdict of the Leipzig court is going to be very important, whichever way it goes.

A Threat to Other Internet Players?

Quad9 fears that if Sony prevails, the blocking demands will soon expand to other sites. In addition, rightsholders could request similar blocking measures from other DNS resolvers and other intermediaries.

 

“In the event that Quad9 does not prevail, a very dangerous precedent could be set, potentially threatening many more layers of the internet model, which reaches up towards the user and downwards to the root (of the namespace).

 

“The implications of the case go beyond DNS providers. Anti-virus software providers, firewall operators, and a host of other components in the ‘internet stack,’ in all networks, look identical to Quad9 when viewed as a simplified structural communication diagram,” Quad9 adds.

Support?

Thus far Quad9 has only relied on its own arguments in court but the main proceeding provides more room for other companies and experts to join in as well.

 

With all the uncertainty surrounding the site blocking question, Quad9 appears to indirectly call on support from other key Internet players who could be affected by the ruling in the future.

 

In any case, the company maintains that it shouldn’t be the role of DNS resolvers to block access to websites, whether these blockades are mandated by a court or not.

 

“It is our firm belief that recursive DNS services are the wrong place to apply such blocks, and that this case endangers more than just Quad9 or our users’ interests – it risks cracking the foundations of a free and open internet, in Europe and worldwide,” the company concludes.

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have four newcomers on the list. “Thor: Love and Thunder” is the most downloaded title.

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

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Thor: Love and Thunder	6.5 / trailer
2	(1)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
3	(…)	Where the Crawdads Sing	7.1 / trailer
4	(…)	Beast	5.7 / trailer
5	(…)	Pinocchio	5.2 / trailer
6	(2)	Nope	7.1 / trailer
7	(5)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
8	(3)	Fall	6.3 / trailer
9	(7)	Minions: The Rise of Gru	6.7 / trailer
10	(6)	Prey	7.3 / trailer

 

 

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

 

There are just three certainties in life – death, taxes, and regular announcements by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment that more pirate sites have been shut down.

 

The latest to fall to ACE are all part of an Argentina-based streaming ring, variously branded as Pelismart and Pelispop. ACE says that seven domains, all belonging to the same operator, were taken down in August following enforcement action in July.

27 Million Visits Per Month

ACE says that the four most popular domains – pelismart.com, pelispop.me, pelispoptv.com and pelispophd.com – had combined monthly traffic of over 27 million visits, offering movies and TV shows for streaming and download.

 

After tracking down their operator, ACE says that an agreement was reached to transfer the domains to ACE and enter into a settlement, the terms of which haven’t been disclosed.

 

“This is a huge win for the ACE team based in Latin America as we work to protect the legitimate digital ecosystem throughout the region,” said Jan van Voorn, Executive Vice President and Chief of Global Content Protection for the Motion Picture Association.

 

“While there are larger services that continue to operate in the region, it is only a matter of time before we will shut them down and the operators will undoubtedly have criminal charges filed against them in the countries where they currently reside.”

Sites Identified as Targets Many Months Ago

As part of ACE/MPA investigations, the groups often obtain DMCA subpoenas in the United States that compel intermediaries such as Cloudflare to hand over information on pirate sites.

 

In November 2020, one such subpoena listed a Pelismart-branded domain as a target. In May 2021, another DMCA subpoena targeting Cloudflare mentioned Pelismart once again. This April, another subpoena citing a Pelispop-branded domain showed that ACE was still on the trail.

Other Pirate Sites Under Investiagtion

DMCA subpoena applications in the United States often provide an early signal that sites are under investigation or face other action, such as site-blocking processes in various jurisdictions.

 

These are the domains listed in numerous ACE/MPA subpoena applications filed in the last couple of weeks, which require Cloudflare and Tonic Domains to hand over whatever details they hold on their customers:

 

– cardsharingkaufen.to (IPTV)
– scws.xyz (IPTV)
– watchseries.pics (streaming)
– tamilblasters.cloud (streaming)
– 1tamilMV.team (streaming)
– moviehdfree.net (streaming)
– tvshows88.com (streaming)
– baixarseriesmp4.top (streaming)
– comando.to (streaming)
– 0123movie.net (streaming)
– Imaple.co (streaming)
– momovod.tv (streaming)
– movieffm.cc (streaming)
– streamblasters.live (streaming)
– streamingcommunity.agency (streaming)
– streamingcommunity.best (streaming)
– cb01.kaufen (streaming)
– cb01.rodeo (streaming)
– ilcorsaronero.link (streaming)
– eurostreaming.party (streaming)
– eurekaddl.pics (streaming)
– globsalstore.uk (streaming)
– moviestars.to (streaming)
– netcine.to (streaming)
– ondebaixa.com (streaming)
– supertela.org (streaming)
– warezcdn.com (streaming)
– joymovies.123streamcms.bid (streaming)
– sapphirebilling.net (IPTV)
– televisiongratisenvivo.com (IPTV)
– sltube.com (streaming) – Part of the StreamLare operation and a key enforcement target

 

The DMCA subpoena documents can be found here (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, pdf)

 

With millions of regular users, Ace Stream is one of the most popular streaming applications out there.

 

The software was first released in 2010 under the name “Torrent Stream“. Three years later it rebranded its service to Ace Stream, after which it took off.

 

The original name reveals that the streaming application relies on a torrent engine built into the widely popular VLC media player. This combination results in a peer-to-peer streaming mechanism that doesn’t rely on central servers.

 

This concept empowers the public to use an open tool to stream content to the masses, without relying on third-party streaming platforms. That’s proven to be a great idea that has received widespread support.

 

In 2013, Ace Stream received financial support from Google to present the technology at Techweek Chicago. Around the same time, it also received a grant from the European Union. This allowed the company, which is incorporated in Ukraine as Innovative Digital Technologies LLC, to improve and optimize its streaming tool.

Third-Party Piracy

Today, millions of people regularly use Ace Stream. This includes a subset of pirates, who utilize the software to rebroadcast copyrighted live streams, including many sports matches.

 

Rightsholders are obviously not pleased with this activity. However, Ace Stream is a content-neutral piece of software, similar to web browsers, media players, or regular torrent clients.

 

Where normal torrent clients use .torrent files and magnet links, Ace Stream relies on Ace Stream Content IDs and transport files to find and play streams instead. These are similar to .torrent files and info hashes that normal torrent clients use.

 

The IDs are not hosted, organized, or maintained by Ace Stream. Instead, users of the software generate the links which can then be shared anywhere on the web. This is similar to how .torrent files are distributed.

‘We Don’t Publish or Host Content’

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Ace Stream’s Roman Morozyuk stresses that the company and its software are simply a content-neutral tool.

 

“Ace Stream is not a content provider or a hosting service. We do not publish and we do not store any video or audio content. This automatically excludes the possibility of us violating video or audio content copyrights,” Morozyuk says.

 

The decentralized nature of the streaming platform also means that implementing filters or blacklists, as rightsholders often insist, isn’t a viable option. Ace Stream sees this decentralized nature as its main selling point, but rightsholders disagree.

ISPs Ordered to Block Ace Stream

A few weeks ago these tensions escalated when Ace Stream was added to Spain’s piracy blocklist following a complaint from LaLiga. This means that local Internet providers have to block access to the streaming player.

 

This is a controversial decision, as noted by BandaAncha, because the software doesn’t link to or host any copyrighted content. Even worse, Ace Stream says that it wasn’t informed about the blocking request, so it couldn’t defend itself.

 

“We did not receive any notification from LaLiga or any of its agents about such blocking of the site, and we learned about it by chance, from our users,” Morozyuk says.

 

LaLiga shouldn’t have had any problem contacting Ace Stream and both companies have discussed copyright infringement matters in the past. This was triggered by a complaint the Spanish soccer league filed with Google.

Play Store Removal

The organization previously asked Google to remove the Ace Stream software from the Play Store, which it did. However, Ace Stream appealed arguing that it was falsely accused of copyright infringement.

 

As it turns out, LaLiga backed up its claims with a screenshot showing how the software was used to stream copyrighted football matches. However, it didn’t clarify that LaLiga loaded these streams themselves by using links from illegal sources.

 

To Ace Stream, this accusation is akin to asking for the removal of a web browser because it can load an illegal streaming site. Google eventually agreed with the streaming application, which was allowed back into the Play Store, but the trouble didn’t end there.

From EU Funding to EU Blacklist?

Earlier this year, Ace Stream was shocked to learn that the Audiovisual Anti Piracy Alliance (AAPA) nominated the software for a spot on the EU’s bi-annual Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List.

 

AAPA’s submission put the streaming tool in a bucket with other “main content infringers,” including blatantly infringing IPTV services. Needless to say, Ace Stream wasn’t happy so attempted to set the record straight.

 

“We sent our justified claims and demands to immediately stop illegal actions against our company that discredit our legal project and our legal products, and also violate the rights of consumers,” Morozyuk notes.

 

Unfortunately, Ace Stream hasn’t heard back from AAPA or the EU yet. If things spiral out of control, the company may eventually take legal steps but, for now, it prefers to resolve the matter through dialogue.

 

“We did not file lawsuits yet, since we hope to resolve this entire situation by mutual understanding and out of court,” Morozyuk tells us.

Talking to Rightsholders

Thus far, direct discussions with copyright holders have been challenging. Ace Stream had repeated contact with LaLiga, for example, and offered its service to the sports league to generate revenue.

 

LaLiga doesn’t seem eager to use Ace Stream, perhaps because it can only make a fraction of the money that centralized streaming platforms offer.

 

This means that the tensions between Ace Stream and rightsholders will likely continue. According to the streaming app, resisting decentralized technology is futile, so rightsholders should look for ways to take advantage of it.

 

“We have effective solutions that will allow copyright holders to embrace the new reality, where decentralization is gradually becoming the basis of a normal entire Internet, and not to waste their efforts on a futile fight against fully decentralized P2P networks,” Morozyuk says.

 

More details on this solution will follow in the near future. Meanwhile, Ace Stream hopes that that the blocking problem and the other piracy allegations will be addressed.

 

Ten years ago millions of people from all over the world spoke out against a U.S. bill that would’ve allowed courts to take problematic domain names offline.

 

When that SOPA law failed to pass, many internet users celebrated a victory for free speech.

 

A decade later, Internet curation is still a hot topic. However, many people who rallied against SOPA are now calling for companies, individuals, and websites to be ‘canceled’ online. Apparently, viewpoints have changed quite a bit.

 

There is no denying that the web is full of despicable content that deserves to be taken offline. But by whom and on what basis are unanswered questions.

Cloudflare & Kiwi Farms

Last week, Cloudflare took a stand. The company said that in order to shield itself from escalating removal demands, including plain censorship, it would no longer terminate customers without a court order. This was already the company’s policy, a policy it had deviated from twice by kicking out Daily Stormer and 8Chan.

 

Cloudflare’s comments were triggered by increasing calls to terminate the account of the controversial Kiwi Farms site, which does indeed contain terrible content. Ironically, Cloudflare’s firm stance was defeated just days later, when it terminated the troublesome forum, citing death threats as the reason.

 

Other companies decided to take action as well. DDoS-Guard, for example, swiftly followed Cloudflare’s example after Kiwi Farms attempted to move there. In addition, Google appears to have intervened as it no longer shows Kiwi Farm’s domains in the top search results. Even the Internet Archive has purged its archives of the controversial site.

 

Mission accomplished!?

Pirate Bay is OK

The people who called on Cloudflare to boot out Kiwi Farms will be pleased. Without any court intervention, they got their desired result. This is something some of the largest Hollywood companies and record labels failed to do with The Pirate Bay; a site that still uses Cloudflare to this day, despite its founders receiving criminal convictions in Sweden.

 

Kiwi Farms had plenty of deeply disturbing content but this is not an isolated incident. Cloudflare will receive more calls to kick out sites and this recent episode will be cited in court as well, where the company will have a harder time maintaining a content agnostic stance.

Domain Registrars, Registries & ISPs

The challenges won’t stop at Cloudflare either. As noted earlier, Google appears to have demoted the domain already, although that’s not officially confirmed. But what about Bing and DuckDuckGo? What is their role? Should they voluntarily take action against problematic sites?

 

We haven’t even mentioned the elephants in the room, including domain registrars and domain registries. If these companies decide to suspend a domain name, Cloudflare and search engines are irrelevant. Perhaps these are even better targets to take sites down based on their own evaluations?

 

Alternatively, Internet providers could be held accountable as well. They help to pass on many despicable sites, services, and opinions. Profiting from hate and crimes? Surely, they can be motivated to intervene to block both domain names and IP addresses without a court order?

Slippery Slope?

Interestingly, copyright holders have made these suggestions for many years already, often without results. But the tide appears to be changing in their favor now, and this isn’t a boat they’re going to miss.

 

Voluntary curation of the web isn’t new and can often be very useful. Many services already use it to stop malware, for example. Whether it’s a good idea to expand this further depends on how slippery the slope gets. Like many other things, that’s a matter of perspective.

 

What this perspective should be isn’t clear to everyone. TorrentFreak reached out to some activist groups that were leading the opposition against SOPA. However, these either haven’t responded or prefer not to comment on the issue at this time.

 

Legal streaming services offering access to top tier football in Europe have a few unique selling points over piracy platforms.

 

Perhaps most importantly, people who subscribe to legal services help to keep the game alive. They support the clubs they love, they support the players, and allow broadcasters to get a return on the money they invested in TV rights.

 

And make no mistake, TV rights are far from cheap.

 

On the downside, legal sports streaming services are very expensive, some would say disproportionately so. They can easily cost ten times the amount of a pirate service, despite the latter providing at least ten times more channels – x10. But at least legal services are more reliable than pirate offerings – in theory.

You Had One Job…..

Mid-August we reported on remarkable situations in both Spain and Italy. At the start of the new season, after football leagues LaLiga and Serie A had warned fans not to use pirate IPTV services, fans who paid to access legal services found that they couldn’t watch matches due to technical issues.

 

For multi-billion dollar corporations, not being able to get matches to paying fans wasn’t a particularly good look, especially when pirate services were able to carry on business as usual.

 

But those two events were a one-off, or a two-off if we’re being picky. Until this week at least, when fans in France were treated to a similar experience.

Canal+ Couldn’t Keep Up With Demand

On Wednesday evening, France’s PSG faced off against Italian giants Juventus in the UEFA Champions League. PSG eventually came away with the spoils having won two goals to one. The match was available on Canal+ – or at least that was the plan.

 

Users who logged in early apparently had no issues but for those who tried to tune in just before the game started, things didn’t go nearly as smoothly. Just minutes after kickoff, Canal+ used Twitter to explain that it was unable to cope with the number of people trying to log in to the myCANAL app.

 

In keeping with football tradition, it only seems appropriate to criticize from the comfort of the touchlines (or couch), perhaps along the lines of: “So why did you sell that many subscriptions?” But that would, of course, be a little unfair – the unexpected can happen to anyone.

 

Unfortunately, an hour later Canal+ was back on Twitter again, this time with a red-faced emoji, having failed to sort out the mess, with half the match gone.

 

“Will it work again at 10:46 p.m.? What a shame! Refund the subscription! And tomorrow night, we do it again?” a frustrated fan responded. “We haven’t seen anything of the game. It’s nice to pay 50 bucks a month not to see the match you pay for,” complained another.

About Those Unreliable Pirate Streams….

People who didn’t pay to watch the match legally (and some that probably did) had no problem finding it through unauthorized channels. It was a conundrum outlined by a Twitter user who tweeted directly at Canal+ while its service was inaccessible. In summary: why am I paying you anything?

 

A report on Radio France reveals that pirates had plenty of choice.

 

“At half-time, we found that 50,000 spectators were following PSG’s first Champions League match via a Twitter account. Another live channel has nearly 6,000 views, more than double that for another. These figures were probably boosted by the MyCanal bug, which prevented subscribers from legally following the meeting,” the publication reveals.

 

According to the publication, Twitter did take some streams down but they reappeared in new tweets just a few minutes later and the reporter was able to watch the entire second half without any interruption. But the problem – or solution for myCANAL users – wasn’t confined to Twitter. Plenty of tweets linked to Telegram channels, where the match was also available.

 

“By following these links, we then came across a live stream, followed by more than 45,000 spectators. Within minutes, we were able to join nearly a dozen different conversations to watch the game,” Radio France adds.

 

The bottom line is that if legal services can’t get it right, illegal services are ready to step in and do their job for them. And the last thing legal services need is pirates playing the hero, because that never ends well.

 

After winning three lawsuits against three pirate streaming sites, earlier this year a coalition of Israel-based media companies obtained an injunction at a New York court.

 

Every single ISP in the United States was required to block three sites, now and forever, on any domain in existence, now and in the future. Any and all web-based businesses were forbidden from doing any business with the defendants in perpetuity, despite their identities being completely unknown.

 

Thanks to public access to court records, it was possible to quickly show what can happen when private companies are handed extraordinary powers. Cloudflare, Google, and others later protested the injunction – not its overall goals as such, but its nuclear approach to enforcement.

Massive Opposition

Under intense pressure after openly threatening Cloudflare, the entertainment companies later agreed to more sensible terms in a modified injunction.

 

Crucially, all of the proceedings and legal documents were publicly available through PACER. The injunction was exposed as completely unenforceable, but the specific factors that led to that conclusion were equally important. This won’t be the last blocking and/or seizure injunction with a mission to break new ground in the United States, and it’s not over yet.

Transparency: A Necessary Nuisance

In ISP blocking cases, ‘dynamic injunctions’ allow new domains to be added to existing orders, to maintain pressure on pirate sites. The injunction initially obtained by the entertainment companies allowed them to have new domains seized, not just blocked, purely on their say-so, no court needed.

 

The amended injunction requires the court to be involved, which is good for transparency. Perhaps inevitably, the plaintiffs’ first step before adding new domains was to file a request with the judge to have information hidden from public view.

Motion to Amend Injunction Because [REDACTED]

It is not uncommon for entertainment companies to seek privacy in blocking and seizure cases. They want to hide their next move from the targeted sites and don’t want to publicize pirate platforms. What arguments the plaintiffs have here is hard to fathom, thanks to the following letter (pdf):

 

Balancing the plaintiffs’ needs with the public’s right to see justice being done can be delicate. On one hand, pirate sites are known to take countermeasures, so the less they know the better. On the other, an unenforceable injunction appears to have been used to seize a domain that was never used for piracy, while the FBI seal was placed on other seized domains, despite no FBI involvement in the case.

 

Whatever balancing exercise took place, the court sided with the plaintiffs late last week. When attempting to access most documents filed since then, access is denied by PACER, but at least one entry has been left open.

Proposed Second Amended Permanent Injunction: Israel.tv

When attempting to put streaming site Israel.tv out of action, the plaintiffs previously identified Israel.tv, Israeli.tv, IsraelTV.com, Israel-tv.xyz, Israeltv.to and Zira.to as targets.

 

The entertainment companies now have a list of “newly discovered or updated domains” to add to the list: Israeltv.se, Israeltv.nu, Israeltv.su, Isratv.ru, Israeltv.am, Israeltv.la, Israeltv.bz, Israeltv.hk, Israeltv.eu, Israeltv.is, Isr.live, Isr.dev and Sup247.me.

 

A more unusual addition is https://xn--0tr80i11eca131dda736e5v4b0duga450wha.xn--55qx5d. This is an Internationalized Domain Name and when converted looks like this: https://帕拉赞蒂和科夫曼帕拉赞蒂.公司.

 

The plaintiffs have also presented additional domains for seizure in a separate document. That is under seal, so the nature and quantity of domains are both unknown. A separate request contains seven URLs related to an app on Google Play called Israel Radio – TV Version. The plaintiffs want an order that prevents the defendants from operating it.

 

The final demands in respect of Israel.tv relate to accounts held by its operators on other platforms including Facebook, various URL shorteners, a messenger account on ProtonMail, an account on crypto platform MoonPay, and a domain that immediately drops an APK on visitors’ machines. Another document, again under seal, contains the details of other accounts but on which platforms is unknown.

 

In this action, the plaintiffs are also determined to shut down Sdarot, Israel’s largest pirate streaming service. We presume new measures to be taken against that service are detailed in the docket entries that remain inaccessible but we have no way of confirming that.

 

Meanwhile, both of these services appear to be still operating. We’re informed by a source familiar with the operations of one site that measures taken so far are taking their toll but there are no plans to shut down.

 

Sdraot recently announced a new login and email verification requirement and is already directing users to a Telegram channel to make payments. There’s a determination to press on but this isn’t ‘business as usual’. That being said, a Google search for ‘Sdarot’ lists new domains on the very first page.

 

Related documents here (1,2,3,4, pdf)

 

Last fall, movie director Quentin Tarantino announced that he would auction ‘Pulp Fiction’ NFTs to the public.

 

These NFTs would unlock handwritten scripts and exclusive custom commentary from Tarantino, assets that many fans would like to get their hands on.

 

NFTs are not without copyright issues, however, as Quentin Tarantino swiftly discovered. Movie studio Miramax, which owns most of the rights to the film, sees the plan as a contract breach and copyright infringement.

NFT Copyright Battle

In a lawsuit filed at a California federal court last November, the movie company accused the director of attempting to cash in on something to which he doesn’t own the full rights.

 

“Eager to cash in on the non-fungible token (‘NFT’) boom, as widely reported in the media, Quentin Tarantino recently announced plans to auction off seven ‘exclusive scenes’ from the 1994 motion picture Pulp Fiction in the form of NFTs,” the complaint read.

 

Despite this legal dispute, the first NFT was put up for auction early this year, selling for over a million dollars. Follow-up token auctions were halted soon after but the lawsuit continued.

Settlement

In June, Tarantino’s legal team asked the court to dismiss the case. This request was actively fought by Miramax. Behind the scenes, however, both sides also tried to reach agreement.

 

Last week, Tarantino and Miramax came together for a full-day settlement discussion, led by mediation firm Signature Resolution. While some progress was made, both parties informed the court that the case hadn’t been settled.

 

A week later, the movie director and film studio have now reached an agreement. A few hours ago, they filed an official notice of settlement at the California federal court.

 

“The parties have settled this case and expect to file their dismissal papers within two weeks,” their settlement notice reads.

More Tarantino NFTs?

The settlement details have not been shared in public but via a press statement, both parties suggest that more NFTs may be released in the future. If that’s the case, Miramax will likely get part of the cut.

 

“The parties have agreed to put this matter behind them and look forward to collaborating with each other on future projects, including possible NFTs,” Tarantino and Miramax comment.

 

With the settlement, the legal battle is effectively over. The official TarantinoNFT website remains online at the time of writing. The same can’t be said for the Twitter account, which quietly disappeared a few months ago.

 

Miramax used the website and the Twitter account as evidence in court, as they both posted copyrighted imagery from the Pulp Fiction film. The website was later updated to show images from Tarantino only, while the potentially infringing tweets were deleted at the same time.

 

So-called copyright trolls come in all shapes and sizes and while most have a cynical approach to copyright law, some are prepared to go to extremes.

 

The most notable case in the United States involved Prenda Law. After playing the victim for years, an investigation found that the law firm uploaded movies to sites like The Pirate Bay and then sued those who downloaded them. Two lawyers were later sentenced to prison, one of them for 14 years.

 

Taiwanese authorities are currently dealing with a similar case, with lawyers at the helm once again.

Licensed ‘Copyright Cockroaches’

Early June 2022, news outlets in Taiwan reported that former ultramarathon runner, entrepreneur, political critic, and law graduate Kevin Lin was a suspect in a “copyright cockroach” case.

 

According to a police investigation, Truth Intellectual Property Consulting Co – a company owned by Kevin Lin – obtained public transmission licenses which enabled it to distribute several films to the public. Movies covered by these licenses subsequently turned up on BitTorrent networks and people who downloaded them began receiving legal threats.

 

According to reports, Lin’s company enticed users to download the torrents, tracked their IP addresses, and then filed copyright lawsuits in an effort to profit from cash settlements. Lin said that due to his support for the opposition government and his criticism of its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigation against him is politically motivated.

Five Indicted For Running Copyright Troll Scheme

This morning Taipei prosecutors announced that Kevin Lin had been indicted for his role in the copyright-trolling operation. Since August 2021, hundreds of lawsuits had been filed against alleged movie downloaders by Lin’s company, prosecutors said, something that should attract a heavy sentence.

 

It’s alleged that Lin was admitted to the College of Law at National Chengchi University in 2018 and graduated two years later. From there he set up a copyright consultancy company with the goal of turning litigation against file-sharers into profit for his company.

 

In May 2021, licenses were obtained from Vie Vision Pictures Co. and Applause Entertainment Ltd, which led to 18 movies being uploaded to BitTorrent networks, to tempt users into downloading them. After capturing their IP addresses, Lin’s company obtained their identities from ISPs and sued them. The goal was to obtain out-of-court settlements.

Big Crimes Deserve Heavy Sentences

Since August 2021, Lin’s company filed 937 lawsuits for copyright infringement. In just 25 of those cases, the company managed to “extort” settlements of NT$900,000 (US$29,207), FocusTaiwan reports. In addition to Lin, several other people have also been indicted for their part in the operation.

 

Prosecutors are demanding heavy sentences for Lin and a lawyer identified by the surname Cheng, who played a key role in devising the litigation strategy. The company’s lawsuits overwhelmed the Intellectual Property Police Corps, other police agencies, and prosecutors’ offices, authorities say.

 

Three other men, identified by their surnames and alleged roles in the operation – Lin (lawyer), Hsu (company owner on paper), and Chen (employee) – have also been indicted. A third lawyer, an accountant, and a client of the lawyer are subjects of deferred prosecution.

 

Efforts to hold internet service providers in the United States accountable for the piracy activities of their subscribers are gaining momentum.

 

In 2019, Cox Communications was ordered to pay a billion dollars in damages to record labels. The decision is being appealed by Cox, but it set the stage for similar lawsuits, including a new complaint reported just yesterday targeting AT&T.

 

Filed in Texas by filmmaker Voltage Pictures and several affiliates, together behind movies such as “After We Collided,” “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Room 203,” and “The Bird Catcher”, the lawsuit lambasts AT&T for not doing enough to prevent subscribers from engaging in movie piracy.

 

A new and broadly similar complaint filed against Verizon Communications and Cellco Partnership follows a similar template.

Verizon Hit With Copyright Complaint

The premise of the lawsuit is that Verizon “can easily take action against online piracy” by disconnecting customers who repeatedly use its services to download and share movies. The company doesn’t even have to find these pirates itself because the plaintiffs have provided infringement notices carrying all of the information it needs.

 

The reason that Verizon hasn’t taken action, the complaint notes, is because Verizon makes between $400 and $1,000 in additional profits per ‘pirate’ account. But this isn’t permissible under law, the plaintiffs claim, because when Verizon receives knowledge of repeat infringement yet fails to disconnect the associated accounts, it can be held liable for customers’ piracy.

Hundreds of Thousands of Infringements

According to the plaintiffs, IP addresses allocated to Verizon/Cellco Partnership were monitored by anti-piracy tracking outfit Maverickeye downloading and sharing pirate copies of their movies. Over the past three years, “hundreds of thousands” of these infringements were logged and over 90,000 corresponding infringement notices were sent to the ISP.

 

On this basis, the plaintiffs believe that Verizon/Cellco were willfully blind to these infringements because neither took meaningful action to prevent ongoing infringement by their customers. In some cases, infringement notices weren’t even forwarded to the allegedly-infringing subscribers, the plaintiffs add.

 

The complaint highlights several specific IP addresses allocated to Verizon customers, for which the plaintiffs sent large volumes of copyright infringement complaints. One IP address was listed in infringement notices 800 times, another appeared 700 times, with three others being identified on 600, 500 and 400 occasions.

 

In these cases and others like them, it’s alleged that Verizon had the opportunity to suspend customer accounts but failed to do so.

Repeat Infringers and the DMCA

When Congress passed the DMCA in 1998 (not 1988, as this lawsuit alleges), service providers were given ‘safe harbor’ protections if they adopted and reasonably implemented policies for terminating repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.”

 

Verizon publishes its policy here but according to the complaint, the implementation of the Verizon policy places an unfair burden on rightsholders.

 

The plaintiffs say that BitTorrent-style infringements must be reported via ‘Conduit Notice Forms’ but Verizon prohibits these from being filled out using automated processes. Verizon does operate the “Verizon Anti-Piracy Cooperation” program but the plaintiffs say the contract contains “onerous” terms.

 

These include an agreement not to sue Verizon for copyright infringement alongside processing fees of $75 per hour for IP address lookups.

 

In any event, the lawsuit claims that Verizon failed to terminate customer accounts, even when it received multiple complaints against specific accounts. As a result, it has lost its safe harbor protections under the DMCA.

Several Types of Copyright Infringement

Due to the alleged inaction of Verizon/Cellco Partnership, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants are liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. These claims alone could run to many millions of dollars in damages.

 

Due to the plaintiffs’ Copyright Management Information (CMI) being removed or altered in movie files distributed via BitTorrent by Verizon customers, the ISP is also liable for contributory and vicarious violations under 17 U.S.C.S. §1202(a)(b), the complaint adds.

 

The plaintiffs demand actual or statutory damages and an order that compels Verizon to implement a repeat infringer policy that terminates the accounts of repeat infringers.

 

In common with the lawsuit the plaintiffs just filed against AT&T, the complaint demands an order that compels Verizon to block access to pirate sites listed in the USTR’s Notorious Foreign Markets report. These include YTS, The Pirate Bay, RARBG, and 1337x.

 

A copy of the complaint, filed by Voltage Holdings et al. at the District Court of the Southern District of New York, can be found here (pdf)

 

As the battle against pirate IPTV services continues, beIN Media Group today announced early success in new legal action.

 

The sports broadcaster says that after filing an application for an emergency injunction in Tunisia, local electronics retailer MyTek is no longer allowed to sell IPTV products carrying pirated beIN channels. The injunction is temporary, pending a full hearing on the merits of the case.

 

According to beIN, more than 80% of consumers in Tunisia use pirate IPTV services to watch live sports and other TV channels. Given the extraordinary deals available, it’s not difficult to see why.

IPTV Subscriptions on Open Sale

At the time of writing, subscription listings on MyTek’s website are yet to be suspended. The website team probably needs a little more time to make the changes so, in the meantime, we did a little virtual shopping to see why beIN sees this retailer as a threat.

 

As far as 12-month packages go, MyTek offers at least two, branded as Global IPTV and TIVOSAT. The price listed for the former is 25,000 TND, which initially sounds like a lot.

 

However, the Tunisian dinar is subdivided into a thousand milim so, for the sake of simplicity, the last three digits can be discarded. In short, a full subscription package costs 25 dinars and that converts to less than $8.00 – for a 12-month subscription.

 

People without a compatible device can buy an Android set-top box for 89 dinars and MyTek will throw in a 12-month IPTV package free of charge. Grand total: $27.80.

 

People who pay $5 or $10 per month in the United States usually recognize a good deal when they see one, but this is on a whole new level of cheap that seems barely believable. When compared to an official beIN subscription, it’s easy to see why beIN wants this stopped and why users on this local Arabic forum think it should continue.

MyTek Also Offers beIN Packages – But Does Anybody Buy Them?

For those who prefer not to go down the illegal route, official beIN subscription packages are also available via the MyTek website. For 189 dinars – just short of $59.00 – Tunisians can watch beIN for three uninterrupted months.

 

If that’s not long enough, 359 dinars ($112) buys six months of beIN service and 699 dinars ($217) buys a whole year. To counter this deal, MyTek offers a Max IPTV subscription that costs less than 30 dinars (just over $9.00) but lasts 18 months.

 

These listings will probably disappear in the coming hours or days but MyTek has work to do. When the company sells a Samsung Galaxy M52, it also throws in a free IPTV subscription. The same holds true for this 50″ Smart TV and many other similar products.

 

Over the past several years there has been a drive to hold US-based ISPs liable for copyright infringements carried out by their customers.

 

These Internet providers are accused of not doing enough to stop copyright infringers on their networks, even after receiving multiple ‘copyright infringement’ notifications.

 

The copyright infringement allegations can have real consequences. In 2019, a Virginia jury ordered Internet provider Cox to pay a billion dollars in damages to a group of major record labels. The decision is being appealed but at the same time, other ISPs have been dragged to court over similar issues.

Filmmakers Sue AT&T

This week, AT&T, the largest terrestrial Internet provider in the US, joins the list of accused ISPs. In a complaint filed at a federal court in Texas, Voltage Pictures and its affiliates, known for films such as “After We Collided,” “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Room 203,” and “The Bird Catcher”, accuse the ISP of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.

 

“For years, AT&T has knowingly allowed AT&T users to engage in online piracy, the illegal distribution and downloading of copyrighted materials, including films. AT&T provides the IP addresses used for piracy, makes the connections needed to share and download pirated films, and transmits the pirated films,” they write.

 

The ISP allegedly turned a blind eye to pirating subscribers, facilitating mass online piracy. The filmmakers say they sent tens of thousands of notices to the company, reporting alleged copyright infringements.

1,000+ Notices for One IP-address

In some cases, hundreds of notices were sent for a single IP address without any visible response from the Internet provider.

 

“For example, AT&T failed to terminate the account of its subscriber at IP address 104.5.19.25 even after AT&T received multiple notices of copyright infringement at this address. AT&T received at least 1000 notices of copyright infringement for this IP address,” the complaint reads.

 

In the United States, the law requires Internet providers to adopt a policy that provides for the termination of accounts of repeat infringers, under appropriate circumstances. AT&T references this in its terms but according to the filmmakers’ complaint, this policy is not sufficient.

Profit Motive?

The lawsuit specifically claims that AT&T willingly keeps repeat infringers on board because that adds tens of millions of dollars to AT&T’s bottom line.

 

“[O]nline piracy is lucrative for AT&T. AT&T profits from subscriptions to its internet services. Instead of taking simple steps against illegal pirating, AT&T turns a blind eye and continues to collect its customers’ subscription payments every month.”

 

These and other allegations will need to be backed up with further evidence, but the filmmakers are convinced that AT&T is liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.

Damages, Disconnections, and Site Blocking

To compensate for all piracy-related losses, the plaintiffs request actual or statutory damages, which can run into millions of dollars. In addition, they also want AT&T to terminate repeat infringers under appropriate circumstances.

 

As mentioned earlier, AT&T already has such as policy and the company has terminated repeat infringers in the past. According to the complaint, that is insufficient.

 

Finally, and of particular interest, the movie companies also want the Internet provider to block foreign pirate sites. They include YTS, The Pirate Bay, RARBG, 1337x, and others that have been called out in the US Trade Representative’s annual overview of notorious markets.

 

AT&T is expected to contest these allegations but has not yet responded to the complaint. When it does, we will report accordingly.

 

—

 

A copy of the complaint, filed by Voltage Pictures et al. at the District Court of the Northern District of Texas, is available here (pdf).

 

To the public at large, blockchains and NFTs are often associated with volatile coins and expensive JPG files.

 

However, beyond the major headlines, many projects in development put this technology to use in novel ways.

 

The European Union recognized this potential several years ago. In 2017, the European Commission started exploring options to use blockchain technology to combat online piracy and counterfeiting. Today, more than half a decade later, this vision is about to become reality.

 

In 2018 the European Commission and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) launched their first 48-hour “blockathon,” which aimed to develop concrete projects. With the help of talented developers, this resulted in a project that will help to fight counterfeit products.

 

Fast forward four years and the EU’s blockchain-based anti-counterfeiting solution is about to see the light of day. In a recent update, EUIPO’s Claire Castel informed the World Intellectual Property Organization that a live version of the project should be up and running soon.

EU Anti-Counterfeit NFTs

In basic terms, the anti-counterfeiting blockchain allows manufacturers to create unique tokens for all their products as proof of authenticity. This record is kept on the blockchain and can be transferred to others if the underlying product is sold.

 

These tokens are “non-fungible,” better known as NFTs, and can be kept in a regular blockchain wallet. The EU sees them as unique “digital twins” of a physical product that signifies proof of legitimacy and ownership.

 

“The record on the blockchain is a unique and immutable token. As goods pass from one party to another, the token is exchanged between digital wallets. The combination of a unique product identity and the continuous transfer of the digital identity between wallets creates proof that the goods are genuine.”

 

“Along the journey of a product, customs and other enforcement authorities can access information, such as authentic shipping records, which can support risk assessment,” Castel adds.

 

The EU sees many benefits of a blockchain-based solution. The unique NFTs make it easier for consumers and enforcement agencies to authenticate products. However, the NFTs will also help with product recalls, and allow manufacturers to communicate directly with consumers over the blockchain.

 

“Since the right holder defines what type of data is included in the digital twin, it could also lead to a targeted loyalty program based on product specifications,” Castel notes.

Open and Compatible

The EU initiative aims to be open and compatible with the broader NFT marketplace. Brand owners can choose their own NFT platform, for example. However, the EU blockchain services infrastructure, which is currently being developed, will have a central role.

 

“The solution will introduce a common language in order for track-and-trace providers, NFT platforms and logistics enterprise resources planning (ERP) to collect and share proper data for anti-counterfeiting operations.

 

“The EUIPO will additionally create an identity management system, which will also act as the knowledge repository system to store interested stakeholders’ identities and product location, thus positioning the EUIPO at the center of the ecosystem.”

 

This might sound quite futuristic to some, but the project is already in the final stages. The EUIPO is actively engaging with brand owners and will continue to test the system later this year. In addition, EU customs authorities, logistics operators and retailers are on board as well.

 

Based on the current planning, a live version of the EU’s blockchain anti-counterfeiting technology will go live by the end of 2023.

 

—-

 

The quotes above are from a document EUIPO’s Claire Castel prepared for WIPO, which was shared with the Advisory Committee on Enforcement last week.

 

Website blocking and cour-ordered domain suspensions are common anti-piracy measures in several parts of the world.

 

India has been at the forefront of this movement, with rightsholders requesting blockades of thousands of websites over the years.

 

Last week, the New Delhi High Court issued another other, targeting 18 pirate sites including torrentcue.co, uwatchfree.be, extramovies.pics and movierulzhd.lol. While many of these are relatively small players in the global piracy ecosystem, the injunction stands out for other reasons.

Preemptive Blocking Order

The original complaint was filed by Star India. It aims to protect the release of the film “Brahmastra Part One: Shiva,” which will premiere later this week. Star believes that the pirate sites will make available unauthorized copies of the movie, so it asked the court to take action in advance.

 

In other words, the Indian media company requested a preemptive blocking order to prevent piracy that may take place sometime in the future.

 

After reviewing all the evidence and weighing in previous decisions of the courts, the High Court granted the request. According to Judge Jyoti Singh, piracy should be met with a heavy hand.

 

“There is no gain saying that piracy has to be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand and injunction against screening of copyrighted content by rogue websites ought to be granted,” Judge Singh writes. “This position is acknowledged and re-affirmed in several decisions..”

Preventing Irreperable Harm

There is jurisprudence in India for these types of preemptive blockades and the Court believes that these are warranted here as well. Without any blocking measures, the film’s profits could be severely harmed.

 

The injunction prohibits the operators of the site from making pirated copies of the film available, either before or after its release. However, since these unknown site owners are unlikely to comply, ISPs and domain registrars must take action as well.

 

These types of domain blocking orders are not new in India, where the Government’s Department of Telecommunications helps to make sure that the ISPs are notified about new blockades.

Order Includes US-Based Registrars

The listed domain name registrars are a different story, however, as many are not Indian. They include many US-based companies such as GoDaddy, Namecheap, Tucows, Dynadot, and Namesilo.

 

Despite being operated in a foreign jurisdiction, Judge Singh’s order compels the companies to take action. In addition to suspending the domain names, they must share the personal details of the domain name owners with Star India.

 

“Defendants No. 22 to 28 shall provide complete details such as name, address, email address, IP address and phone numbers of Defendants No. 1 to 18,” the order reads.

 

Whether the American domain registrars will comply with the Indian order remains to be seen. At the time of writing the domain names we checked remain active, but some are already redirecting to new domains.

 

—

 

A copy of the New Delhi High Court injunction, issued by Judge Jyoti Singh, is available here (via Bar & Bench). A list of all domain names and their respective registrars can be found below.

 

1. 7starhd.agency (GoDaddy)
2. vegamovies.wtf (NameCheap)
3. extramovies.pics (NameCheap)
4. 9xmovies.yoga (NameCheap)
5. 1tamilmv.pics (NameCheap)
6. Cinevood.vip (NameCheap)
7. full4movies.store (NameCheap)
8. hdmovie2.click (NameCheap)
9. yomovies.skin (NameCheap)
10. prmovies.wiki (NameCheap)
11. movierulzhd.lol (NameCheap)
12. torrentcue.co (NameCheap)
13. tamilblasters.cloud (NameCheap)
14. 7movierulz.tc (Gandi)
15. ssrmovies.kim (NameSilo)
16. tamilblasters.unblockit.ist (Tucows)
17. mkvmoviespoint.art (Dynadot)
18. uwatchfree.be (AXC)

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have four newcomers on the list. “Top Gun: Maverick” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on September 05 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
2	(2)	Nope	7.1 / trailer
3	(…)	Fall	6.3 / trailer
4	(6)	Samaritan	5.9 / trailer
5	(4)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
6	(5)	Prey	7.3 / trailer
7	(8)	Minions: The Rise of Gru	6.7 / trailer
8	(7)	Elvis	7.7 / trailer
9	(3)	DC League of Super-Pets	7.6 / trailer
10	(10)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.2 / trailer

 

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

 

For more than 15 years, most piracy headlines in Sweden had some connection to The Pirate Bay.

 

Perhaps anti-piracy groups grew tired of chasing and then the media moved on, but today it’s barely mentioned, despite providing the same functionality as it ever has. Web-based streaming sites have been relegated too, largely thanks to a newer scourge – pirate IPTV services.

 

Responsibility for tackling pirate IPTV in Sweden falls to anti-piracy group Rights Alliance. Their recent successes include a four-month suspended sentence and $164K in damages against a subscription reseller, and 140 hours of community service and $231,000 in damages against another reseller.

 

A new prosecution in Sweden looks set to continue the trend.

Couple Faced Trial For IPTV-Related Offenses

Rights Alliance says that a trial recently took place at the specialist Patent and Market Court in Stockholm. A man and woman, a couple from Eskilstuna in eastern Sweden, faced accusations of running an illegal IPTV business and laundering the proceeds.

 

According to Rights Alliance, the man is suspected of “running two different IPTV services” which together generated around SEK 2.3 million (around US$213.2k) in revenues over an unspecified period.

 

The woman claimed to have no idea that her partner was in the piracy business – according to her, he was a set-top box repairman. Misunderstandings aside, Rights Alliance says that SEK 1.3 million (around US$120.5k) was funneled to the woman from IPTV-related sales. As a result, she now faces money laundering charges.

Long Running Investigation

Rights Alliance says that after discovering “two IPTV services” and reporting them to the police, subsequent investigations linked them to the same illegal activities. According to a report from Ekuriren (paywall), the investigation began in 2020 and was handled by Sweden’s National Operations Department (NOA).

 

NOA identified an Eskilstuna man in his 40s as the suspect and inevitably paid him a surprise home visit. A police photograph shows a cardboard box containing several smaller boxes, that in turn may have contained Linux-based set-top boxes. A couple of remotes (soiled), and other sundry items complete the haul.

 

The same slide also reveals the name of an IPTV service – Nordens Bästa IPTV (The Nordics’ Best IPTV).

 

Police found customer lists connecting the man to sales of IPTV subscriptions, most likely providing access to thousands of live TV channels and movies. The man also sent close to 1,400 packages through the mail, other documents reveal.

Resellers and IPTV Service Operators

For potential buyers lacking specific knowledge, it can be challenging to know the nature of the person selling them an IPTV subscription. Users can buy subscriptions directly from those operating IPTV services but in most cases, they will be dealing with a reseller operating their own branded website.

 

Resellers’ connections to those actually operating IPTV services (servers and other infrastructure) are mostly limited to buying ‘credits’ from a self-serve web service at one price, and then reselling them to customers under their own branding, hopefully at a higher price.

 

These differences don’t matter much to the customer, but they are important when reporting cases. They’re important to suspects in those cases too, and crucial to the wider fight against piracy.

 

Differences in Terminology

 

In the Swedish case targeting the man and his partner, Rights Alliance says he is charged with “running two different IPTV services”. According to the Ekuriren report, the investigation shows that he mainly sold set-top boxes. It’s acknowledged that the man ran two websites and received payments, but a cardboard box of set-top boxes isn’t an IPTV service.

 

Language barriers and terminology preferences may be at play, but the difference between prosecuting someone behind an IPTV service and prosecuting a reseller of someone else’s service is significant. If prosecuting the operator of a service means that the service gets shut down, all resellers of that service have nothing further to sell. It tackles the problem at the source and causes much more disruption.

 

Prosecuting a single reseller not only means the underlying service continues, but all other resellers still have access to subscriptions that can be sold to the public. That doesn’t mean that prosecuting resellers is pointless but it does put a lot of faith in deterrent messages. These already face fierce competition from the small chance of being caught to the considerable profits available.

 

Of course, IPTV sellers of all kinds prefer to hang on to those profits and that’s not going to happen in this case.

 

In addition to the seizure of around SEK 1.3 million (around US$92.7k), police also seized a Tesla. There’s also the potential for damages and prison sentences, with the length of the latter likely to be affected by the man’s status as a ringleader (the operator of a service) or just a cog in the machine (reseller).

 

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

 

This makes life easier but for copyright holders, there’s a drawback too, as the web is littered with pirate sites.

 

Over the past decade, Google has removed more than five billion ‘infringing’ URLs from its search results. A few days ago the company hit a new milestone after receiving DMCA notices for more than four million unique domain names.

 

To mark this event we decided to take a closer look at the submitted URLs to see who the worst offenders are. This leads to some interesting conclusions and puts the four million number in perspective.

Top Recipients

The domain most flagged for infringement is 4shared.com. This popular file-sharing service has had more than 68 million of its URLs removed from Google. The majority of these were removed several years ago. More recently, 4shared started to actively work with rightsholders to prevent piracy by deploying filtering technologies.

 

The runner-up on the list with 51 million removed URLs is the relatively unknown mp3toys.xyz. This domain has been inactive for roughly half a decade but previously hosted pirated MP3s. The top three is completed by rapidgator.net, which has had more than 42 million of its URLs removed from Google’s search results.

 

What stands out is that the majority of the reported URLs are linked to a tiny fraction of the four million domain names. Just 400 domains (0.01%) are responsible for 41% of all links removed by Google over the years.

Hundreds of Pirate Bays

The Pirate Bay is ranked 66th based on the number of URLs Google had to remove. That’s only for the site’s main .org domain and there are hundreds of Pirate Bay proxy domains that are also frequently targeted.

 

There are currently close to 900 domain names that include the phrase “piratebay” in Google’s list of copyright infringing domain names. On top of that, there are more than 5,000 that use other variations of the word “bay,” many of which are inspired by the notorious pirate site.

Legitimate Domains in the Long Tail

It’s clear that a relatively small number of domains generate the bulk of all takedown requests. This means that there’s a long tail of domains that are flagged just a few times.

 

This long tail includes many marginal pirate sites, but there are also thousands of domain names that are not typical copyright infringers. Some of these are simply flagged in error.

 

There are numerous examples of legitimate sites. These include the FBI (22x), the RIAA (2x), the Vatican (reported 3x), and the White House (17xx), but there are thousands more we could add to the list. The good news is that Google is usually quite good at spotting these errors.

 

There are also legitimate sites that are flagged relatively often. The movie and TV database IMDb, for example, was reported 5,564 times. Another popular target is Wikipedia, which was mentioned 3,492 times in takedown notices. Interestingly, Google.com was also targeted over 700,000 times.

 

All in all, it’s safe to conclude that the four million domain names are not all blatant infringers. Instead, the bulk of all pirated content is centered around just a few hundred sites.

 

From a single piece of handcrafted manga to an entire musical album, copyright law offers protection to all creators.

 

At least that’s the basic theory behind creators’ rights. The reality can be a somewhat less comforting and at times entirely more confusing experience.

Smaller Copyright Holders, Fewer Options

The truth is that the ability to act against infringers is often linked to a copyright holder’s resources. If hiring a lawyer isn’t a problem, most smaller disputes can be handled relatively quickly. Those with free time may be able to handle simple matters independently, but since copyright law is complex, even larger rightsholders will seek help at some point.

 

Through a new initiative launched this week, the Japanese government is offering free legal assistance to rightsholders who wish to protect their content from copyright infringement, especially when that infringement takes place overseas.

Portal For Copyright Infringment Countermeasures

The service enhances a project operated by Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs. The agency launched a new portal in June, which explains the basics of copyright law and enables those without experience to send takedown notices.

 

This week the Agency for Cultural Affairs expanded its support for local rightsholders with the launch of a new service to help those who have visited the portal, absorbed all of the available knowledge, but still require further assistance.

Anti-Piracy Consultation Desk

In recent years there has been a realization in Japan that overseas piracy represents a growing threat to local copyright holders. The Ministry for Cultural Affairs published a report in March detailing responses to cross-border piracy, including the establishment of a new consultation desk to assist rightsholders.

 

“The Consultation Desk accepts consultations regarding infringement of copyrights, etc. from rightsholders. Consultation is accepted from the consultation reception form on the portal site,” the official announcement reads.

 

“In principle, responses will be made by e-mail, and depending on the case, it is assumed that a free individual interview with an attorney will be held online or otherwise.”

 

Given that legal costs in copyright matters can be substantial, the provision of a free service will be appreciated by rightsholders, especially the smaller ones with fewer resources. Those who make use of the service will gain access to a network of 1,000 lawyers, including copyright specialists with experience of fighting piracy in Asia, North America and the EU.

 

Last year, the UK music industry claimed a major victory in its fight against online piracy.

 

Following a two-year process initiated by the British Recorded Music Industry Ltd (BPI) and Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL), the High Court ordered major ISPs to block access to several YouTube rippers.

 

The order aims to make these sites, including Flvto and 2Conv, harder to reach. Many workarounds exist but rightsholders have been particularly frustrated by search engines such as Google including the domains in their results.

 

Following the blocking order, the BPI asked Google to remove thousands of YouTube ripper links, but this is a game of whack-a-mole; targeted sites actively fight delistings by switching to new URLs.

Google Removes YouTube Rippers

A few days ago, BPI and PPL broke this impasse. The groups sent a copy of the UK High Court order to Google, requesting removal of the listed domains. While Google isn’t legally obliged to comply, it did so voluntarily, albeit only in the UK.

 

This is not the first time that the search engine has taken action based on a court order targeting a third party. Google has done the same in several other countries, including Australia, Denmark, France and the Netherlands.

 

The BPI previously requested similar removals in the UK. These included a wide variety of sites including The Pirate Bay, but the YouTube rippers were not mentioned until last week.

 

Deindexing from search results will make these YouTube rippers harder to find, but the game of whack-a-mole game is far from over as hundreds of other stream-rippers remain readily accessible.

Legal Uses?

Finally, its worth noting that while the music industry sees YouTube rippers as piracy tools, others see them as neutral services.

 

The Electonic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for example, wrote an amicus curiae brief in support of Flvto and 2Conv when they were sued for copyright infringement in the United States.

 

“Like a web browser, photocopy machine, or video recorder, the converters at issue in this case are neutral technologies, equally capable of lawful and infringing uses. And lawful uses abound, from saving a copy of a family member’s home video to downloading clips from a TV show as raw material for a critical commentary,” EFF wrote.

 

These comments didn’t help the YouTube rippers in question, as they eventually lost their legal battle against the RIAA earlier this year.

The New Normal

Google’s voluntary domain removals are noteworthy because the company openly warned against such measures in the past. In 2015, it told the U.S. Government that whole-site removals would chill free speech and be counterproductive.

 

“Whole site removal would simply drive piracy to new domains, legitimate sites, and social networks,” the company said at the time.

 

The search engine’s position has clearly shifted since its earlier criticism, at least when there’s a third-party court order involved. In a recent presentation to Japanese rightsholders, Google confirmed that it will ‘generally’ remove domains based on third-party injunctions.

 

The decision whether to pirate content or pay for it is ultimately a personal choice influenced by any number of factors.

 

From content availability to the ability to pay, from wanting content now or being forced to wait, the scales can easily tip one way or the other.

 

By emphasizing the benefits of legal consumption and elevating public perception of risk, anti-piracy groups try to tip the scales in favor of rightsholders. Showing real-life consequences of piracy is one of the available options.

Deterrence For All

Torrent sites offering Danish content were popular in Denmark for obvious reasons, at least until anti-piracy group Rights Alliance teamed up with police to shut them down.

 

When key DanishBits players were arrested, convicted and later sent to prison, anyone inclined to launch a new site had a crystal clear example of the potential risks. As a deterrent to regular BitTorrent users, it wasn’t the right message.

 

The pursuit of high-level players would’ve simply reinforced the belief that only those at the top face any risk. But Rights Alliance hadn’t forgotten regular torrent site users and was preparing to send them a hand-crafted message.

Regular BitTorrent User Sentenced

A former user of DanishBits appeared in court Thursday having pleaded guilty to sharing around 40 movies on DanishBits. As previously reported, he had no formal connections with the site other than membership, and wasn’t part of any specific uploader group. He was a normal user, much like any other.

 

Rights Alliance needed a conviction that would resonate with the general public so after hiring a specialist company to gather tracking evidence, a case was built against the DanishBits user. Instead of being handed to a lawfirm for civil action, the case was accepted by the police for criminal prosecution.

 

Yesterday the Court of Frederiksberg handed down a 30-day conditional prison sentence and ordered the man to pay DKK 2,840 (US$380) in damages, the exact amount requested by Rights Alliance on behalf of its rightsholder partners. The Court also ordered the confiscation of two computers and external hard drives.

 

Compared to the wild damages awards available to U.S. courts in civil cases, $380 may seem insignificant. But what it represents is a real amount attached to a very real criminal conviction, one that Rights Alliance (RA) believes can offer significant support to credible anti-piracy messaging.

RA: Conviction Marks a Turning Point

Considering the importance of the prosecution, TorrentFreak asked Rights Alliance CEO Maria Fredenslund if the conditional prison sentence would send the right kind of message. Was it too harsh, or perhaps not harsh enough?

 

“That was what the prosecution was going for, and we certainly think that a prison sentence has a deterrent effect,” Fredenslund says.

 

“Not least because the compensation claim is also taken into account, and our experience with the’ environment’ shows that it also means a lot for the preventive effect.”

 

Rights Alliance obviously wants knowledge of the conviction to be a dominant factor when choices are being made over whether to pirate content or pay for it. Maria Fredenslund believes that the combination of police intervention and adjudication of compensation claims in criminal cases could help tip the scales in favor of legal content.

 

But just as importantly, Rights Alliance CEO believes that the case represents a turning point in the fight against piracy – the involvement of the police.

 

“Finally, we have come to the point where the theft of films, series and other content is also a task that the police take care of. It is a necessity and therefore also a milestone in the work to ensure good conditions in the digital area,” Fredenslund concludes.